Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement, “The rising number of visitors to our tax calculator reflects Kiwis’ keen interest in understanding how the Budget will personally affect them through the savings we’ve achieved and the tax relief we’re implementing”; if so, how many of the 513,000 people that have used the calculator are unique individuals?

Yes. Look, I thank the member for her question, because I absolutely stand by that statement. To the second part, the 513,000 refers to users. I’ve been advised that the calculator has now been used by 517,024 users, up 3,928 users since just yesterday. Separately to the question, I am advised that the number of users is different from the number of views. The number of views is far greater at 759,588. I’m also advised that in the Wellington region alone, in which her electorate is based, there have been more than 65,000 unique users of the website. So I’m advised that the one person sitting at home on their computer or phone, looking over and over again at how much tax relief they will get and thanking the Government for standing up for working people, represents just one user.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How many of those users that have viewed the calculator found out that they are, in fact, worse off because of her tax cuts?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That number would be extremely small. The reason for that is that there is, as the member has previously been advised, a small group of people, around 5,000, who will receive no reduction in the income they get each fortnight—they will receive the same income—but who at the end of the year may be eligible for a slightly lower tax refund.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How many, if any, will personally benefit by receiving the full $250 as promised by the leader of the National Party?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I’m advised that more than 3.5 million New Zealanders will benefit from tax reduction. The amount of tax reduction will vary depending on their personal and family circumstances, which is why I recommend they visit the tax calculator. And I’m advised that fewer than 3,000 people would benefit from $250 a fortnight.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How many, if any, will personally benefit by receiving the full $271 as promised in her Tax at a Glance brochure?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I don’t have that information. But, actually, that scenario was not one that I campaigned on. It was a scenario that, when I was advised by my tax officials, I said, “Well, look, the maximum anyone could get is $250.” They said, “No, Minister, you’re wrong. Some people will benefit by more.” And I said, “Isn’t that great?” At the same time, I thought to myself, “Isn’t it sad that members opposite have voted against every single dollar of tax relief?”

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How many users that have used the calculator are net better-off under her Budget when some are facing a $45 per week increase in insurance, an average of 9.6 percent increase in rates, higher prescription fees, and higher public transport costs?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Every single New Zealander is better off with a Government that’s getting on with rebuilding the economy, who’s getting on with restoring value for money in Government spending. If the member wants to cry crocodile tears about not enough tax relief, why did she vote against it? Working people will remember that.

Question No. 2—Children

2. to the Minister for Children: What does she say to Tupua Urlich, a survivor of abuse in State care, who said of the proposal to repeal section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act, “We know time and time again they place children with strangers who go on to physically, sexually and mentally abuse these children.” and “Whānau means more than mum, and dad and uncles - we have a wider hapū and iwi. There is no way the state can turn around and say there is no one safe enough to look after these children”?

I would say that I am truly sorry for what he has been through. Some members in this House, as well as members of the public, may not be aware that just because a child is in the custody of Oranga Tamariki, it does not mean they are placed with strangers. In fact, around 70 percent of children in care are placed with whānau in what are called remain or return to home placements, or in whānau care placements, and this means they are being looked after by family or whānau. We know from reports such as the Independent Children’s Monitor’s Returning Home From Care report in 2023 and Oranga Tamariki’s own Safety of Children in Care reports that children in these placements were being harmed or abused, and are still at risk of being harmed or abused. A child must be safe first. If this can be with family, hapū, or iwi, then this should happen. However, unless we face up to the fact that harm happens everywhere, including within family, hapū, and iwi, then we will never properly address this national shame. Too often, a child is killed in this country by someone they know, someone that is meant to protect them, and someone who is meant to love them.

Kahurangi Carter: Was the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care considered prior to announcing the intent to repeal section 7AA, and, if so, why did she not wait for the recommendations before moving forward with the bill?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I do not take that report lightly, but what that report also showed us was that for far too long, Governments and Ministers and people in places of power took too long to take action, and didn’t do what was right because they feared the backlash or they feared that they may not succeed. But what I will say to you is that I will do everything in my power to succeed, and everything I do is with the safety and the best interests of children at the forefront of my mind.

Kahurangi Carter: How does she reconcile the proposed repeal of section 7AA with the report’s finding that “The State did not take the steps it should have when it saw signs its care system was failing people in care. Those steps should have included: … legislation specific to care settings to give effect to … te Tiriti o Waitangi, particularly tino rangatiratanga”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I once again acknowledge the failures of the past, and I can’t take back the failures of the past, but what I can do is make sure that we are doing the right thing for our young people and putting their safety and best interests as the first point of order when we are making decisions around their safety in care. To me, that is the right thing to do.

