Oral Questions

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

Yes, and especially today’s announcement that the Government will fund $24 million to Gumboot Friday, enabling them to deliver counselling sessions to more than 15,000 young people. I do want to thank the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, for his tireless advocacy for securing this funding—[Interruption] that’s right—ensuring that Kiwis with mental health challenges can access support earlier. We know community organisations, like Gumboot Friday, can do so much more to solve the big societal challenges we have in New Zealand, and we’re going to keep devolving to the grassroots to get better results for every single New Zealander when it comes to mental health. This is a Government that’s walking the walk, not just talking the talk.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If the purpose of scrapping First Home Grants, as his Government announced today, is to increase social housing, why is the Government spending less on new social housing places than it’s saving by scrapping the grants?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I discussed with that member yesterday, we’re going to increase the amount of social housing in New Zealand and we’re not afraid to make tough choices. The choice that we’re making is to invest in 1,500 new social housing places for Kiwi families, and that will mean that some of those families are out of Labour’s motels.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did the announcement by Chris Bishop today indicate that the Government will be spending $105 million less on new social housing places than it will be saving by scrapping the First Home Grants?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I’d just say to that member that we are determined to build more houses in this country. We have more supply needed in the social housing piece, we have more supply of rental properties needed, and more houses that need to be built. I’m very proud of this Government actually spending and investing money to make sure we get 1,500 more places in social housing. It’s important.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. Both of those questions were quite specific questions about the difference between two numbers—the amount of money they’ve announced today that they’re spending on new social housing places and the amount of money Chris Bishop announced that he was saving by scrapping the First Home Grants scheme. The Prime Minister has addressed something that’s entirely different, but he hasn’t addressed the question.

SPEAKER: Well, I don’t think it’s entirely different. The question is about social housing.

Hon Chris Bishop: Is it correct that the announcement made today regarding money for social housing places continues on into the out-years, so it is correct to say that every single dollar saved by discontinuing First Home Grants funds social housing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely, and I want to thank the member for his leadership in this space and making sure we actually get more houses built.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it correct that the Government’s $2.9 billion tax breaks for landlords would pay for up to 580,000 First Home Grants?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I want to say to that member that we got exactly the same advice that he received when he was Prime Minister and he was in Government, and that was that interest deductibility would put downward pressure on rents. We are serious in this Government that we want to make sure we expand the rental supply of houses, and so we’re restoring interest deductibility, we’re pulling back the brightline test, and we’re balancing up the tenancy laws.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How much does he expect the average renter to save as a result of the $2.9 billion in interest deductibility changes that the Government has introduced?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that will depend, but what I would say is that it’s important that we put the policy ideas—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. How can it possibly be acceptable for the Prime Minister to not answer a question and then go on to talk about something else? Saying, “Well, that will depend”, and then talking about something entirely different isn’t addressing the question.

SPEAKER: Well, I think you’ll find if you have a look at the telecast later, the Prime Minister had barely said two more words past the previous statement, but I think the Prime Minister may like to think about what you’ve just raised and continue with his answer.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I was going to have a fulsome answer, but I didn’t get a chance to do it before the point of order. But, I mean, the point I’d say to the member is that it does depend, because it does depend on what people are actually paying today, and what we’ve got to do is put the conditions in place. So, actually, unwinding interest deductibility, lowering the brightline test, making sure that we get the balance right are good things—it will put downward pressure on rents. We got the same advice that the member got, and it said that dealing with interest deductibility would actually put downward pressure on rents.

Hon David Seymour: How would the Prime Minister characterise the policy settings and circumstances of the housing supply in New Zealand when it was sworn in, and what does the Government plan to do about that situation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I thank the member for their question, because we inherited a situation where house prices had gone up 50 percent, rental prices had gone up $180 per week, and the social housing register had quadrupled. That was after six years. Well, you had your go, and they didn’t actually achieve any outcomes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the number of building consents for new houses issued increased or decreased since he became Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: They’ll have gone down because of the economic cycle, because of the market, but I would say to you that this is a Government that is going to open up more greenfields. And I just encourage the member: why doesn’t he support our fast-track legislation? Because we based it on inspired thinking from David Parker, who would make a great leader of the Labour Party one day, but he had inspired thinking and we’ve built on it, and I encourage the Labour Party to support our fast-track regulations legislation.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How is it that his Government is prioritising $2.9 billion in tax breaks for landlords whilst cutting a scheme that ensures that a number of New Zealanders can actually buy their first home?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I just say to the member: we are a Government that is not afraid to make tough choices. We have inherited a fiscal situation left behind by the previous Government. What I don’t understand is how the masterminds that brought us KiwiBuild ended up increasing house prices 15 percent, added $180 to average weekly rents, and four times more people on the social house waiting list. I thought the Labour Party cared about low and middle income, working New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If house prices were going up by a massive 50-plus percent, wouldn’t a saver seeking to buying a house have to be saving that way as well, and does he know anybody who can do that, including anybody in the Labour Party who can do that over there?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Not that I’m aware of—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. First of all, what was the question? But, second of all, how is the Prime Minister in any way responsible for the views of the Labour Party?

