Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill

Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Was that a point of order? A point of order, Arena Williams.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. In the Business Committee’s determination on this matter, they resolved that the Minister of Housing and the Associate Minister of Housing would be available—and he has appeared. Madam Chair, I also note that the select committee chair for this appropriation is not available to take a call, so I ask for five minutes extra to take a call in his place.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Well, I haven’t actually finished my introduction yet, either. The question, again, is that the Votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriation for 2026/27 stand part of the schedules. Members, we start with the Minister of Housing. The Minister is available to speak to that portfolio for 35 minutes, noting, Minister, that National has 15 minutes remaining.

Hon Chris Bishop: I’ll keep my remarks terse.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thank you—and—Arena Williams.

ARENA WILLIAMS: I seek leave for five minutes to take the call of the select committee chairperson, to give a five-minute account of the chairperson’s findings on this report.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): That’s fine, but it will come off New Zealand Labour’s time.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Not what I asked for. Would you put the leave?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Are you seeking leave for—

Arena Williams: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): “I seek leave for that time adjustment to be made.” Is there any objection?

Hon Member: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Arena Williams.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the Minister of Housing for being available at this 11th hour. My first question to him is about a genuine point of engagement that the select committee had in his Estimates hearing. There had been 532 people released from prison to no fixed abode at the time of that hearing, a 24 percent increase on the previous year. The Minister expressed his own personal concern about that number. It was too high, as he said. We agree with that. What has he done in the intervening period to improve that number?

The first issue is getting accurate data around people who leave prison, and where they go, is difficult. OK? The starting point for all of this that we don’t know enough about what happens, and we’re doing some work to dig into that. That’s the starting point. I’m dissatisfied about the amount of information that’s there. At a level—and I think the member will appreciate this—once you’ve served your time, you leave prison, and I think the State has a responsibility to make sure you have adequate housing. There is an issue about how much we investigate people’s circumstances, so there is a practical problem there. We don’t track everyone around society. That’s the starting point.

We’re doing some work, as I talked about at the committee, around what is probably best described as priority cohorts, which is a fairly mechanistic way of talking about people, because people aren’t cohorts. People are people. What I mean by that is: we’re doing some work around making sure the social housing system is prioritised for those who need it most. I think if you asked most people, they would say, “Well, yeah, social housing, State housing, should go to those who need it.” Most people would agree with that, but it’s not really the reality. Or, certainly, it’s nowhere near as calibrated enough as it could be. Some of the early data—we’re doing that work now—it’s going to take some time to do. We’re applying the social investment lens to it, we’re using the Integrated Data Infrastructure system, which the member will be familiar with. I suppose the key point is we’re digging into that now. We’ve got a long way to go to fix this system, no doubt about that.

As the Minister of Housing might remember, during the Estimates scrutiny session, one of the points that I’m most concerned about in terms of the Estimates is the changes to the income-related rent subsidy, and subsequent changes from there. Since those answers were provided, I’ve been able to dig into some of data. To refresh the Minister, this is a change that will impact over 80,000 households, and for those households their rent may increase on an average of $31 per week.

Now, one of the rationales that the Minister gave at the time for this work is work that has happened to identify how many Kāinga Ora tenants can afford lower quartile rents. But, after doing some digging, I found that, as of 20 July 2026, there were just 2,569 rentals listed on TradeMe that are below the lower quartile rent. The changes that the Minister has decided to make affect approximately 26,000 households that the Government thinks can afford a lower quartile rent. What work has the Minister done, since making the announcement or before that, to actually know if those tenants—who they are assuming can afford lower quartile rent—will actually be able to find a home within that lower quartile rent range, and do they exist?

Very briefly, the work on the review of social housing is a long-term, multi-year reform effort, and we’ve set up an advisory group that is working with senior folk in the community housing sector and experts in the field around designing the changes that come from here. That work is under way, and if we are given the privilege of a second term, we’ll continue that work.