Laura Trask: Does she agree with the quote on the inquiry, “This must be bigger than politics… This work will extend beyond the life of any one Government, so we should work together to make sure this happens.”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Absolutely. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Yeah, just a minute—just a minute. I know that passions run very high around this particular topic, but we still need to follow the decorum of the House and at least try to hear some of the answers given by the Minister.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Absolutely. We stood in this House yesterday with joint agreement across all parties that what happened in the past cannot happen again. We have to make sure that everything we are doing in this place is with the best interest of our kids at heart.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she agree that section 7AA, when applied correctly, would redress the report’s findings that, “Critical rights, such as those guaranteed to Māori in te Tiriti o Waitangi and human rights, that should have protected people in care, were ignored and overlooked altogether.”; if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The repeal of section 7AA is about wanting there to be clarity within Oranga Tamariki that the interest in safety and the wellbeing of children and young people are at the forefront of all decision making. This is the core purpose of Oranga Tamariki, to care for and to protect children and young people. Oranga Tamariki continues to work in partnership with providers, communities, Māori, iwi, hapū, and whānau, and nothing about the repeal of section 7AA will affect the support services and the programmes Oranga Tamariki provides for Māori or the partnerships it has and will continue to develop.

Kahurangi Carter: What would she say to the survivors who not only experienced neglect, abuse, and torture at the hands of the State but also shared in the report that disconnection from whakapapa and te ao Māori “compounded the impacts of the abuse and neglect they suffered.”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Once again, I would say I am sorry for what they have suffered. Nobody should suffer anything of what they have experienced. I would never ever say that people should not have their whakapapa connection. I have never said that and I have constantly said that I find it important that young people know where they come from, but their best interests and safety must come first.

Kahurangi Carter: Will she commit to discharging the bill to repeal section 7AA as a sign of good faith to survivors and their moemoeā; if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I cannot say this enough and I will keep saying the same thing: the best interests and the safety of our young people need to be the very first thing we are considering when it comes to the care of our young people. This does not mean that whānau, hapū, and iwi are not a consideration; it just means that safety and wellbeing come first.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: When was the last time personal income tax rates or thresholds were adjusted?

The last time personal income tax rates or thresholds changed was on 1 April 2021, when the top tax rate of 39 percent was introduced. However, this was, of course, a tax increase. Finance Minister Steven Joyce did announce personal income tax relief in Budget 2017, but this was reversed later in the year by Grant Robertson, so personal tax rates and thresholds have not, in fact, been adjusted since 1 October 2010, 14 long years ago. That will change next Wednesday.

Ryan Hamilton: How much will people get in tax relief?

Hon Peeni Henare: Bugger all.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: To the member opposite who said a phrase that is not very parliamentary, I’d say that they’ll get a lot more from us than you were promising them. It does, of course, depend on individual circumstances.

Glen Bennett: What are you taking away?

Reuben Davidson: How much has the rent gone up?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, what you were promising them was zero. And what you did was vote against every dollar of tax relief. I actually encourage people to go to budget.govt.nz, check the tax calculator to see what tax relief is coming their way. As the Hon Barbara Edmonds was keen to quote me saying, the rising number of visitors to our tax calculator reflects Kiwis’ keen interest in understanding how the Budget will personally benefit them through the savings we’ve achieved and the tax relief we’re implementing.

Ryan Hamilton: How will households benefit?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I said, people and families are in a wide variety of circumstances; hence, the calculator. But, in summary, I can tell the member that an estimated 727,000 households will benefit by at least $75 a fortnight; 187,000 will benefit by at least $100 a fortnight. On average, households will benefit by $60 a fortnight, and households with children by $78 a fortnight.

Ryan Hamilton: How many thousands of people, again, have now used that Budget tax calculator?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Obviously, I was asked this patsy question earlier. As I told the House yesterday, that number was 513,000 yesterday. It has risen overnight. I’m sure it will rise overnight again, the more we talk about it, but, actually, the number of visits to the website has increased several more than that, because that is the number of individual users as opposed to the number of visits, which has been a much larger number. My reflection would be that New Zealanders are very interested in tax relief, because they haven’t seen it for 14 long years.

SPEAKER: Before I call the next member, I just want to say, in this question, interjections are supposed to be rare and reasonable, but they’re part of the general sort of interaction that occurs in this House, but on this particular question and the one that will follow, I’m playing particular attention to those interjections.

