Oral Questions

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct a statement that I made regarding police numbers in question No. 12 on 1 August 2024.

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

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: In response to Ms Andersen’s second supplementary question to question No. 12 on 1 August 2024, I wish to correct the Hansard record, which quotes me stating that reaching 2,711 would mean that we will have increased the police force by 500. We will have increased the police force by 500 when we reach 10,711 constabulary. I’m taking the first possible opportunity to correct this, and I apologise for any confusion to the House.

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Regulation

1. to the Minister for Regulation: What initiative, if any, is the Ministry for Regulation working on to improve the quality of regulations in New Zealand?

Thank you. The Government can really do three things. One is to spend, the other is to own things, and the final thing is to regulate all the property it hasn’t already taxed and doesn’t own. The Government has a Minister and Ministry for Regulation to improve that third area that is adding costs to things that people do, making people forego opportunities because it costs too much to get through regulation, and deadening our culture, as people who try get beaten down by excessive red tape. In response to this, the Ministry for Regulation is working in three areas: carrying out sector reviews on the stock of existing regulation, preparing a revised regulatory standards bill to uphold standards for new regulatory initiatives, and also improving the culture and workforce of regulatory agencies so that those who apply rules to people in their workplaces are better equipped to help them, rather than hinder them, go to work and get home safely.

Mark Cameron: What initiatives has the Minister announced to improve the quality of regulation in the agricultural and horticultural sector?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The agricultural and horticultural products regulatory review will identify opportunities where farmers and growers could have improved access to new agricultural and horticultural products in a timely manner while also maintaining an appropriate balance between access to these products and managing risk. We think of ourselves as the leading-edge agricultural and horticultural nation in the world, and it was a great shock to me to realise that often New Zealand farmers and horticulturalists find themselves without products that their competitors overseas are accessing, simply because the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Environmental Protection Authority can take years to approve products that would be helpful for them raising their productivity.

Mark Cameron: What initiatives has the Minister announced to improve the quality of regulation in early childhood education (ECE)?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I recall, prior to becoming a Minister, attending a meeting of over 500 ECE operators completely beside themselves with the level of red tape and regulation that often subjects them to absurdities, takes up their time, and prevents them from doing the real work of helping the youngest New Zealanders learn and grow into confident and competent citizens. As a result, the Ministry for Regulation has been out and about, talking to people in the sector, hearing about the regulatory roadblocks and red tape they face as they try to rear the next generation of confident and inquisitive New Zealanders. They will soon be reporting a set of initiatives to slash that red tape so people can get on to the very important job of running early childhood education centres that young people are happy to go to, who learn, and where their parents can be confident that they’re safe and well looked after.

Mark Cameron: How will the regulatory standards bill improve the quality of new regulations?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, in days gone by in this Parliament, you would see spending and money printing completely out of control in a sort of politicised wild west of fiscal and monetary policy. Since then, the Public Finance Act and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act have led to some certainty and some consistency in the way that the Government spends and the Reserve Bank operates. We have no such statutory base for the way that the Government regulates people’s private property and its use and exchange. The regulatory standards bill will ensure that when Governments regulate, they identify what problem we’re trying to solve, what the costs of a solution are, if they are they less than the benefits, who wins and who loses, and if private property rights are impaired. That kind of standard will be a major improvement not just to laws made today but for New Zealand’s long-term future as a regulator.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, I do, and especially our action to teach the basics brilliantly to our Kiwi kids. The maths results released on the weekend are absolutely appalling, when four out of five of our children at year 8 are below where they need to be, and three out of five are more than a year behind where they need to be. It is safe to say that the system has failed. We have to fix it, and now we have a plan to do exactly that—a world-leading curriculum based on the science of learning, top quality resources to support our teachers, regular assessments, and clearer reporting for parents. We have an outstanding Minister of Education, Erica Stanford, who has achieved more, I think, in six days than the last member did and the last Government did in six years, and it is more evidence for what Kiwis already know: that this is a Government that is for the parents and also for education.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will the new requirements around maths that he announced over the weekend also apply in charter schools; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, we think charter schools are an important feature of innovation to bring into the education system. They will be held ruthlessly accountable for delivering improved academic achievement, attendance, a number of key metrics, and then left to get on with the job that they need to get on with.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister himself introduced all the content around maths in his primary answer. The supplementary was directly related to the content that he himself introduced in his primary answer, and he didn’t address the question.

SPEAKER: Well, I think he did, by saying they’ll be required to provide comprehensive, I think was the word, across the curriculum. The Prime Minister, I’m sure, might want to say something more.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, charter schools will be required to deliver results, and we’ll hold them accountable for doing so.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was whether the requirements that he just outlined would also apply to charter schools. Saying that they’re going to have rigorous standards is all very well, but will the standards that he set out for every other school, in the area of maths, apply to charter schools? That was a pretty straight question.