Further to that question, in the Estimates hearing, we couldn’t get a number out of the Minister about how many more social houses are being built and how many families are still waiting for those houses. It goes to the point of Tamatha Paul that there are, as the Minister claims, about 30 percent of people who are in social homes now who can afford low rents, and yet that’s on the back of a Government that is not making it clear how many more places are being provided for those people who need them. He’s also changed the rules so it is easier to evict tenants; 90-day evict-at-will provisions are back under this Government. Law changes that make it harder for exactly these tenants to remain in secure homes are back on the agenda, and so what is it, as part of the Government’s programme, that actually enables any of that? If it were true that these people need to be housed by the private market, then surely it would be the Government’s policy to improve the factors that mean it is possible for them to house not only themselves but their children in private rental homes.

The member seems unfamiliar with the publicly available data on all of this stuff. I would encourage her to go to the public Housing Dashboard, which will give her—down to the individual number, broken down by territorial local authority area—the number of people on the wait-list, which is around 19,000. It has come down by 7,000 with this term and time of Government. It will also tell her, to excruciating detail, where social houses are around the country. That data is all publicly available, and I’m surprised, frankly, that she doesn’t know that. Between 30 November 2023 and 31 July 2026, 8,488 social homes have been delivered. That’s a net number, by the way, taking into account demos and sales.

She also asked about various different funding commitments. Budget 2024 funded 1,500 new social homes, funded from the removal of the First Home Grant, which was an ineffective way of supporting first-home buyers. We’re actually getting more out of the money appropriated for the 1,500 than we thought. From memory, it’s about 1,600—around about that. It’s around about 1,600. Don’t quote me specifically, but we’re getting more than we thought we would. It might be 1,550—here we are; I’ve got it right here: 1,554. It’s more than we thought. In Budget 2025, we funded 550 new homes for Auckland specifically. Again, we’re getting, actually, more than we expected—about 637 to 669. Budget 2025 put money into the Flexible Fund, which was meant to be 675 to 750. We’ve actually just announced 823. Time is against me, but I could give you chapter and verse about how we are building in the right places, including the East Coast—Tairāwhiti—and the Far North where the need is real great. Then Budget 2026 put more money into the Flexible Fund with 1,800 to 2,250 homes. All up, when you add all those together, there are 4,800 to 5,200 additional social homes and affordable rentals. And I haven’t even counted the Māori housing funding, which does continue on from some of what the last Government established, but we’ve also made sure we getting really good bang for buck through there.

Here’s the take-home point: at the end of this Government’s time in office, for the first time in New Zealand history, we have a four-year funded pipeline, not just a made-up pipeline—funded as in there is money there, appropriated in the Budget, ring-fenced for the community housing provider (CHP) sector, a funded four-year pipeline of community and social houses, and we have the liquidity support behind the Community Housing Funding Authority, which is part of the reason why we are able to deliver so many more homes than we initially budgeted for. By coming in behind the Community Housing Funding Authority, we’ve lowered the cost that the CHPs are facing through the debt that they have to finance. By doing that, we’re also getting more bang for buck for the Government. It’s a good news story, as they say, and I’m sure the member will welcome it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, let’s focus on the Flexible Fund homes then. Of the 1,800 to 2,250, it’s unclear, firstly, how many of those are social housing places for families on the register. There’s another category which is “Other”—why? And of those Flexible Fund homes, they don’t deliver anything until 2028-29. What’s being built in the meantime?

Sorry, I didn’t catch the second part of that member’s question, but I think I know what it was. In terms of the Budget 2025 Flexible Fund, which is the 823 we announced today, we’ve publicly released the mixture of social and affordable rentals. From memory, it’s about 35 percent affordable, 65 percent social. We’ve made a deliberate decision around the affordable rentals piece. Let me just walk the member through the logic very briefly since I’m conscious of time. In the Flexible Fund—again, this is one of the advantages of it—rather than just a giant wodge of operating funding, there’s capital in there as well, so it’s both operating and capital. By using the capital in the Flexible Fund, we can do some stuff with the affordable rentals, and it’s actually a more economic use of Government money to do some affordable rentals.