Question No. 4—Children

4. to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Yes.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Do any of the 10 boys in the boot camp pilot have a history of care and protection, and, if so, what does she say to abuse in care survivor Tupua Urlich, when he says “Part of acknowledging the harm that has been done is taking a more empathetic approach to the healing for our young people. You don’t just inflict trauma and abuse upon them and, when those signs and symptoms of your failures show up in the community, lock ‘em up.”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: To the first part of the question, yes, I would assume that they have had care and protection before, because they are in a place that has care and protection under Oranga Tamariki.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What are specific examples of how the boot camps will incorporate a te ao Māori approach when nine out of 10 of the young people participating are Māori?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: There will be a wide range of activities, and there’ll be a wide range of things that these young people will take part in. Each young person will have a full assessment before they come into this programme, and we will make sure that everything that is done around these young people is done to their needs and their best interests. We have many people who have come forward to bring their skills, and even in te ao Māori space, to make sure that these young people get everything they need.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What are specific examples of the day-to-day military-style activities that young offenders will participate in, in the boot camps that she launched last week?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I do not have the exact activities in front of me, but I have set the expectations that those will be made available to the young people. It may look different on a day-to-day basis. This is not something that will be a one-size-fits-all approach and we must be able to adapt as we go along, and that’s all I have to say.

Hon Brooke van Velden: Does she stand by her statement: “No one, regardless of their race, gender, or any other identity, deserves to be in a situation where they are abused and denied basic care, and I am committed to doing everything within my power to ensure that no child or young person in New Zealand suffers abuse in State or faith-based care.”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Yes, and as I’ve said before, and as I will emphasise over and over again, what we have read in those reports and what comes up over and over again is that nobody did anything. It was easier to stand in this place and do nothing than do what is right. I will stand here and make sure that every decision and every moment of my time here—that the best interests and the safety of our children come first.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Can she guarantee that the issues that have been reported in youth justice facilities recently, such as roughing up children, silencing informants, and inappropriate relationships with staff, have been addressed and will not occur at the boot camp at Te Au rere a te Tonga?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: We know, just as recently as last year, that this behaviour was happening. We cannot accept that that is happening, and I have been to visit these facilities personally more than once to make sure that they know that this behaviour will not be tolerated. Changes have been made, and we will make sure that there is transparency and availability of support when needed.

Question No. 5—Transport

5. to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about the Wairarapa and Manawatū commuter rail lines?

This morning, I announced alongside the Hon Nicola Willis and the Hon Chris Bishop that the coalition Government is investing into the Wairarapa and Manawatū commuter rail lines, which will deliver a fleet of 18 new trains as part of a funding agreement between the Government and the Greater Wellington and Horizons regional councils. This Government is investing in the lower - North Island commuter rail network to improve service reliability, reduce congestion, and support economic growth, and now we’re getting on with getting the work done. [Interruption]

Mike Butterick: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Just wait till the House is silent and not engaging in little conversations left, right, and centre.

Mike Butterick: What impacts will this have on travel times between the Wairarapa and Wellington?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this investment comes as welcome news for hard-working people in the Wairarapa region, with passengers travelling on the Wairarapa line set to receive many benefits, including higher-frequency services and travel-time savings. Speeds on the Wairarapa line will be increased from 90 kilometres per hour to 110 kilometres per hour on the train line with these upgrades, resulting in significant travel-time savings of 15 minutes for passengers travelling between Wellington and Masterton.

Suze Redmayne: Will this investment—

SPEAKER: I haven’t called you. Is this a new question or should I just bundle a whole lot together and let the Minister just give all the answers he’s got?

Suze Redmayne: Sorry. Supplementary, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Call on Suze Redmayne.

Suze Redmayne: Will this investment deliver higher-frequency services for the Manawatū?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes. The investment will deliver higher-frequency—

SPEAKER: Can’t say much more than that.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —services for the Manawatū.

SPEAKER: Thank you. Thank you.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Isn’t that great?

Suze Redmayne: What infrastructure upgrades are planned for the Wairarapa and Manawatū rail lines?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, infrastructure work’s been carried out to support the reliable operation of the new trains and increased services on the Wairarapa and Manawatū rail lines. There’ll be platform upgrades at stations north of Waikanae and Upper Hutt to enable the operation of new trains and the provision of three stabling facilities. There will also be upgrades to track and signalling infrastructure on the Wairarapa and Manawatū rail lines. Our Government is committed to investing in a reliable public transport network so that local councils can deliver the public transport services New Zealanders need. [Interruption]

Suze Redmayne: Supplementary. Supplementary?

SPEAKER: I’m sorry. I’m having trouble hearing, given the commentary that’s coming from my left.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Sorry, I was yelling at Simeon. Sorry.

SPEAKER: Yeah. Yeah, you were. And I was trying to ignore you, so I’m sorry you called attention to yourself.

Tangi Utikere: Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Does he stand by his confirmation to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee last month that this, the lower - North Island rail investment package, is simply a continuation of what was in Budget 2023; if not, why not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, on this side of the House, we actually deliver. On that side of the House, they just talk.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. That was a very simple and straightforward question, asking the Minister if he stood by his statement confirming that the previous Budget provided the funding that they reannounced today. Then swiping back with that sort of thing, that didn’t address the question, I don’t think is appropriate.