SPEAKER: It was a straight question, but one of the things that’s sort of interesting is that while the person asking a question may want a particular answer, he can’t guarantee that it’ll be given. The question was most definitely addressed.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should the New Zealand public have confidence in his Government’s reintroduction of boot camps and that they won’t result in a repeat of the shocking abuse highlighted in last week’s royal commission report when his Minister for Children said last week that she cannot guarantee that abuse won’t take place?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, what I’d say to you is that the royal commission of inquiry report into the boot camps at Aotea Great Barrier are incredibly different from what we are proposing here—completely different. What we’ve got is unvetted and unqualified staff, as that member would have read in that report. Here we have senior psychologists and two social workers working with 10 kids. We had very isolated conditions, appalling conditions. We have a three-month residential programme that involves the family, whānau, siblings, and community organisations from the get-go. On the other hand, it was focused on punishment and also abuse. This is focused on powerful interventions in these young people’s lives to turn them around. And there was no oversight or monitoring, as the member would understand from that reporting, and there is deep monitoring and protection in place under our military-style academies.

SPEAKER: Just so we’re clear, the primary questioner has for quite some time been getting the first three supps.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he do what his Minister for Children refused to do last week and guarantee that no children attending boot camps established by his Government will be subjected to abuse?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are doing everything we can to make powerful, targeted, and safe interventions in those young people’s lives, and we will not give up on them. We’re going to do everything we can. We’re going to try new things. We have a good pilot, with good oversight and good monitoring, but we are going to do things differently to get things done in this country.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister have any reflections, in the wake of the royal commission on abuse in State care, on politicising the grotesque, violent suffering outlined in that report by making comparisons that are totally invalid to something that is actually completely separate?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, they’re incredibly different, and I think it’s disingenuous to compare them.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If he is confident that abuse will not happen in boot camps, why won’t he give that assurance now?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because I am doing everything we can in this Government to make sure that we are going to make powerful, targeted interventions on these young people’s lives. We are making sure we’ve got qualified and vetted staff. We are making sure we’ve got monitoring and protection in place. We are making sure that we actually have family and whānau and community organisations in place. This is a trial. This is a pilot. We will learn from it. But I can tell you, we’re doing everything we can to make powerful interventions to change the trajectory of where these lives are going.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If all of those things are going to be effective, why won’t he guarantee that no child will be abused in boot camps?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I am guaranteeing that we are doing everything we can to turn those lives around.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he assure the public that he will not intervene in any future fast-track resource consent applications, as he did in the case of the redevelopment of a disused petrol station in Cockle Bay, which was being redeveloped into 54 apartments, where his objection was cited as one of the reasons it isn’t going ahead?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, the member has gotten very petty in Opposition. I have to say, look, we are interested in solving problems. One of the big observations of the previous Government was that there were lots of words, lots of post-it notes, lots of strategies, and nothing getting done. We believe in fast-track, one-stop provisions. We think that’s the way that we get things done. We strengthen our regional communities. We strengthen our national economy. We’re going to get it done. Come and join us. Support and vote for fast-track legislation, support and vote for the oil and gas repeal, and get on board.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: 54 houses blocked by you.

SPEAKER: I’m not going to stop interjections, but the Standing Orders do require they are rare and reasonable. I don’t want to be the judge of what’s reasonable in this case.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: What is the operating allowance for Budget 2025?

No sooner has one Budget been delivered than the next is under way. The operating allowance for the next Budget, Budget 2025, is $2.4 billion. To be clear, that is $2.4 billion per year of additional net spending or revenue reduction, on average, across the forecast period. That is a very tight allowance indeed. In fact, it is the lowest operating allowance since Steven Joyce’s Budget in 2017. The Government is committed to controlling spending and getting the books back to surplus.

Miles Anderson: How much has been pre-committed against the Budget 2025 allowance?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government has pre-committed $1.37 billion per annum against the Budget 2025 allowance to meet forecast demographic, volume, and price pressures for front-line health services delivered by Health New Zealand. We have done this to give the health sector confidence to plan for the future so that New Zealanders can get the healthcare they need. The Government has also pre-committed funding for additional medicines, including up to 26 new cancer treatments.