The second issue there is that there is a cliff-face between social housing and the private rental market. In fact, it goes to the point that Ms Paul was making before around the cliff-face between once you leave social housing, you’re expected to go on the private rental market, and it’s difficult. Affordable rentals kind of fill in the gap a bit, and this has been recognised. Megan Woods used to talk about it as well. There is a real role for affordable rentals there. In relation to the Budget 2026 Flexible Fund, we don’t know what the mix of that will be yet, because we’re not in procurement yet. That is for 1 July 2028 to 31 December 2031. That will go into procurement, probably in quarter one or quarter two next year sometime.

I’ve got two quicker questions. The first one goes back to that Budget scrutiny week session that we had. I raised with you, Minister, a graph that showed how Tenancy Services have progressively been taking longer to return bonds. Could you inform the committee how you’ve taken action on that since that session?

The other question that I had is in relation to the announcement around Arlington public housing here in Wellington, in Mount Cook, and the money that is set aside for that development. I wanted to ask the Minister—obviously I know and he knows that the land is a dud—whether himself and Kāinga Ora and potentially the council, if he can answer that from their perspective, had a look at land that Kāinga Ora owns around Wellington or could acquire because they sold off land on Adelaide Road, that prime car park brownfields space that might have been a better alternative to build more public housing on at a more affordable cost than what you’re dealing with Arlington. Could you just talk to us about what process and alternatives you explored now that that decision’s been made?

On the bond return issue, yes, I remember the conversation well. I also spoke to—at roundabout the same time; it might have been slightly before or slightly after—a group of residential property managers who gave me chapter and verse about the problems with the new system. Part of the challenge is we’re in the middle of what’s called the bond modernisation programme. The old system was flunking out of date. It’s actually, I’m advised, performing pretty well now. I’m happy to have feedback to the contrary. I do get the occasional email from people saying that this is not working properly. There’s been a bit of an IT transition issue. We’re essentially moving towards a much more digital system, so it will be easier for the vast bulk of people using the system to use, and that’s under way. I’m happy to receive feedback. If the member wants to write to me, I’m happy to look at it.

But I did go away and say to the team—it’s an under-appreciated part of the housing market, Tenancy Services and the bond system, but it’s really important. If you’re waiting to get your bond back, it can be, you know, two, three—I remember those student days, waiting to get 1,500 bucks back. It’s like, “I want my money, because I’ve got to pay the bond with the next one.” or “I just want my cash.” I remember that. The member Tamatha Paul’s closer in age to that cohort of people than I am. That’s the first issue.

On Arlington, I mean, I think the member’s familiar with the background to it. It was $296 million for 300 social units. The previous Minister of Housing directed that they all be social housing units. Then the cost came in at $423 million, which was too much even for the last Government. They blanched at that so the project was put on ice. Kāinga Ora’s done a lot of work on it. Obviously, the foundations have been laid there. They’ve done a lot of work about the use of the site. I’m not an expert on site economics or engineering or anything like that, but they’ve stress tested it pretty well, which is why it’s taken a bit of time to get to this point. I’m pretty happy with the outcome. I appreciate the member wants more houses on the site. I’m advised the economics are very challenging because of the way it’s laid out and ground conditions and things like that. Again, I’m not an expert; I’m just relaying what I’ve been told by the people who do know this.

In relation to the wider point around the wider Wellington developments, I mean, just today, Kāinga Ora (KO) has announced they’re redeveloping the old dungers in Strathmore—Ngatiapa Street, I think it is. I forget the exact name, but they’re demolishing them and then they’re going to start construction in late 2027, early 2028, from memory. I know that will be widely welcomed by the community.

I mean, this is the thing. There’s a sort of constant refrain that KO doesn’t build anymore. Like, nothing could be further from the truth. They’re building all the time—building all the time. In fact, Tama Potaka and I visited four new homes in Waiwhetū on Friday, I think it was—it might have been Thursday. Time just fades into the mists—and we were in the middle of urgency. We visited—this is a great story. Very briefly, we visited one old 1950s KO dunger in Lower Hutt. Four new houses—two two-bedroom units; two three-bedroom units—standardised, optimised design; average build cost 2,300 bucks a square. When we came in, the average was 3,400 bucks; now down to 2,300. An 80-year-old moving into one of those units in the back, A20 on the housing register; and a whānau in the front moving in who are currently in transitional housing—that’s a great outcome. That’s what I call value for money and that’s what I call making a difference.