SPEAKER: Yes. And before I had any opportunity to make a comment on it, you’re on your feet calling a point of order. So, fast out of the blocks and, in this case, correct.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, Mr Speaker, I’d like to remind members on that side of the House that it is New Zealanders who provide the funding, not the Government, and they should respect the hard-working taxpayers who are helping to fund this significant upgrade.

Tangi Utikere: Is the Government so desperate to announce something that is not a cut that they are now resorting to reannouncing previous Governments’ announcements?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: The man of no vision.

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll you what. This is a really interesting position here because he has no responsibility for anything the previous Government did. But, anyway, you can answer it. [Interruption]

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, thank you, Mr Speaker, and—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Which would entirely make it an initiative of the current Government, if you think about your logic. [Interruption]

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Could I ask the member to repeat the question?

SPEAKER: Right, we’ll go with absolute silence.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Could I ask the member to repeat his question?

SPEAKER: No, you can’t.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: OK. Well, all I’d say to the member opposite is, as I said earlier, this Government is about delivery; that Government was simply about announcements, and that’s why they got voted out on 14 October last year.

Question No. 6—Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence

Question No. 6—and I make the same comment that I made before: these are sensitive matters in these questions and they should be treated appropriately by the House.

6. to the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence: Does she stand by her statement, “I expect people to be able to get the right response for their needs”?

Yes, in the context in which I said it, which was in an answer to written questions regarding family harm call-outs.

Hon Ginny Andersen: When was she informed that police are stepping back from attending family violence call-outs now, that this is being done—quote, from police—“regardless of the readiness of partner agencies”, and they have warned that this may result “in poor safety outcomes or a threat to life”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I would just say that we need to be really careful when it comes to this matter and how we’re addressing this matter. Police will always have a role to play when it comes to responding to violence, including family violence, or where there has been a crime, or where someone is in immediate danger. This is not changing. I want to make it clear to the people that they should always feel that they can call police, and to suggest that police will not respond risks undermining this.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked when she was informed. I don’t think that answer even addressed that.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: That’s fair.

SPEAKER: Yeah, in your view, but you weren’t asked to rule on it. And you know that when these matters occur, I generally give the Minister an opportunity to say something further. But you can’t expect every time to take a point of order saying the question wasn’t answered. It may not be answered to the member’s satisfaction, but it’s an important issue and so the Minister can speak again if she wishes.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I don’t have that exact date in front of me.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is she concerned that police have investigated approximately 3,000 fewer family violence incidents since December 2023 and that this will further decrease the current reporting rate of family violence; if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Sorry, I just missed a little bit of that. Would I be able to hear the question again?

SPEAKER: Yes, certainly.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is she concerned that police have investigated approximately 3,000 fewer family violence incidents since December 2023 and that this will further decrease the current reporting rate of family violence; if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I think we all know that there has been a workforce capacity and capability issue across the board when it comes to the family and sexual violence space. We as a Government are working, and are under way, on improving our systems to build a more capable workforce to ensure that the appropriate responses to family and sexual violence happen. And what I would expect is that people are getting the right response for their needs. Because the police are not investigating certain things does not mean other agencies are not stepping in when it is their job to be dealing with that particular issue.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What action has she taken as the Minister responsible for the prevention of family and sexual violence to ensure people do get the right response to their needs, given that police have advised that some family violence incidents will not be responded to by other providers, and police have stated: “This will be damaging to trust and confidence if people who expect help can no longer access it.”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: What we do know is that family and sexual violence is a very complicated space, and it’s not just up to one ministry to deal with this. As the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, I’ve made my expectations clear that agencies work collectively on matters regarding family violence and sexual violence, and whenever there are suggested changes in this space, I would expect all agencies to be considering the implications of this and work through the outcomes and consequences of it.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can she stand by her statement that she expects people to be able to access the right response to their needs when she has made no Budget bids for the prevention of family violence, this Government is gutting agencies who support the victims of family violence, and now police are stepping back from the lead partner in family violence with no services in place to take up that gap?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I do stand by that statement. People should be getting the response to their needs. Almost a billion dollars has been invested into family violence and sexual violence in the period from 2018 to 2023. This funding helps stabilise front-line services, strengthen the way the Government was working, and improve a range of services available. But before seeking further investment, I want to make sure that that funding is delivering as much as it can in the right place and that we know it’s effective.

Question No. 7—

Child Poverty Reduction

7. to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: Why has she made the choice to set child poverty targets for 2026/27, which would mean that approximately 17,000 more children experience material hardship than under the 2023/2024 target?