Miles Anderson: How much does that leave in the allowance for new decisions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: After pre-commitments and some non-discretionary forecast items, there is currently less than a billion dollars remaining in the operating allowance for Budget 2025. Clearly, managing within that remaining allowance will require tight controls on new spending. It is also important to remember that allowances are a net concept. They include savings initiatives as well as new spending, and revenue increases as well as tax relief. So any savings or new revenue initiatives will boost that billion-dollar figure. As I said in the Budget speech, savings and reprioritisation will be a feature of future Budgets, just as they were in Budget 2024. Finding better ways to use public money will be a business-as-usual activity for this Government.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Minister promise that her operating allowance, which is $100 million lower than Treasury says is necessary just to keep the lights on in this country, will not result in front-line service cuts?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I think the member clearly drafted her question before she listened to the answers to my earlier supplementaries, because the key point here is that in order to meet cost pressures, we will need to find savings elsewhere. We on this side of the House think that is a good and proper thing to do. Because if that member wants to contend that every dollar of public money being used today is always being used wisely, then I would invite her to reflect on this: in the last Budget, our Government found $23 billion of savings and reprioritisation—that’s $5.9 billion every year over the next four years—and it only took us a few months to find it.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. While that was an incredibly lengthy answer, it didn’t get anywhere near addressing my question, which was about front-line service cuts and whether the Minister could give any guarantee that there would not be front-line service cuts as a result of her operating allowance, which is lower than what Treasury says is necessary for business as usual.

SPEAKER: Well, it wasn’t an incredibly long answer; it was a longer answer, but it most certainly addressed the question. What I would simply say is that if you’re asking for a guarantee, it is in the nature of a yes or no question. So you’re going to probably get the type of answer you got.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Minister of Finance guarantee that there will be no further cuts to front-line services under her Government?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I will repeat the commitment I have made in this House many times, which is that we are focused on delivering services that get better results. That does not mean that we won’t strive to find new and better ways to deliver public services, and sometimes that will entail change. Because the alternative is that we accept that every service being delivered by a public agency today is being delivered the best way. That is clearly not the case, and this is a Government that is determined to get better results for New Zealanders and make the changes needed to ensure that.

Miles Anderson: How confident is she in finding savings?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am very confident, and I say that because, as I said to the member earlier, we found an average saving of $5.9 billion per year across the forecast period in the Budget just gone. Despite some members predicting that the sky would fall in if the Government made any savings whatsoever, we found that $5.9 billion per year so that we could direct it to higher-value uses—things like 500 additional police, things like Gumboot Friday, things like new classrooms and maintaining our existing classrooms—and I am confident that across the public sector there are many more savings and re-prioritisation opportunities.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and especially this Government’s action to turn around the miserable track record of achievement in maths for children from low-decile schools. Our Government believes in giving every child a shot, no matter what school they go to or wherever they grow up. The latest maths data shows that just 8 percent—8 percent—of children in our lowest-decile schools are at curriculum in maths in year 8, and we can and will do so much better than that. I’m proud that we have a Minister who has a plan to turn that track record of underachievement around and to deliver opportunity for every child across New Zealand, in every town. I’d say to that member, if she cares about equality of opportunity, get on board and back these changes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister accept that the major determinant of educational achievement in this country is in fact poverty or parental income?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I accept is that there has been system failure over many, many years in this country on education. What I accept is that four out of five of our kids not being where they need to be at year 8 and three out of five being more than a year behind is utterly unacceptable, and we make no apologies for focusing the education system around academic achievement. We need to teach our kids to read and we need to teach our kids to do maths.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How can the Prime Minister say to the children of this country, “I cannot change the … home that you were born into” when his Government’s decision to lower child poverty reduction targets will intentionally allow for up to 23,000 more children to live in poverty under his Government’s economic and social policies?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say to that member that we are committed to reducing child poverty with this Government’s actions. We are doing that by rebuilding the economy, restoring law and order, and delivering better health and education. I’d just also say the Treasury advised us, in the changes in the last Budget, that we will lift 17,000 children out of poverty. I think that’s a good move.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What does section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act currently do?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we’re doing with section 7AA, just so we’re—[Interruption] We want the legislation to make sure it protects the wellbeing and the interests of our children above and beyond anything else and is unambiguous doing so.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t think that that went anywhere near close to addressing what section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act currently does.

SPEAKER: Well, I mean, I think the point is that there was an answer about 7AA, and, clearly, if the Prime Minister didn’t know what it was, he wouldn’t be amending it.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister know what section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act actually currently does, and can he please outline that specifically for the House?

