edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Maipi-Clarke Hana-RawhitiHANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Ngā mihi e te Pīka he nui ngā pire i te rangi nei.E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mā Te Pāti Māori i te rangi nei ā e kaha whakahē ana i tēnei o ngā pire kua tae mai i rō Pāremata i te rangi nei.[Thank you Madam Speaker there are many bills today.I stand to give voice to the statements of the Māori Party today and we strongly oppose this bill that has arrived in the House today.]The Forestry (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill provides for the disestablishment of the registration system and all associated requirements for log traders and forestry advisers and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to refund any fees or levies paid to MPI under the scheme and waive any fees or levies that are due to not be paid on time.Alignment with Te Pāti Māori tikanga: we oppose this bill to our mana motuhake. According to the departmental disclosure statement Māori were not consulted and there is no information available on the impacts of this repeal on Māori. When it comes to our whenua Māori should always be partners in the decision-making process. We oppose this bill due to our mana ōrite. The registration system was put in place to allow equity of access to timber for both domestic processors and exporters. Its repeal will be inequitable for timber processors in Aotearoa. We oppose this bill for mana mokopuna. This bill will remove the requirement for forestry advisers log traders and exporters to work to nationally agreed practice standards. Less standards means less protections for our whenua and our tangata whenua.The regulations that are being removed will be detrimental to oranga tāngata and oranga whenua. Māori should at least be consulted on all matters relating to our whenua. Koinā taku takoha ki tēnei o ngā pire. Tēnā rā tātou e te Whare.[This is my contribution to this bill. I acknowledge all of us in the House.]
Marcroft JennyJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak this afternoon and particularly it is a pleasure to hear from Hūhana Lyndon my whanaunga from across the House from Ngātiwai for those words that were unexpected to hear of support of matua Shane—unexpected but delightfully received. It would just be a wonderful thing if you could also share that support on the fast-track bill.In terms of the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill I commend it to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's important to remember for members to stand and call otherwise we might miss something. Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke.
Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm taking this call on behalf of the ACT Party and we are supporting the first reading of the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill.I was listening to the previous contributor Hūhana Lyndon and I can see that the member is saying that something was done at one point and it was considered that that was the right thing to do so now we cannot change our position. That is not right. We have to assess things on an ongoing basis. At any point if you realise that something is not working we must change that and that is what this bill about. Yes the original bill which this bill is repealing was passed in 2020 and some of the regulations commenced in August 2022 but we know that over-burdening businesses with regulations doesn't work and the forestry sector is no different from other businesses.As we know the forestry sector brings huge revenue for us. It's the fourth-largest export sector for us and this Government wants to increase our export revenue—we actually want to double it by 2030. So we can double that only by supporting businesses. We want to see that businesses are able to do the things that they are supposed to do rather than just ticking some boxes and complying with unnecessary requirements. That is what this bill does. It gets rid of some of the compliances that we have enforced on the forestry sector and also forestry advisers. We want them to be able to do the work and produce the revenue for New Zealand and to support the lifestyle that we enjoy here.What this bill does is it gets rid of the requirement of the register. That is under the previous legislation a registration system was set up where registered people were required to provide information including their personal information. So this bill will actually revoke all that requirement once it has gone through Parliament. That information that has been collected will be archived and will be secured from further use which is important to note.Also the levies and fees that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has been collecting that will be refunded. Once the bill commences if anything is due at that date that will be waived by MPI. So these are some of the changes that are really important to support the forestry sector. On this side we really want to get rid of all the red tape and unnecessary burden on businesses. We even have the new Minister for Regulation the Hon David Seymour. So the ACT Party is really keen to get rid of unnecessary regulations and unnecessary burdens that the previous Government has imposed on businesses. We want to see that businesses are able to thrive businesses are able to support the economy and that is what the ACT Party wants to do. That's why the ACT Party supports this bill and commends this bill to the House. Thank you Madam Speaker.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 52New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 3.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68 Noes 55.SPEAKER: The question is That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.Instruction to Primary Production CommitteeHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): I move That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 1 November 2024.Motion agreed to.
Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Butterick MikeMIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Speaker. This bill is great news to New Zealand farmers to the 360000 New Zealanders that are employed in the sector to the 70000 businesses that are associated with it. New Zealand farmers are already the most carbon-efficient producers per unit of product in the world. Why would you penalise them by putting them in the emissions trading scheme when there's no viable mitigations? That's what the other side of the House would have had happen—reduce production here resulting in that same production being driven overseas. Net result: increased global emissions and a poorer New Zealand. Our commitment is to keep our farmers farming keep them doing what they do best which is growing food providing jobs earning over 80 percent of our export income. That's how we pay our bills. Our commitment is to also work with the sector to provide the tools that are viable to allow them to reduce their emissions while allowing them to keep the lights on. We back our farmers—we always have and we always will. I commend this bill to the House.
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well thank you very much Mr Speaker. As chair of the Environment Committee I'm looking forward to having a full select committee process around this piece of legislation. As the previous member the Hon Rachel Brooking has just said there are differing views. But on this side of the House we trust our farmers. We take our commitments to climate change both domestically and internationally very seriously. I'm looking forward to hearing what submitters have to say in the select committee and I commend the bill to the House.