Because actual child poverty rates worsened under the last Government in the 2023 year, which means the new intermediate targets have to account for the fact that progress in reducing child poverty is miles behind what was forecast when the last Government originally established the targets. The actual number of children living in material hardship increased by 23,400 in 2022-23. According to the after housing cost measure, which is most closely connected to material hardship, Budget 2024 is forecast to see 17,000 fewer children in poverty. Our Government has a plan—including tax relief, FamilyBoost, breaking cycles of welfare dependency, improving educational outcomes—to help children overcome the circumstances they are born into and reduce hardship.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Has she set weaker child poverty reduction targets because she will plunge more children into material hardship with her choice to cut benefit increases and to inflict more punitive sanctions on beneficiaries?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, I’m not sure the member listened to my answer. The number of children living in material hardship, while we would like to say it didn’t, went up under the last Government. So what we have now is a worse position in which to try and reduce the numbers. That’s why we’ve set a target that is both ambitious but, importantly, achievable.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How can she say her target is ambitious when it is allowing material hardship to increase over the next few years?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The member hasn’t realised the point is we have to set a target based on what the reality is today. And what the reality is is an increased number of children—23,400 more—living in material hardship because of the last Government’s record. We’ve set a target that is ambitious and achievable because we want to see fewer children in material hardship.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How many kids could she have lifted out of poverty if the Government chose to spend $2.9 billion on benefit increases instead of tax cuts on landlords?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What we have done in Budget 2024—and I’m really proud of the work that’s been done—is to focus on the cost of living crisis that affects those households on the lowest incomes the harshest; it affects those the worst. So we are focused on material hardship, we are focused on the cost of living crisis, and we are focused on supporting households into work that will lift their incomes and their opportunities.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How can she stand by that statement when her own official advice has shown that cuts to benefit increases will result in more children living in poverty?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There’s no cuts to benefit increases. We have changed the way future increases are allocated. And Budget 2024 will lift 17,000 fewer children out of poverty.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she ashamed of her weak child poverty targets, and, if not, why did she fail to engage with stakeholder organisations about them and neglect to announce them with a press release?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We have set intermediate targets that prove our Government is focused on reducing child poverty results, dealing with the unfortunate reality of what we inherited from the previous Government, where the numbers have gone up, but we’re just getting on and doing the job, which is why Budget 2024 will lift 17,000 children out of poverty.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What steps is the Government taking to reduce the number of people receiving the jobseeker support benefit?

We are resetting the welfare system because too many people were on the jobseeker benefit when we came into Government, and the economic mess we inherited meant those numbers were always going to get worse before they got better. That’s why job seekers with work obligations must now meet with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) within the first two weeks of being on benefit to create a plan for finding a job, and if they’re still on a benefit after six months, they’ll need to check in with MSD again to talk about what support they might need. We are also helping 4,000 more job seekers aged 18 to 24 by providing them with case management over the phone because the number of 18- to 24-year-olds who shifted on to the jobseeker benefit, unfortunately, increased by 58 percent under the last Government. We’ve got more positive changes to come.

Paulo Garcia: Why is the Government making the welfare system more proactive by requiring job seekers to meet with MSD more regularly?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This Government is not content just to leave people on the jobseeker benefit to their own devices without getting the support they need to get a job. While 60,000 people have a case manager, this leaves 135,000 job seekers without one, so we’ve established two new check-ins to create more opportunities to provide job seekers the support they need, to check they are fulfilling their obligations to become work ready, and, of course, to find a job.

Paulo Garcia: Why are young people the focus of the new phone-based case management service?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because, for young people on a benefit, they are estimated to spend in future years, on average, 21.3 years throughout their lifetime. Our Government wants a better future for young people and to break the vicious cycles of intergenerational dependency. That’s why we’re providing young people more support earlier, starting with an extra 4,000 being case managed over the phone.

Paulo Garcia: Why is the number of people receiving the jobseeker benefit expected to increase before decreasing?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The economy has been weak for the last two years, which, inevitably, means there are fewer job vacancies. It is forecast that job seeker numbers will continue to increase until January 2025. That’s why we’re acting immediately to help more job seekers so that they and their children experience the greater independence and opportunities that come from work.

Question No. 9—Foreign Affairs

9. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he accept the International Court of Justice ruling that Israel is acting illegally as an occupying force in Gaza; if so, why has he not said so?

on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: I refer the member to my post on X on 20 July, in which I said, “The International Court of Justice has issued an advisory opinion ruling that Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is unlawful and must end as rapidly as possible. Continued settlement expansion makes a two-state solution, the only way for Israelis and Palestinians to live side-by-side with security and dignity, more difficult. Israel must honour its international legal obligations.”

SPEAKER: I’ll just ask the Minister to move the microphone a bit closer the next time you speak.

Hon David Parker: Point of order. I understand the quote and I know that I can’t expect a yes/no answer, but I wondered whether the person speaking was intending to say yes or no.