SPEAKER: The first point I’d make is that if you’re asking what the question was, you can’t possibly have a view about the rest of it, but, as it happens, I didn’t actually hear the question either.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thanks for the chance to clarify it. If savings were going up by a massive 50-plus percent, wouldn’t it mean that a person aspiring to buy their first home would have to be saving at that level as well—that’s 50-plus percent—and does he know anybody in this House that can do that, at that speed, including anybody in the Labour Party sitting over there with all their bright ideas?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely not. But what I can tell you is that we have a Government here that is absolutely determined to deal with our housing crisis. The Labour Government had six years to deal with it and failed to achieve anything.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. First of all, the question was clearly out of order, and, second of all, allowing the Prime Minister to then use a completely out-of-order question to attack the Opposition flouts your previous rulings in a number of different ways.

SPEAKER: Well, there are two points that I’d make. The first is that the question asked, “Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?”, and so that does open a question up quite widely eventually, not only to the Opposition asking the question but to Parliament itself. And the second point is that, while you say it’s out of order, I did hear the Rt Hon Winston Peters reference bright ideas of the Labour Party, and I don’t think it was a political attack. Now, you might disagree with me. You may disagree with me—

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

SPEAKER: Sorry, where’s the call?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It’s a point of order.

SPEAKER: Ah, point of order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If the Deputy Prime Minister is allowed to ask the Prime Minister questions about the financial capability of Labour members, are we allowed to ask the Prime Minister questions about the financial capability of National Party backbenchers, for example? That is a pertinent topic this week.

SPEAKER: That’s a very good point—a very good point. And I think the Prime Minister clearly had no responsibility for any of the financial capability of anybody in this House, and, on that basis, perhaps I should have been a bit quicker to rule it out—[Interruption] I beg your pardon? Are you going to stand up and take a point or just chip from the side?

Hon Damien O’Connor: Point of order. I just think that the Prime Minister does have responsibility for the backbenchers on his side of the House.

SPEAKER: With all due respect, he doesn’t have responsibility for their financial prowess at all, but he’s very good at picking them. Can we now move on to question No. 2.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, I do, and especially our announcement today that we will fund 1,500 more social housing places from community housing providers. The track record from the last Labour-Greens Government was abysmal: billions of dollars spent only to peddle misery with more children growing up in motels and sleeping in cars. We have a comprehensive strategy to fix that mess. We’re fixing the rental market, we’re fixing Kāinga Ora, and we’re funding more places for community housing providers so that Kiwi kids can grow up in a house, not a motel.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Ombudsman on the Fast-track Approvals Bill that “When you get a bill like this that creates enormous executive power, there is ever more need to have a check and a balance unless it’s matched by oversight and accountability. I think democracy itself is the loser.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I’d say to that member, and we’ve had this conversation many times before, is that we need modern, reliable infrastructure in New Zealand. That is how we will make this country more prosperous. We need to get things done, and that means cutting through the red and green tape that’s getting in the way, it means making sure that we take David Parker’s inspired thinking around a fast-track law and we build it out so that we can get things done. And so I just say to the member we welcome the Greens’ support so that we can get renewable energy projects built quicker.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by the statement made on behalf of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform on 9 May that “within the Fast-track Approvals Bill you see various protections for taiao”; if so, what are these protections?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’d say to the member is the bill is before a select committee. You’ve heard the infrastructure Minister say himself that he is open to sensible suggestions to improve it. We are going through that process, we will digest that feedback, and we’ll take that on board.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with the Taxpayers’ Union, who said that “The Bill places the decision-making authority with the joint Ministers. This places them at the centre of major investment decisions. Effectively, the Bill asks politicians to pick winners. This is never a good arrangement.”; if so, will he commit to removing Ministers as the decision makers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t know how to be any clearer: the bill is before a select committee; the infrastructure Minister has said himself that he’s open to sensible suggestions. What I would say is we have proposed an independent expert panel that will judge conditions including the environment, including social benefits and economic benefits, the whole lot, and we’ve actually proposed that in the select committee. If you’ve got thoughts about it, make those points now. But the big point is this: we are going to stop the talking and we are going to get things done in this country. I make no apologies for that; it’s what the people of New Zealand expect us to do. It’s what we’re expected to do if we’re going to deliver on our climate change goals—we need to get things done and built. And I’d just say to the member, again, please support the bill. If you care about the environment, if you care about climate change, you’d back our fast-track legislation.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Prime Minister undertake, here and now, to have regard to all the comments on the 17 precedented fast-track projects of the last Government when he’s considering the fast-track process in this Government—remember what the Greens said back then—and will he have regard to it when he’s going forward?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I thank the member because, again, it was inspired thinking from David Parker, who invented a fast-track process. We’ve taken that, we’ve put it on steroids so that we can get things built.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he, in light of his request for the Green Party’s support, commit to no new coal mines, not reopening oil and gas drilling, protecting the conservation estate from mining, and no extinction of native species through his Fast-track Approvals Bill?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just say to the member: on this side, in this Government, we are deeply committed to delivering on our climate change goals and commitments. But, again, what we saw and what you—in the discussion that we had last week—[Interruption] Would you like me to complete? What we saw was that we actually have some energy security risk in this country. Why? Because there was a banning of an oil and gas ban from the Labour-Greens. There was no follow-up plan to it. It was a bunch of bumper stickers, headlines, and Post-it notes, and, actually, what was needed is we need gas as a transitory energy source so we can keep our energy security in place.