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

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister see any problem at all with his coalition agreement promise to make decisions based on data and evidence, and his complete inability to produce any data and evidence about why he wants to remove the section of the Oranga Tamariki Act which does the bare minimum on upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we are focused on is actually making sure the wellbeing and the best interests of the most vulnerable children in this country are protected. We want that to come first, above and beyond anything else—above and beyond their cultural needs or anything else. It’s important that children are protected and are safe. We’ll continue to do that.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Meitaki maata, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by her statement, “Our Budget was very deliberate in the funding of core priorities because our priorities are the same priorities as New Zealanders”; if so, is she concerned that her choices are disconnected from everyday New Zealanders?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes; in answer to the second part of the question, no.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Has Cabinet approved funding for KiwiRail to break its contract with Hyundai Mipo for two new rail-enabled interisland ferries; and does she believe paying Hyundai hundreds of millions of dollars not to build ferries is a priority for New Zealanders?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The negotiations between KiwiRail and Hyundai are a commercial matter between those two parties and not something that I view that is in the public interest to comment on in this House. I have previously made clear the Government’s view that we can have safe, reliable ferry services and that we will take the action needed to ensure that is the case.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she aware that since KiwiRail contracted for the ferries, the price of new ships has risen by 50 percent in US dollars; and can she guarantee the new ferries and sunk costs from cancelling the ferries will be less than $2 billion?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On the advice I have received to date, I can be very confident that the cost of delivering new ferries will be less than the projected cost of the failed and flawed project iReX, even when sunk costs are taken into account. And I had the experience yesterday of visiting CentrePort, where they showed me where hundreds of millions of dollars would have had to be poured in to allow for enormous ships with enormous berths and rail enablement, and I asked them, “How much would it cost to ensure that wharf could take a normal-sized ferry?” And they said, “Zero.”

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister if the sunk costs in the new ferries would be less than $2 billion. The figure that she points to in relation to it being less than is actually $3 billion according to reports by her comments.

SPEAKER: Well, if the question had been a little more clear in that regard, it might have been helpful, but I can’t rule that the question wasn’t answered.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she aware the E-Flexer ferries the ministerial advisory group recommends are at least 50 percent larger than the largest current ferry, and will need new wharves and infrastructure, meaning she will have to make most of the land-side investments that she cancelled under the Cook Strait ferry project?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, two things. First, the member is making a series of assertions about a report that is not in the public domain, and I would suggest to her she be very careful about whether or not the sources she is getting her information from are providing her with accurate, fully contextualised information, because it will eventually go to her credibility if she makes assertions in this House that are incorrect. Second, I wish to offer a point of clarification in regards to the previous comments that I made, to be clear to the House. When I said, “Zero”, what I meant was the potential cost to the Crown. It will, of course, cost something to upgrade port facilities. The point is what costs the Crown incurs. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for the House to quieten down.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she aware that procuring new ferries that are not rail-enabled will cost $150 to $200 per container; and is putting that extra cost on Kiwi businesses a priority for her Government?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Again, the member is, unfortunately, making assertions without grounding in fact. So I would point this out to the member: she is now in the position of defending a project which blew out to a total cost of at least $3 billion. Now, the cost of that project, members—only a tiny percentage, around 21 percent, was actually for the cost of ships; the rest of it was all for building berths and facilities that were big enough to take ships. The previous Government committed to cars that were far too big for the garage, had no plan to build the garage, and then found out halfway through that the garage was going to cost more than the car.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it prudent financial management for her to cancel the Cook Strait ferry project with no alternative plan, to have no idea what the contract break fees would be, and to have no idea how much alternative ferries and infrastructure would cost?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, for two reasons—one, because we can be confident that we can deliver safe, reliable ferry services into the future with less cost than would have been required with the project committed to by the previous Government. Second, I’d just like to make this point to the House: today, yesterday, and the day before, there were crossings by the Bluebridge ferry company that were on time and reliable. And do you know how much public money went into those crossings? Zero. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I’m just waiting for the House to come to—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I’ll call you as soon as we’re all tidy.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: In light of the Minister’s last answer, Mr Speaker, if it turns out that Bluebridge in fact cancelled sailings this week because one of its own ferries was encountering difficulties, would you expect the Minister to correct that answer?

SPEAKER: Put that point of order again—sorry.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The Minister just made a claim that Bluebridge has had a flawless record this week in its Cook Strait ferry operations. If it turns out that Bluebridge have in fact been cancelling sailings and disrupting its own operations this week because of its own difficulties, would you expect the Minister to correct that answer in the House?

SPEAKER: Well, in so much as the Minister has some responsibility for the timetabling of Bluebridge ferries, perhaps. But if there’s something that the Minister discovers later is incorrect, then I would expect it to be corrected, as we had earlier today.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Speaking to the point of order, I’m quite happy, right here and now, to clarify that when I used the rhetorical device of “this week”, perhaps what I should have said, and would have been more accurate, is that, in general, Bluebridge provide reliable services that don’t require public subsidy. And the point that the member makes is a fair one—

SPEAKER: Stop. [Interruption] Just stop—just stop. [Interruption] Sorry—when I say “stop”, I would like the Minister to please stop. That should have been heard with silence because it was part of a point of order. So we’ll just try and get that order back in the House.

Question No. 6—Energy

6. to the Associate Minister for Energy: What recent announcements has he made regarding fuel security?

Ensuring New Zealand is a resilient and self-sufficient economy is a priority for our Government in so far that productivity and a flourishing economy needs reliable access to fuel. I recently announced that a study of New Zealand’s fuel security, including investigating the reopening of the Marsden Point refinery, is getting under way, as per the coalition agreement. Since Marsden Point was permitted to be mothballed by the previous Government, we have seen resilience undermined. It is important that we explore all options. Now, this study, it may come to pass, does not find favour with those who do not support the business community—they sit on the other side of the House, not with me.