Thank you for those answers, Minister. Last week in the House, I asked him some questions around his comments that the amount of shelter available to those who are rough sleeping didn’t sit comfortably with him and we weren’t able to get into a conversation of figures. But to bring it back to the Estimates, the funding available in this Budget for homelessness support has been reduced by $16 million and is $75 million less than 2024 and 2025 despite the fact that some organisations like Community Housing Aotearoa, the peak body for all community housing providers in Aotearoa, are reporting that we are experiencing the highest levels of homelessness in this country’s history. But you wouldn’t know that if you looked at the Estimates, because what we see is a reduction in funding for Housing First and for transitional housing and for initiatives designed to reduce homelessness.

Can the Minister of Housing talk about what Budget bids he made or what sits within these Estimates to address the fact that there is not guaranteed shelter for any person who is rough sleeping in this country, particularly given that it has been reported in the last week that four people rough sleeping have died on our streets, including one person who was reported to pass away outside Minister Goldsmith’s office this week.

There’s no doubt that there are a number of people doing it really tough out there, sleeping rough, and with some pretty poor housing conditions. There’s a lot of serious housing deprivation out there. On the other side, there’s a considerable amount of pūtea or money that’s allocated to addressing or redressing homelessness. Our mantra is always trying to make sure we get the right house in the right location with the right support for those in very serious housing need.

There was a mention of statistics and there are variable statistics over whether or not homelessness or rough sleeping has increased or decreased in various towns and cities throughout the country. There is a homelessness insights report which has been contributed to by various housing advocates and housing organisations. That report says that in some cities like Auckland, those that are rough sleeping have come down. In other places, they might have stabilised. In other places, they might have gone up. Clearly, there’s a need for some more consistent and aligned statistical information-gathering. But there is a considerable amount of pūtea and funding that’s put into responding to homelessness, whether it’s rapid rehousing or Housing First or transitional housing or even, indeed, emergency housing, but we know that emergency housing is a last resort for those with a genuine need for temporary accommodation.

In relation to the comment about Housing First, last year, we actually announced 300 additional places in September, and what we found was that at that time there were a number of places that were funded with organisations but weren’t being used. When the accountability blowtorch of Minister Goldsmith was applied to those housing providers and the work that our teams do at the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, we found out that actually over 100 places were then filled that were existing before we announced the extra funding for the Housing First 300. Since then, over 725 people have come in through Housing First—new folks that have come through that system as a result of our announcements—and, of course, making sure that we’ve got accountability throughout the system right up through to the Ministers and our officials as well.

In addition to that, we observed that there are some serious challenges around outreach. We announced $10 to $11 million last year, which went into four locations: Hamilton, Christchurch, Wellington, and Auckland. We doubled down on that. We announced $14.5 in allocations elsewhere to improve the provision of transitional and outreach services across other locations including Whakatāne, Wanganui, Waimakariri, New Plymouth, Napier, Tauranga, and now Kim’s Way in Masterton. We are doing a considerable amount to respond to that.

There are 13 minutes left in the housing debate, but the National Party’s got one minute left and I can see the clock counting down. It’s now 59 seconds. Can I move that for the remainder of the 13 minutes, we just allow a free-flow exchange around housing issues and we don’t deduct time and whatnot. This is a ridiculous process of time deductions. We’re happy to answer questions. I’ll try and keep them brief.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): This is a Business Committee decision.

Point of order, Madam Chair. I seek leave for the Minister of Housing to have an untimed response for the remainder of the housing Estimates debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I don’t believe I can put that leave, because it’s a decision of the Business Committee.

I have two minutes and I would ask that the ACT Party take some calls in this debate about what their preferences are for housing. I would like to ask them what their approach is to the Housing First places. It’s a serious question for the Associate Minister of Housing who resumed his chair. We are not clear in the committee how many more places have been funded. In that answer, he said there were 725 places that have been taken up after 100 places were funded and not taken up by the providers. The providers are telling us and are on the public record as saying that they are absorbing 895 unfunded places. These are Housing First providers who are in our communities—every electorate MP will have met with them—who are saying they desperately need more funding. So what is the story with the unfunded places?