SPEAKER: The House is extremely lively today. I just ask people to think, just before they sort of get into some barracking, about exactly the value to the public that barracking is.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement on 8 May, “support our reversal of the oil and gas ban, support our fast-track legislation, and let’s go get renewable energy built in this country.”, and, if so, is he confused about the difference between oil and gas and renewable energy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I absolutely stand by that statement and just continue to encourage the Greens to support us.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: What does the operating balance excluding gains and losses (OBEGAL) measure?

The operating balance excluding gains and losses—commonly known as the OBEGAL—is the difference between total Crown revenue and total Crown expenses, before gains and losses. Gains and losses arise from changes in the value of the Government’s assets and liabilities—for example, changes in market prices of equity investments. OBEGAL is a total Crown measure, so it includes the financial results of Crown entities and State-owned enterprises.

Tim van de Molen: Is the OBEGAL in surplus or deficit?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The OBEGAL is in deficit and has been since 2019. It is in deficit because Government spending has increased markedly. Now, while some spending increases over recent years were temporary—for example, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the North Island weather events—there was a permanent increase in other areas. So, after stripping out large, one-off expenses, and adjusting for the economic cycle, the Treasury estimates a structural operating deficit of around 1.5 percent of GDP in the current financial year. A structural deficit, members, is not sustainable in the long term, as it requires continual borrowing to cover expenses, leading to a never-ending accumulation of public debt—a debt spiral. That is the mess our Government is cleaning up.

Tim van de Molen: What is the Government’s response to this situation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Fiscal consolidation is required over time to bring revenue and expenses back into balance. As set out in the Budget Policy Statement, the Government is committed to reducing core Crown expenses as a proportion of GDP, and returning the OBEGAL to surplus. These fiscal goals have become harder to achieve as economic forecasts have deteriorated. I can tell the House that the forecasts have continued to deteriorate even since the Budget Policy Statement. None the less, the Government remains committed to its fiscal strategy and will set out a plan to return to surplus.

Tim van de Molen: When will the OBEGAL return to surplus?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That will be set out in the fiscal projections and forecasts released as part of the Budget. But what I can tell the House is that in the current economic circumstances, if we continued with the future Budget operating allowances in the half-year update, which was set by the previous Government, there might not be a surplus posted in New Zealand until 2030-31. As a responsible Government, we will not be doing that.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her answers to oral questions on Tuesday, 21 May?

Well, yes, and I particularly stand by my statement that “I happen to believe that one of the greatest things we can do for productivity is send New Zealanders the message that there will be reward for their hard work.”