SPEAKER: Well, that is not a point of order. That is a point of disturbance, in many facts. Does the member have another question or are we finished?

Hon David Parker: I do indeed. Aren’t the long-term and ongoing breaches of international law in Gaza so obvious that indecision by New Zealand is unworthy, notwithstanding that the USA takes a similar position?

Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister, the Government of New Zealand takes the position that, in accordance with the preliminary finding of the International Court of Justice, certain actions must be taken. In particular, I refer the member to the longstanding position of successive New Zealand Governments, which is that a two-State solution is to be sought, and the Government’s position has not changed in that regard.

Hon David Parker: Does he agree with the statement recently by Janet Wilson, a former adviser to the current Minister of Defence, when she said, “While the shifting sands of geopolitics need to be considered, so too does the fact that for New Zealand this recent shift on decades-old independent foreign policy has been quietly executed without any electoral mandate.”?

Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister, I don’t think that is an accurate characterisation of the position of the New Zealand Government, either in relation to the issue that was the subject of the primary question or, indeed, any other aspect of our foreign policy.

Hon David Parker: Well, then, does he agree with Janet Wilson’s further statement that “Luxon and Peters need to drop the smoke-and-mirror obfuscation when it comes to foreign policy and have a straight up conversation about their intent.”?

Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister, of course I reject the characterisation of the Government of New Zealand policy position being anything of that nature. So it’s a moot point as to whether it should be dropped or otherwise discarded.

Question No. 10—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

10. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent steps has the Government taken to establish a consumer data right in New Zealand?

I’m thrilled that the Customer and Product Data Bill passed with unanimous support yesterday at its first reading. The introduction of this bill allows for controlled and secure access to data, which will inevitably lead to greater competition in the banking and electricity sectors. This will occur by allowing innovative start-ups to more easily offer competing products and services using data that you have allowed them to access. Choice and competition are good things as they ultimately lead to lower prices and greater choice.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why is this bill needed?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: We are behind the eight ball. Recently, the OECD ranked New Zealand dead last when it came to digital regulation. This bill will pave the way for greater competition; in turn, boosting productivity. It will also support existing fintechs and provide an environment for new start-ups to enter the market. We also know that there are approximately 300 companies willing and able to offer products in New Zealand right now, and, ultimately, this change will create jobs and lift living standards for all New Zealanders.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What assurances can the Minister make about the security of data sharing?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I think it’s important to acknowledge that currently there is no mandatory data standard. At present, many businesses often have to rely on a practice called “screen scraping” to get your data, which is highly risky for you as the consumer. The Government is making changes to make sure that data exchange is entirely opt-in. You have to give your express permission to access the data. Second, businesses that you authorise to use the data will need to be accredited. Third, there will be also a customer verification process which will require the entity that holds the data, such as a bank or telco, to verify that it is you making the request and not a scammer. Finally, it’s worth noting that the Privacy Commissioner supports this bill.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Can the Minister provide some examples for how establishing a consumer data right will help New Zealanders?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Great question. I want to give you two examples. One of the reasons why banks support these proposals is, for instance, in Australia, you can change your mortgage provider within 10 minutes by completing an online application. This reduced processing time is a result of the new bank being able to access your existing bank data through open banking provisions. Another example is the ability to switch seamlessly between electricity providers. This will allow consumers to make better-informed choices and also get the best bang for your buck. In time, the consumer data framework will likely be extended to other industries such as the telecommunications and insurance sectors.

SPEAKER: The next question, I’ve been notified, has a longer than might ordinarily be anticipated answer from the Minister.

Question No. 11—Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions

11. to the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions: How many of the 138 recommendations from the Whanaketia report on historical abuse in State care and faith-based institutions will the Government commit to adopting, if any?

Firstly, I’d just like to acknowledge all of the survivors of abuse in State care and faith-based care. As I said in the House yesterday, their courage in the face of appalling abuse, and their determination to bring truth to light about this dark chapter in New Zealand’s history, is tremendous. And I want to thank the seven survivors of Lake Alice that I spent time with last night for their bravery and vulnerability in sharing their stories with me. It’s clear from our conversations that torture that happened to them at Lake Alice has caused lifelong harm from which they can never fully recover. This Government has already adopted recommendation 2—that the Prime Minister will give a national apology for abuse and neglect in State care in the House of Representatives. That apology will take place on Tuesday, 12 November. We’ve also adopted recommendation 113—that the Government publicise and disseminate this report as widely as possible. Of the remaining 136 recommendations, 11 relate to redress, 100 relate to wider matters for the Government, and 25 relate to faith-based institutions. As recommended by the commission, we are prioritising working through the recommendations around redress at pace and expect to have more to say on this in November. Work on recommendations about significant organisational change and legislation will progress in 2025.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does she agree with the report’s findings that depriving tamariki Māori of their ’hakapapa was a significant source of harm and trauma, which has “led to much larger social problems such as declining health, higher rates of incarceration, family harm, unemployment, homelessness, mental distress, and substance harm, and reduced educational opportunities”? That’s a bunch; that’s a whole lot.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question is around the recommendations of the report; the member’s question is relating to the findings of the report—two completely different things and I don’t believe it’s in scope.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order?

