Wednesday, 1 May 2024 - Volume 775 Sitting date: 1 May 2024 WEDNESDAY, 1 MAY 2024 The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS SPEAKER: Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen. RESIGNATIONS Hon James Shaw, Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand SPEAKER: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Hon James Shaw, resigning his seat in the House with effect at 11.59 p.m. on Sunday, 5 May 2024. VISITORS United States of America—American Council of Young Political Leaders SPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to join me in welcoming visiting delegates from the American Council of Young Political Leaders on their exchange here in New Zealand. They are present in the gallery. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk. No papers have been delivered for presentation. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Standard Estimates Questionnaire 2024/25. SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading and the report on the Standard Estimates Questionnaire is set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Prime Minister 1. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes. And in particular, I stand by the Government's "phone away for the day" policy, which is so popular with parents and students and schools—and with great feedback from people like the Hornby High School head boy, Khush Patel, who said the ban "has helped students focus more academically". Cameron Stone, the principal of Stratford High School in the mighty Whanganui electorate—he said, "It's an awesome, overwhelming success for us." I have to say, I am proud to lead a Government that makes the changes that we need to ensure our kids are well set up for a great future, because we're getting our country back on track. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Wait on—just wait on. It's worth noting that when you watch this replay on TV, the person speaking is clearly audible, with a bit of mumble in the background, so most of that is denying the House an answer, as opposed to the general public. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I suspect there would have been a little less noise had half of the Government benches not been looking at their phones during the Prime Minister's answer. SPEAKER: Well, that's an interesting point but not a point of order. Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Point of order, Mr Speaker. If the House didn't hear it, I'm happy to repeat it. SPEAKER: Thank you for your generous offer. I'm not interested in hearing it again, so can we please have the supplementary from the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What will the average weekly cost be to families, due to the Government's decision to no longer fund half-price public transport for people under the age of 25? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It depends on their circumstances, but if the member would like to put the question in writing, we'll get him a proper answer. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why isn't he aware that, using the National Party's own tax cut calculator, someone in their early 20s that takes the bus each day and earns the average wage could be worse off by more than $70 a fortnight as a result of that change? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, I thank the member for their concern about that constituent, but what I'd say is that help is on the way, because we are going to deliver low and middle income tax relief to hard-working Kiwis. These are the people that the Labour Party used to care about but have long forgotten. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he aware that parents will now need to pay more to get their under-13s to school as a result of that change, while his Government is also threatening to cut the school lunch programme that could see those same parents $33 a week, per child, worse off? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I'd just say to that member, again, help is on the way to low and middle income New Zealanders doing it tough in a cost of living crisis created by that member's previous Government. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister as to whether people in Auckland would be catching the bus each day if light rail had been built as Labour promised? SPEAKER: That's one of those interventions that is interesting but not worthy of a question. Rt Hon Christopher Luxon: That's an excellent question. Can I answer that question? SPEAKER: Well, unless you've got responsibility for the failure of a previous policy, I don't think so. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will the $2.9 billion of tax cuts for landlords result in lower rents, given Trade Me reporting that rents have surged 8.3 percent since last year? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This Government is committed to putting downward pressure on rents, and we are bringing the brightline test back from 10 to two years; we're making sure we restore interest deductibility and we get the balance of laws right between tenants and landlords. But what I'd say to that member is we are not going to see a $170 per week increase in rents, as we saw under his administration. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So will rents decrease as a result of this Government's tax cuts for landlords? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The series of actions we're taking in the rental market will put downward pressure on rents. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What does he think best reflects his promised laser-like commitment to tackling the cost of living: higher public transport costs, his Government's new drivers tax, higher costs for prescriptions, higher rents, higher fuel prices, higher rates, lower pay increases, or higher unemployment? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I can tell you there is a series of things that this Government is doing to focus on lowering the cost of living and lowering inflation. We've got the Reserve Bank focused on a single target of fighting inflation, we've actually made sure we've introduced our Family Boost policy to give families that are struggling with childcare costs some support and subsidy, and we're making sure that we're going to give tax relief in this Budget for low and middle income working New Zealanders. We're serious about lowering inflation, and isn't it good that inflation hit 4 percent—the lowest it's been for three years—we're on our way. Question No. 2—Justice 2. TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori —Te Tai Tonga) to the Associate Minister of Justice: What evidence, if any, does she have that reintroducing three-strikes legislation will reduce crime in Aotearoa? Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): The Ministry of Justice has previously produced an evidence brief suggesting that reintroducing the three-strikes legislation in New Zealand has the potential to reduce crime. US studies on similar laws have shown reductions in both minor and serious violent crimes, along with decreased arrest rates among offenders with previous strikes. The tougher sentences for offending that this regime will introduce for second- and third-strike offenders will ultimately keep serious repeat violent and sexual offenders off the street and prevent them from victimising more New Zealanders, including Māori. Tākuta Ferris: What is the response to the 2018 report by then Prime Minister Bill English which called out Aotearoa's high rates of incarceration for being based on dogma, not evidence, and criticised policies such as three strikes for being a retributive rather than restorative approach to crime based on unsupported claims that prisons can solve the problem of crime? Hon NICOLE McKEE: My response to that report is that we have made constructive changes to the regime that will be implemented to ensure that those serious repeat violent sexual offenders are off our streets and our communities are safe. The reason for that is because this Government is committed to restoring law and order to our communities. Tākuta Ferris: Does she accept the findings from research from the United States in 2022, where this law was modelled from, that showed three strikes has no measurable deterrent effect, that it disproportionately locked up African Americans, and that it had no impact on lowering crime rates at all? Hon NICOLE McKEE: The Ministry of Justice has previously produced an evidence brief which cited US studies showing similar three-strike laws have reduced serious violent crimes and reduced arrest rates for offenders who had received a first or second strike. I think what is really important here is that we have taken learnings from the previous regime and we will be introducing a new regime which goes about making sure that our communities are kept safe. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Excuse me—just wait for the quiet. Away you go. Tākuta Ferris: Tēnā koe e te Pīka. What is your response to the unequivocal majority, the 99 percent of submitters at select committee who represented most of the law associations of this country, that this bill is not fit to be passed into the House, should be done away with, and something new put in place? Hon NICOLE McKEE: I invite those people, when they actually see the bill once it's produced, to use the select committee process to give us their new version of what they think about it. Todd Stephenson: Have we seen an—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Hang on, wait on. Questions will be asked in silence. Todd Stephenson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Well, actually, no—the question can be audible, but everyone else can be silent. Todd Stephenson: Ha, ha! My sign language is not very good. [Interruption] SPEAKER: OK, just wait. We'll go quiet. Todd Stephenson: Have we seen an increase in violent crime justifying the need for a new three-strikes regime? Hon NICOLE McKEE: Well, yes, we have. Since Labour came into power, we have seen a 33 percent increase in violent crime, resulting in an increased number of victimisations. The new and improved three-strikes regime will hold serious repeat violent and sexual offenders to account, get them off the street, and prevent more Kiwis from becoming victims of crime. Todd Stephenson: What is the Minister's intention with the three-strikes policy? Hon NICOLE McKEE: To restore law and order by getting repeat violent and sexual offenders off the streets. We're sending a message to the criminals: think twice, because if you commit a violent or sexual offence, you're going to be going away for longer. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it the Minister and the Government's position that the greatest proportion of victims of violent crime are Māori, and, rather than make a sociological example, we're going to do something about it? Hon NICOLE McKEE: Yes. Regardless of who a person is, if they commit a serious sexual or violent offence they are going to be locked up. But what we do need to take into account is the disproportionate portion of Māori and Pasifika people who are victims of crime. It's very disappointing to see representatives from Te Pāti Māori not even speaking about the victims of crime but more about cuddling and cotton-wooling those criminals instead. Question No. 3—Finance 3. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Finance: What challenges has she faced in putting together this year's Budget? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Well, aside from the state of the economy that was left to us— SPEAKER: Hang on; I think just tone it down just a little bit. Actually, quite a bit—quite a bit. And similarly over here. That's right, the person in front of you. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I pointed out in the Budget Policy Statement, one of the biggest challenges for this year's Budget is that the previous Government left behind multiple initiatives with time-limited funding that was about to expire. At the half-year update in December, Treasury identified nine instances of these fiscal cliffs where, in each case, the costs of continuing funding were $100 million more over the forecast period. Fiscal cliffs made the future fiscal track look superficially better, but this practice was misleading and left any incoming Government facing very difficult funding decisions. Dana Kirkpatrick: What is the biggest fiscal cliff the Government has faced? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The biggest fiscal cliff in Budget 2024 was time-limited funding for Pharmac. The previous Government gave Pharmac additional funding of $350 million for the 2023-24 fiscal year to purchase new medicines and widen access to some that were already funded, but this expires on 30 June and there was no funding set aside for future years. My colleague David Seymour announced on Monday that Budget 2024 will extend this additional funding and, critically, make it permanent. That will be welcome news to people who rely on these medicines, but we have had to find the $1.77 billion cost of this from within our operating allowance because the previous Government did not put one cent towards it. Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that official advice to Ministers from Pharmac is that had the pre-existing budgeting been applied, Pharmac would have needed to de-list medicines that New Zealanders had every expectation of receiving but had no money put aside for under the previous Government? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, yes, I can confirm that and I will recall vividly— Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I've just been contemplating the member's question. He's actually asking a hypothetical question about what would have happened under a re-elected Government; what a re-elected Government may have done. The current Minister has no responsibility for what an alternative Government may have done. SPEAKER: A very good point. I was actually listening to the question and starting to think along those lines. But I think the question could be asked in a different way, and as long as it's relatively brief, how about giving that a go? Hon David Seymour: May I speak to the point of order. SPEAKER: I've just ruled on it. Hon David Seymour: Well, I may be able to clarify the intention behind the question. SPEAKER: No, no, have another go at the question, please. Hon David Seymour: With pleasure. Can she confirm that under the fiscal track that was set for this Government after it assumed office, it received advice from Pharmac that if it didn't fill in the fiscal cliff for medicine funding, it would have to de-list medicines that New Zealanders relied upon, because the fiscal track, the budgeting that this Government inherited, had not put money aside to pay for— SPEAKER: Hang on. The question was good up to "advice". Hon NICOLA WILLIS: One of the meetings I will recall vividly for the rest of my political career is one that I attended with Minister Seymour, where we asked health officials and Pharmac officials how New Zealand could possibly be in a position where they were saying to us that unless we found $1.77 billion, they would be forced to start de-listing essential medicines upon which New Zealand relied. I remember that meeting vividly because what I saw in the eyes of their officials was what I felt, which was abject horror at the situation the previous Government was prepared to leave Pharmac in. Dana Kirkpatrick: What reaction has the Minister seen to this announcement? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I have seen one commentator—who should know better—describe this $1.77 billion commitment to continue funding much-needed medicines as "fiscal jiggery-pokery". Personally, I would reserve the term "fiscal jiggery-pokery" to describe the practice of funding medicines for one year only and then taking it away again. I think that is being highly misleading to New Zealand, and I would expect much better from the Labour health spokesperson, Ayesha Verrall. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could indicate to us where the ministerial responsibility for that last answer lies. SPEAKER: Well, you have to go to the question itself, which was—sorry, it just slips my mind for a minute. But the response—I'll tell you what, I'm going to have to look at it afterwards. Sorry about that. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, the question was absolutely in order. Ministers aren't responsible for the questions that they are asked; they are absolutely responsible for the answers that they give. Nicola Willis has a repeated history of giving answers that fly directly in the face of rulings that you have given repeatedly since you took up your tenure as Speaker—but she's also very clever because she puts the dig in right in the last few words. I think there should be some ability for the member who's the subject of the answer to ask questions in response to that. SPEAKER: It's a novel idea and, actually, is, interestingly, the whole purpose of question time. So the Opposition will organise their supplementaries to, obviously, give effect to that! But what I can say is that I do look at question time. It's not an easy thing to, day after day, watch question time twice. But I do so where there are, particularly, questions that are under question from the Opposition—largely to see just where the lines are of straying beyond being able to refer to something that related to the previous Government, that was inherited, as opposed to a straight out political attack. I'll continue to do that and I'll look at this particular question in that regard. But because we're all going to play nice, Ayesha Verrall can have one extra supplementary. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Me? SPEAKER: Yeah—that's how we roll, here. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. If you're going to go away and consider this matter, could I just suggest that one of the marvellous things about a democracy is robust debate. If people aren't prepared to put other sides of the story or hear other people out—they just want to shout in the way that's happening now—then this Parliament will deteriorate very rapidly. It's got a long tradition of people being able to put their points at question time or in their speech time, and they've got a whole lot of sensitive people over there that need to just harden up. SPEAKER: Thank you for that advice, I'm sure the whole House will take it on. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can she assure the House, given her outrage over what she describes as "fiscal cliffs", that all items in her Budget will be baselined? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, thank you for the question. In addition to filling in the vast fiscal cliffs left to us by the previous Government, in our Budget there will be very few cases where funding will be time limited. The difference—and they could learn from the answer—is that in those cases, a review is being undertaken before Cabinet makes a permanent decision. We will be upfront and transparent about these decisions. There will be no hidden fiscal cliffs established for a future Government to deal with, and there will never be, under this Government's watch, a fiscal cliff left for essential medicines—shame on you. Hon Member: Are you going to pull her up on that? She said "shame on you." SPEAKER: Yeah, but you forget I'm Catholic, so I'm very guilty all the time. Dana Kirkpatrick: Will Budget 2024 establish any fiscal cliffs? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I thank the member for her question. It seems that her and Ayesha Verrall are great minds thinking alike today. As I said, we are going to be upfront and transparent in our Budget. There will be important cases where we will ensure that a review is undertaken before we commit to baseline funding—for the very good reason that, as I've said to this House many times, we are a Government that is committed to fiscal discipline on value for money and ensuring that where we commit New Zealand taxpayer money permanently into the future, we can first assure New Zealanders that we know that dollar is going to its best purpose. Question No. 4—Finance 4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her commitment to deliver meaningful tax cuts for New Zealanders; if so, will she guarantee that every New Zealander will be better off under her Budget? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part, many factors affect New Zealanders' wellbeing, not just a Government Budget, which the member seems to imply is the only way New Zealanders can be better off. I can tell the member, however, that we will be putting in more money to improve health services in this Budget. We will be putting in more money to improve education and we will be putting in more money to strengthen law and order. Better public services and tax relief for hard-working Kiwis will help improve people's wellbeing and help them get ahead. But there is a catch. New Zealanders who commit violent crime—they'll be worse off under our Budget. Hon Barbara Edmonds: How will the additional 12,000 New Zealanders who are now unemployed, according to today's unemployment figures, benefit from the tax cuts and be better off in Budget 2024? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: All New Zealanders benefit from a strong economy, and we as a Government are embarking on a significant project to rebuild an economy that has been drastically weakened by a period of prolonged, very high inflation that has eroded people's real incomes and purchasing power, that has led to a significant increase in interest rates, that is in turn leading to four of the past five quarters having been in recession and very challenging economic conditions. That is the reality we are faced with. It is difficult for many New Zealanders. Our job is to get on with delivering the plan to rebuild our economy and that is what our Budget will do. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will the increasing number of New Zealanders who are struggling with increases in insurance premiums and higher rates that are significantly outstripping inflation be better off in Budget 2024? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: This is a novel new policy from the Labour Party today. They're going to be subsidising everyone's insurance bill, I see. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: It is an out of order answer. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It was a completely legitimate question and the Minister should actually answer it. SPEAKER: Yeah, and I think without referring to another party's policy would be a good idea. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, Mr Speaker, it is the position of our Government that the best thing that we can do is allow people to keep more of their own money so that they can make choices about how they spend that money. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she be the only New Zealander better off by saving her own job ahead of the jobs of front-line workers? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker— SPEAKER: Well, you've got to say—just a minute. You've got to say—in the line of your requests about answers, that question probably is the opposite mirror image of it. But if the Minister wants to come in, she may; otherwise it's not necessary. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I'm surprised by that question. I've actually been giving the Opposition member the benefit of the doubt. That question was well beneath her and I'm not going to honour it with an answer. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she understand that a Minister of Finance—she is responsible for the choices she makes that are causing these deteriorating economic conditions? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I fully and solemnly understand the responsibility we in this Government have for the choices we make. And I would point that member to the colleagues either side of her on that front bench, who actively chose not to adjust tax thresholds even while inflation ate away at people's incomes, who actively chose to pour fuel on the inflation fire while a cost of living crisis surged, who actively chose to spend money on a TVNZ and RNZ merger when New Zealanders couldn't pay for their groceries. Take responsibility for your own choices as a party and I'll take responsibility for mine every day of the week. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Are we ready? Question No. 5—RMA Reform 5. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that "No projects have been selected yet for the fast-track process"; if so, will he commit to providing an opportunity for public scrutiny of the projects when they are selected for Part A of Schedule 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Bill? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): In response to the first part of the question, yes. As we've said a number of times, both publicly and in the House, no projects have been selected for the fast-track process. Cabinet has made a decision to set up a thorough and independent panel process for the selection of projects to be included in the schedule of the bill. In regard to the second part of the question, the public currently has the ability to submit to the select committee considering the bill. Parliament will have the opportunity to consider the projects in the schedule of the bill. The member might be interested to know we have based the process on the COVID-19 fast-track legislation introduced by the previous Government, in which Cabinet delegated to David Parker decision making for what projects were to be listed in the bill upon introduction. These decisions were made without any public consultation prior to the select committee. Hon Marama Davidson: Has he received any advice about options for providing public scrutiny of projects to be listed in the legislation, and, if so, what was that advice? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Not currently. Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement "We're open to constructive changes on the fast-track regime to ameliorate some of the concerns that people have", and, if so, will he support sending the bill back to the select committee to allow for scrutiny of projects? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes. And, in relation to the second part of the question, no. Hon Marama Davidson: Did he check with any of his Cabinet colleagues about potential or perceived conflicts of interest before deciding to send the letter on the fast-track bill on 3 April? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Mr Speaker, the member, like others in her party, has made much of a courtesy form letter that went to 200 organisations, some of whom are interested in fast-track, some of whom are not interested in fast-track. So writing a letter to someone which is, essentially, a press release letting them know that the fast-track process is open does not raise any concerns like the member is raising. SPEAKER: I just want to make it clear that this House is not a place for speculative accusations. It's not a place for making general statements in the nature of an accusation. The Standing Orders deal with that very, very clearly, and I will act on them. I think that line of questioning has been well and truly dealt with over a period of two days, and it should now cease unless there is a specific action that is part of what is publicly known. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister—not to be speculative in this case—is it a fact that no member or Minister or party in the Government has taken $350,000 illegally from a charity, as is the fact publicly known now? SPEAKER: No—I think, in the interests of progressing, the point is made, and no further comment. Hon Marama Davidson: Was he made aware of a conflict of interest by Minister Jones which disclosed $50,000 was donated to New Zealand First from entities with a connection to Kings Quarry before he sent the 3 April letter inviting Kings Quarry to apply for the fast-track process? SPEAKER: No—I'm sorry—I'm not accepting that question, and I'll tell you why I'm not accepting it. Because there are general activities that a Government engages in. For example, the conservation ministry or the environment ministry sent out a form letter relating to some particular policy. Would the expectation be that a party that might have received some funding from one of the organisations receiving that form letter should cause all of their members to disclose? I think there are clear rules around disclosure; there are clear rules around Cabinet pecuniary interests, and I think trying to pursue it in a general way in which is sort of like a—what's the term where you just go— Hon Shane Jones: Star Chamber. SPEAKER: No, no. No, please—I'll come up with a term. Where just digging around to try and find something is not an acceptable use of the House's time or House procedure. Hon James Shaw: Point of order. Beg your pardon. Mr Speaker, in the previous Parliament, I remember a whole series of questions that came from the then Opposition where they would ask the same question every day. I'm thinking, for example, of the Hon Mark Mitchell's questions of police Ministers about crimes reported on one date versus a number of crimes reported on another date, and the same question was essentially asked week after week after week. There has never been an attempt by the Speaker to rein in what questions could be asked just because those questions had already been asked and the House had already been informed of those answers. So— SPEAKER: Well, I would agree with you. If that were the case, it would be appalling. What I'm ruling on is the content. It's quite a different matter and I'm happy to discuss it with anybody who likes, in the context of Standing Orders. Hon Marama Davidson: Will he commit to reducing the concentration of powers in Ministers under the bill after concerns were raised by the Auditor-General and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment about the proposed decision-making approach? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the bill is currently before the select committee and we'll be interested to see what the select committee reports back. But, as I've said publicly, we're open to sensible changes—as indeed all Governments are when a bill goes through select committees. So we're open to sensible changes, but I can tell the House two things: the core of it will remain—it will be a one-stop-shop process in which all of the relevant permits are dealt with at the same time—and it will be a genuine fast-track process. The clue's in the name. Hon Simeon Brown: Oh, thank you, Mr Speaker. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Well, just wait till everyone's quiet. Hon SIMEON BROWN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Are there other examples of fast-track proposals operating in a similar way to what the Minister is proposing? SPEAKER: Be a bit careful here. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I just wanted to make the point which is that we have taken much of the architecture for the Fast-track Approvals Bill before Parliament from previous regimes. For example, during the COVID era, a bill was introduced which advanced 17 projects included upon introduction, added by Cabinet without any public consultation, without anyone even knowing what the projects were until they were dropped in the Parliament. We are actually going through an independent process to provide advice to the Government about what projects should be in the bill after it gets reported back from the select committee. [Interruption] SPEAKER: It's a fascinating little exchange. You should take it outside. Perhaps even record it. Question No. 6—RMA Reform 6. MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What announcements has he made regarding reforms to the Resource Management Act 1991? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Last week, the coalition Government announced we're delivering on our commitment to improve resource management laws and give certainty to consent applications, with a bill being introduced to Parliament next month, the bill we're calling the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 1). A number of changes will be included, which include making it clear that while the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management is being reviewed and replaced, resource consent applicants no longer need to demonstrate their proposed activities follow the Te Mana o te Wai hierarchy of obligations. We're amending stock exclusion regulations in relation to slope land, repealing intensive winter grazing regulations, and suspending the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPSIB) requirement for councils to identify new significant natural areas (SNAs) for three years. Mike Butterick: What changes is the Government making in this bill to help farmers? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I'm proud to say this coalition Government is ending the war on farmers. The last Government loaded on the regulations, putting unnecessary costs on farmers and growers. We're removing the need for resource applicants to demonstrate— Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. You've been pretty consistent that questions from Government members can't be used not only to attack the previous Government but to cast opinions on previous policies—and a factual statement is fine. Situations of a factual nature that the Government has inherited—no problem. But to cast an opinion not only in the first response but also the second sentence of that response should be pulled up. SPEAKER: Yeah, the trouble was there was a heck of a lot of noise coming, and I didn't actually pick up all of what was said, to be quite straight up with you. But can I just suggest that speaking factually about matters that have existed is fine; being speculative about what those matters were is not so tolerable. So I'll call on the Hon Chris Bishop to start his answer again. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We're proposing to remove the problematic and contentious low slope map, and for regional councils and farmers to determine where stock needs to be excluded based on risk. The focus is on farm-level and regionally suitable solutions. These changes will reduce costs for farmers. There's more work to do, but this is an important first step. Mike Butterick: What else does this bill do to help farmers? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: More good news: we're suspending the NPSIB requirement for councils to identify new significant natural areas for three years, enabling farmers and growers to find the right solutions for their farm and catchment, rather than a dictatorial, centralised approach. The criteria for identifying new SNAs were an attempt to provide a standard approach to identifying the most important areas of biodiversity. However, we've heard the concerns of Kiwis that less significant areas are being captured, and this can place too much restriction on how land is used. This change restores property rights for landowners, cuts red tape, and lets farmers and growers get on with what they do best, which is farming. Mike Butterick: How do these changes fit in with the Government's wider Resource Management Act (RMA) reform agenda? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Our RMA reforms have two broad objectives. The first thing is to make it easier to get things done by unlocking capacity for housing and business growth, enabling delivery of quality infrastructure; doubling renewable energy; and enabling primary sector growth and development. Our second objective is to safeguard the environment and human health, adapt to climate change, and improve regulatory quality in the resource management system. Across the coalition documents making up this multiparty Government, there are 20 different commitments relating to the RMA that we are responsible for delivering. As part of phase two, we will be delivering many of those, and, of course, the ultimate goal is to deliver on our phase three commitment to repeal and replace the existing RMA with a new regime premised on the enjoyment of property rights. Question No. 7—Māori Development 7. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by his statement, "I do think people are feeling vulnerable. And that, for me, is a message that I must be a strong advocate and contributor to Māori success"; if so, does he think cutting jobs at Te Puni Kōkiri is a "contributor to Māori success"? Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): I am committed to Māori and New Zealand's success, and this coalition Government is committed to good government. There is a consultation process under way at Te Puni Kōkiri, and that's an operational matter that I'll leave to the Tumu Whakarae of Māori Development to progress. Hon Willie Jackson: How does prioritising Government policies that removes te reo Māori from Government departments, removes the Treaty provisions in the Oranga Tamariki Act, and repeals the Māori Health Authority contribute to Māori success? Hon TAMA POTAKA: I said this before: I remain very committed to being a good example of using te reo Māori in this House and other places. One thing that I would say is that under the last Government where some of these outcomes went haywire, we saw an increase of 98,000 through to 130,000 Māori on main benefits, and we are committed to supporting Minister Upston and others to get this country back on track. Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister agree with David Seymour that analysis provided by Te Puni Kōkiri is not adding much value, and, if so, is this the reason why he is cutting jobs at Te Puni Kōkiri? Hon TAMA POTAKA: I agree with Minister Seymour, who has observed that having one out of three Māori kids going to school is an absolute failure and we need to get more Māori children back to school. Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker, point of order. Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don't even believe the Minister's addressed the question. The question was very specific: does he agree with David Seymour and the analysis provided by Te Puni Kōkiri (TPK)? He's talking about something completely different. I don't even believe he's addressed the question. SPEAKER: Well, that may be your belief, but when he stood up and said he agrees with David Seymour and then went on to give an example of it, I think that addresses the question. But I'll tell you what, ask it again and see what else he can come up with. Hon Willie Jackson: Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. Rt Hon Christopher Luxon: Come off script. Hon Willie Jackson: Come off script—oh, OK. E whakaae ana ia ki tā David Seymour, ko te wetewete a TPK kāre i te nui haere te wāriu mēnā koinā te take i tapahia e ia ngā mahi i TPK? [Does he agree with David Seymour, the slashing of TPK, value is not increasing if that is the reason for him cutting the activities of TPK?] Hon TAMA POTAKA: E tino tautoko ana au i te kīanga kōrero a Minita Seymour. E pēnei ana tāna kōrero: korekore noa iho ngā tamariki Māori e haere ana ki ngā kura, nā reira me kaha tātou, me pakari tātou ki te tautoko i ērā tamariki Māori kia hoki atu ki te kura. [I absolutely support the statement of Minister Seymour. His statement went like this: Māori children are not at all going to school, so we must be strong, we must be determined to support those Māori children to go back to school.] Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister— SPEAKER: Hang on. Sorry—Mr Peters, if you wouldn't mind, sir, we'll just wait for quiet. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister consider that the question's phraseology is more understandable to 95 percent of New Zealanders than it's ever been in the past? Hon TAMA POTAKA: Tino tautoko. [Absolutely agree.] Hon Willie Jackson: Can I ask the Minister what advocacy, if any, has he done to ensure no further cuts to workers across his portfolio responsibilities? Hon TAMA POTAKA: As mentioned before, those matters are in the operational remit of the Tumu Whakarae of Māori Development, but what we are absolutely focused on is the nine key Government targets, many of which touch on disproportionate impacts on Māori. Hon Willie Jackson: Can I ask how he can claim he is a strong advocate for Māori success when all Māori are seeing is cuts, repeals, and the undermining of kaupapa Māori initiatives? Hon TAMA POTAKA: Late last year, we saw a number of Māori, particularly whānau Māori, who lost their jobs at Juken, at Gisborne's timber mill, and Te Puni Kōkiri and others got behind and rallied behind those people and gave them support to retrain and transition out of an unemployment situation into horticulture and construction. That is the mahi that this Government is committed to supporting—to getting people back in work and off the main benefits. Question No. 8—Education 8. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Education: What announcements has she recently made on priorities for education? Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): This week I announced six education priorities which will drive decision making and build a world-leading education system for New Zealand students. These priorities are establishing a clear year-by-year curriculum that details the knowledge, skills, and competencies that kids need to succeed, implementing evidence-based approaches to teaching literacy and numeracy, introducing more consistent reporting, strengthening teacher training, targeting effective learning support and interventions, and using data and evidence to drive decision making. These priorities will support the Government to be laser-focused on ensuring that at least 80 percent of our kids are at curriculum by 2030. Carl Bates: Why did she make this announcement? Hon ERICA STANFORD: The persistent trends of decline in achievement and attendance must stop. Our current system, in the words of the ministry itself, "does not deliver excellent or equitable outcomes". The equity gap is stubbornly wide; 20 percent of our tamariki Māori are at curriculum for maths at the end of year eight, and in 2022, almost 10,000 kids left school with no qualifications at all. My six education priorities represent a bold and significant shift away from an approach that is vague and devolved, away from a pick-and-mix approach to assessment, and away from a broken learning support system that fails to meet the needs of our students and has delivered poor results. We have a mandate for change and have been elected to deliver a high performing and internationally comparable education system. Carl Bates: How will this announcement help to turn around a persistent decline in student achievement? Hon ERICA STANFORD: These priorities will shape the direction of the education system. This work is already under way. From this term, we have targeted regional professional learning and development funding across the country to focus on embedding structured approaches to literacy in both English and te reo, developing assessment capabilities and practices including aromatawai for Māori-medium schools, and supporting teachers to prepare students for the numeracy and literacy co-requisites at NCEA level 1. I am directing investment to the front line, ensuring teachers get the support they need to drive these changes. Carl Bates: How will these priorities support her vision for education? Hon ERICA STANFORD: We are putting ambition and achievement back at the heart of our education system. Your means should not determine your destiny. My vision is not only to lift achievement but to close the equity gap that has plagued New Zealand society for too long. These priorities lay the foundations for change. Under this Government, education and a social investment lens will deliver greater social mobility, support breaking intergenerational cycles of poverty, and build the pathways that allow every child to fulfil their potential and to be ambitious about their future. Question No. 9—Police 9. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: What advice, if any, has he received on the safety of frontline police officers? Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): I receive a—Mr Speaker? SPEAKER: Yeah, I'm listening; carry on. Hon MARK MITCHELL: I receive a range of advice. The latest advice that I received from police in relation to front-line safety is that there was a 45.5 percent increase in assaults on police since 2018. Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with police advice that "Timely and accurate intelligence sharing between the Firearms Safety Authority and police is vital for joint success. Shared intelligence supports front-line staff safety as well as the work of police in tackling organised crime."? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, I do agree with that. I think that we're in a terrible situation as a country where under the previous Government we've seen a massive increase in violent crime, a 33 percent increase. We've seen a 76 percent increase in gang members. Those gang members are carrying firearms; they're willing to use them. The intelligence for the police to gather is critically important. They are rebuilding that capability. This Government is bringing legislation to make sure they've got additional tools and powers to get on top of the gang problem that we've got in our country. This Government is committed to making sure that we get back on track and that New Zealand should be the safest place in the world, instead of experiencing some of the worst violent crime that was perpetuated by that Government—well, the former Government. Hon Ginny Andersen: Is he confident that front-line police officers will be able to access up-to-date intelligence on firearms if the Firearms Safety Authority is removed from police and located within another Government department such as the Department of Internal Affairs? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, what I'd say to that is that this Government is committed to making sure that our police have got all the intelligence, all the tools, all the resources that they need to go out there and keep the public safe. They feel that they've got a lot of work to do because under the previous Government we saw an enormous increase in gang members. We've seen a massive increase in violent retail crime that's baked in over six years. We've got a big job ahead of us. We're up for it and we're tackling it. Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister if he is confident where the front-line police safety will be ensured if the transfer of Te Tari Pūreke, the Firearms Safety Authority, is taken out of police. I don't believe he went anywhere near talking about that question. SPEAKER: Well, just have another go—that's all. No one's in a hurry here, it seems. Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, do you want to ask the question again or do you want me to just answer it? SPEAKER: You've just actually asked the question again by way of your point of order, so I think you've probably heard it. Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Like I said, this Government is committed to making sure that our police have all the resources, all the intelligence and the ability to be able to deal with firearms and gang harm in this country, because under the previous Government we had a 76 percent increase in gang numbers, we've had a massive increase in gang violence, we've had gang members now that carry firearms and are willing to use them. This Government is committed to making sure that our police officers have got the tools and the powers and the ability to not only keep themselves safe but keep the members of the public safe as well. Hon Ginny Andersen: I asked whether the Minister had confidence that the transfer of that authority into another department would ensure front-line safety. He gave me a list of things that he was committed to, but he did not express confidence—in shifting the Firearms Safety Authority would ensure that same level of access to intelligence to police. SPEAKER: Yes, I know, but I've listened to the answer twice now, and I think replying in a way that talks about a commitment to the safety of officers does address the question. Hon Ginny Andersen: How will he resolve police's concern that "Both the Arms Act and the coalition agreement include timings that appear incompatible with one another and this needs to be resolved."? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, there's nothing incompatible at all about the approach to law and order and public safety by this coalition Government. We have committed to an additional 500 police officers. We are bringing new legislation and that will deal with violent gangs. We are bringing legislation in that will actually put tougher consequences around these violent retail, youth, and juvenile offenders. So it is a completely consistent approach by this Government in terms of making sure that we start to deal with what's a tough job because of the last six years under a Labour Government. But we are committed to that and we're going to continue to make forward movement on it. Hon Ginny Andersen: Mr Speaker, I asked him whether— SPEAKER: Excuse me, what is it? Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order, sorry. A point of order, Mr Speaker? SPEAKER: A point of order, the Hon Ginny Andersen. Hon Ginny Andersen: Apologies, Mr Speaker. A point of order: the Minister was asked that there was a quote that was police advice—that basically clearly said that the Arms Act and the coalition are at odds with each other and that needs to be resolved. And the Minister has not addressed how he intends to resolve that issue. SPEAKER: Well, that's not the way the member would like, but he started his answer by saying he disagreed with you. I don't think you can get much clearer than that. Hon Ginny Andersen: How can he say that front-line safety is his priority when police themselves have raised real concerns directly with him regarding taking the Firearms Safety Authority out of police? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I can say that public safety is important to this Government, because that's what we're about as a coalition. And police safety—if the Minister had read my letter of expectation to the commissioner, which we had to release to get us back on track and focused again on the things that matter, she would see that police safety is a priority for this Government. SPEAKER: Good. Question No. 10—Children 10. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) to the Minister for Children: Does she agree with official advice that military-style bootcamps are "likely to be detrimental to young people with a history of abuse"; if not, why not? Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): First of all, I'd like to say I disagree with the member's interpretation of the advice, as asked in the question. If you take the advice as it was stated in full, which said, "Traditional bootcamp models of strict discipline are likely to be detrimental to young people with a history of abuse and family violence.", yes, I do agree. The advice also noted that programmes which include elements of counselling and have primary focus on rehabilitation are significantly more effective. The programme that this Government is working on will have a military-style component with a rehabilitative and trauma - informed care approach. This is not just about consequences for young people who offend but actually showing them that they have it within themselves to turn their lives around. It will give them the tools and the encouragement that they need to do so. Tamatha Paul: Does she think the 86 percent reoffending rate of the last military-style activity camps is a sign of success, and, if not, why is she repeating this failed experiment that causes traumatised young people more harm? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The military-style academies in the Military-style Activity Camp programme were run between 2010 and 2016. An evaluation of that programme showed positive results, with improvements in attitude and motivation of the young people to address their offending. However, it was also found that the lack of robust support once the young person left the programme meant that the improvements in outcomes were not realised to the extent that they might have been. That is why the programme that this Government is working on is going to have a rehabilitative and trauma - informed care approach, alongside the military approach to ensure that these young people will receive the full wraparound support they need to turn their lives around. Tamatha Paul: Does she think it's acceptable to experiment on young people when there is a wealth of evidence on what works to reduce youth crime? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: What I don't find acceptable is not giving these young people the tools and the care that they need to turn their lives around. We need to make sure that we're giving them everything that they need to know that they are worth something and that they can become the best that they can be. Tamatha Paul: Why does she expect military-style bootcamps to work in Aotearoa this time around, when officials advised of numerous international evidence of bootcamps being the least effective interventions when it comes to reducing youth reoffending? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Oranga Tamariki has received multiple advice from different agencies, looked around to different programmes, taken learnings from those programmes—what worked, what didn't work—in creating this new programme which will make sure that our young people are not out reoffending and causing harm in our communities. This is about reducing harm in our communities and making sure that our young people have the right support behind them. Tamatha Paul: Can she name a single evidence-based reason as to why she is pursuing military-style bootcamps when all of the evidence is stacked against them? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: What the evidence does show us is what we are doing now is not working. We can't accept the status quo. We need to make sure that we are giving these young people the tools they need to be the best that they can be. And I believe that this Government is truly caring about making sure that we are reducing harm within our communities, but also making sure that we are reducing these young people going back into communities without the support that they need to turn their lives around. Question No. 11—Building and Construction 11. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What announcements has the Government made in building and construction? Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Government is bringing forward a review of earthquake-prone buildings to provide greater certainty for Kiwis. While this review is under way, all current remediation deadlines will be extended by four years. Of course, some building owners who have already planned on making improvements will be in a position to continue this work, motivated by considerations such as private insurance arrangements or the ability to tenant buildings. But we have heard, in many cases across New Zealand, that buildings were not going to be remediated within the original time frames anyway because of barriers such as crippling cost and heritage status. Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why are these changes needed? Hon CHRIS PENK: Our Government is focused on rebuilding the economy. The current earthquake-prone building system was put in place in 2017 in good faith and required buildings considered to be earthquake-prone to be remediated before set dates. Nearly 500 deadlines are set to expire over the next four years. Council and building owners across New Zealand have told me, and other Government members, that many buildings will not meet their deadlines due to the costs involved being much higher than originally contemplated and further complicated by heritage rules and other artificial constraints affecting residential housing. Dr Vanessa Weenink: What impact will these changes have? Hon CHRIS PENK: These changes from the review, or at least the ones we contemplate will flow from the review, we hope will provide considerable relief across New Zealand. The earthquake-prone building rules impact the entire country—not just Wellington—in small-town New Zealand and larger cities alike. Without change, an increasing number of buildings could sit empty and derelict, which would have a devastating effect on the economy across New Zealand—again, in a multitude of different built environments. Dr Vanessa Weenink: What are the next steps? Hon CHRIS PENK: Cabinet will soon agree to terms of reference for the review, which will be informed by feedback from a wide range of affected New Zealanders. In addition, a Building Act amendment bill will be introduced to give effect to the extension to remediation deadlines. Question No. 12—Economic Development 12. GLEN BENNETT (Labour) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does she agree with her statement, "I think we need to get on with the job of delivering for New Zealand"; if so, what actions has she taken to deliver for New Zealanders? Hon MELISSA LEE (Minister for Economic Development): Yes, as delivering for New Zealand is what this Government was elected to do. This Government has an ambitious target to double the value of exports over the next decade, continue to support major events, increase foreign direct investment, and improve the Government procurement system by reducing red tape and bureaucracy. Glen Bennett: Why did she allow the cancellation of Industry Transformation Plans, given it was a tool to work alongside industry to accelerate the growth and success of New Zealand businesses? Hon MELISSA LEE: That was a coalition Government decision, and it was cancelled. Glen Bennett: What does she say to the forestry and wood-processing sector after their plan was axed, given their overwhelming support for the plan to create high-value jobs and low-carbon products here in New Zealand? Hon MELISSA LEE: There are many decisions that this Government makes and one of the things that we are actually trying to do is grow the economy, and some of the decisions that that Government put through were actually a bad idea and we cancelled them. Glen Bennett: What does she say to members of the tech sector, who contribute $13 billion to the New Zealand economy, like NZTech, who have publicly asked the Minister to—and I quote—"please retain the industry led, Government supported framework to enable collaboration and alignment across this rapidly growing part of the economy."? Hon MELISSA LEE: The tech industry is very well supported by this Government, and one of the great Ministers, Judith Collins, is actually very focused on that. Glen Bennett: How can industry sectors have faith in her performance and economic development plan if all they can find is cuts to investment into their industries? Hon MELISSA LEE: One of the things that we are very focused on, as I said, is doubling the value of exports over the next decade, continuing to support major events that bring investment and tourism dollars to the regions, increasing foreign direct investment, and improving the Government procurement system by reducing red tape and bureaucracy. That will get New Zealand back on track. One of the things that I can tell that member is that I have been travelling up and down the country, including to his electorate of New Plymouth—well, actually, he's a list member, so it's not his electorate—last week to hear their concerns and find ways to support them to achieve their economic success. GENERAL DEBATE Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I want to start with a message for New Zealanders: things are tough right now. Inflation has been too high for too long. It is almost three years since inflation went above 3 percent and gave rise to a cost of living crisis that was prolonged and has now gone on for some years. Interest rates have risen very high to try and fight that inflation—higher than they would have had to if there had been a Government that was doing its bit to take the fuel off the inflation fire. Now, with high inflation and high interest rates, there are many New Zealanders who are struggling, and we are seeing the results of that. We are seeing those New Zealanders who've switched to a higher mortgage interest rate now lacking the choices they once had about what they spend in their households. We are seeing that in the small businesses who now have fewer people walking through their doors with the money to spend on the goods they provide and the services they sell. We are seeing that with the young entrepreneurs who may have once taken a risk and taken a big loan out on something but now look at that high official cash rate and take a pause. All of that means that today we saw the unemployment numbers climb up. And I have been gutted to hear members on the other side of this House imply that there is a single member of this Parliament who would ever, could ever, welcome that. Because we feel—deeply—the pain that occurs in a family when a New Zealander who wants a job cannot get one. That is why, on this side of the House, we take so seriously our duty to sound economic policies that will strengthen the fundamentals of this economy so that New Zealanders can get ahead once more. We understand that the lifting of the unemployment rate this week is not the consequence of a decision taken yesterday or the week before. It is the build-up of successive decisions that were made over many years, over six years, where the economy was second on the list. And I want to say that we now have a Government that has moved swiftly and decisively to put the economy back where it needs to be, front and centre. We have been making the decisions that need to be made in order to strengthen New Zealand for the future—a return to careful spending. Because there was a period when the babysitters were in control, they had the credit card and they were charging everything upon it—the TVNZ-RNZ merger and new jobs tax over here; $1.2 billion on three waters over here; "Let's throw a few thousand at some Government strategies over here; a few glossy documents, a refurb of some offices." The problem is when the babysitters put all the cash on the credit card, it's New Zealanders who need to pay it back, and New Zealanders are paying it back because inflation has stayed higher for longer than it should have because of an overspending Government. We've had interest rates that have risen higher than they would otherwise have had to and we are now, on this side of the House, doing the clean-up job. We take that responsibility very seriously. You've seen from the day we were elected that we have taken steps to put discipline in. We have taken steps to ensure that our welfare system encourages people not to languish on a benefit but actually supports them to work. We have ensured that our education system is focused again on literacy, on numeracy, on attendance, the basics that matter; on getting rid of the regulations that have choked the entrepreneurial, that have choked employers; on making it easier in this country to build things and to make things with fast-track legislation. You will soon see in our Budget what a responsible Government looks like, because we will spend very carefully. Investment will go where it's needed: into our schools, into our hospitals, into our police, and we will also put it in in the most important place: the back pockets of working New Zealanders. So my message to New Zealanders is that we know it's tough right now, but you elected a Government with a plan, and we will deliver. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori —Te Tai Tokerau): Mōrena. No matter my words today, this Government will not waver in its mission to exterminate Māori. I might be tempted to change tone and say pai ana [that's OK], get rid of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, and while you're at it get rid of the entire Act and the rotten institution that is Oranga Tamariki, which should in fact be renamed "Matenga Tamariki" Because it and its predecessor has only caused strife and ruin to the most vulnerable of te Iwi Māori, our babies, our beautiful brown babies. The theory of the Minister is that Oranga Tamariki's governing principles should be colour-blind, which is just another word for white supremacy, because to say we are all one people is really to say we should all be white people, erasing the very hue of our identity and culture that makes us whole as tangata Māori, tamariki Māori, mokopuna Māori. E te Minita, ka aroha ki a koe kua karetaohia e tō pāti. Kia kaha rā. [To the Minister, how sad that you have been made a puppet by your party. Be strong.] The history of State violence on our tamariki is clear. Every Government institution has failed to care for our babies. Hoi anō, it was never the Pākehā Government's job in the first place. That is purely the Hawaiki-derived prerogative of whānau, of hapū, iwi, maintained by part two of Te Tiriti through tino rangatiratanga over our kāinga. E tika ana. [It's true.] A house is not a kāinga; that kupu encapsulates the very people that are the centre of your oranga, the people that made you. If not for the conventions of statutory numbering, section 7AA really should have been called "section 1840" because it provides an opportunity to revive our reality as the rangatira of our own destinies, to rewind to a time where Pākehā hands would not dare touch our babies. From 1842 to today, almost 70 percent of children in care are Māori, a number which has only ever gone up. I know that most of those tamariki have whakapapa to my own rohe of Te Tai Tokerau. But they likely would not know that. Why? Because they have been stripped away from their cultural matrix. The early criminalisation of our babies through cultural alienation is no accident, and removing section 7AA will only further entrench the system which by design has ruined us, one generation at a time. My mind turns to Puao-te-ata-tu, which came out in my time as a social worker in the Department of Social Welfare in the 1980s. The words of that report for direct Māori involvement in social welfare policy practices to improve Māori social outcomes for Māori have merely remained on paper. But section 7AA reveals the first glimpse of light into true devolution of power to resource Māori. This Act did not, of course, fall out of the sky. The sheer volume of research and policy behind it would be difficult to quantify. However, the Government's reasons to take it away can be summed up in a few short words: racism and Pākehā supremacy. The ACT Party want to keep our tamariki mokopuna in the pipeline, from State care to youth residences to youth prison to adult prison, to uphold the Pākehā superiority of its voters. The Waitangi Tribunal's interim report, and so take heed of this, and indeed, the Minister's own officials in their regulatory impact statement, echo concerns over the lack of express rationale—I'll pause there—behind this repeal, truthfully, because it isn't there. They have warned of the risk of real harm to vulnerable children, of progress with iwi partnerships, and to tamariki reconnecting with their culture and sense of identity—please let that sink in—following the tone set by successful initiatives such as Rangatahi and Matariki Courts, which do better to see our babies for who they are. Mark my words: regardless of the likely inevitable removal of section 7AA, Te Pāti Māori will one day build a mokupuna Māori authority which will outshine this shameful moment in history, just like we did with Whānau Ora, by Māori for Māori and of Māori. That's what we will continue to do to the point of this Government's decisions that do not matter to us at all. Hokinga 'hakapapa, oranga mokopuna. Kāti ki tēnā, kia ora tātou. [A return of identity is the wellbeing of grandchildren. That's enough, thanks everyone.] Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): This Government is aspirational and ambitious for our nation's kids, and academic achievement will be at the heart of everything that we do to ensure that we have a world-leading education system. Because all Kiwi kids—including tamariki Māori—deserve a world-leading education, to be literate and numerate, and to have the knowledge and skills they need to take on the world or be great iwi leaders. Education is the key to change lives and alter the course of one's future, to break cycles of intergenerational poverty and dependence, but our current educational results are failing too many kids in this country. Nearly 10,000 students in 2022 left without a qualification, and 40 percent of those year 10 and 11 learners who sat the foundational literacy and numeracy assessments were unable to pass last year. These results show that kids from low socio-economic homes—overrepresented by our Māori tamariki—are well overrepresented in these statistics. The equity gap is worse here than in any country that we compare ourselves to. These are the very kids who need access to a world-leading education to change their circumstances the most, and in New Zealand, our great egalitarian society, your means determine your destiny; 42 percent of our kids at year 8 are at curriculum for math. For our tamariki Māori that's 20 percent, and for our Pasifika kids 14.5 percent are at curriculum for maths at the end of intermediate. This very much reduces their ability to experience success at high school. I want every single child in this country to experience educational success, academic success, and the confidence and self-esteem and self-belief that goes along with that success. We have to get at least 80 percent of our kids at curriculum by 2030 and we will hold ourselves to account. Yesterday, I announced my six priorities to lift student achievement and better support our wonderful teaching workforce: a clear, concise, and knowledge-rich curriculum that lays out the knowledge and skills that should be taught each year; implementing evidence-based structured literacy, maths mastery—approaches that are grounded in the science of learning about how the brain learns; implementing consistent methods of regular progress monitoring so that teachers and parents know where their students and kids are at; we will develop the workforce of the future including leadership development pathways, because we know the single most important thing in our education system is our teachers and our leaders; we will target effective learning support interventions for students with additional learning needs; and key to all of this is data and evidence to drive improvement. Make no mistake; this represents a fundamental shift in education that our kids deserve. It represents more support for teachers and, importantly, a shift back to explicit teaching of knowledge and skills in a consistent manner. And this, combined with the magic that the teachers bring in how they contextualise the content of the curriculum to engage the students that are in front of them, will mean that no matter where you go to school, no matter where you live, no matter the resource that your family have, our students will get taught the basics brilliantly so they can go on to live the life they want. We have a moral, social, and economic imperative to get this right. Generations of kids and their families are depending on us to be bold and to be effective, and let me tell you, this is a Government that's committed to delivery. But I want to take a moment to address the previous speaker, Mariameno Kapa-Kingi's speech. At the heart of everything that we are doing in education is to raise Māori achievement. The results over the last six years under the previous Government have let our poorer communities down, our tamariki Māori down, and our Pasifika students down. The results speak for themselves: 20 percent of Māori students at the end of year 8 at curriculum for mathematics, 14.5 for Pasifika students. Everything that we are doing in our policy is ensuring that those kids who need that support the most are going to get it. Let me tell that member something: structured literacy—how the brain learns to read. In Maramarua School, after two years of structured literacy—they had 37 percent of their Māori kids at curriculum for reading, after two years: 67 percent. Those are the evidence-based policies we will be putting in place to make sure our tamariki Māori are getting every single opportunity they need to succeed in this world, and it will be a National - ACT - New Zealand First Government that will achieve it. Hon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts): Thank you, Mr Speaker. When we boil it all down, one of the central purposes of Government is to keep their citizens safe from threats, allowing them to go about living free and productive lives. During their previous six-year tenure, Labour shirked this responsibility and failed Kiwis. Everyday citizens were exposed to harm daily and their individual freedoms were being constantly attacked by others. During that time, we saw a ram-raid epidemic explode, with the number of ram raids committed increasing by 465 percent in just two years as of March 2023. We saw liquor stores and corner dairies being raided by machete-wielding thugs, with innocent New Zealanders bearing the cost of this violence. We saw gangs taking over our streets. In the case of Ōpōtiki last year, we saw the takeover of a whole town. We saw convictions for firearms-related offences increase by 24 percent between 2018 and 2023. It is safe to say that Labour failed to protect New Zealanders from crime and failed to uphold New Zealand's reputation as being a safe country in which people can freely pursue their dreams without the fear of violence. This Government has said, "Enough is enough." The coalition Government has made a firm commitment to restore law and order, and we have wasted no time whatsoever in taking action to fulfil this commitment. First, we will strengthen the firearms prohibition orders (FPOs) to get guns out of the hands of gangsters and violent criminals. By expanding the qualifying criteria for the issuing of an FPO, this Government will make sure that gang leaders, who often avoid serious offending by getting others to do their dirty work for them, would be more likely to be eligible to receive an FPO. We also plan to give police new specialist search powers so that anyone subject to an FPO can be searched at any time. This means police will be able to search offenders with an FPO, their vehicles, and their premises for firearms at any time to ensure they are complying with their FPO. Next, my colleague the Minister of Justice has taken steps to ban gang patches in public. Gang members use their strength in numbers to intimidate others and disrupt the peace. This Government has taken action to address this issue instead of dropping it in the too-hard basket like Labour did. The Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill will achieve this by doing four key things: creating a new criminal offence prohibiting the display of gang insignia in public places, creating new dispersal powers, creating a non-consorting order, and, finally, giving greater weight to gang membership as an aggravating factor at sentencing. Further, this Government has taken much-needed steps to end the cottage industry of section 27 reports, which were costing taxpayers millions of dollars and allowing some violent offenders significant sentencing discounts. Taxpayer funding of section 27 cultural reports was an absolute insult to the victims of crime—even more so when we consider the fact that notorious gangsters, such as the Mongrel Mob member Harry Tam, were not only writing reports but were being paid taxpayer money to do so. But, most recently, I have introduced the three-strikes regime to hold serious violent and sexual offenders to account. The new three-strikes regime builds and improves upon previous legislation, applying only to sentences of more than 24 months. Our intention is to focus on serious repeat offenders without capturing the lower-level offending. We have listened to New Zealanders who told us that they were concerned about law and order. They told us they want appropriate consequences for serious repeat violent and sexual offending, and this new regime will provide it. Three strikes is this Government putting victims first and we make no apology for that at all. We also have a simple message to anyone who wants to avoid a lengthy prison sentence: stop committing violent and sexual crimes. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and happy International Workers' Day to you. I stand here wanting to recognise the fact that it is International Workers' Day and May Day today. Hon David Seymour: Workers united—come on, sister! CAMILLA BELICH: Thank you for the encouragement from the other side of the House. It's a day that's been celebrated around the world and acknowledged around the world since 1889— Hon David Seymour: How many died from communism? CAMILLA BELICH: —so significantly longer than that member can berate from that side of the House. Anyway, it's a very important day for working people around the world and, unfortunately, in New Zealand we're not having particularly good times for working people at the moment. We have a Government that has cut more than they promised during the election— Mark Cameron: Oh, waste. That's right. Cut the waste. CAMILLA BELICH: —and we've actually had the Minister of Finance get up and say in the House during this general debate that there is not a single person in her Government that celebrates when people lose a job. The member who was previously contributing to my speech, the Hon David Seymour, actually has previously said about the cuts in the Ministry for Primary Industries that it's good. David Seymour, a member of the Cabinet, has said it's good. Hon Member: Celebrated it. CAMILLA BELICH: One of his colleagues, when I just mentioned the cuts, celebrated it over there. So what this Government is telling New Zealanders is not correct; their actions do not match what they're doing. They cannot say that they are concerned about the 4.3 percent unemployment that was announced today and then say that it has got nothing to do with the 3,000 positions that have been disestablished in the public sector. There's a word for that, and it's "gaslighting". It's doing one thing and actually telling people that you're doing another. Let me tell you: it is a terribly serious thing to lose a job. On this side of the House, I can, hand on heart, say that we understand what it is like for people when they don't have work. When people don't have work, they cannot benefit from tax cuts. It may sound obvious, but if you don't have a job you're not going to benefit from tax cuts. There's lots of other things that this Government is doing that coincidentally come in today which are going to make things harder for New Zealanders on this International Workers' Day. One of those things is getting rid of free and half-price public transport. This affects 1.6 million New Zealanders—a huge number of New Zealanders will be paying more because of this Government's decision. So we have high unemployment, we have cuts to public transport, and what do we see? No plan from this Government to address it. There is no plan. The cuts that this Government has made to working people—and I just think it's really important to note this—have mainly affected women, kaimahi Māori, and Pacific people. The most vulnerable people in our society are being affected by the actions that this Government has taken. It is deadly serious and it's not something that we want to see on International Workers' Day, but it is, unfortunately, the reality of what we are seeing. We've also seen attacks in other areas as well. Not only are people losing their jobs but those who have jobs are losing rights too. So we saw the Government repeal fair pay agreements; we saw Government, effectively, institute a wage decrease with the cuts to the minimum wage, which was less than inflation; and we've seen them introduce 90-day trials again for the whole of the country, meaning that people at work are more likely to get sacked. It's not a particularly great time for working New Zealanders, this International Workers' Day, and I have to say that I think it is reflecting very badly on this Government. The Government needs to come up with a plan for unemployment. It is not acceptable just to say that "These people will lose their jobs and we'll do nothing about it." We need to see a plan, and I would encourage those on the other side of the House to actively come up with something. To close, I just want to reflect on the purpose of International Workers' Day. I think it's important to recommit, as the Council of Trade Unions have said today in their media release, to the idea that everyone deserves good work; that that work is secure, that it pays well, it provides lifelong opportunities, fosters health and wellbeing, and enables people to have a voice in the workplace and contribute to a meaningful and fulfilling life. This is the type of country and the type of work that we on this side of the House want to see for working New Zealanders this Labour Day and every International Workers' Day. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, today I'm going to talk about two projects in Marlborough that were cancelled, unfortunately, by our Government. We were forced to do that, and I want to give a bit of background to that. The Marlborough colleges project was to set up two colleges on one site and take education in Marlborough forward quite significantly. Unfortunately, the project blew out in cost by 300 percent—300 percent. Unfortunately, the then education Minister knew about this going on and, in fact, didn't inform his Cabinet. It's all reported in an article by Andrea Vance, which I encourage people to read. It is a tale of woe about how things could get out of control. I note that Tim Burfoot, who's the chair of the Marlborough Boys' College, said, "We went through a process of a lot of consultation with the ministry and the other schools on the design … the design concept was very good. There was just no talk about [a] budget at [the] time". That's underlined further by a former head of Naylor Love, who was their proposed constructor, who said, "There seemed to be no accountability for managing the budget … When prices went up, no-one said: 'How can we bring this back down?' It snowballed.", and boy did it snowball. It got to the point where, when the Government was formed and education Minister Erica Stanford took over the portfolio, she was actually almost floored when her officials came to her and said, "Look, we've got this project, there is no money to build it and it's snowballed from what it's original cost was by 300 percent." So, unfortunately, I went with the Minister to front up to these schools and to talk it through with them, and I'd have to say, the one thing that surprised me: they weren't surprised. They knew this was coming. As my friend and colleague Jamie Arbuckle will attest to, the people on the street knew it was coming, because the cost had just got so much out of control. The other project is what's known as the Inter-island Resilient Connection Project, or publicly more thought of as the mega-ferry project. That was absolutely another case of mismanagement. I knew a year before this came out that things were in trouble. I had contractors coming to me and saying, "I'm pulling out." I said, "Why are you pulling out?" And he said, "Well, I was asked to price a construction job as part of that project where" he said "I only had 50 percent of the drawings. And I said, 'I can't put a price in because I don't know what price to put in.'" He was told, "Don't worry about it. Just put any price in and we'll sort it out later.", and that's the sort of thing that was going on. Other small contractors had similar stories, and they got so worried about it that they pulled out of it, and you can see why. Again, one of the businesses that was benefiting quite significantly from it—I don't want to mention the name of it, but the owner of it said to me, "Look, I saw this coming. I'm really missing out on a lot of business as a result of that, but I knew this was coming anyway and it was going to end in tears." But he's now got to meet his budget some other way. So it's pretty bad, really, but I also knew early on that the port was going through an assessment process to ascertain what was the maximum size of ships that they would allow to navigate through Tory Channel. I was so concerned that I talked to KiwiRail, and I'd like to thank them publicly. They invited me to travel on the bridge with them through Tory Channel. It is a dangerous stretch of water. Now, the harbour board have put a maximum size on ships that can navigate through that of 187 metres. You might be surprised to know the size of the new ships was going to be 220 metres. They would not be able to actually navigate through that channel. It would have made it uneconomic anyway. So it is all a moot point, and I think it all came back to KiwiRail mucking around, trying to put rails on the ferries. No one in the world is now building rail ferries except for KiwiRail. And now, unfortunately, that's not happening either. So I hope we get three small, roll-on, roll-off ferries and fix this mess up. Thank you. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well and truly, New Zealanders are waking up to the coalition of cuts being absolutely real. Today, for Aucklanders, we've seen double the price of public transport go up for young people and tamariki who are using the bus to go back to school—in term 2. Yesterday in this House, the Prime Minister couldn't even answer the question of what cost impact this has on families. The cost for Aucklanders goes up for a five-zone fare from $4.25 to $8.50. If you add that up and calculate it, then it goes up to $170 additionally per child that Auckland families are paying for their kids to get around Auckland and to go to school. It's broken promises, because this Government were elected to create change for Aucklanders and offer relief, but the reality at this particular point is that they just continue to pile cost on to Auckland families. This Government has been a disgrace. It's been a disgrace for Aucklanders because on top of the cost of public transport, in addition, our water rates are going up by 25.8 percent. That is through their lack of action and their repeal on water infrastructure in a large city like ours. At the heart of it, though, I've always talked about the importance of health infrastructure and education infrastructure, and two particular examples that I'm most concerned about, particularly after asking questions to the Minister of Health last night, is that as we consider that Aucklanders under this Government were promised shorter wait times in surgery—North Shore Hospital, under a Labour Government, built 150—150—new hospital beds and eight new surgical units. This piece of infrastructure was due to open in December of last year, and like any piece of infrastructure, it does take time—we accept that. But only a few weeks ago, we found out from the Minister that they haven't actually started recruiting staff for a facility that was due to open back in December. So we have hospital beds there ready, waiting, and wait-lists for Auckland North to actually get in there and be serviced, but, under this Government, they haven't funded it. They haven't recruited staff for this particular piece, and 150 beds sit there waiting. That is shameful. Second to that, I want to acknowledge the schools' infrastructure that has been built across Auckland. It's absolutely vital that we keep up with the population growth of a growing city, of course, but also ensure that good, warm, dry classrooms for our tamariki are available. We know—and I look across the aisle—that Windy Ridge School has been put on hold. A large, 12-classroom facility at one of our growing schools in the Northcote electorate has been put on hold with no explanation from this Government, and I have to ask the question: where is this Government's priorities? Where are their priorities? Because all we've seen is not a commitment to opening 150 beds at North Shore Hospital, nor a commitment to building a 12-classroom facility at Windy Ridge; all we've seen is an early commitment to a tax break for landlords. That has been the commitment there, and every single New Zealander has been concerned about that. But finally, just to close off, one of my other largest concerns about Auckland City is the discontinuation of the national resilience plan. Under our Government, $6 billion was allocated to support the recovery of Auckland after the floods this time last year, and that is at risk. The Minister of Finance has not confirmed if that particular money will be taken away or that it will be cut, just like we're seeing across health, education, and the needs for our young people. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tough times require tough decisions and living within our means—it's a commonly said phrase—but our country is going through a process right now of tightening our belts and better positioning ourselves for a very bright future. I look around the House today and I think we ourselves, in our own households, all have businesses in our own right: we earn revenue, we earn a salary, we earn interest—we might even earn some inheritance or dividends from an investment we might have—but we also have outgoings. We have to pay for food. We have to pay for rent, mortgage payments, buy clothes—pay some interest, perhaps. We are, in effect, a small business in our own household, and the reason why I bring that up is that Government in itself is no different. I want to take you on a little journey. I was lucky enough, as a young tradesman, to be able to buy into an electrical business. Now, over the time of owning that business, we went through ups and downs, highs and lows, and I'm not ashamed to say that the fact is we went through some very tough times. At one stage, I thought I was going to lose my share, and we had to make some very, very tough decisions during those times. They were hard. There were people's lives at stake. And you learn, when you have a business, that when you employ an individual, it's not just that individual that you're supporting; it's also their partner, their family, and sometimes even their wider family. So you take the responsibility very, very seriously. But I did fall on hard times. It was a result of endeavouring to support a business through its own hard times, but unfortunately I almost became unstuck as a result of being on the coattails of its failure. Luckily enough, I made some decisions quickly, I righted the ship, and we ended up going through to some far better times. And I'm pleased to have gone through that journey. They say that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, and I had some considerable learnings from that. I've also had some considerable learnings over my career with some of the governance roles that I've had, with companies that I've been at the decision-making table of, and, similarly, they have their ups and downs. Those types of journeys are something that I bring to this House here, and that's why I'm sitting as part of this Government, because this Government realises that we need to get our ship itself in good shape. When you look at the likes of our inflation rate, we know that it's outside of the band that we want it to be in. We look at our official cash rate; it is too high—5.5 percent. We need to get that down because we know that that affects interest rates, and we've got to remember, basically, that just about every household that has a mortgage has had to renew its mortgage at far higher rates than they've managed to actually appreciate in recent times. That's tough going for those households. They have to go out there and earn that extra cash just to pay their mortgage, not to actually do anything else. So they've had to cut their cloth or get tighter in this. Unemployment, unfortunately, as a country, is creeping up, but we need to get our country stronger. If we look at our debt as a country, our debt as a percentage of GDP is not where we want it to be. We want to bring it down lower. We need to make sacrifices. We need to make decisions to succeed or even just to survive. We need to look at behaviours. There's a number of farmers in the room, and I know that farming, over the decades, has had its challenges at times. They have their ups and downs. I think I the banks that support farmers. Now, banks look at behaviours, OK? A lot of farmers have big debts, but one behaviour that they won't want to see in hard times is farmers going and buying a new boat or a new car. They want them to be seen to be tightening their belts and making good decisions. That's no different to the Government. Our behaviour as a Government is being observed by credit rating agencies. We get that credit rating as a result of how we behave, and we need to be showing good fiscal discipline. That's what this Government is indeed doing. I finish by saying that we are a Government that is going to deliver better public services and tax relief to New Zealanders who desperately need it. Dan Bidois: It's coming your way. DAVID MacLEOD: It is indeed coming our way. But we also need to support the economy, because we need to earn a dollar to spend a dollar within that Public Service that we so dearly want to improve from today's state. Thank you, Mr Speaker. SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm proud to be from the South, because we're a very hardy lot. Members may have heard the story of Binn Wharton, who is an injured fisherman. He gave up waiting for medical help after seven hours at Southland Hospital's emergency department in April. An off-duty nurse cleaned his wound the next day, but he had to return to the Southland emergency department with a suspected bloodstream infection. He had a really bad fever, he had nausea, he had swelling—it was getting really risky. A patient advocate then tried to get him after-hours care, calling between 15 and 17 GPs, but none were available. There's no after-hours service in Invercargill, and he had to return to the emergency department. Another GP service in Invercargill has just closed its doors because it couldn't get the staff. So if you live in Invercargill, if you haven't got a GP now, then you're simply out of luck for healthcare. We're a hardy lot in the deep South, but it's clear that health is a postcode lottery, so I want to hear about our chances of hitting the jackpot in this year's Budget. We've got an ageing population, rural communities spread out, and a shared local ambition to have health services and infrastructure to provide for the deep South. What we're experiencing in the deep South is a harbinger of the wider health crisis that we've already heard about. I'm not just talking about the disastrous repeal of the smoke-free legislation; I'm talking about the failure to adequately fund GP services. Our accident and emergency departments are already overrun. They deal with emergencies as a priority. Anything less than an emergency should be dealt with by a GP or after hours, but a failure to adequately fund GP services means that they are just not available. Is this gap going to be funded? I'm talking about health infrastructure— Shanan Halbert: Not in North Shore. SCOTT WILLIS: —specifically health infrastructure in the deep South. Yes, we've got it in the North Shore. We're waiting for it in the deep South. National talked so big in 2023 about its promise to build the Dunedin Hospital so needed by the deep South. Since forming the Government, however, National and this Government seem happy to renege on their promise to Dunedin and the South. I have asked repeatedly whether this Government will honour its promise to fully fund the Dunedin Hospital and deliver for the deep South. Dr Shane Reti promised to deliver all the beds, operating theatres, and radiology services that Labour removed in 2023, and each time I have asked questions of this Government about funding, I've been brushed off. I've been brushed off on every question about funding the Dunedin Hospital, yet as Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand's briefing to the Minister in December last year said, completion of the inpatient building in 2029 as planned is reliant on additional funding. Dunedin Hospital is a regional tertiary hospital. It serves a large region—the deep South, a region this Government seems happy to ignore. Instead of ignoring the deep South, the Government should ensure that, along with funding health services, the teaching and education needs of the medical, nursing, and allied professionals are included, rather than expecting other financially constrained institutions like the Otago University to contribute. When can we expect a signal that this Government cares about the deep South? When will the promise to provide the Dunedin Hospital that the South so desperately needs be honoured? These are the questions that we want to hear from the Government. When will this Government actually show it cares for the deep South? Kia ora. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Six months on—it's been six months since the October 2023 election and our New Zealand First team marked this milestone by getting across the country. We held our April tour, a grassroots tour, to provide the public with an update on the progress New Zealand First is making in Parliament and in Government. We are thankful to our supporters for the opportunity we have been afforded to advance the policy programme of New Zealand First and we ensure the values and principles of the party are represented in Parliament. Our team has got on with the job and we are proud to be representing our supporters in bringing a practical, pragmatic, and nationalist voice to Parliament. A number of our caucus also make up roles in Government, ensuring New Zealand First's voice is represented at every level. We provide a voice in Parliament and in Government, but we also need to have our eye and ear out in the community. New Zealanders need their voices heard and we will listen. New Zealand First understands the benefit and importance of engaging directly with the people and giving the public the opportunity to ask us questions. Our tour followed on from a massive state of the nation public meeting in Palmerston North before Easter, where our leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, addressed over 700 in attendance. My colleagues and I then continued on from the north to the south, meeting in community halls and talking to the locals. I was fortunate enough to attend meetings in Napier, Nelson, Blenheim, Timaru, Christchurch, and Dunedin and was able to speak to hundreds of everyday Kiwis. Along with the public meetings, we also had engagements with local stakeholders, business groups, technology organisations, residents, ratepayers, mayors, and workers. Now, what did we talk about? We gave them the good news—the good news. We provided an update on what issues our teams have been working on, where we have had engagements across the country, what coalition commitments we've achieved so far, but we also wanted to answer questions and understand what issues are important. The coalition agreement details over 100 commitments across a range of categories, which forms the basis of our involvement in the Government, and we have been steadfast in maintaining those commitments even in the face of difficult challenges. We've achieved or have an ongoing commitment to cancel Auckland light rail and Let's Get Wellington Moving. We've repealed the Natural and Built Environment Act and repealed the Spatial Planning Act 2023. We've committed to moderate increases to the minimum wage each year. We've kept the superannuation age at 65. We reserved the rights against the proposed amendments to the World Health Organization health regulations to allow the incoming Government to consider these against a national interest test. We have protected freedom of speech by ruling out the induction of hate speech legislation, and we stopped the Law Commission's work on hate speech legislation. We stopped all that work on He Puapua, required the Public Service and Crown entities to communicate primarily in English, except those specifically related to Māori. We have Public Service departments moving to change their names primarily to English. We have committed that in the absence of a referendum our Government will not change the official name of New Zealand. And we have made a start on many more, such as the COVID inquiry—what these guys don't want to see—the investigation into Marsden Point, and the work to repeal the Therapeutic Products Act. We've had great feedback from those people that we have spoken to. We have had great support in the job that our team are doing. They agree with our leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, that we bring the steel to the Government and that there are many issues that our supporters are watching with anticipation. New Zealand First has plenty of work to do and our team will get on with that job. Thank you, Mr Speaker. MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): I'd like to start by saying that I hope everyone in the country on our farms that has been desperate for rain is finally receiving a drop or two as I speak. But I'm not here to talk about the rain today; I'm here to talk about something just as topical and front of mind for a large part of the population, and that is education, and it's a future for our children. Last year, I was elected to Parliament to represent the people of the Wairarapa, and I hear on a daily basis how important education is to my constituents. First and foremost, before being an MP or a farmer, I'm a father. I have four amazing children, all of whom are now adults and have flown the nest—with the exception of all the times they turned up back at the house, announced or otherwise. But our kids have had the privilege of a world-class State education which has set them up to do whatever they choose to do. They didn't attend a private school, but they turned up at school every day and they did their homework. When I look at our children, I see first hand what can happen when a child turns up at school each day and is taught the basics well. This is what makes me passionate about educational success, because I truly do believe that every child should have the opportunity to reach their potential, no matter who their parents are or what their postcode is. Outcomes matter. When the last National Government came into power in 2008, nearly one in two students were leaving school without NCEA level 2 and, by the time we left, level 2 achievement rose to more than four in five. Surprise, surprise—after six years of neglect, the previous administration left office with NCEA achievement falling across every level, three years in a row. To put this in perspective, barely six out of ten year 11 students, or fifth-form children, passed NCEA level 1 last year. Worst of all, less than two in 100 decile 1 high school students were able to pass the most basic writing test. In my opinion, the single greatest thing the Government can do to break intergenerational welfare dependency and poverty is to provide every child with a world-class education, allowing them the opportunity of employment, allowing them purpose and independence rather than becoming dependent on the State, because no one wins from State dependency. That means getting kids to school. In term 2 last year, less than half of students consistently attended school. This Government's committed to achieving 80 percent school attendance and getting back to teaching the basics brilliantly, as part of our plan to get New Zealand back on track. And it's working—it's working. Just this week, we've banned cellphones in school, and the feedback I've had from parents in my electorate is great. Parents want these kids to go to school to learn, not to sit on their phones. Our kids need role models at home. While we should be proud of our social security net, modelling shows jobseeker beneficiaries are now predicted to spend an average of 13 years. That is simply not good enough. That's a social and an economic disaster. New Zealand is a country of hard-working folk who go to work, pay their fair share of tax, and get ahead through hard work and commitment. So that's why we've also set a target to reduce the number of people on the jobseeker benefit by 50,000 by 2030, because a basic education will open doors to employment and career pathways—everyone wins. I come to this House as a proud sheep and beef farmer. Nearly one in six New Zealanders are employed in the food and fibre industry, and I've had the privilege to pass my knowledge on to dozens of young farm hands, most of whom have progressed into farm leaders right across our industry. Agriculture is just one of the sectors that relies on the next generation of kids. We know, if these kids are equipped with a good education that allows them to continue to grow their skills, they will continue this country's legacy of delivering the best primary produce to the world in the most environmentally friendly manner. I'd like to thank the members of the Opposition who sit with me on the Education and Workforce Committee, and, together, I look forward to working collaboratively with you to ensure this House is focused on setting our kids up to succeed in tomorrow's world. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am deeply, deeply concerned for the children of Aotearoa. In the six months of this coalition Government, we have seen this Government introduce policies that will put more children in poverty, that will cut school lunches, that will repeal world-leading smoke-free legislation which would have seen a smoke-free generation for our tamariki. We are seeing them repealing legislation that the Waitangi Tribunal says will do harm—in repealing section 7AA. We see them going backwards to failed experiments of boot camps and military-style academies to deal with youth justice issues, experimenting on our tamariki. And we have just recently heard of significant deep cuts to organisations like Oranga Tamariki, the Department of Internal Affairs, and Customs, who are all doing important work in protecting our children. I want to start by talking about how this Government is taking us backwards in terms of the repeal of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act. This was a piece of policy introduced by the National Government, because they recognised that for generations there have been disproportionate numbers of tamariki Māori taken into care and that there are huge disparities within the child protection organisation and system. It was their legislation that they introduced and now they are repealing it. And they are repealing it on the basis of what has been described as anecdote, hearsay, and political ideology. It was been said in the Waitangi Tribunal's interim report that there is no—no—empirical evidence to support that there is any conflict between section 7AA and the best interests of the child, and in fact the evidence presented says it is to the contrary. I implore the Prime Minister, who the report was addressed to, to take pause to listen to what the Waitangi Tribunal has said, to stop the repeal of section 7AA—and that there are other options to look at these areas where they may have concerns. They have said that they will be introducing this legislation potentially next week. I am asking this Government to stop, to take pause, and to seriously consider the interim report from the Waitangi Tribunal, which says the action of repealing section 7AA will cause harm. I want to move on to the cuts within Oranga Tamariki, because these cuts are about choices. This organisation is being told to find 6.5 percent savings. Why is that? It's so that they can pay for tax cuts for landlords. That's what this is about. They are making a choice here, and so in looking for savings within the department, Oranga Tamariki has identified over 600 roles and 447 of those are going to be cut. Almost 9 percent of the organisation is being cut at the direction of this Government. And when we look at what some of those things are that they're cutting— Tim Costley: Back office—back office. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: —to the backbencher over there—it's appalling and it's unbelievable that they are looking at cutting the International Child Protection Unit that focuses on child labour exploitation and slavery, sexual exploitation, child trafficking. The cuts are going too far. This risks us taking our eyes off these highly sensitive issues and children's wellbeing is at grave risk here. I don't think this is what New Zealanders voted for. I don't think they voted for rushed repeals that are taking us backwards, that have been said by the Waitangi Tribunal to actually cause harm. I don't think they support cutting services like the International Child Protection Unit or including the child exploitation team at Internal Affairs, which has been looking into child pornography. I do not think that is what New Zealand has voted for. I think that this Government has got its priorities wrong and their cuts are going too far, and I'm deeply concerned for the children of Aotearoa who are being put at risk and harm by this Government. SPEAKER: The time for this debate has expired. The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed. SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. ANNUAL REVIEW DEBATE In Committee Debate resumed from 31 May on the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. This is the debate on the financial position of the Government and the annual reviews of Parliament, Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises as reported on by select committees. There are seven hours and 33 minutes remaining in this debate. New Zealand National has two hours and 40 minutes remaining. New Zealand Labour has two hours and 12 minutes remaining. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 54 minutes remaining. ACT New Zealand has 49 minutes remaining. New Zealand First has 37 minutes remaining. Te Pāti Māori has 27 minutes remaining. Standing Orders 356(2) and (3) have been set aside so that there will be no sector-specific debates; instead, specific Ministers will be available each day to respond to specific portfolios. The Government has indicated that the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Minister of Education, and the Minister of Transport will be available today to respond to members' questions. Each debate will be led off by the chairperson or another member of the committee that considered annual reviews most closely related to the Minister's portfolios. These speeches should be a non-political report back to the committee from the select committee. The Minister for Social Development and Employment is here first for 45 minutes to respond to members' questions. Social Development and Employment JOSEPH MOONEY (Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to report back as the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee. I just want to take the opportunity at the very beginning to acknowledge my colleagues on that committee, a hard-working committee who are all committed to better results for New Zealand. I also want to thank the clerk and her team, the Auditor-General's office for its contribution, and the ministry and their team as well. I just wanted to reflect a little on the report back to the House, and I just note that the core purpose of the Ministry of Social Development is helping New Zealanders to be "safe, strong and independent." I'll just outline some of the key functions, which include income support and superannuation, employment services and support, funding and support to community service providers, student allowances and loans, social housing assistance and services, providing social policy advice to Government, hosting Whaikaha - Ministry of Disabled People, emergency response services, and monitoring three Crown entities and providing advice to the responsible minister. So quite a bit involved in that. In 2022-23 the ministry's non-departmental expenditure was $37.88 billion. That's compared to $38.24 billion in the year preceding that. Superannuation and the four main benefits—jobseeker support, accommodation assistance, sole parent support, and the supported living payment—accounted for the bulk of that expenditure. Superannuation was the largest single cost, costing over $19.52 billion. In the Auditor-General's standard audit report for the 2022-23 year, the Auditor-General noted that the ministry's financial information and supporting systems and controls were good. However, he rated the ministry's management control environment as needing improvement, noting that major improvements need to be made at the earliest reasonable opportunity and recommending improvements to appropriation management, recruitment and contract management, information systems controls, and identification and recovery of overpayments through the COVID-19 wage subsidy programme. And just on that, we also heard about Te Pae Tawhiti - Our Future, which is the ministry's multi-year programme to improve its services through major upgrades to its digital systems and processes. The ministry has so far allocated $183 million to cover the first two years of the programme. We noted that the overall cost of the programme is projected to cost somewhere between $2.1 and $2.6 billion. There was some discussion that we had at select committee—and reported back to the House—on the ministry's digital systems and the need to update them, with the ministry reporting that it used several old and outdated systems which were described "as systems built on top of systems". For example, the ministry's core payment system, SWIFTT, is over 40 years old and was introduced before both the internet and EFTPOS. The ministry believes that by improving its digital systems it will be able to respond faster to change and make processes less complicated for its clients. Through this programme, it hopes to futureproof the welfare system both now and into the future. In terms of welfare dependency, the Minister told us that she wanted the welfare system to be a safety net in times of need and she wanted to break the cycles of intergenerational welfare dependency. We heard that one way to reduce the cycle of welfare dependency is by encouraging paid employment, with the Minister highlighting one of the principles of the Social Security Act being that work and paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic wellbeing. We heard about work-related sanctions, and we were interested to hear about what the ministry does in that respect, and reasons given for failure to attend, etc. We also heard about work seminars which are intended to connect job seekers with potential employers in their regions and encourage people into work. We reported that we'd be interested in seeing future work to monitor the efficacy of these work seminars. In terms of the social sector's staff capacity, we heard the ministry employed just over 9,000 fulltime-equivalent staff with just over 7,000 providing front-line services to New Zealand. We also heard that the ministry had seen a decrease in demand for emergency housing in the last financial year. In terms of COVID-19, we heard that 70,000 people went on to a benefit in a three- or four-month period, and that the ministry was still conducting fraud investigation work to ensure that all those who received the subsidy were entitled to it. The ministry had noticed high levels of depression, anxiety, and other mental health - related issues as barriers to getting people into work since the COVID-19 outbreak. Thank you, Mr Chair. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I thank the Minister for her appearance today. I just have a couple of questions for the Minister in terms of Māori employment. I would just like to know if the Minister supports the community-centric approach like the Whakawātea te ara Poutama programme that targets young people, rangatahi, with gang affiliations and criminal histories. This programme was very successful when we were in Government, and I would like to know, is there ongoing support for that? We've got these gang members with criminal histories—it supports them into employment and training. Will she continue to ensure that funding for the programme will continue to support families moving forward? Also, to the Minister, will she commit to the ongoing funding for Mana in Mahi, which has been successful in keeping people from long-term benefit dependency and also has been stated as a major priority for this Government? So just a couple of questions in that area to kick off in terms of the Māori employment area. Kia ora. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): So, firstly, because this is a debate on the annual review for the financial year 2022/23, it is to the year 30 June 2023, so I won't be answering any questions that take a forward view or indicate what future funding might look like. What I can say of the time in review is that Mana in Mahi was a significant investment to support Māori into employment, to ensure that more people were connected with ongoing training opportunities. Of course, what we do want to continue to see—given that in the time in review we unfortunately did see an explosion of the jobseeker benefits, we want to see programmes that are getting outcomes to support people into employment. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just before we continue, I've had my attention drawn to Speaker's ruling 147/2. It deals with future-focused questions for annual reviews. The purpose of this procedure is to examine the performance of an organisation, not to ask speculative questions that are unrelated to its performance, administration, or expenditure, so let's be clear about that. However, there would be value in greater scrutiny of organisations' progress against their strategic intentions and what plans and intentions they have for further progress. So bearing that in mind, if you're going to ask questions that are future-focused, they must be about the progress of strategic intentions within the scope of the annual review. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. So I wanted to draw attention to an issue that's been talked about a lot, which is young people on the benefit. If we look back at the period that we're reviewing, there was the Taylor Fry report, a report that looked at several things but included making forecasts on future years that people will be spending on the benefit. This report looked at the period we're reviewing, so even though it was forecasting in the future, it was done at that time and using figures of the time. I wanted to draw on that report, because a lot has been said about young people's experience on the benefit, and this report particularly touches on, effectively, 0.5 percent of the population who are on the benefit. Half of those are predicted to potentially be on the benefit for 24 years, and other reports that show similar data point out that there are seven risk factors that could contribute to people on benefit spending 24 years on it. In that other report, those people would have to meet those seven risk factors, including being discharged from a public hospital, having legal action taken against them by the police, being in the youth justice system when they were 13 to 18 years old, had a parent or guardian who was receiving a benefit, hadn't interacted with Oranga Tamariki, had not achieved qualifications equivalent to the National Certificate of Educational Achievements level 2 or higher, and was stood down or suspended while at school. So these are the seven risk factors someone would have to meet to then be predicted to be on the benefit for 24 years. My question to the Minister is whether she thinks that enough has been done to address those risk factors rather than taking a sensationalist approach, which is what we're seeing right now regarding how we talk about young people on the benefit who—those who are predicted to spend a long time needing that income support actually come from backgrounds where they've been failed by multiple parts of the system. So my question is whether she thinks her priority in terms of meeting the strategic goals should be rather focused on addressing those risk factors instead of, for example, creating more mechanisms to increase benefit sanctions. On benefit sanctions, I did want to ask whether she is confident the benefit sanctions regime works as intended. I note that there is no empirical evidence in New Zealand that supports benefit sanctions actually supporting people into employment, and that the overseas evidence is pretty mixed. So I'm keen to get an understanding about what evidence she has seen during that period about benefit sanctions actually working to support people into employment. And, if not, how can she have confidence that all the benefit sanctions that were applied during that period actually were supporting people rather than just leaving them in hardship? I'd like to also, on the topic of employment, ask a question in relationship to the Mana in Mahi scheme. Is the Minister confident that the scheme was working well, and, if so, can I just ask if the Minister is concerned that there's not enough data around the types of wages that people go into? And does she think that young people should be going to well-paying employment, and, if so, is she confident that the data that's available for that period actually substantiates the type of employment—and good employment—that people may or may not be going into? Finally, does she think that work seminars are good value for money? There is no evidence and/or reports around collation of reports about the outcomes that people experience once they attend those work seminars when it comes to actually then getting jobs. We've heard the Minister talk about interviews, but nothing about the types of jobs they go into. So I'm keen to understand whether she has seen any evidence beyond the anecdotal random examples that she's quoted, seeing as she hasn't even been able to provide the advice that she's received on those handful of examples she's provided. I'll end those questions for now and I'll pick up on some of those later in other contributions. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Thank you, Mr Chair. Let me take a wander through the various areas that the member asked. So I'll start with the Taylor Fry report, which of course does look back at the year in review, which is up to 30 June 2023. I'm pleased the member asked this question, because what the Taylor Fry report highlights is increasing numbers of dependency. So in the period in review, we not only saw an increase in the number of people on the jobseeker benefit in the 5½ years up to that point—an increase in 50,000 people—but we saw more people staying on welfare for longer. Let me give you some of those figures so they are on the record—and these are the average estimated future years on main benefit to the age of 65. It is a performance indicator that the Ministry of Social Development is required to report on, and it is an indicator of their success as an organisation. So jobseeker support across all categories: in September 2017, the estimate was 9.3 years—it went up to 12.7 years. For jobseeker support under 25 years, it was 12.12 years—went up to 18.9 years. The member referred specifically to those on the youth payment or the young parent payment, and the estimate in September 2017 was 15.2 years—and went up to 24 years. These figures are pretty disturbing, and I wanted to deliberately—in the answer to the member's question—put them on the record in the House. I know the member will have read the Taylor Fry report. It is about looking at the lifetime future years estimated on benefit. So for each of those categories, we've seen a significant increase in the number of years, and that should worry every member in this House—it should worry every member in this House. Ricardo Menéndez March: It's a prediction. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I particularly focus on those on jobseeker support—and the member may interrupt and talk about the fact that it is a small percentage; it is a small number. But what we do know is for that group who have a bunch of challenges, they are the ones that are more likely to bounce on and off welfare throughout their lifetime, which is why we get to an average future estimated years on benefit of 24 years. The member also referred to Mana in Mahi. One of the things that we have to look at in terms of performance and in terms of delivery is whether or not the programmes are delivering for the different groups that are currently on the jobseeker benefit. For some, Mana in Mahi is doing that. If you look at some of the barriers to employment, we need to ensure that the Ministry of Social Development is delivering programmes that meet the needs, that address the barriers. Because the end goal—and I'd be surprised if there was anyone in this House who didn't agree that we want to see more people who are able to be independent of the State. So we have a range of programmes—one of them was mentioned in terms of Mana in Mahi, and it absolutely takes into account some of the factors that are occur in a person's life that are affecting their ability to be successful in employment or gaining employment, which is absolutely why those are programmes that are funded. Just on that, one of the other elements of the work that was started in the time under review is the social sector commissioning. It started slowly, there is great promise, and I think there is greater opportunity to deal with the challenges of the young people that the member who asked the questions raised to ensure we are meeting their needs. Those are local solutions that absolutely respond to local challenges, and that's where I see community providers and iwi providers really having some of the answers in this space. The member also asked about sanctions. In the year in review, the number of sanctions imposed—or the number of clients that had a sanction imposed was 20,000—[Bell rung] CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Louise Upston. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Sorry, Mr Chair. I just think for those listening, it's useful to talk a little bit more about why sanctions are imposed. So if someone is— Ricardo Menéndez March: Do you have evidence it works? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —on the jobseeker benefit—yep. So in terms of the evidence of it working, when there are no consequences of somebody not taking steps to be in employment, there's no surprise they won't be in employment. So there was a direct correlation. There is a direct correlation and the data tells us job seeker numbers went up when sanctions went down—pretty clear. What we do know is that if people don't turn up to job interviews, if they don't have a CV, if they're not turning up to Work and Income and engaging with employers through things like seminars, work expos, their chances of finding employment are definitely lower. Which is why we have rights and responsibilities, we have expectations about what job seekers do to help themselves, and there are consequences or sanctions when they don't take those necessary steps. The final question was around work seminars, and one of the questions was around evidence about work seminars working. Well, I can tell the member this: there's a variety of work seminars; they run differently in different offices and in different regions. Some have employers turning up every week on a Wednesday for an hour, others have Connect, which is a cross-agency opportunity to connect those who come in to Work and Income with training opportunities—might be they need assistance with a driver licence—so they can be connected with a community provider who's providing the driver licensing education to help them address those barriers. So at an individual level—and I've been talking with lots of front-line workers over the last couple of months: they have those records; they know when somebody has attended a work seminar and it's led to an employment outcome, they know that. What we don't collect is combined cumulative data about the outcome of work seminars. That is the only— Ricardo Menéndez March: So how do you know they're working? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because employers go to meet job seekers at work expos and work seminars, and they end up in a job. That's a win, to me. I know that member may not want to see more Kiwis in work, but I definitely do. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'll take my second and final call. I really appreciate the Minister's hot takes on sanctions, but she didn't present any research or empirical evidence about whether they work, so I'll ask my question again succinctly. Does she have any empirical evidence in New Zealand that the New Zealand sanctions regime actually supports people into employment, beyond her hot takes? Because we have seen sanctions gradually increase, including in the periods that we're reviewing, so I'm curious to know whether she can substantiate whether that increase is backed by evidence. Secondly, I also note that she dumped a bunch of figures regarding the Taylor Fry report, but those are useful to be put in the context of the recent statements by the Prime Minister, who talked about, for example, under-24s spending, on average, 24 years on the benefit. That is simply not backed up by the research. The Prime Minister's statements where he talks about "people on the youth benefit 'are now languishing' on welfare for an average of 24 years."—that's also not backed up by the Taylor Fry report; that's a forecast. They are not now languishing 24 years on the benefit. So I'm curious to know whether the Minister is confident that the Government MPs who are quoting that report are actually using it in a way that accurately describes its findings or whether this report, produced in the period we're reviewing, is simply being used to scapegoat young people on the benefit, rather than accurately portraying the figures that are there. Lastly, I'm curious to know whether the Minister is concerned about the growing level of debt to the Ministry of Social Development by people on the benefit, and whether she thinks that the growing level of debt, disproportionately carried by women and Māori, and including a growing level of debt in seniors and people in work, is something that she's concerned about? We've seen an increase of not just the total debt but the average repayments during the period that we're reviewing. And so I'm curious to know how, if at all, those figures will affect her goals in Government. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm not going to go back over questions that I have already addressed. I do want to come to the question of debt that the member raised, because it is very concerning—the level of debt that we are seeing. And also, if you look at the period of time that we are referring to and the years before that, we have seen—just let me get my figures right—in terms of the number of hardship assistance, that the number of hardship assistance provided nearly doubled, and the value of the hardship assistance nearly trebled. So what is really concerning in the year in review was that we did see increasing need and that is absolutely connected to the level of debt. What we do know to be a contributing factor absolutely is the massive increase in the cost of living. That is why addressing the cost of living, when the coalition Government came in, was and still is the No. 1 priority. Otherwise, we will see families, households, individuals who have fixed incomes on benefit doing it the toughest. That is also why there needs to be more of a focus on supporting people into employment so that they will have higher incomes. And when people are in work, we will not see this escalation in the level of debt that we have seen. So absolutely I'm concerned. It is a problem. It's connected to the cost of living crisis, and it's connected, unfortunately, to the fact that we've seen a massive increase in the number of people on the jobseeker benefit staying there for longer, and a related connection to the increase both in the number of hardship assistance that's provided and the value. So doing nothing isn't an option. That is absolutely why we have to go back to the principles of the Social Security Act, which is about supporting people to be preparing for or to be in work. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'd like to ask a brief question in relation to the good work that the Ministry of Social Development has done in funding some of the youth programmes that we've seen. In particular, the multi-agency teams in South Auckland have run programmes such as Kotahi te Whakaaro, and also in West Auckland, the West Auckland Multi-Disciplinary Cross Agency Team (MDCAT), where we're seeing really good outcomes from there. We've seen that more than 70 percent of children successfully completing those programmes are not re-referred or don't go on to be referred to those programmes. What I'm interested to know from the Minister is: given the success of these programmes, what is her view as to the ongoing commitment to see these outcomes in our communities, and the ongoing commitment to continue these programmes into the next financial year? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I don't have the data in front of me around the programmes that the member referred to. But if I go back to the comments I made in response to Ricardo Menéndez March's questions: absolutely, we need to make sure that initiatives, particularly for those on the young parent payment and the youth payment, and jobseekers under the age of 25 are getting support in a way that responds best to their needs. That's what we need to ensure that we focus on so that we're able to create greater opportunities for them. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm just interested to know also, in a similar vein, with regard to the prevention of family and sexual violence: the Ministry of Social Development has over the past six years invested a substantial amount of money into different groups, whether they be iwi organisations or women's refuges, that have enabled on-the-ground investment into the prevention of family and sexual violence. That is underpinned by Te Aorerekura, with the six shifts that are specified in that plan. I'm interested to know from the Minister about the ongoing commitment for programmes that have come under this, such as E Tū Whānau and Pasefika Proud. What is the Minister's view as to the ongoing funding of those sexual violence and family violence programmes, which have been working very effectively within communities? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): I feel like the previous member who spoke, the Hon Ginny Andersen, almost has to repeat that whole contribution because I don't think the Minister for Social Development and Employment was able to concentrate on what she was saying. But I'd like to ask a question about the Independent Children's Monitor Aroturuki - Tamariki, which sits under the Ministry of Social Development. We know that they have done initial reports on monitoring—three experience of care reports and two in-depth review reports have also been produced. I'm just wondering if the Minister sees that there is a need to require a separate agency for that. LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Thank you Mr Chair, for the opportunity. Minister, it's been helpful to understand this period in review. I specifically want to ask about the programmes that are beneficial to Pasifika communities. The last Government invested over $27 million to help Pacific people gain employment, and I have a specific question around the Toloa Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Maths programme; Tupu Aotearoa; and the Pacific Work Connect service: will the Government continue to invest? Because I've seen in my local community the benefits of these programmes to help our Pasifika people. Thank you. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chair. I just want to check, during the last question I asked, it did appear that the Minister for Social Development and Employment was talking to one of the National whips for the entire time I was asking it. I was just wondering if it was possible that I'd have the opportunity of re-asking my question, given I don't think the Minister heard it. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yeah, if you can. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Should I wait till that one, or how— CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Let's take this question, and then the next contribution will be from you. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Thank you, Mr. Chair. On the Independent Children's Monitor, obviously, there have been concerns raised about whether or not the location of it being in the Education Review Office really enabled it to be as independent as it needs to be as part of the oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system. That wasn't raised in the Social Services and Community Committee's review—I don't recall. But I can say that I share the widespread concerns about the lack of independence of the Independent Children's Monitor. They do really important work, but the perception of a lack of independence, given it is housed in the Education Review Office, is a significant concern. In terms of specific Pacific employment initiatives, rather than going through individual programmes, I'll just reiterate that we are clear about the fact that we want to continue to invest in initiatives that support people into employment. There will be a particular focus on young people. Where those programmes are getting the outcomes and supporting people into employment—that's what we want to see more of, clearly. I'm not going to name programmes and future plans—those are for other debates. But I want to assure the member that the coalition Government is absolutely and very deliberately focused on how we can provide more New Zealanders with the choices and opportunities that come through being in work. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Mr Speaker, thank you. I just wanted to clarify: Te Aorerekura, the national strategy to eliminate family violence and sexual violence, has been a new thing for New Zealand over the last few years and has been working very well. In the action plan, it stipulates six specific changes. I'm interested to know from the Minister whether she stands by the action plan and those six shifts that need to occur. And, alongside of that, those programmes in place in the community, such as E Tū Whānau and Pasefika Proud, that benefit directly from those six shifts—does she stand by and support this programme which has been in place, and does she intend to continue the good work that has been occurring in communities to date? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I'm happy to speak on the areas of my responsibility. I'm not the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence; that is another Minister's responsibility. But, in terms of the two programmes that the member referred to, we absolutely want to see emphasis where there is a family violence prevention initiative. Programmes like E Tū Whānau have been under way for many years, and what we want to see is continued effort where there is prevention work occurring in communities that are suitable to the community's needs. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): I'll just acknowledge what the Minister was saying earlier with regards to guarantees, obviously, in funding. So I accept what she was saying with regards to projections, but it is important for us to find out if the Government is going to support specific programmes. Because when I was employment Minister, I picked up He Poutama Rangatahi, which was actually a National Party initiative that was put on hold back around 2017. So I appreciate and I understand what the Minister's saying in terms of supporting the principle of, obviously, any programme that might make sure and ensure that young people are taken off the benefit. But we know, as the previous Government, that specific programmes were able to do that, and so that's why we've asked the questions about Mana in Mahi. And I do want to ask the question about He Poutama Rangatahi that saw over 12,000 young people engaged in the programme, resulting in 77 percent of those young people—77 percent, Minister—engaging in employment, education, or training. I know for a fact that that was a priority for the Minister in her time as Opposition, always pushing that area in terms of employment, education, and training. So it's important to get on record what the Government's commitment is to the specific programme of He Poutama Rangatahi. Also, I'm not quite sure if the Minister has answered the question I put forward earlier: does she support community-centric approaches—a community-centric approach like the Whakawātea te ara Poutama programme that targets young people with gang affiliations and criminal history? So I wanted to get on record the Minister's response to that. Also, in our time in Government, we brought back the very, very popular Māori trade-training programme which has been a huge success for Māori, particularly through the 1960s, 70s—we had so many young Māori who took up the Māori trade-training programme. Again, in our time as Government, we brought that back and that saw 79 percent of those who participated in that programme gain positive employment outcomes. That's a very significant percentage; 85 percent retaining employment for at least six months. And we committed over $95 million for the fund which delivered 63 Māori-lead projects and will support over 4,000 Māori across Aotearoa. Now, again, I appreciate the Minister can't talk too much about the budgets, but will she commit to ensuring— CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Willie Jackson, is there a question in there? We're on the clock. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yeah, will she commit to continuing these programmes which will continue the positive outcomes? That's the question. But the question is these specific programmes, what I would like to get from the Minister is: will she continue with the support of these specific programmes? Thank you, Mr Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, our time with the Minister for Social Development and Employment has ended. The Minister for Education is now available for 45 minutes to respond to members' questions. Education KATIE NIMON (Chairperson of the Education and Workforce Committee): Thank you, Mr Chair. It's a pleasure to stand up and speak to the education sector annual reviews, just acknowledging, obviously, the first annual reviews of this 54th Parliament. The process was fairly spread out, comparative to normal times, which made for a bit of a lengthy process for the Education and Workforce Committee. I think, regardless, the committee did very well to hear from a wide range of education sector organisations. There was a robust line of questioning, shared quite well between both the Government and the Opposition. I also note that the committee heard from both the Minister of Education and the Associate Minister of Education—given the nature of the portfolio spread—as well as the Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills, which provided a good overview of not only what has happened in the last year that this period is reviewing but also the strategic intent, which has been outlined by the Standing Orders. What I'd like to do is take the committee of the whole House through an overview of what was discussed, given that there will be some questions following my time here. So it's very helpful for me to give an overview for those listening or watching from home. Of course, we had the priorities of the education sector, but just to let those listening know, the agencies and organisations that we heard from were: the Ministry of Education, the Tertiary Education Commission, the Education Review Office, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, Education New Zealand, Education Payroll Limited, and Network for Learning—some in-depth, some in a standard review format, some in a review briefing format, and some pro forma. Of course, it's worth noting that the time reviewed was during the time of the former Government, which did make for an interesting hearing process, but that has none the less been robust. We focused a lot on student achievement, talking about structured literacy, talking about a refreshed and NCEA, addressing student achievement, and charter schools. We focused on the administrative pressures on education providers and funding in the sector. We focused on vocational education with Te Pūkenga university and then, of course, the fees-free scheme, which was of great interest to the committee. Additionally, when we focused specifically on the Ministry of Education, of course there was a question on financial performance, but most interestingly, on non-financial performance. Some of the more interesting or major issues that were considered by the committee were early learning and the pathway to school—and, of course, early learning and its regulatory requirements, which will be of no surprise to most people. Additionally: providing learning support, refreshing the national curriculum, supporting teachers to deliver that curriculum and those outcomes, addressing student achievement, and, quite interesting to the committee, declining school attendance. Obviously, that covered not just attendance via what you would typically think of but also school transport and how that fitted in as well. We talked about investing in the workforce within education, empowering school leaders and principals; not surprisingly, property, the National Education Growth Plan, property maintenance, and enabling a devolved system. Of course, of high interest, but not discussed in length, was the cell phone ban in schools, supporting Māori learners, the healthy school lunches programme, and how the ministry interacts with the Tertiary Education Commission. Of course, with the Tertiary Education Commission as well, there was a significant amount of interest in regional responsiveness to industry, as well as the review of vocational education, which has been a significant part of not only the last year that we have reviewed but also years prior. So, as well as that, many things that the Tertiary Education Commission are working on—as I mentioned prior, fees-free, and then, of course, equitable learner outcomes was a considerable aspect of the work that was undertaken. Of course, financial stability and sustainability of the tertiary sector was significant. Mr Chair, I will just take the last 20 seconds to note that during this review process Fa'anānā Efeso Collins was part of our committee and was part of these hearings. So I make note that he had great interest in this subject particularly. Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. We've just heard from the chair of our select committee, and I'd like to say thank you to her for chairing those hearings so well. A lot of the work that was undertaken during this annual review stage was about the compulsory sector and the schooling sector, and we heard a lot, as the chair of our select committee has just said, around achievement. So I want to focus my first part on asking the Minister some questions around that. You mentioned, Minister, in your hearing with us around the ministerial advisory group that you have around curriculum. And, of course, there's been a lot of work done in the last short while—last couple of years—around the curriculum refresh. I'm really wanting to know, because the sector has been reporting about how they've been well engaged with on that process, they're enjoying that process, they like the curriculum work and the direction that's going in. Just really wanting to know when the public is likely to hear a report back from the ministerial advisory group on curriculum. And if they're making significant recommendations, which I'm sure that they will be, having read some blog pieces by some of those members recently around changes, what work is the Minister thinking about to ensure that there is sector consultation that will happen, given that some of those peak bodies are complaining that they feel that they are not being consulted in recent times? Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Thank you. Well, I'd like to point out—well, firstly, can I say thank you to the Education and Workforce Committee; a committee I've been on for many years and thoroughly enjoyed. And can I just say thank you to the chair, Katie Nimon, for doing an excellent job and to the members of that committee for what was a thoroughly enjoyable hearing that we had. This debate is about the annual review, so, really, we're looking back at the previous financial year, so I will mostly limit my comments to that. This is not forward-looking. We can talk about that in the Estimates. But if we're going to talk about achievement in curriculum—and the previous Minister mentioned curriculum and also achievement—I think the key thing is to note that those two things are intrinsically linked. From my perspective, looking back, the fact that we have had a curriculum that has been very vague, high-level, and devoid of knowledge has been a real problem for New Zealand. I think our decline in our standards started from 2007 when we introduced that curriculum. So ensuring that we have a knowledge-rich curriculum that lays out year by year what must be taught in what order is really important to get consistency across the country. We have had this devolved curriculum, really down to individual schools to create, which is a huge impetus on our teachers when they have got a huge workload to then also have to write the curriculum. And to be fair to the previous Government and the previous Minister, I think that that was acknowledged as well. So the work that was started, unfortunately not completed or well-completed over that six-year period, but I think we're on the same track, which is we have to have a knowledge-rich curriculum that lays out year by year what the key core content is that must be taught so it doesn't matter where you go to school in this country and what your family circumstances are, you get access to the same knowledge, skills, and competencies. So I think we're on a similar page there. What I would say is when I look back to the work that was done, there were some pockets of really good work, especially, I would say, in the maths curriculum—we're not terribly far off. And I've said publicly that we will keep a similar structure, that we will keep to similar time frames, but what we're looking at is a very incomplete curriculum. If we look at English, there have been no year-by-year progressions done; we look at other learning areas and the progressions aren't there year by year. What we're also concerned about is that the previous Government didn't ensure that it was internationally comparable as well. We are focused on making sure that those documents are internationally comparable, that they lay out year by year what the core content is that must be taught, no matter where you go to school, so that every child has access to the same learning. So that's where we will start from. The ministerial group hasn't reported back yet. It's outside the parameters of this debate, but I would say that the work that is under way is very much in train, it will be internationally comparable, it will be based on the science of learning, and it will be knowledge-rich in its content, while keeping those competencies and skills alongside to make sure that our kids are geared up to live the life that they want where they get a world-leading education. Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): I'll just point out that it is within the parameters of this debate because the Minister did bring it up herself within the annual review hearing that she had with the select committee. I just really want to focus on the fact around why, when there were expert groups that have been putting together the curriculum and working through that and making certain that the sector is on board, does the Minister feel that a new group was needed of alternate experts and whether they had so-called better expertise than the experts that were already there? And that being the case, one of the aspects that we did talk about too was the common practice model in the annual review. Those experts in this new ministerial advisory group are looking at that common practice model. Will the Minister be releasing the one alongside that that was ready to be released in October so the public can see the difference between the two and see the similarities as well? Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): The role of the ministerial advisory group was to advise me on where we're at with the curriculum and the advice, you will see in the report that's not yet released, will quite clearly show that there will be some changes that need to be made. The groups that we now put together—the expert writing groups which are different groups—to write that material will be brought together from a range of expertise from around the country to make sure that the advice of the ministerial advisory group is followed. And you won't be surprised to hear that we need to make sure it's based on the science of learning, that it's year by year, that all of the core content is there in a structured way, especially in things like mathematics and literacy, which are so important that we do things in the right order. And the member will well know, with structured literacy, for example, when you are learning to read and you're learning how the English language works, there is a certain order, and it's exactly the same in mathematics. So that work has been done. As I said, the year-by-year literacy progressions were not done, so we have to do them. So that's what we will be doing. And we're bringing in expert writers from around the country to make sure that that happens. The second part of the question was around the common practice model. I've made comments in the past about the previous iterations of the common practice model that I saw. It was incoherent, it was based on competing ideologies, it was not based on what the latest research and evidence in science and cognitive research says, which is the science of learning and how the brain learns to acquire knowledge. Our curriculum will be based on that. It will include the concepts of the science of learning and it will include a common practice model within it so there is one single document. But I'm not very interested in going back and looking at documents around the common practice model that, frankly, were substandard, that were incoherent, and that had competing ideologies. I'm interested in the latest research and science and evidence, which shows us clearly how the brain learns to read and write and do mathematics in a structured, explicit way, based on the science of learning. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is around early childhood education (ECE). The network approval was something that was introduced in February 2023 as part of the Early Learning Action Plan, and objective 5.1 states that early learning services are part of a planned and coherent education ecosystem that is supported, accountable, and sustainable. So my question to the Associate Minister of Education is: out of curiosity, when the Minister said, as part of the annual review hearing, that network management is a burden, did he consult with ECE teachers on this? I'm not referring to the managers and directors of for-profit ECE companies or the Early Childhood Advisory Committee. Also, has the Associate Minister taken sector leaders such as the New Zealand Educational Institute's Kōriporipo report last year into consideration? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Well, yes, I want to first of all thank the member for the question. There's quite a lot there. For example, he seemed to make a point of some centres being for profit as being a problem, almost something pejorative. Well, let me tell the member: if he walks into any early childhood education (ECE) centre—in fact, any school in this country—he will find furniture, electronic devices, carpets, buildings. You know what? That's all made by people who are for profit. It's not really obvious why the member has a problem with profit in early childhood education, because if he went into any centres, he'd be surrounded by the products of for-profit entities. The member asked a question about network management. Well, once again, this is why the member's side lost the Cold War. You see, there used to be a belief that if we had a Government that could tell people where to invest and what to invest in and what exactly was necessary in each part of the country, then we'd all be better off. And what was discovered—long and painfully, I might add—was that Governments generally don't know exactly where to invest. They don't know the best places for people to do business. They don't understand community demand as well as the people who are involved in running the businesses. So we're getting rid of network management because it creates an additional burden on the people managing the centres. The member asks if we consulted the teachers. Well, no, not really, because they're not the ones that are making decisions about when to expand or when to open or when to close a centre, so it would be unusual to consult people that aren't really affected by a regulation on the regulation. What we have done is spoken to the people who manage and represent the people who manage centres, because we know that actually it's them who risk their money to make things happen, who have the best insight into where centres should be built. It's a really important point that over the last 20 years we have seen enormous investment in the early childhood education network. I visit these centres and they are overwhelmingly well maintained, superb facilities that have been built by these for-profit operators at zero cost of investment capital to the Crown. I actually think that that is a wonderful thing, and rather than telling them where to build and putting them through rigmarole before they're allowed to build, we should actually just let them keep building these wonderful facilities for kids at no cost to the Crown. Doesn't that sound pretty good? Then the member finally asked me if I have consulted with the NZEI, the New Zealand Educational Institute, or the union that represents some early childhood and primary sector leaders. Well, yes, I have met with them, and I think the member would have enjoyed being a fly on the wall in the meeting, to be honest. But probably the most useful thing I got from them was a survey of their members, of some of these teachers. What the survey told me is that one of the concerns—if not the greatest—of unionised teachers in the ECE sector was actually the red tape and regulation that the Government puts on them when they're trying to do their job. So, to conclude, for the member, this Government believes that early childhood education is vital; that it can be better; that it's over-regulated—that's a view that is shared by the teachers; and that people can make profit out of it. If that means they're building a network of education centres that are very well maintained and have no capital cost to the Crown, that's not such a bad thing. And if the member's opposed to profit, then next time he goes to an early childhood education centre, he should ask himself where everything from the food to the carpet came from and figure out how, in his communist utopia, any of those things would be provided without profit. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): So a follow-up question from that: considering that the before-profit early childhood education (ECE) companies take a huge amount of money from taxpayer funding, how would the Minister expect to ensure that the early learning action plan is still upheld from the perspective of accountability and sustainability, and ensure that there is transparency of the taxpayer funding being delivered to for-profit companies and that taxes are being paid properly and are not being funnelled into offshore areas? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Oh no, we've gone from anti-business sentiment to outright xenophobia. There's now totally unfounded accusations that early childhood education centres are actually funnelling money that they should have paid tax on into foreign corporations. Now, I'm just going to give the member an opportunity to say if he's got any evidence to substantiate that. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Chair— Hon David Seymour: He's had a chance—are you calling me, Mr Chair? CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yes, we'll have Hon David Seymour, then we'll come to you, Carl. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): So he had an opportunity to stand up and say if he had any basis for accusing the early childhood education centre of funnelling money that they should have paid tax on into foreign corporations. There we have xenophobia and false accusations of tax evasion by the early childhood sector. That's what the Green Party offers the early childhood sector here in New Zealand. Well, to address the other questions, apart from the unfounded accusations of tax evasion and the xenophobia, there's actually no reason that any of those things are true, and when it comes to the quality, here's the question: who is best to judge the quality of an early childhood education centre? Someone called "parents"—parents who love their kids, parents who can see how their kids are being looked after, that they're safe, that they're being well looked after, and that they're learning valuable lessons at the centre. That is the primary way that people understand the quality. Secondly, there is also the Education Review Office, and there is also the Ministry of Education in their licensing capacity. It has to be said that all of these things are now being reviewed because, as we heard from the unions—or at least their members—overwhelmingly they are concerned by the excessive regulation put on the early childhood education sector. So we will have a much better set of measures over time that evaluate the outcomes that we're getting for around $2.7 billion worth of taxpayer money going into ECE, and if the member does know of any tax evasion by anyone in the sector, I would advise him to ring the 0800 hotline at the IRD. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Chair. First of all, can I just acknowledge my colleagues on the Education and Workforce Committee and the huge amount of work done by them, led by our chair. Thank you for the introduction of this annual review to the committee. It was a great opportunity to highlight a huge amount of the positive work being done in the sector during the period, but also to spotlight the various challenges that were recognised during the annual review period of 2022 and 2023. As I noted in several of the hearings, as a parent of a five-year-old and a nearly two-year-old coming into the education sector, it gives some great confidence that these challenges have been spotlit and are being addressed by the current Government. My question, however, for the Minister of Education is: what student achievement did you note from the Better Start literacy report? Thank you, Mr Chair. Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Thank you to the member Carl Bates for his question. I've been talking a lot about structured literacy for a long time now. For those of you who are watching at home or up in the gallery—you're not here to see me, you're here to see someone else; I know that—structured literacy— Hon David Seymour: Take the chance. Hon ERICA STANFORD: —look—maybe. Structured literacy at its core is, as we all know, phonics, but it's so much more. It is the most useful way of teaching children to learn to read. We know that about 90 percent of kids learn to read using structured literacy. To be fair to the previous Government, I think they started to acknowledge that and did invest in structured literacy, and I want to give credit to them for doing that, because the Better Start Literacy Approach (BSLA) was brought in under the previous Government. Unfortunately, we got into this weird argument of "Maybe we'll use that, maybe we'll use something else." I know that Jan Tinetti, the previous Minister, is clearly on the side of structured literacy as well—we've had those conversations; we know that that's how children learn to read. But what we see from the evidence that has been born out of the structured literacy approach under the Better Start Literacy Approach is that children gain so many levels of reading in such a short period of time. I was just looking at the Better Start Literacy Approach, it's seen an 87 to 96 percent success rate of students reaching the expected level for their year group. I mean, it's phenomenal—just in 10 weeks, you can raise children's reading levels up so many levels. But I want to give a case—because I was talking just recently to the principal of Maramarua School. Now, they have a role of 122 children; 40 percent are Māori students. They implemented structured literacy in 2021, and in 2021 about 60 percent of the kids at school were below or well below their expected reading level; after a couple of years of structured literacy, 60 percent were at or above. But I want to talk about those Māori learners, because, from our Government's perspective, we have so much work to do in closing that equity gap. We know that our tamariki Māori, in terms of their reading, writing and mathematics, need so much more support. I want to give you the example of the Māori students at Maramarua School, because, in 2021, 37 percent of Māori learners were at or above the curriculum level for reading, but by the end of 2023, 68 percent were. I recall talking to Regan Orr, the principal of Central Normal School in Palmerston North, where he said that after a couple of years, for the first time in the school's history, their Māori learners were reading at the same level as all of the other children. It's those stories and that evidence, the BSLA data, that shows us that this is going to be the single greatest tool that we have to raise in literacy in this country. We know that early literacy and being proficient in reading and writing will unlock all of those other areas of the curriculum. It's so important we get 80 percent of our kids to curriculum by the time they finish intermediate so that they can go on to experience success at high school, go on to get an NCEA qualification, and go on to live the life they want. This is where it all starts. I have to acknowledge the previous Government's role in bringing in literacy and numeracy co-requisites at high school. It showed us that so many of our kids can't read, write, and do maths at a basic level. But, unfortunately, that just tells us that we've got a problem. The solution lies in getting in really early. This is where we really missed a trick in the last six years: embedding structured literacy in every single classroom in this country from year one. That is the goal of this Government: to make sure that every single child learns to read using structured literacy. Because the alternative whole word or balanced approach teaches kids the habits of poor readers. Look at the picture, guess the word, read the whole sentence and think about the context—those are the habits of poor readers. The habits of good readers are sounding out the word, looking at the letters, sounding them out, decoding the word. We know that the greatest results will be for those kids who come from homes where they have no resources to help, because wealthy homes will do after-school reading—their parents, educated parents, will read to them after school because they don't hold down three jobs each. Those kids who come from low socio-economic homes are the ones who will benefit the most from this, because we know that 90 percent of our kids will learn to read using this, and we are deeply committed to embedding it in every single school in this country. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Chair. Thank you. Can I firstly thank the Minister for acknowledging the funding that has been given to those two schools in Palmerston North. I know those schools pretty well, and the fact that they were funded under the previous Government, I know, is a testament to the success of the focus in that space. My question for the Minister is around cultural context, in the Pasifika context. I'd put some written questions to the Minister around the level of support in her office for Pacific communities, but the information was withheld on the context of personal identification. So I'd like to ask the Minister what support she does receive in terms of specific resource, in order to give some confidence to this House that she is able to understand the specific needs of Pacific ākonga, or learners, and what levels of engagement she has had with the Pasifika communities around Aotearoa New Zealand that has perhaps provided an opportunity to change some of the thinking that she's previously had as a result of those specific levels of engagement with Pacific communities. Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Well, I'm glad the member asked, because I recently met with the Pasifika Principals Association and we had a fantastic afternoon. They are an incredibly engaged bunch of principals around the country, who do an amazing job. They had quite a lot of discussion with me and my ministerial adviser, and they impressed upon me the importance of leadership in the Pacific education space. Look, it's their view that we have to have highly competent, well-trained, and ready-to-hit-the-ground-running Pasifika principals, because that cultural competency in our leaders and in our Pacific leaders is so important. We talked about their leadership programme that they run, which has been successful, and they're sending the data through to me. But what it said to me was that something that's missing in this country—and it's something that I'm focused on, and it's actually one of my six priorities—is developing leadership pathways for our future principals. We do it very poorly. Over the last six years, we have found that principals are feeling like they are not supported and they're not ready. They're feeling like they're drowning, and we have a number who are leaving in the first five years because they're not well supported. The Pasifika principals said a similar thing, and they said that, actually, their programme that they're running for, in fact, all aspiring leaders and all principals around Pasifika cultural competence is so very important. So it was great to spend the day with them and to confirm the fact that we will be continuing the funding for their programme, which was really great to share with them. So I would say to the member that I am very engaged. I am always listening. I'm interested in data and evidence to show the things that are working and improving competence amongst our principals and our teachers in this country. Like I say, it was a really good engagement. I look forward to working with them in the future, and I look forward to seeing the continued results from their leadership programmes. But, as I would say, one of the things I've noticed is that there is no great pipeline in this country. We've got our Pacific principals doing their job, we've got the Māori Principals Association doing their work, we've got the Teaching Council doing a bit of work in leadership, we've got the unions doing a great job—the Post Primary Teachers' Association are doing an excellent job—in developing an aspiring principals' pipeline. The problem is that it's all over the place, and there is no overarching strategy or plan. So it is my intention to bring that all together and make sure that we are investing in our aspiring teachers who want to go on to leadership, that we are making sure that they have the skills, the knowledge, and the experience that they need to take on that role, and also, once they're in that role, that those in-service principals get the support that they need. Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to sort of take a little bit of a change now to go to learning support, and I'm quite interested to know what the progress has been of the Highest Needs Review to date, particularly over the 2023 year, and what changes have been seen for learning support delivery from the beginning of 2024 as a result. And I'm going to ask another question because I might not get the opportunity to again, so I want to know: who has the oversight of those changes, is that something that the Minister is going to keep pursuing, and who is the team that will have that oversight of those changes now? Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Well, I'm glad the member brought up learning support, because if you look back in the time period that we're debating, the results are not great. The wait times have increased, the numbers have increased, and, as we all know, the worst thing for a child is to be on a wait-list. It's all about right child, right service, right time, and we have not been meeting those goals. I think the member will agree that the learning support system is broken. One of my key priorities that I announced yesterday was to make sure that children do receive the right support at the right time. One of the things, though, that I noticed coming into this role was that we spend an awful amount of money on learning sport; well—well—over a billion dollars and potentially a lot more once we start collecting up all the things we spend money on. But the thing for me was that while there are strategies, there are plans, there have been reports that have been done—in the last six years, not a lot of action. Things have not got better; things have got worse. And frankly, I'm not interested in writing another glossy strategy. I'm not interested in doing another review. We already know what the issues are; the sector will tell you quite clearly. The ministry know. But there's some fundamental problems. The first thing is data and evidence. One of the things that struck me when I came into this job, when I asked—about all of the things that we spend money on in learning support—what are the outcomes, for many of them we don't know what the answer is. How many children do we reach? What is the lift in their circumstances? What are the programmes that are doing really well? So it will be my focus, with the backing of the ministry, to make sure that we are evaluating and monitoring all of the things that we do so that we can shift money into things that are working and stop doing things that are not working. So data and evidence is going to be absolutely crucial. I've already said to the ministry that I want evaluation frameworks for the things that we're doing so we can see what is successful. It is also my intention to make sure that we are shifting back-end resource to meet front-end need. You would have already seen that, I think, in the fact that we're prioritising period products—meeting front-end need, shifting some of that back-end resource. We will be doing the same in learning support. But in the last period that we're looking at, things did not get a lot better, and it is my intention that we will take a look at the resource, we will take a look at the programmes, and the member is going to have to keenly await the Budget to have any further information. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. First of all, I would like to reject the Associate Minister's claim before. I was asking a valid question—"can he ensure"—and I get called xenophobic. But that's OK; I forgive that member. My question is on neurodivergent and disabled students, and this is to the Minister. The ministry said in the report that it's challenging to direct an inclusive education system that meets all learners' needs, particularly as demand for extra support grows for neurodivergent and disabled students. Along the same vein, the Minister herself has also spoken on the inequality for students in Aotearoa. So my question is two questions. How has the data which you mentioned before that we have on neurodivergent and disabled students been improved upon to address a way that ensures these students have what they need? Also, how would the Minister and the ministry plan to achieve our Learning Support Action Plan 2019-2025 when expert roles directly supporting neurodivergent and disabled students and teachers and schools will be lost in the Ministry of Education cuts? Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Thank you. I'll address the last part of the question first around the shift in resources from the back end to meet front-end need. As I said in my last contribution, it is my intention to make sure that we see more resource at the front end where it is needed the most for our teachers, our schools, and our kids. That has been the entire thinking behind the process that we've been under and it is very far from the truth. And I believe that as Secretary for Education, she has been—it is purely operational, but it has been my expectation that those front-line services delivering learning support in our schools to our teachers, to our kids will not be affected. In fact, many of the roles on the front line or a role in the front line will have many more staff added to in the form of curriculum support people directly interacting with teachers on the front line. So in all of this, my intention is to make sure more kids are getting more resources and that we're shifting to make sure that they get those. As I said in my previous contribution as well, there were a lot of strategies written by the last Government; not a lot of action. Actually, you can see the results. Learning support—much worse. Academic achievement—much worse. Kids going to school—much worse. A lot of glossy documents; not a lot of doing. We are interested in delivery, and you will see from us a clear quarterly action plan of delivery. I'm meeting constantly with different groups to get their input to make sure that we're on the right track. You will see from our learning support action plan—I won't call it our action plan; it's the same as the last Government's. But our action plan will include deliverables, starting with the fact that schools, for example, have to fill out a million forms through a million different channels to try and access support. We want to streamline things. We want to make it easier for schools to access support. Initial teacher education: in relation to your other question, it's so important that actually when you learn to be a teacher, you learn about neurodiversity, you learn about dyslexia, you learn about trauma-informed teaching. It's really important that we ensure that in initial teacher education our teachers, when they enter the workforce, have that knowledge. I spoke recently to an educational psychologist—an ed psych as they call them—and she said to me, "Look, our job would be almost redundant if the stuff that we were training teachers to do they were already taught to do at initial teacher education." We really want to make sure, for our neurodiverse kids and our kids who have experienced trauma, that when a pre-teacher is going through initial teacher education they are armed with that skill and that knowledge before they start teaching. So you will see quite a bit of work from us in our work in that area to make sure that we are better supporting our teaching workforce to make sure that the outcomes for those children are much better. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair, for this opportunity. I would also like to join my colleagues in thanking all the members of the Education and Workforce Committee, and the chair, and, of course, all the Ministers as well. My question is to the Associate Minister of Education. During the annual reviews, we discussed expanding educational options, and the Minister talked about bringing back charter schools. I'm quite keen to understand from the Minister how that work programme to bring in charter schools is looking, what progress has been made so far, and what makes the Minister so confident about charter schools—that charter schools will be able to help students that are at risk. Thank you. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): I thank the member Dr Parmjeet Parmar for the question. We certainly did discuss the reintroduction of charter schools at the select committee hearing. I'm very happy to expand on how that work is going and why the Government believes that charter schools are such an important policy to get disadvantaged kids in New Zealand more engaged in education. First of all, I can tell the member that, along with Minister Stanford and Cabinet colleagues, we've been working very quickly to get the basic ideas around policy decisions around charter schools made. And we're doing that in order that we can pass legislation and have the first charter schools open in term one 2025. That is our goal. It will happen fast, and it will happen bigger than it has happened previously. Second of all, I can tell the member that we will be having two types. There will be those that people are more familiar with from the last time New Zealand had charter schools—those that are new schools started up specifically, often with an insight into how to engage children in that community in education that is not available from within the sinecure of the Ministry of Education. We have to go out to the community to find the knowledge to engage the community. But there will also be charter schools which used to be State schools that have converted to charter school status for the reason that they want also to be free to use their autonomy to expand in response to demand, to shrink when demand for their education shrinks, but, most importantly, to determine how they run their school inside their walls. And, critically, they're contracted and accountable for school achievement and school attendance. In many respects, you could say in recent years we have got the balance wrong with New Zealand education policy: enormous amounts of micromanagement of what shape classroom they have and how they operate under the Common Practice Model, but almost no accountability for whether students actually attend and actually achieve. The charter school policy flips that script and also, I hope, will solve several key problems with the Tomorrow's Schools model: that we're not very good at making sure schools fail when they fail their students, and we're not very good at making sure that schools scale when they clearly have something positive to offer. Failing and scaling: our model is not very good at it. But charter schools will ensure that if a school is not reaching its targets for kids showing up and getting valuable knowledge transmitted from one generation to the next, then we're going to find someone else to do a better job. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): My apologies to the Minister— Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Not a problem, Mr Chair. I was very grateful for the opportunity. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the committee is now suspended for the valedictory statement of the Hon James Shaw, in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee. House resumed. VALEDICTORY STATEMENTS SPEAKER: The House is resumed. Members, following the valedictory statement, the House will suspend for the dinner break and resume at 7.30 p.m. I assume that we won't be hearing the valedictory for all that time, but may I now call on the Hon James Shaw to make his valedictory statement. [Applause from the public gallery] Hon JAMES SHAW (Green): Thank you—you haven't heard what I've got to say yet! Thank you, Mr Speaker. E mihi ana ki ngā mana whenua ki tēnei rohe, a Taranaki Whānui ki Te Ūpoko o te Ika, Te Ātiawa Whānui, Tēnā koutou katoa. E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou katoa. [I acknowledge the terrestrial authority of this region, Taranaki Whānui in the Wellington area, wider Te Ātiawa, greetings to all of you. Mr Speaker, greetings. Many thanks to you all.] One night, during the course of the 2017 election campaign, I was so exhausted that I swallowed my tongue in my sleep, and I woke up—[Members laugh] It didn't feel funny at the time! I woke up on the floor on my hands and knees, choking it back up. That was a difficult campaign. When Parliament rose for the six-week election period, I delivered the adjournment debate speech for the Green Party, and 10 minutes before I was due to speak, I got the news that the Colmar Brunton poll that night had us down 11 points. We were on 4 percent. It seemed likely at that point that I was about to become the last leader of the Green Party and to deliver the last speech by a Green Party MP in Parliament. Well, 12 weeks later, I was the Minister of Climate Change. I was on my way to Germany for the United Nations annual climate summit, but first I had to stop over in Rome to meet the Pope. Now, there isn't a roller coaster on this planet that comes close to the white-knuckle ride that is politics, and I am simultaneously saddened and elated to be leaving it. Actually, I am mostly elated to be leaving it. I've been in Parliament for 10 years, Green Party co-leader for nine, six as a Minister of the Crown, and I have to say it has not been easy to work out what it is that I want to say, here at the end of it all. There are a great many people to whom I owe a profound debt of gratitude. Sometimes, in these speeches, the acknowledgments come at the end, but I'm going to start with them, because if there is one thing that I want to express, it is gratitude. In the middle of the 2011 election campaign, I was set up on a blind date by the Green Party's campaign director, Megan Salole, and like any good political operator, Megan understood the power of informational asymmetry. She briefed me on her friend Annabel with a slide deck full of photos and bits of information, whilst telling Annabel almost nothing about me at all, presumably because if she had, Annabel wouldn't have shown up. So my date was surprised to learn that her date was running for Parliament in that year's general election. But she saw past that small flaw—and many others—and 18 months later, we were married. Now, Annabel chose this life. She chose a life with a husband who's either choking to death from exhaustion, or off overseas meeting the Pope. She chose to sacrifice the next 10 years to it, and she would have chosen another three had we won another term in Government. After that, she would have filed for divorce. This has never just been my journey; it's always been ours. Everything I have here, I owe to you. You have not sought nor received nearly the recognition that you deserve for your part in enabling me to play mine, so thank you. I love you. I wasn't elected in 2011, so, unfortunately, I couldn't cast my vote for the marriage equality bill in 2013. My parents, Susanne and Cynthia, have been together since the 1980s, and it meant a great deal to me to see their love recognised as equal to anybody else's. Thank you for being here, tonight and always. Both my family and Annabel's have always been hugely supportive of us over the years, and I particularly want to thank two of my brothers-in-law, Rob Kirkness and James Every-Palmer. Rob has been at the centre of some leading-edge climate litigation—most notably, Smith v Fonterra and Smith v Attorney-General. James helped me negotiate two governmental agreements with the Labour Party. He then advised me on the zero carbon Act, and he then sued me—twice—in his role as the co-founder of Lawyers for Climate Action. So I do look forward to less awkward family dinners. There are two other people in the public gallery today whom I would like to acknowledge. One morning in 2018, I was on my way to work when I was stopped by a particularly vexed gentleman, who wanted me to stop what I was doing with the United Nations, although he was not specific about what that was. To emphasise his point, he fractured my eye socket. Now, Rachel and Geoff Ridley, who were also on their way to work, came to my rescue. Geoff pulled me out of harm's way, whilst Rachel placed all five feet or so of herself between me and the assailant and saw him off. So, Rachel and Geoff, thank you. That was very kind and very brave. Now, at the time, Rachel worked for Kirkcaldie and Stains. She now works here at Parliament, so be nice to her. Of course, I would not even be here if it wasn't for the efforts of many thousands of Green Party members and supporters and volunteers and Green Party staffers. In the time that I have been a member of Parliament, the Green Party has been ably led by its co-convenors Roland Sapsford, Georgina Morrison, Pete Huggins, John Ranta, Debs Martin, Katy Watabe, Wiremu Winitana, Penny Leach, Aroha Low, Rōpata Moore, Lawrence Xu-Nan, and Alyssce Te Huna; general secretaries Jon Field and the formidable Gwen Shaw—no relation, by the way—and the Green Party head office, led by Michael Pringle, Sarah Helm, Sonja Deely, and Miriam Ross; and campaign directors Matt Thomas and Chennoah Walford. All of us here are in awe of the efforts that you go to, to give people like us the privilege of this job, so thank you. To the Wellington Central Greens, thank you for all of your support over the 12 years that I had the honour of being your candidate. Your new MP is quite simply extraordinary, so look after her. My Green Party colleagues, particularly my co-leaders: Metiria, your warmth and your courage and your tenacity have been an inspiration to others and to me. Thank you for putting your faith in me in those early days; it meant everything to me. You deserved better than you got. Marama, we are the only people who know what it's like to be us. Thank you for your partnership, for your leadership, and for everything that you have taught me over the course of the past six years. Chlöe, I am so proud of you and I am so excited to see where you and Marama lead the Greens into the future. Now, there have been well over a hundred Green Party parliamentary staffers over the years, and so as much as I want to extend the honour—and you did seem to offer me a little bit more time, Mr Speaker—I cannot thank you all by name. But I do want to thank you through the remarkable people who served as my chiefs of staff: Ken Spagnolo, Andrew Campbell, the Hon Deborah Morris-Travers, Tory Whanau (you were always "Your Worship" to us, Your Worship), and Robin Campbell. And the directors who supported them: again, Andrew Campbell, Maggie Tait, Alex Smith, Moira Neho, Joss Debreceny, David Cormack, Holly Donald, Pete Huggins, Robin Campbell, Nadine Walker, Matt Thomas, Eliza Prestige-Oldfield, Danny Stevens, and Chargn Keenan. I was so proud when Andrew Campbell and Holly Donald graduated from our offices to become the Prime Minister's chief press secretary and deputy chief of staff, respectively. I even forgave Andrew Little for referring to that as "mining the Greens". And through you, I extend my deepest gratitude to all of those smart, passionate, and tireless people who served on the Green Party's staff during my watch. To my executive assistants: Gabie George, Dave Butler-Peck, Sedef Duder-Ozyurt, Semi Kuresa, Bonnie Hayvice, Eve Jones, and Annie Dancer; my senior private secretaries: Victoria Love, Alvina Robati, Bibiana Marsh, Elena Scheule, Alex Eichelbaum, Nina Sudiono-Price, Lani Nesbitt, and Shelly Rangihuna; my senior ministerial advisors: Robin Campbell, Deb Moran, Mark Baker-Jones, Lachlan Rule, Carrie Gage and Hamish Clark; my press secretaries: Peter Stevens, Nadine Walker, Danny Stevens—some of these people got around—Aaron Packard, Tom Crick, Adelia Hallett, and Jo Leavesley—you are some of the most remarkable people that I have ever known or had the privilege of working with. And we were supported by a dizzyingly talented array of people. The private secretaries from the Ministry for the Environment: Alex White, Ankit Kishore, Billy Rine, Cassidy House, David Mead, Georgina Beasley, Jessie Algar, Kate Ryan, Kay (now Ambassador) Harrison, Laurette Siemonek, Lindy Fursman, Maggie Fellowes, Nicolasa Fuller, Rachel Ward, Rio Yoon, Sarah Deblock, and Sophie Lord. From the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Trade: Jonathan Rowe, Kate Wilson-Butler, Peter Shackleton, and Stuart Dymond. From the Treasury: Ben Temple, Laura Berntsen, Mark Sowden (now Chief Statistician), Scott Russell, and Shahlaa Al-Tiay. And from Statistics New Zealand: Grace McLean, Josh Martyn, Natalia Albert, Scott Kaiser, and Tom Crick. And the many others who provided cover and filled in and helped out when we needed it the most. Together, that group of people created what I believe was one of the most productive, hardest working, and inspiring places to work on campus, and we had that reputation right across the Government. Behind them of course there were dozens of others: at the Climate Change Commission, Green Investment Finance Ltd, the Environmental Protection Authority, Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, the Ministry for the Environment and Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Treasury, and Statistics New Zealand; as well as the 20 or so other ministries, departments, and agencies who supported our work—even when they opposed it [coughs, "MPI"]. I have many more friends than enemies now, and I think the ratio is about 3:1. There are three friends, in particular, that I want to acknowledge. So I'm a liberal leftie from the Aro Valley, fairly famously, so if you asked me at the start of my career who I thought that I would become close friends with, my first pick would not be a Catholic conservative from Tauranga. But in the face of—I have to say—strong political headwinds, Todd Muller earned my trust and my respect with his integrity, his commitment, and his candour. New Zealand would not have an enduring Zero Carbon Act or a Climate Change Commission without him. And I have to say, there are moments when this place has a way of showing you who your true friends are. It turns out, he's one of mine. Through four election campaigns I enjoyed the great pleasure of standing alongside Grant Robertson in Wellington Central. There was one year when we did 36 public meetings, sometimes two a night, and we finished—I can see some nodding heads over there who are familiar with Wellington Central—with the Mt Victoria Residents Association. By that point, Grant and I had repeated our stump speeches so often that we considered swapping them to see if anybody noticed. And then, a local resident, the Rt Hon Dr Sir Geoffrey Palmer QC, presumably agonising about who to vote for, showed up to cross-examine us on the Resource Management Act. So Grant and I thought the better of things and decided to behave ourselves. It was an honour and a pleasure to work with Grant in Government, including a term as his Associate Finance Minister. I have to say, there have been a lot of awful things said about Grant recently, but in my experience he is one of the most decent, principled, and thoughtful people I have ever met and the most talented politician of my generation. I remember meeting a promising youth-adjacent Labour candidate in 2008, when we were both living in London and campaigning for the expat vote for our respective parties. At the time, she was president of the International Union of Socialist Youth, and I said that I didn't realise socialists were allowed into the Labour Party—which I might not have said if I'd known that, nine years later, I was asking her to make me her climate change Minister. But I am profoundly grateful that she did, because serving Jacinda Ardern's Government was the privilege of my lifetime. She is a woman of humility, service, intelligence, and integrity, and she also deserves better than she has been receiving. Grant and Jacinda were the best of us. And what can I say about being in a Government during a time that included the country's worst terrorist attack, a deadly volcanic eruption, a global pandemic, and then capped it off with fatal floods and cyclones and the displacement of thousands of New Zealanders from their homes? Helen Clark's Government had SARS, and September the 11th, and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan; John Key's had the great financial crisis and the Christchurch earthquakes. But it kind of felt like we were getting served up a little bit more than our fair share of catastrophe cake. One of the reasons, I believe, that successive Governments had never really dealt with climate change is they're so busy dealing with the fiasco du jour, and then they kick the long-term, really big challenges down the road. The fact that we dealt with those things and also put in place an intergenerational framework for dealing with climate change, I credit with the leadership and sponsorship of Jacinda Ardern. There are some other less famous foundation stones of the framework included, such as the establishment of New Zealand Green Investment Finance Ltd and a little-heralded shareholder protection measure, the snappily entitled climate-related financial disclosures, or as we like to call it in the Public Service, CRFD. Now, New Zealand was the first country in the world to introduce that measure, and for that, the Hon Kris Faafoi and Hon David Clark can take a bow. The United Kingdom was the second. There are now three dozen countries. Australia is introducing it right now. Now, the pace of change did overwhelm us. The most urgent of these crises is the biodiversity crisis. New Zealand has the highest species extinction rate in the world. I'm going to say that again: the highest species extinction rate in the world. Sixty-three percent of our ecosystems are threatened. Those ecosystems are the home of our native species, of which 4,000 are either at risk or threatened with extinction. That includes 90 percent of our seabirds, 82 percent of our native birds, 94 percent of our reptiles, and 72 percent of our native freshwater fish. There are some in the new Government who seem to want to put these endangered species on the fast-track to oblivion. So those numbers may well go up. It is a crisis that is every bit as severe as the climate crisis. I would have liked to have had more success in protecting and restoring our wildernesses and wildlife. One of the times when I really burnt a chunk of my political capital was to secure the $1.3 billion for Jobs for Nature in Budget 2020. It was a COVID response measure, so it was always going to be time limited. But in that time, it has empowered 10,000 of our most precarious citizens in some of our most fragile, remotest regions in the country, and they have done the most incredible work restoring our rivers, our estuaries, our forests, and our bush. And, Nicola, I know how to keep it alive. [Gestures for the Minister of Finance to call him] One of the hardest battles I fought was to complete the Hon Dr Nick Smith's dream of national direction for councils on how to work with farmers and iwi to protect indigenous biodiversity under the Resource Management Act. The quid pro quo for landowners would be biodiversity credits and incentives. I know that the current Minister is more interested in the quid than the quo, but Christopher, if you let them unwind the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity, I will haunt you! When I ran for co-leader in 2015, I said that I wanted to lead the Greens into Government and then safely out the other side. We had never been in Government with Ministers before. The dreaded minor party curse saw every coalition partner punished by the voters. So, at the time, it did seem like a bold promise. But in 2017, we entered Government, with Ministers for the first time. Our vote went up at the 2020 election, and we became the first support party to increase our support after a term in Government. And then, in 2023, we did it again. The Greens now have more members of Parliament than we have ever had before, including three electorate seats, which we have never had before. We have more Māori in our current caucus than the total number of Māori MPs we have had in our history leading up to this point. We brought into Parliament the first member of Parliament who had arrived in this country as a refugee, we added to our caucus our first Pasifika MP in 2020, and then a second in 2023. Of course, we still desperately mourn the loss of Faʻanānā Efeso Collins. I do want to thank the House for the heartfelt tributes yesterday. We brought in our first Vietnamese MP, our first Chinese MP, and next week our first Filipino MP. We now look more like contemporary New Zealand than we ever have before. Whether those things happened because of me, or in spite of me, they did happen on my watch. And in my entirely objective and unbiased assessment, the Greens are now in better shape than we have ever been before. People keep asking me what I'm going to do next. I am in a real hurry to protect and restore our wildernesses and our wildlife and our atmosphere and our oceans. I am a Star Trek fan, so I am giving myself a five-year mission to boldly reduce or remove 150 million tonnes of climate pollution from global emissions by 2030. If that number sounds familiar to some of you—and it should—it's because it is also New Zealand's nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement. Now, getting Cabinet to commit to that target almost led to my resignation, so I feel I have some responsibility for it. Whether the Government will be able to claim any of that towards its Paris target will really come down to whether it gets the policy settings right. The single biggest lever for change is in the world of politics—that's why I chose to run for Parliament. The second greatest lever for change, in my view, is in the world of finance. My maiden speech included a prescient warning about the dangers of climate change from Margaret Thatcher, and now some of my Green friends became very excited to hear a Green MP quote the Iron Lady, so I'm going to round out my speeches out with a quote from Henry Ford. He said, "The highest use of capital is not to make more money, but to make money do more for the betterment of life." Now, I know what you're thinking: if Henry Ford had just used batteries. Now I believe, having said that, there is a huge opportunity to leverage the power of finance to massively increase the scale and the speed of the transition to a net zero economy. So, Simon, I will race you. The last one to 150 million tonnes buys the drinks. Now, speaking of drinks, you are all invited to the post-match reception over the road at the National Library once we're done here, and I'd better get on with it because I'm now standing between you and a glass of wine. Parliament should be where the future of the country is created, but ideals and vision, in my view, have themselves become endangered species. In their absence, Parliament is becoming the place where our future is consumed rather than created, and I think there has been a shift in the nature of politics and political campaigns. We have a lot more data about voters. The public would be very nervous if they knew exactly how much we knew about them. We have market research, qualitative analysis. We don't need to present a vision for the future anymore, because we can just give swing voters the things that they want today, financed by borrowing them from tomorrow. I have used many of these campaign tools—or at least the budget knock-down version of them—because politics is a contest and if your opponents are using those tools then it means that you also have to. But there has to be more to politics than data and marketing. So, during my time here, I have tried to cultivate an approach that's both viable in a modern political campaign and the modern media environment but also, in spite of those things, creates enduring solutions to the great challenges of our time. Because one of the things that attracted me to the Green Party in the first place, 30 years ago, was that they wanted to do politics differently, and I said in my maiden speech, 25 years after that point, that "Political tribalism is, I believe, the single greatest barrier to creating enduring solutions to the great challenges of our time. … I know that the first step [to] finding [those] answers is to work together. Presently we are stuck. To get unstuck, we will all need to let go of some things and to be more committed to finding the answers than to being right or to others being wrong." Well, that wasn't a bad speech. I'd like to think that, for the most part, I lived up to that commitment. What I have learnt during my time here is that most issues default to a tug of war over policy differences. It is entirely possible for hard-working, well-meaning people to strive for change for their entire career but to accomplish very little because there's always someone pulling in the opposite direction just as hard. So my message to this House is that if you take positions that are lateral to that tug of war and to those entrenched debates, and you build alliances across them, then you can actually radically shift the political centre in your own direction because there's no one resisting you. And where I did, it worked: the zero carbon Act, the Climate Change Commission, the emissions targets and our five-year emissions budgets, our 2030 target under the Paris Agreement, and our 2050 net zero targets all seem to have largely survived the change of Government when very little else has. I want to thank the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon, for his personal leadership on this. Christopher used to be the CEO of an airline. He was instrumental in establishing the Climate Leaders Coalition. We became friends during that time and I thank him for his support. I clearly have a fatal attraction for bald Tories. [Laughter] Last week—I'll just let you recover from that for a moment—we got the news that New Zealand's emissions fell for the third year in a row. Whilst methane is still off track—something to do with not being priced, I understand—we also got the news that we were on track to meet our target of net zero long-lived gases before 2050, in fact, before 2050. At least, we were on track as of last July. Andrew Morrison, who is the former president of Beef + Lamb, is in the gallery today. Andrew got rolled from his job in the same year that I was also briefly rolled from mine, and for much the same reason: the partisans in our tribes thought that each of us had sold out to the other. Pressure is building and the consensus is fraying and some of those partisans sit in this House and some of them are now Government Ministers. The framework is being quietly sabotaged and subtly undermined, and there is an increasing risk that New Zealand will collapse into the climate culture wars that we see in the United States or Britain or Canada or Australia and elsewhere. Journalists who have been watching us have been asking me what will become of my legacy. That word makes me very nervous because the politics and the policy of climate change isn't about me. It's not even about anybody in this House, in this room; it's about people who won't be born for decades and who in their entire lives will never once know any of our names. There's a proverb that civilisations become great when old men plant trees under whose shade they know that they will never sit. In the Waipoua forest stands the great kauri Te Matua Ngahere, "the father of the forest." That tree is somewhere between 1,200 and 2,000 years old. By the time Kupe chased the great octopus of Muturangi across the ocean and discovered these shores, Te Matua Ngahere would have been almost as tall as it is today. At its youngest, it predates Angkor Wat. By the older estimate, Te Matua Ngahere may have been a sapling when Cicero was writing about old men planting trees. If I have learnt one lesson, it is that we will always need political leaders who can rise above the politics that brought them here. A legacy is not a career or a brand or even a set of laws. The only true legacy that we can leave is to cherish the world that we have inherited and to bequeath a better one for our descendants. Civilisations become great when old men plant trees. This is the only way that any of us will ever create anything that lasts beyond our time in this House or on this earth. Everyone we care about, everything we argue about happens here on what Carl Sagan calls "this pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known." So look after it. Mr Speaker, it has been my privilege. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. [Applause, hongi, and harirū] Waiata—"Amazing Grace" Sitting suspended from 6.06 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.