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her statement “These savings and revenue initiatives are the same as those in the National Party’s tax plan, with some adjustment to reflect coalition agreements.”; if so, where in the coalition agreement does it say that first-home grants will be scrapped?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, the member should’ve listened to the rest of the answers, in which I said, “Tax relief in the Budget will be fully funded through savings and revenue initiatives. These savings and revenue initiatives are the same as those in the National Party’s tax plan, with some adjustments to reflect coalition agreements. There will also”—[Interruption] and the members should listen, because, clearly, members didn’t listen yesterday—“be other savings in the Budget. These savings will be directed towards Government priorities, including front-line public services.”, including social housing for our most vulnerable New Zealanders.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why has she chosen to support landlords with a $2.9 billion tax break but cut the funding to help first-home buyers?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We have chosen to support renters because we don’t want to see the acceleration in rents they faced under that Government, and we are taking policy actions to put downward pressure on rents.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her statement “These savings and revenue initiatives are the same as those in the National Party’s tax plan.”; if so, can she rule out a foreign buyers tax?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, and yes—and I can’t wait to show you what this Government has done next week.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are there any new revenue initiatives not contained in the coalition agreements or the National Party tax plan that Kiwis can expect in the Budget?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Eight more sleeps.

Question No. 5—Housing

5. to the Minister of Housing: What announcements has he made regarding social housing?

Today, I was proud to announce that the Government is investing in social housing for New Zealanders who are most in need of a warm, dry home. Budget 2024 will allocate $140 million in new funding for 1,500 new social housing places to be provided by community housing providers, not Kāinga Ora, thanks to savings found by ending the First Home Grant. As the House has discussed previously, funding for new social housing places under the previous Government ends in June 2025—another fiscal cliff we’ve had to confront. These places will start to become available from July 2025, giving the sector much-needed certainty about the pipeline, allowing them to plan for the future.

Paulo Garcia: Why are these places going to community housing providers and not Kāinga Ora?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, as the House discussed yesterday and as I announced on Monday, the independent review into Kāinga Ora reveals that it’s not financially sustainable in its current form. And until we have received, as the Government, and approved a turnaround plan from the refreshed board, we will not be giving any new social housing places to them. The community housing sector does an outstanding job of housing people in need—currently over 13,000 social houses around New Zealand. They’ve got the capability, expertise, and desire to grow further, and this Government’s going to back them to succeed.

Paulo Garcia: How will you pay for these 1,500 places?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: As I said before, funding for the new social housing places ends in June 2025, and we are filling in this fiscal cliff by ending the First Home Grant. Budget 2024 is about tough decisions, and we have made a deliberate choice to reprioritise low-value expenditure to more important policy priorities. At a time when the wait-list for social housing is over 25,000 applicants, we have made the tough call to prioritise support for them. The First Home Grant provides a median of $5,000 towards a house deposit, but it is an expensive and inefficient way to support first-home buyers. We are doing the right thing and focusing on supply side solutions to our housing crisis.

Paulo Garcia: What support for first-home buyers will the Government be retaining?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We’re retaining the First Home Loan scheme, which is effective at supporting buyers over the deposit barrier. This allows first-home buyers to purchase a home with a deposit as low as 5 percent. We’re also retaining the ability for KiwiSaver members to withdraw funds for a first-home deposit. The First Home Loan helps thousands of Kiwis into their first homes every year. It’s more effective at supporting New Zealanders over the deposit barrier, and this is the right thing to do to support New Zealanders in need.

SPEAKER: Supplementary question—the Rt Hon Winston—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Minister please deal with the—

SPEAKER: I can’t even get your name out.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Pardon?

SPEAKER: You’re off the mark pretty quick. I hadn’t even said your full name. You want the nation to hear—supplementary question, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Modesty prevents me saying anything, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Minister: could he possibly deal with the question that came by way of objection but is the specialty of the member who shouted it out, Rachel Boyack, when she shouted out “Rubbish”?

SPEAKER: No, we’ll let that one go.

Question No. 6—Housing

6. to the Minister of Housing: Is it correct, as reported yesterday on Newshub, that the Government intends to scrap grants to first-home buyers?