Tanya Unkovich: Why is the fuel security study needed?

Hon SHANE JONES: The internal combustion engine is not going anywhere in a hurry. No doubt, we will see a slow growth in electrical vehicles, the growth of which will be determined by investment in the electricity system, and work is under way to ensure that our electricity system does not contain any deficiencies that might impede competitiveness. In recent years, countries around the world have been scrambling to strengthen fuel security. We’ve, sadly, headed off in the opposite direction. We’ve followed a path of flakiness and green ruination, and fuel security is critical to our economic security and the boost of our economy of jobs and exports—something that defines this side of the House; sadly, absent from a distant corner.

Tanya Unkovich: What reports has he received regarding energy security in New Zealand?

Hon SHANE JONES: I have received the report today otherwise known as the quarterly report of the Gas Industry Co., and this is the home of New Zealand’s gas governance advice and data—advice and data demonstrably superior to any loose, random international report that may be doing the rounds in other parts of the world. What it actually says—what it actually says—is that gas production is 20 percent down, and the result and the blame for that degradation of gas resilience can be laid at the feet of that Prime Minister and that Minister, who, in thinking that they were going to enjoy the political upside of the term “a nuclear moment”, cancelled the gas industry in New Zealand.

Tanya Unkovich: Why is energy security critical for New Zealand’s economy?

Hon SHANE JONES: Not only is the ongoing availability of gas and, sadly, Indonesian coal—how perverse that those people who thought that they would improve energy resilience in New Zealand are now reduced to requiring ongoing imports of Indonesian coal. That never featured seven, eight years ago, or six years ago, in the analysis, but that is what is happening in this very day. We cannot afford to have a situation where we are losing our resilience. We’re losing confidence, and there is no certainty for investors. For those reasons, the study is taking place in terms of fuel resilience. Additional work will take place to ensure that the energy settings, the electrical industry settings, are such that it gives a greater level of competitiveness, and we will stand with industry and ensure that industry is not monstered by green termites nibbling away at our economic capital.

Question No. 7—Education

7. to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about transforming maths education?

This Government has announced four immediate interventions as part of our Make It Count maths action plan to turn around our poor results. We’re accelerating the shift to a new maths curriculum next year. To support teachers, we are delivering targeted professional development focused on structured maths for primary and intermediate teachers, alongside providing quality resources aligned to the curriculum. Thirdly, there will be twice-yearly assessments for maths in primary school, for years 3 to 8, starting from next year so that we can provide the support where needed. In line with this, we are going to provide targeted support in small groups, using structured maths, to give our kids who need extra help the best chance to succeed. Yesterday, I announced faster and overhauled Education Review Office reporting in numeracy and literacy assessment, and the Ministry of Education are going to intervening earlier and more often to provide support to schools who need to raise achievement, because, if we’re going to close the equity gap and raise achievement, we need to have a knowledge-rich curriculum year by year that’s explicitly taught and consistently measured against.

Catherine Wedd: What evidence has she seen to support these announcements?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Data from the Curriculum Insights and Progress Study show that just 22 percent of year 8 students in New Zealand are at the expected curriculum benchmark in year 8 for mathematics, and it showed that just 12 percent of Māori students were where they should be and that 63 percent of the overall year 8 cohort are more than a year behind. It’s the first time we’ve seen results like this. These results, while shocking, are not any worse than before. Previous assessments just neglected to ask the right questions. This is the first time that we have assessed our kids in comparison to the curriculum benchmark for their year. Until now, New Zealand has assessed students in broad multi-year bands, where a child could be years behind where they should be but they’re still considered to be at curriculum. Essentially, this means many parents were being told that their children were at curriculum or doing just fine when the reality is that they could have been years behind. Parents deserve to know exactly where their kids are at, what they will be learning, and what we can do to help them—and from next year, they will.

Catherine Wedd: What will her recent announcements mean for teachers?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As part of this announcement, $20 million is being made available within the professional learning and development budget to build confidence and capability in our teaching workforce. We know from a range of studies that too many teachers don’t feel they have the confidence to teach maths to young people. Teachers deserve our support, and we are going to deliver. As part of this announcement, we will be rolling out student workbooks, detailed teacher guides, and other top-quality resources aligned to the new curriculum to support every teacher and child in every classroom in New Zealand. As Minister, it’s my responsibility to ensure the system is working for our teachers to improve these results as quickly as we can, and we’ll continue to work with the sector to make sure that we are achieving what we need to be.