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Yes. Sorry, your response was that you thought it was too far apart. I can’t see how much—well, I don’t agree that it’s that far apart, Mr Speaker. I think it’s close enough. I think the issue is poignant enough. I think it is palpable in the House and, therefore, I think deserves at least a go at it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, look, the “near enough is good enough” argument is probably not all that strong. But I think the Minister might make some response to the general thrust of the question as it relates to the report.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order.

SPEAKER: A new point of order?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Yes, it is a new point of order. Thank you, e te Pika. The point of order is that the findings and the recommendations in te ao Māori are one and the same, as are those who are the survivors and the community of survivors.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s a piece of information, not necessarily a point of order, but this is a matter that should be taken seriously by the House. The Minister may respond.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Mr Speaker, could I ask the member to repeat her question?

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Yes, happy to. Does she agree with the report’s findings that depriving tamariki Māori of their ’hakapapa was a significant source of harm and trauma, which has “led to much larger social problems such as declining health, higher rates of incarceration, family harm, unemployment, homelessness, mental distress, and substance harm, and reduced educational opportunities”?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Mr Speaker, I will, as per your ruling, answer the question. Of course, many times the many stories that I read in the royal commission’s report related to children who were taken from their families and their whānau and had that relationship severed. And, for many of them, they never had that reconnection. So, of course, it is a significant source of harm for many tamariki Māori and any other child that was taken into care.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: How, then, does she reconcile the repeal of section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act with the recommendations of this report—for example, recommendation 39, on the need to empower whānau, hapū, iwi, and Māori to care for our tamariki in accordance with our tikanga, or recommendation 126, which calls on the State to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi by allowing tangata whenua to design our own solutions in State care?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Mr Speaker, I’m going to answer the second part of that question—

Laura Trask: Point of order. I think, as referred to earlier, this is out of scope from the original question, to discuss 7AA.

SPEAKER: With due respect, I decide what’s in scope or not. It is in scope. It relates to two recommendations inside the royal commission’s report, or can be related to those. I think the Minister is well capable of answering that particular question.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’m happy to answer the second question the member put, around the Treaty of Waitangi, and the answer to that question is that we will be considering all of the recommendations in the report in due course, in the context of the entire report, which I have read, and many of my other Ministers have read. The second part of the question was about the Treaty of Waitangi and that particular recommendation and my answer is that we will consider all of the recommendations in due course.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Will she, then, consider scrapping the Oranga Tamariki repeal of section 7AA amendment bill, given that it contradicts the majority of the inquiry’s recommendations? And can I also just acknowledge and mihi to the Minister for “though near is not enough” type of—and I understand that too, but just to mihi to her for actually just taking the question and doing the best to respond. Tēnā rā hoki koe, tēnā tātou. [Thanks to you in particular, greetings to us all.]

SPEAKER: Well, that’s very good of you, but the last question you asked is not in her responsibility. Do you have another question?

Hon Simeon Brown: Point of order. I think this is highlighting the reason why the Minister raised a point of order initially, in terms of the question being very tight in regards to the recommendations from the report. It is a sensitive issue, and when you ask a specific question, that does have an impact as to what flow-on supplementary questions can be asked. I think the Minister has been generous, but I do think, actually, we are needing to have specific questions that flow from the primary question, which we haven’t been getting.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you for your assertion and your opinion. You’re wrong. Where a primary leads into other questions or, as a result of what might have been said by a Minister, it does become open for the House to discuss.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: No, I’m ruling. You might have a new point of order, but at the moment, I’m ruling that so far we have been totally in scope. I’ve just ruled one question out of scope.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that the second question that came was out of scope. It was about a finding, not a recommendation. You requested that I answer the question in good faith, but my point of order at that point was that it was not in scope, because it was not relating to a recommendation. Findings and recommendations are very different.

SPEAKER: Are you going back over old ground?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: No, it’s a new point of order.

SPEAKER: But is it on a past ruling?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Mr Speaker, I answered that question, which has now led to opening up a whole lot of other areas that are out of scope, but the second question wasn’t in scope, which has now put me in a position where all of these questions flowing from that are out of scope.

SPEAKER: Well, with respect, you’ve had two questions since then. I’ve just ruled the next one out.

Simon Court: Point of order.