Yes.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does the Minister agree that many first-home buyers have relied on the First Home Grant to purchase their first home, including 10,000 last year?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, actually, last year—the member’s wrong—7,800 people received the First Home Grant, so the member’s wrong on that. The second point is that the evidence suggests that it brings forward the purchase of a home because it provides money towards the deposit, but it doesn’t actually make the difference for most people between buying a house or not buying a house and that is one of the reasons why we have reprioritised it to higher-value expenditure.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he stand by his statement on 28 March this year that “The Government is determined to see more New Zealanders in homeownership.”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Absolutely, which is why we have a comprehensive five-point plan to fix our housing crisis. I’m happy to detail it for the member in response to that patsy, but the member’s heard it before, which is about opening up land supply at the edge of our cities and going up inside our cities; fixing our infrastructure funding and financing system; actually doing what Phil Twyford promised to do five years ago, which is smash the metropolitan urban limit in Auckland; focusing on building and construction changes being led by Chris Penk; fixing the Resource Management Act; delivering better social housing; and fixing the private rental market.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does the Minister agree that if there are fewer first-home buyers purchasing a home, then there will be more people renting?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I mean, look, I can’t believe the member is now literally—literally—stating truisms in the House. Yes, it is true, obviously, that if the number of first-home buyers goes down, most of those people will be renting. Homeownership in New Zealand is at record lows. It is down to 63 percent. That is part of the crisis we’ve inherited from the last Government. But, actually, that goes back 20 or 30 years, which is why we have, as I just said, a comprehensive plan around land supply, infrastructure, incentives for councils, lowering the cost of building consents, fixing our planning system, fixing our private rental market. We are determined to focus on the underlying problems afflicting our housing market, which is not demand side measures, like first-home grants, but supply side measures. Because as the member, I think, is learning, unless and until you fix the supply side of the market, everything else is tinkering. We are fixing the underlying fundamentals.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Are first-home buyers, therefore, justified in feeling like they’ve been kicked in the guts when the Government has given landlords a $2.9 billion tax cut, but he won’t keep a $60 million scheme that helped them buy their first home?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: As I said on the bridge on the way here, this will not be a decision that is popular with people who are looking to buy a first home; I freely acknowledge that. But government is about doing the right thing and making the tough decisions. So I appreciate that this will not please everybody, but, actually, government is about doing the right thing, and the last Government lapsed far too easily into thinking that the solution to every problem was to throw money at it. Actually, when it comes to our housing crisis, the solution is supply side reforms. We are doing the right thing and reprioritising the expenditure to New Zealanders who need it most. I appreciate that first-home buyers won’t like it, but I tell you what else, I’m sure the member doesn’t like—and I’m sure every member in this House doesn’t like—25,000 people in severe and urgent need of housing on the wait-list who need a warm and dry home—

Hon Peeni Henare: So build more.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: And the member says “build more”—that is what I announced today, Peeni Henare. That is what I announced today; the member needs to listen up.

Question No. 7—Children

7. to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by all her statements and actions in relation to the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill?

Yes—especially my statement that “Every child deserves the same level of care and support based on their needs, and their safety and wellbeing should always come first.”, and also my statement that “I want our system to ensure that every child in this country is raised in a loving and stable home that sets them up to succeed for life, regardless of race or culture.”

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does she accept that the repeal of section 7AA is a repeal of the relationships Oranga Tamariki have made with iwi, hapū, and kaupapa Māori organisations, and, if not, what will her approach be when “entering into further strategic partnership agreements with iwi or Māori organisations”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: In answer to the first part of the question, no. In answer to the second part of the question, I don’t know how much clearer I can make it: I have said over and over again in this House that strategic partnerships will not change and that I will continue to make sure that if these programmes are working well and in the best interest of our young people, they will continue and more will be created if that is what’s best for our children.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does she agree with her statement that “This Bill does not stop the consideration of cultural wellbeing of children and young people in the care of Oranga Tamariki.”, and, if so, can she provide examples of what consideration of cultural wellbeing will look like without section 7AA?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: In relation to the first part of the question, yes.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I was seeking some examples and they didn’t show up—excuse me.

SPEAKER: You’ve put two legs in the question; the Minister chose to answer one of those. [Interruption] If you don’t mind, it’s supposed to be a point of order. So—when the House is quiet—it’s always been the rule that if there are two legs to a question, the Minister can choose which part to answer.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: If the ACT Party “wants to make sure the wellbeing of the child is the paramount consideration of Oranga Tamariki”, what reassurance can she provide to tamariki Māori now that she has committed the further severing of their connection to whakapapa and sense of belonging?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: This is not an ACT Party decision; this is an all-of-Government decision, because, as a Government, we are committed to making sure that our young people have every opportunity to the best start in life.