Catherine Wedd: What feedback has she heard from school principals since the announcement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: One school, Gore Main School, who have embedded structured literacy with outstanding results say, “This year, we started a structured maths approach, and we are seeing similar results. Already we are seeing improvements within our student achievement. We are happy to hear that structured maths is going to be brought into schools, and we know it is long overdue.” Also, I heard from Dr Sarah Brown from Kerikeri Primary School, who has brought in structured maths with teacher guides and student workbooks. She has closed the equity gap. Her Māori students are now achieving at the same rate and, in some cases, above the average students in her school for the first time. This announcement is just one step towards closing the equity gap across New Zealand, giving our children every opportunity to succeed and setting New Zealand up for future prosperity.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she agree with the Curriculum Insights and Progress Study from Otago University and the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER), which says trend data from the National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement (NMSSA) indicates that at year 8 there has been no statistically significant change in mathematics achievement scores since at least 2013; and if so, why is her data so different, when the NMSSA also measured in a single year—not, as she said earlier, in a multi-year band?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: If the member had listened to any of the answers that I gave before, she will have understood. This is the very first time that we have measured our children against a curriculum benchmark at their year level The old results were based on multi-year bands—

Hon Jan Tinetti: That is not right, that is not correct.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: —and I spoke to Charles Darr, who was with the NZCER, who basically said to me that is exactly how we’ve been measuring. But can I just say, if the member can’t understand the gravity of 22 percent, she received, when she was the Minister, 42 percent, and what happened under her watch? Absolutely nothing. Under this Government, we brought in a new curriculum, new resources, and professional learning and development—

SPEAKER: That’s enough. Thank you.

Tākuta Ferris: Given that the Waitangi Tribunal’s report Kei Ahotea Te Aho Matua described kura kaupapa Māori as a proven model where success had been achieved, what actions will she take to expedite the development and expansion of kura kaupapa Māori education as a means of closing the Māori educational achievement gap?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: It’s an excellent question, and for the first time, what we are seeing is a Government who have an excellent relationship with kura kaupapa, who have set aside multiple tens of millions—in fact, $100 million—to make sure that we are building more classrooms and redeveloping more kura kaupapa schools. And, for the first time, in all of our policies, we’re making sure that the resources available to kura kaupapa are available in te reo Māori. Under this Government, for the first time, not only in structured literacy but also in structured mathematics, all of the resources and all of the professional development will be available in te reo Māori. And you can’t say that for the last lot.

SPEAKER: The House is going to be a little quieter before we call your question, and the House will also bear in mind the comments I made earlier about interjections.

Question No. 8—Children

8. to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her statement that “stakeholder groups, Opposition parties, Governments, and Māori have all called for Oranga Tamariki to change. This is what change looks like”; if so, why?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes, in the context in which I said it, which was in relation to the proposed Oranga Tamariki organisational restructure. In answer to the second part of the question, because it’s not an option to keep the status quo. To do so would say we’re happy with how the organisation is running now and delivering for children—and we know it’s not.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is the repeal of section 7AA, which requires partnerships with Māori and reducing disparities for Māori, the change that Māori have called for?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have made it very clear since becoming Minister for Children that the best interests and safety of children are at the forefront of every decision that Oranga Tamariki makes.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is the reintroduction of military-style boot camps the change that survivors of abuse in care have called for?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: My statement is in relation to the proposed restructure of Oranga Tamariki.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is cutting $120 million in community prevention services, like Family Start, the change that community organisations have called for when Social Service Providers Aotearoa chief executive Belinda Himiona is saying that providers are very worried that child safety and that whānau wellbeing is going to be impacted by these reductions?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’ll say it again: my statement was in relation to the proposed restructure of Oranga Tamariki.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Was survivor of abuse in care Toni Jarvis correct when he said about a conversation he had with the Minister that “She told me she was not happy in some of the decisions she was having to make.”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I don’t know what that is about, but I have never made that statement.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is the Minister saying that the survivor is being untruthful when he said that “She told me she was not happy in some of the decisions she was having to make.”?

SPEAKER: No, I think you’ve got to get serious about that question. I mean, I think, firstly, the Minister has no responsibility for what someone else has said. If the question could be put in a different way, it might be reasonable, but not the way it was presented.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is the Minister, therefore, saying that she is happy to make the decision she is making about the reintroduction of boot camps, the repeal of section 7AA, the significant funding cuts to community service providers on the front line, and, if so, why?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’ll repeat again: my statement was in relation to the proposed restructure of Oranga Tamariki.

Kahurangi Carter: What would the Minister say to Ngā Puhi who protested the removal of 7AA on the forecourt of Parliament yesterday, and said, “You tell me, how do you know our babies won’t continue to be abused in state care? How do you know what’s best for Ngāpuhi whānau, marae, hapū, and iwi? How do you know that Oranga Tamariki will keep their word, and care properly for our mokopuna when they have never ever done so?”