I also want to ask the Minister whether, since his announcement, he has reflected on his own comments to the select committee that the ministry’s homelessness insights report was inaccurate and “not my data”, or is he saying that the other reports are more accurate than the Government’s own data?

Very briefly, we’ve never said that they were inaccurate, but they are a compilation of data from Rotorua, Christchurch, and Wellington. They are not official statistics; they are largely a compilation of data that comes from councils and community groups.

I mean, I feel like we’ve been over this multiple times: there is no one perfect measure of homelessness. Is it a problem in New Zealand? Absolutely. Are there too many people sleeping rough? Absolutely. Do we all want to do something about it? Yes, but it is not just a money problem. If it was a money problem, the $30 billion we’ve spent on housing between 2017 and 2023 would have fixed it. It didn’t; it got worse—officially got worse.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Minister’s time has expired, but before I take another call, I’ve had advice that with the leave of the committee, we can request that the Ministers are able to answer the questions without time limits, but it will be only for this particular segment. So, Minister, if you did—

In response to the assertion that there were 800 funded places, what I said—and you might check the Hansard from 10 minutes ago—was there were 300 additional Housing First places. There were also an existing 105 places that were funded, but weren’t filled. They were vacant, and that’s why I said that we all have to have accountability in this space—Ministers and officials but also, importantly, the housing providers—to make sure that the funded places are filled. Since we made that announcement in September—and I’ll spell it out so everyone can understand—724 people have come through those 405 places, because people come in and then they go out and they might go to transitional or other places, OK? So that was as at 30 June 2026.

There are a number of other arrangements in place where people might not go to Housing First. Although they’re rough sleeping, they might go from rough sleeping to transitional housing. There are also some immediate access places that are now being funded through various budgets up at Kāhui Tū Kaha and the Auckland City Mission. They, again, are a slightly different method of supporting people that are facing homelessness concerns, but those two are a pathway for people.

Hon Members: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m sorry, members, but—

Point of order, Madam Chairperson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I seek leave for the Ministers to have a free-ranging debate in this period of the Estimates housing debate to answer as they wish.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?

David MacLeod: Yes, objection.

Point of order, Madam Chairperson. I, therefore, then seek leave for another Government party to share some of their time so that the Ministers can give this debate the respect it deserves.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): They don’t need leave—

Hon Chris Bishop: You can’t do that.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): They don’t need leave from—

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to use this opportunity to talk about one of the actions that’s happened under this Government that I really would have loved to have asked the Minister of Housing about, and that is the ceasing of the building in Carroll Street in the Dunedin electorate. The Government likes to say that it’s making good decisions with taxpayer money, that it’s efficient, and that this is all about blown-out expenses, and so on, and yet we had a housing development that was so significantly important in Dunedin, in Carroll Street, that was going to provide much-needed accommodation for some of our families. For no rhyme or reason, with very little discussion and very little accountability now, we have seen this development stopped, and that is an utter waste of taxpayer money.

We know that we have people in Dunedin who are living in subzero temperatures at The Oval. There’s a section of my electorate which straddles Rachel Brooking’s electorate where we have what’s called “Tent City”. It is a sad indictment on our society that we have people living in subzero temperatures in these tents, unable to access accommodation, and yet just up the road—probably a couple of kilometres away—a full housing development was being built by Kāinga Ora. It had gone through the business case, the land had been bought, the building was getting done, and then, for no reason, suddenly it was stopped.

This is not just the Carroll Street development; there are other developments around Dunedin and the whole lower South. I am aware of some developments that were going to take place in Invercargill, where, arguably, the temperatures can be even colder, and the Minister’s response at the time, when we asked questions about why the developments were being stopped, was “Oh, we’ve got to make sure we’ve got the right house in the right place for the right family.” Well, tell those people who got evicted from the housing development in Invercargill, who had nowhere else to go to, that they were going to be the collateral for this Government to, basically, stop its building programme with what seems to be like a real dependence on the private sector for the social housing needs that this country desperately has.