Hon Tama Potaka: Is it expected that credible iwi and kaupapa Māori providers who are working with Oranga Tamariki already will continue to engage with Oranga Tamariki to support tamariki Māori?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Absolutely, and I have spent the first few months since becoming Minister for Children going around the country and speaking to those iwi and strategic partnerships to make sure I’ve made it very clear that I’m looking forward to working with them in the future, for the betterment of our young people.

Question No. 8—Children

8. to the Minister for Children: What reports, if any, has she seen on section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989?

I have seen reports of cases where social workers may have used section 7AA to justify decisions on care arrangements for Māori children which may not have been safe or in their best interests. For example, the members of this House will know about the case of a young girl referred to as “Moana”. After suffering trauma and neglect, Moana was placed with a safe and loving foster family. After a number of years with her foster family and being in a safe environment for the first time, Oranga Tamariki suddenly decided to uplift Moana, because her foster parents were Pākehā and Oranga Tamariki didn’t think they could provide for her cultural needs. Cultural needs can never be at the expense of the safety and wellbeing and best interests of our children.

Hon Nicole McKee: What other reports or statements has the Minister seen on section 7AA?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Because that wasn’t one.

SPEAKER: Look, just calm a little bit.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have seen a statement claiming that if section 7AA was around when I was a child, I would have been “raised Māori” and would have been connected with my whakapapa and would have known my Māoritanga. The statement goes on to say that I was raised Pākehā with a “disconnection and disdain” for my own people and that my experience is exactly why we need section 7AA. I’m not going to stand here and justify how I was raised—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Well, you are—yes, you are. That’s exactly what you’re doing.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: —but I am also not going to let anyone else, especially Te Pāti Māori, think that they can tell my story for me, especially when they have no idea what they’re talking about.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: That was her own report.

Rawiri Waititi: She said it herself.

SPEAKER: Just when everyone’s settled.

Hon Nicole McKee: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the repeal of section 7AA mean the end of strategic partnerships that Oranga Tamariki has with iwi and Māori organisations?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have been very clear, throughout this process, that Oranga Tamariki should continue with strategic partnerships, and I will continue saying that over and over again until people listen. Where these are delivering positive results and better outcomes for our young people, they will continue. Oranga Tamariki currently have 10 strategic partnerships, and I have directed officials to continue with these and enter into new partnerships when and where there are good reasons to do so. I have also received advice from officials that makes it very certain that repealing section 7AA will not prevent Oranga Tamariki from continuing to work with existing strategic partners or entering into new strategic partnerships.

Hon Nicole McKee: Does the Minister agree with the statement that “The repeal of Section 7AA is a targeted extermination of our babies … exterminating any ounce of culture, identity and any sense of Māori selves.”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: No, I don’t. As I’ve said consistently, this is about ensuring Oranga Tamariki puts the safety, wellbeing, and the best interests of children, not race, at the forefront of social-work practice and decision making. I can’t understand how anyone can think there is anything more important than the safety and wellbeing of our children. Repealing section 7AA is not about disregarding the whakapapa of Māori children; section 7AA places duties on the chief executive that are at odds with the agency’s primary purpose, which is to support the wellbeing of our most vulnerable and at-risk children.

Question No. 9—Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence

9. to the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence: Does she agree with the omission of a reduction in family violence from the Prime Minister’s Public Service targets?

No, because family violence is not omitted from the Government’s nine targets—it is part of the “Reducing violent crime” target. I am proud to be part of a coalition Government which is committed to restoring law and order and putting victims first. This is why we have a series of targets that will focus the public sector on achieving improved results in this area, including reducing crime, with a target of 20,000 fewer people as victims of assaults, robberies, and sexual assaults by 2029. This Government is committed to, and has already announced, a range of measures that help the victims of family violence, including bringing back three-strikes legislation with the addition of the new strangulation and suffocation offence, and backing police to crack down on gangs.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How does she think victims of family and sexual violence will respond to the knowledge that this Government will only develop targets that are “responsive” to Government intervention?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Just because family violence is not a stand-alone target among the nine Government targets does not mean it is not a priority. This Government considered a range of targets and measures and settled on nine measures that it believes will best focus the public sector on achieving better results.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with the advice of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that developing a specific target for family violence was not suitable as “family violence victimisations are unlikely to change over a three- to six-month period and therefore it is not specific enough to drive delivery.”; if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I received a range of advice on this topic and I also received advice from officials that a stand-alone family violence target was not suitable for a number of reasons, including that an increase in reporting can be seen as an improvement as more people seek help, and currently, under successive Governments, the key measures regarding family violence are not well suited to the setting of or reporting against quarterly targets.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Can the Minister just restate that, please: that she did not record a family violence target because it would go up as more family violence interventions were reported?