SPEAKER: So I won’t be taking any more discussion on this matter, thank you, Mr Court.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: No further questions; thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

Question No. 12—Building and Construction

12. to the Minister for Building and Construction: Do “People who are actively engaged in building homes in this country” tell him that building colder, damper houses, with less insulation, will result in more homes being built?

No.

Arena Williams: Does the Minister disagree with Fletcher Building’s Residential and Development Chief Executive Steve Evans, who was reported by RNZ as saying, “The insulation standards were going well, particularly that wall insulation and other improvements required were providing significant benefits to people by keeping out cold and damp.”?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The building sector has expressed a range of different views as to the workability of the new H1 regulation requirements, including as to the cost. I refer, for example, to the comments provided to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) in relation to a general building sector survey: “I am unsure if it is necessary to upgrade from where we are at. It just adds so much cost that the public won’t build new homes.” Also, “MBIE should pay more attention to the coal-face builders who understand the true cost and practicalities of building. The H1 changes are based on fanciful ideas of environmentalists and greedy suppliers. Unfortunately, the of the builder [sic] and consumers get drowned out by the academics and bureaucrats.” Now, I don’t suggest that those who are making a particular argument in terms of the current settings are ill-motivated, but I would say it’s important that we listen to a range of voices and a range of different interests who have a view about the complexity, the practicality, and the affordability of the changes as they have currently been made.

Arena Williams: Well, when he says that the building sector has a range of different views, does anyone disagree with the Master Builders Association and the Certified Builders Association when they endorsed the insulation standards?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Clearly yes, and I thank the member for the opportunity to also note a separate comment that was made by a building practitioner: “The introduction of the new H1 requirements is a mess, poorly introduced, lacked market detail. Architects are totally confused and do not understand the requirements. To put it in perspective, we process around 500 to 600 plans per month solely for insulation QS.”

Arena Williams: Does he disagree with National MP Dr Vanessa Weenink, who, when speaking about her experience as a medical doctor, said on Tuesday that if housing is damp or if it’s in a mouldy environment, if it’s overcrowded, that can actually lead to more avoidable hospital admissions and upper respiratory infections?

Hon CHRIS PENK: My colleague and friend the good doctor is, of course, correct, and those who are arguing in favour of warm, dry homes I hope would be supported by every person in this House. No one is arguing that we should have homes that are not well insulated or ventilated. The key question, which I’m approaching on behalf of the Government in good faith, is how we achieve that. So, for example, I’d invite the member to look into the detail, for example, of whether the schedule method in clause H1 of the building code is more effective than the modelling method whereby you have a relatively blunt instrument that applied in different parts of the country that is proving impracticable and expensive. If she were to listen to some people who are engaged in the building sector who have different views from those she’s already expressed and chooses to listen to, she will learn a thing or two.

Cameron Luxton: Minister, what cost-benefit analysis was undertaken at the time of the review of H1 to weigh up the insulation gains from installing concrete slab insulation against the significant cost, and will he change the way these reviews are undertaken in the future to provide assurance for the industry that the costs don’t outweigh the benefits?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The member asked a very good question and one from a basis of knowledge, as a licensed building practitioner himself. The point around concrete slabs, I think it’s a good one. It’s one that’s frequently raised by those who are carefully considering where the major costs lie—for example, weighing those versus the insulation, versus the thermal break requirement in the windows going beyond the double glazing. The detail does matter. In terms of the cost-benefit analysis, I would point out that, of course, for a cost-benefit analysis to be meaningful and hold weight, it needs to be based on the actual, real-world costs that are inputted into that. So part of the review that I’m keen that MBIE now conducts, talking to a range of different views within the sector, is precisely to weigh the actual cost versus the actual benefit, and we’ll see what the true position is at that point.

Arena Williams: Is the Minister telling the House that his proposal to reduce insulation requirements will not result in any homes being colder and damper?

Hon CHRIS PENK: I haven’t suggested that for a moment. I’ve suggested that we have a set of requirements in relation to insulation that actually achieve the aim without reducing housing affordability. It’s as simple a matter as that and the detail of the way that the current regulations are operating versus what they could be, if it’s possible to achieve the same results more affordably, more practicably, and with greater certainty, then that’s a result that I think we should all try and work towards.

Arena Williams: Then how many kids growing up in cold, damp housing is too many for that Minister to accept?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The number of kids growing up in cold, damp housing that is unacceptable is one or greater. Since 1978, we have required at least some insulation in New Zealand houses. Prior to that, which accounts for half of the housing stock in this country, there was no requirement. The greater benefit in terms of cost-benefit ratio and the attention of this House, and indeed, of course, the work of the building sector will be to apply greater resource and imagination to the ways in which we can actually achieve that retrofitting as well as—for new builds as applied to H1—ensure that we have a reasonable degree of complexity versus the certainty of those different methods so we can achieve affordable outcomes that don’t see any child in New Zealand grow up in a cold or damp home.