I just want to put on the record that had the Minister been able to answer the questions, these are questions that people from Dunedin have raised continually with Rachel Brooking and myself. It comes up all the time. It comes up from my children every time we drive past The Oval, and we see those makeshift tents and we see people huddling there with blankets on because of the cold temperatures. We do not understand why this Government will not support housing developments that were already almost at completion and, instead, decided to pull the pin. We also do not understand why a place like Dunedin, which has done very well in the interrelationships between people and between organisations to help with housing, has, in a way, been a victim of its own success, because now we are finding that our charitable organisations in our NGO sector are getting caseloads from Cromwell and other places coming to Dunedin.

Those are my questions from the people of Dunedin. It’s a shame that the Minister can’t answer.

Mr Chair, tēnā koe. A couple of questions from me to the Minister of Housing, and I’ll start off first with this one: how many vacant houses are there currently in Aotearoa—if the Minister can answer that. Supplementary to that question is: what impact would a vacant house tax have on homelessness, and how many homes would the Government expect to be filled? I’ll leave that there for the Minister to ponder.

I want to also revisit rangatahi homelessness with a specific question: why has the Government continued to return $1.25 million a year from rangatahi transitional housing when its own housing system is reporting more people living without shelter and when rangatahi homelessness rates are still on the increase, especially in Tāmaki-makau-rau? How many rangatahi beds or supported accommodation places were lost because that funding was returned? How many rangatahi are currently waiting for transitional or supported housing? How many are Māori and how many are in my electorate of Tāmaki Makaurau?

What specific appropriation prevents a young person leaving State care, youth justice, hospital, or prison from entering homelessness? Does the Minister measure how many rangatahi are discharged from public services into homelessness; if not, how can he claim his spending is preventing it?

Lastly, will the Minister reinstate that $1.25 million and direct it back to Māori-led rangatahi homelessness prevention?

To the Minister of Housing: is he comfortable with the fact that this Budget and these Estimates are silent on providing additional, immediate-access transitional housing beds in New Zealand in the middle of a homelessness crisis? There are 65 immediate access transitional housing beds in the whole country, and they are all in Auckland. What about everybody who lives everywhere else?

Where are they supposed to go when they are moved on in a few months, when this Government’s legislation is enacted and when those people who are committing the crime of sleeping on the streets as a result of the choices that this Government has made—where are they to go if they don’t live in Auckland? Where are they meant to go, and how is he meant to sit in discomfort about that fact and have an Estimates Budget that does absolutely nothing about it?

I seek leave for one minute of somebody’s time just so I can respond—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Hold it a sec.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —to Parliament and do my job.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Hold it a sec. Does anybody on that side want to give the Minister one minute? Or over there—anyone? Yes, no?

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Speaking to the point of order, we are happy to offer the Minister of Housing time, but my understanding is that it needs to be agreed by the whips.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): What was that? So you’re going to give him a minute?

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: The Greens are happy to offer a minute to the Minister.

Immediate access transitional housing did not exist 12 to 18 months ago. It is a new response piloted by this Government, and only this Government, to respond to pressing needs. Yes, it exists in Auckland, and yes, if there are proposals in Wellington, and Julie Anne Genter and her colleagues have written to me about it, I’m sure the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport will assess those proposals from reputable providers. It didn’t exist 18 months ago. We have boosted transitional housing. We have boosted Housing First. We have made sure that the Housing First places that are already there, that weren’t being filled by the way, that providers actually go out and fill them, and Tama Potaka can give you a chapter and verse.

We’re making a difference on the ground. There is significant support going into addressing the real hard edge of the problems on the ground, but the immediate transitional housing didn’t exist two years ago. We created it in order to respond to the specific issues the member is raising.

Committee of the whole House

Children

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the Minister’s time in the chair has come to an end. We now have the Minister for Children. The Minister is available to speak to that portfolio for the remainder of the debate. National doesn’t have any time. Have you got an ACT Party—

Joseph Mooney: I thought it was the chairperson but that’s fine.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Or a deputy chair? Willow-Jean Prime, let’s go over here.