SPEAKER: No, I don’t think that’s—ask a question.

Hon Ginny Andersen: I’ll reframe it; sorry. Is it the Minister’s view that she did not think it—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry. There was a question being asked, so, please, ask it again. The House will be quiet.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is it the Minister’s view that it was not necessary to develop a specific target for family and sexual violence because it would show an increase in reporting of instances of family and sexual violence?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: No, that’s not what I said. What I said was the advice was we could seem like we have achieved something when we actually haven’t. The advice may see that an increase in reporting could be seen as an improvement, when, actually, it just means more people are reporting—doesn’t mean that we’ve made successes in that space.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she think it’s acceptable to only develop targets that are easy to measure and easy to achieve, and, if so, where does this leave victims of family and sexual violence?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: As I’ve travelled around the country the last couple of months, talking to NGOs and community organisations on where they see the gaps and where they see the Government can help them in this space, I realise there is a lot of work to do and we have to make sure that we’re actually listening to the people on the ground and making a real positive difference in this space rather than reactionary legislation and targets that don’t make a damn bit of difference.

Question No. 10—Housing

10. to the Minister of Housing: Does he believe everyone in New Zealand should have a secure home; if so, how does he reconcile this with his Government’s intention to make it easier to evict people from their homes?

Yes, I believe everyone should be able to access a warm and dry home to live in. The intent of our tenancy policy changes is to encourage more landlords into the market so that people can access those homes.

Tamatha Paul: Does he accept the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) advice that evidence is uncertain that no-cause evictions will put downward pressures on rents but that the evidence is clear that security of tenancy for renters will be negatively impacted?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that’s the official advice from HUD. What I do believe, as I’ve heard from many landlords and many people out there who work with vulnerable tenants, is that bringing back no-cause evictions will enable landlords to take a chance on often quite vulnerable tenants who are trying to access rental properties. That is a good thing for New Zealanders.

Tamatha Paul: Does he agree with the president of the Canterbury Property Investors’ Association, who said about no-cause evictions, “Instead of getting maintenance, they get a 90-day notice to end their tenancy.”, and, if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I haven’t seen the quote from that particular individual in its full context, but, generally, I disagree with that.

Tamatha Paul: What does he say to one renter who told us that they remember their “mum crying because we received a 90-day notice just days after we filed a healthy homes report because my room was completely covered in mould, there were slugs entering under doors every night, and none of the walls were insulated”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Government supports the healthy homes standards, and I would say to that renter exactly that. It is also illegal to do that on the grounds of what the member is talking about. I would say more generally the whole thrust of our housing policies, as I discussed with Manawatu Tenants’ Union and a whole range of people working in this advocacy space this morning, is to improve homeownership for New Zealanders and improve the lives of renters by putting downward pressure on rents. It is too expensive to own houses in New Zealand. It is too expensive to rent in New Zealand. We are fixing the underlying issues in our housing market that have caused that to be the case.

Tamatha Paul: What does he say to one person who told us that “My elderly grandfather was kicked out each year for three years in a row, from three places, and it was so sad seeing him shuffled along every year. It was such an ordeal moving him. He wasn’t eligible for funding for a place in a rest home and didn’t have enough money to pay for one.”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I have every sympathy with people in those situations, but I can’t comment on those individual circumstances. What we are trying to do is get the balance right between tenants and landlords, and also make it clear that landlords that wish to provide properties to people who they might otherwise have turned down are willing to take a chance on people. The member needs to appreciate that the policy intent is positive not negative.

Question No. 11—Transport

11. to the Associate Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made regarding coastguards and lifeguards?

Last Friday, I announced with the Prime Minister and Minister of Transport, the Hon Simeon Brown, that through Budget 2024 the Government would be providing an additional $63.6 million over four years to fund Coastguard New Zealand and Surf Lifesaving New Zealand so that these NGOs can continue to deliver their essential front-line water safety and rescue and prevention services across New Zealand. Heading to the beach, lake, or a river for a fun day of activity in the water is part of the Kiwi way of life, particularly in the summer. With that comes inherent risk, and these front-line organisations do critical work to help ensure people can head home safe.