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: What I would say is that since I’ve started as the children’s Minister, I have always made it very clear that the best interests and the safety of the children should be at the forefront of every decision made, whether you’re Māori, non-Māori, or any ethnicity in this country, because I’m sick to death of us accepting the fact that we lose one baby every five weeks in this country to the hands of somebody who is supposed to care about them.

Kahurangi Carter: What would the Minister say to Teresea Olsen from Kokiri Marae, one of the only 7AA partners to have the status of chief executive over tamariki, who has just found out that they have lost $1.5 million in contracts with Oranga Tamariki and is stripping community providers on the ground already working with whānau of funding what change looks like to her?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’ll say again: my statement was about the proposed restructure of Oranga Tamariki.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. I raised a similar point of order last week, but our team was abiding by your request to not interject and not to heckle when questions and answers were being given. But I am starting to get really concerned that members of the Government are actually undermining the efforts that some of us are trying to take to tone down the tone—coming from the New Zealand First side—particularly during the answers that the Minister was giving.

SPEAKER: I’ve most certainly taken note of that and will be speaking about that with them very directly after question time.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

9. to the Prime Minister: Kia orana kotou katoatoa i roto i te ʻepetoma o te reo Kūki ʻĀirani. Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Yes, and especially our actions to turn maths achievement around for young Māori. The maths achievement data released on the weekend was deeply concerning, especially for the just 12 percent of young Māori who are not at curriculum in maths at year 8, according to the data from last year. Shockingly, 76 percent were more than a year behind. All Kiwis, Māori or non-Māori, deserve a shot at a better life, and that starts with an outstanding education. That’s why our Government is taking action to deliver a world-leading curriculum and to turn those results around for Māori and non-Māori children.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he have confidence in the Minister for Children?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can he have confidence in the Minister for Children given that she cannot guarantee that tamariki and rangatahi will not be abused in her boot camps?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, no Government can guarantee that, but they can do everything they possibly can to make sure there is protection and safeguards in place for our children. These are our most vulnerable children. We want powerful, targeted interventions, and we’re putting huge amounts of service around them to make sure that they are safe. [Interruption]

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Just wait a minute—no, stay on your feet; wait for that quiet.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by his decision to repeal section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act given that the former children’s Minister Tracey Martin said in her oral submission yesterday, “We do not have a child protection service in this country. We have a child crisis service. As a nation, we wait until there is damage done to a child, either emotionally, physically, or spiritually, before we [can] take any action. 7AA is the key to making this change to become a country that supports child protection.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We do not want any ambiguity. We want the wellbeing and the best interests of the most vulnerable children in our country to be at the heart of what is happening here.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: If his primary concern is prioritising “health and wellbeing of the individual child”, why doesn’t he strengthen section 4A of the Oranga Tamariki Act, which makes it clear that “well-being and best interests of the child or young person are the first and paramount consideration”, instead of repealing section 7AA?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We want the immediate safety, stability, and wellbeing of a child to be at the heart of what the Government does, caring for our most vulnerable children—period.

Question No. 10—Police

10. to the Minister of Police: What feedback has he seen about Police’s community beat patrols?

The feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. Communities across the country have responded positively to the Government’s approach of getting police back to basics and focused on getting out in their communities. It was great for the Prime Minister and me to get out with one of the beat teams in the Auckland CBD recently. The team told me how much they’re enjoying the public contact. Often, they attend jobs that are very negative, and they highlighted how much they’re enjoying the positive interaction they’re having with the public whilst on the beat. They’re enjoying getting to know their beat and identifying and dealing with the problems and issues that exist. They feel like they have real ownership of it and are proud of the difference they’re making. I am proud of them also.

Suze Redmayne: What feedback has he seen from shopkeepers?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, following a central Wellington retailer reporting a woman putting clothing in her bag, early last month, the beat team responded swiftly. They apprehended the woman, who turned out to be a prolific shoplifter with over $1,000 worth of products on her person from several of the other shops in the area. A store manager contacted police and provided highly complimentary feedback on the beat initiative, the visibility of police staff, and the timely response she received.

Suze Redmayne: Have members of the public had anything to say?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, my inbox has been inundated with correspondence from the public, who are relieved and happy to see police out and about and providing reassurance. One quote that stood out to me was: “I know it’s only day one, but great to see the first of the new community beat officers out on the streets. A big thumbs up. I feel that will help make me and others safer on our streets.”

Suze Redmayne: Have any other communities benefited from police being highly visible?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, the hard-working member for Rangitīkei has passed on to me that as she meets with retailers in her communities, the feedback has been extraordinary. Everyone is delighted to see police back on the beat and keeping our community safe.