Catherine Wedd: How much funding will each organisation receive?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Coastguard New Zealand will receive $19.5 million over four years, while Surf Lifesaving New Zealand will receive $44 million over the same period. This is operational funding to help address cost pressures faced by these organisations. This will ensure they’re able to continue to deliver their essential front-line water safety, rescue, and prevention services across New Zealand. Coastguard New Zealand and Surf Lifesaving provide an essential public service that benefits the health, safety, and wellbeing of New Zealanders. The Government is committed to ensuring that these services continue to prevent harm and save lives on our beaches and in the water.

Catherine Wedd: Why is the Government funding these organisations?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: The Hon Matt Doocey.

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Oh, thank you. I just thought I’d wait for you to call me.

SPEAKER: It’s strange; it’s not election year.

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Surf Lifesaving and the Coastguard are both experiencing increased demand for services at a time when costs are increasing due to the cost of living crisis. Costs for wages and equipment continue to rise, as do general operating costs such as electricity, insurance, and rates. This Government is committed to eliminating wasteful spending and getting money out of Wellington and into the front-line services that are delivering. This funding will ensure that our current levels of services are maintained and ensures that they can meet the increasing levels of demand. Costs are rising across the board for these organisations, with services delivered almost entirely by volunteers. Funding will cover operational expenses for both organisations, as well as rescue equipment, facilities, and maintenance.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Catherine Wedd.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What sort of a system have you got here?

SPEAKER: You know, they get through.

Catherine Wedd: What other announcements has he made regarding lifeguards?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Last night, I was pleased to present the 2023 New Zealand Search and Rescue Awards at Parliament. These awards are presented annually in recognition of outstanding achievements. Forty nominations were received in 2023, with two gold awards and 10 certificates of achievement being awarded at this year’s ceremony. A quick count of the support category recipients last night revealed they have over 170 years of search and rescue experience between them. I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge the people at Coastguard, Surf Lifesaving, and other organisations working in search and rescue for their dedication and commitment to ensuring New Zealanders’ safety.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether he’s received accolades and congratulations for this policy, belatedly so, because it was part of the coalition negotiations which failed at the time, but which they’ve now come around to seeing as a brilliant idea?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: As the Deputy Prime Minister says, this was a coalition agreement very similar to the other coalition agreement we announced today with $24 million for Gumboot Friday—two examples of this coalition Government getting money out of Wellington to grassroots organisations.

Question No. 12—Children

12. to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her expectation of Oranga Tamariki “that the best interests of our young people are at the forefront of all their decision making”?

Yes.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How is it in the best interests of children and young people to add specialist legal work to Oranga Tamariki social workers, work that they are not trained for, and in an organisation where they are already 160 social workers short?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: One of the premises of the consultation document is lifting performance and accountability across the organisation, whereby functional leads would have sole responsibility for delivery in areas that they own. As a result, Oranga Tamariki proposed that legal services should focus on their core court-related roles and for some other functions that they are doing to be led and delivered by those who are responsible and accountable for them. Every part of this is still a proposal and no final decisions have been made.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she agree with the Law Society that Oranga Tamariki lawyers and social workers have distinct specialist front-line roles, and that the services these lawyers provide cannot simply be carried out by others in the organisation—for example, social workers who already face complex and heavy workloads—and, if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: No, I don’t agree, because “front line” has been defined—the advice is that front-line staff roles are considered to be children’s workers, as defined in section 23 of the Children’s Act, and the definition of “front-line service” is an operational matter for Oranga Tamariki. I’m advised that Oranga Tamariki considers front-line services to be those provided by staff directly to children and families. While Oranga Tamariki solicitors provide valuable support to social workers in carrying out their statutory functions, they do not provide direct services to children or their families.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she agree with the family law section of the Law Society, who say that they hold significant concerns about the potential consequences for the safety and wellbeing of whānau and vulnerable tamariki, should there be a reduction in either of those roles, as well as the proper functioning of the Family Court?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Can I just make this very clear: this is still a proposal and no final decisions have been made.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How is it in the best interests of children to slash the Safety of Children in Care team, which reports on children abused while they are in care?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: There are many departments that the work will still continue, they’re just being consolidated under less managers so that the managers can get out of the way so they can make better decision-making.

Hon David Seymour: Is it the Minister’s leadership style to see the staff that work for her department as capable and worth backing, rather than running them down before a review is even complete?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I believe and I truly appreciate the hard work, and every member who goes out there and works on the ground with our young people deserves to be applauded. What we are doing is making sure we are resourcing those workers on the ground every day, doing that hard work, rather than resourcing more managers in the back office.