Question No. 11—Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence

11. to the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence: Does she stand by her statement regarding the availability of services that support victims of family violence, “sometimes it’s not about just throwing extra money at stuff. It’s about making sure that the money is going to the right places. And we’re working through where those gaps are and where the money we have currently got isn’t being spent well and focusing it to where it is being spent … So that is a process … that takes time”; if so, when will that process be completed?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, the Government is currently working on the second action plan to implement Te Aorerekura, the 25-year strategy to address family and sexual violence in this country. This action plan is expected to be published in the last quarter of 2024, and this will help drive collective efforts and investment decisions across Government in the family violence and sexual violence space. Family violence and sexual violence are an important component of the Government target to reduce violent crime by having 20 percent fewer people be the victims of assaults, robberies, and sexual assaults by 2029. The Government targets will also help focus attention and resources on achieving better results that New Zealanders expect and deserve.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with Mark Mitchell regarding the 3,000 fewer family violence investigations since December 2023, “Those calls are being triaged and the number has come down”; if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I just want to make it very clear that my role is to be responsible for leading the whole-of-Government approach, where we work together to identify shared priorities and make trade-offs around funding. Once decisions are taken, individual Ministers and agencies remain responsible for their statements and for what they’re doing.

Hon Ginny Andersen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked if she agreed with a statement made by Mark Mitchell. I don’t think that addressed that. The Minister of Police has said the reduction in family violence investigations is due to triaging. Does she agree with that or not?

SPEAKER: Well, in the end, she can’t speak for Mark Mitchell. I don’t think there was any way you could say that question wasn’t addressed.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why, then, has there been a reduction in victimisations where the offender is known to the victim, by 24 percent since December last year?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: That specific issue—if you would like to ask that in writing, I shall get you an answer.

Hon Ginny Andersen: If the reduction in family violence investigations is due to a new triaging process—or is it because police are not attending family violence as they were previously and there is no additional family violence support services in place to take up the gap left?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’d just like to say, police will always play a role when it comes to responding to violence, including family violence or where there has been a crime where someone is in immediate danger. But I would also like to remind them that it’s important to note that the six-month proof of concept trial for this was trialled by the previous Government before we even began this. So this is something that the previous Government was on board with and I would expect they still will be.

Hon Ginny Andersen: If a family violence call to 111 does not meet the new police threshold to attend and there is no support agency resourced in that area to attend, what happens?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I would suggest that you direct those questions to the Minister of Police.

SPEAKER: Well, I think also that the Minister can’t have operational responsibility, which you’re asking a question about.

Hon Ginny Andersen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As the Minister responsible for the prevention of—

SPEAKER: Sorry—start again, I couldn’t hear you.

Hon Ginny Andersen: As the Minister responsible for the prevention of family violence, who is currently undertaking a review of what adequate services are in place, to be able to respond to who is stepping into the space that police have left—I believe that falls within her responsibility as the Minister responsible for preventing family violence.

SPEAKER: Is that within the Minister’s allocated responsibility?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: My role is just to facilitate all the Government agencies. What happens after that is the responsibility of the individual Ministers.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is it her plan to achieve the Prime Minister’s target of 20,000 fewer victims of crime simply by making it harder for victims to report family violence and even harder for them to get the help they need?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I just reject the premise of that question. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just calm it. Could we have silence everywhere.

Question No. 12—Tertiary Education and Skills

12. to the Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills: What recent actions have been taken to begin public consultation on the redesign of the vocational education and training system?

The Government has begun a six-week period of consultation on the proposed reforms for New Zealand’s vocational education and training system. We propose to replace the top-heavy, centralised Te Pūkenga with a network of regional institutes of technology and polytechnics and an industry training system that is closer to industry. These proposals will put the vocational education and training system on a sustainable path and restore accountability and responsibility to communities and industries while removing unnecessary complexity and bureaucracy.

Cameron Brewer: Why is this redesign important?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The vocational education and training sector is an absolutely critical part of our tertiary education system. It provides skills, knowledge, and career pathways for individuals into industries and professions that are vital to the economic prosperity of New Zealand. New Zealand needs a strong vocational education and training system to ensure our people, our industries, and our communities can thrive.

Cameron Brewer: How will it help ensure provision in the regions?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: To be successful, vocational education and training must be responsive to local needs, have industry buy-in, and be financially viable. We need to restore our polytechnics to their rightful place as anchors of learning opportunities for individuals and as a regional development tool for communities and industries. For regions like Northland, Taranaki, and the West Coast of the South Island, it is important to have access to online provision so that a blend of on-campus and online delivery can be utilised to ensure financially and academically sustainable provision.

Cameron Brewer: What will the changes do for industry training?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: A strong industry voice in vocational education and training is critical. This Government wants a model that is better connected to employers, including small and medium enterprises, so that they have a sense of ownership of industry training. Standard setting in the system also requires a sharper focus on the activities that industries most value. Our industry training must be driven by and for industry. I want to acknowledge the many staff in both industry training and polytechnics who have endured uncertainty for many years and thank them for their ongoing commitment to our vocational education and training sector.