Maipi-Clarke Hana-RawhitiHANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori —Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka otirā tēnā rā tātau e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mā Te Pāti Māori i te rangi nei ā e kaha whakahē ana i tēnei o ngā pire e takahi ana i tō mātou nei taiao ō mātou nei pepeha ki tōku iwi ake ki tōku rohe ake o Hauraki/Waikato ki te awa o ōku tūpuna arā ko Waikato. Ka tiki ake au i tētehi o ngā tongikura a Kīngi Tāwhiao i a ia e noho ana ki te riu o Waikato: wai hōpuapua ka mimiti noa nei ko Waiarona; he manawa whenua e kore e mimiti."[Thank you Mr Speaker indeed greetings to us all in the House. I stand to give voice to the statements of the Māori Party today and we strongly oppose this bill that abuses our environment our expressions of identity to my very own iwi my very own electorate of Hauraki/Waikato to the river of my ancestors—i.e. the Waikato. I recall the proverbial saying of King Tāwhiao while he was in residence in the Waikato basin: "ponds of water will diminish like Waiarona; a deep water spring will never diminish."]Just as the waters of the Waikato spring deep from beneath the earth Waikato people like the river we take our name from we will never go dry. Te Pāti Māori is deeply concerned about the changes to climate change legislation that is not mokopuna focused. What this bill does: this bill amends the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to remove pakihi ahuwhenua—agriculture—from the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme.This bill does away with He Waka Eke Noa a partnership effort between Government iwi and the primary sector to address climate change in pakihi ahuwhenua. Te Pāti Māori is concerned that the words "iwi" and "Maōri do not appear once in this new legislation.Why Te Pāti Maōri opposes this bill: we oppose this bill in the name of mana motuhake. These changes are being proposed without consultation or input from te iwi Maōri whereas He Waka Eke Noa was at least particularly developed in consultation with Maōri. We are not included at all in the pastoral sector group that will replace He Waka Eke Noa or Māori whakaaro.We oppose this bill in the name of mana ōrite. Māori have been locked out of the conversation around climate change in agriculture. Māori farmers who want to transition into sustainable farming will not be supported to do so.We oppose this bill in the name of mana mokopuna. This bill was a part of a suite of policies that will allocate climate change and ensure our biggest polluters are let off the hook. The polluters should pay; instead it will be our mokopuna. Hei whakakapi ake i ngā kōrero a Te Pāti Māori i tēnei rangi: ko te toto o te tangata he kai; ko te oranga o te tangata he whenua: While food provides for the blood in our veins our health is drawn from the land. Nō reira koinā aku koha ki tēnei o ngā pire; e kaha whakahē ana Te Pāti Māori.[To conclude the statements of the Māori Party today: while food provides for the blood in our veins our health is drawn from the land. And so these are my contributions to this bill; the Māori Party strongly opposes it.]"
Arbuckle JamieJAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill. What I'd like to say first is that we have world-class farmers that are probably the most efficient farmers in the world. They're also facing some unique challenges and those unique challenges at the moment are affecting the agricultural sector. This bill here actually provides some support to them.So New Zealand First supports this bill because it aligns with the party's principle of safeguarding the interest of farmers and ensuring that climate policies are pragmatic and effective. By removing the agricultural obligations from the New Zealand emissions trading scheme the bill removes unnecessary compliance costs and administrative burdens on farmers. It recognises the impracticality of a one-size-fits-all approach to emission pricing and supports the split-gas approach that is more suitable to the New Zealand agricultural context. New Zealand First believes that this bill is a step towards achieving a balanced and a fair climate policy that supports both environmental sustainability and the agricultural economy. I commend this bill to the House.
Costley TimTIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): I'm quite interested in this. In fact I went with the great hard-working MP for the East Coast Dana Kirkpatrick and we went and visited Tio Ōhiwa and the amazing oyster farm that's there—this is just in and around Ōhope there—and had a chat. And I have to acknowledge Winnie and Simon and the great work they do there. They are not the environmental bandits that Te Pāti Māori make them out to be. They are using this to feed and to fund their iwi Ngāti Awa. They have different marae come in each time to run the fish and chip shop. And anyone that's been to Ōhope has had fish and chips from this—best fish and chips in the region; great place to go. But they're feeding they're providing jobs for the different marae from the iwi and they are creating a great environment there. Of course they care about the environment because they live off it because they work off it. They are part of the way that we are growing our economy. They are helping us not just to grow the economy but as part of this plan that we've heard of to double the value of our exports. We have to support these people.And the plan that we heard Tangi Utikere said in the second reading Oh we do it for five years I guess but maybe not more." They want to keep them on the hook. Every two years Rachel Brooking wants to have them having their consents reviewed. Actually we need to support these people and that is why this bill is doing it. I commend it to the House."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): It's pretty obvious that James Meager needs a bit of a lesson in the gender make-up of the country because there's more than men. There's many parts of this legislation that are objectionable. They have been well traversed by others but I think the only thing that I would reinforce to the House is it's just wrong in principle that for a council to do its job to monitor the environmental effects and on occasion update conditions as necessary to meet the challenges of the day—they should be able to recover the cost of that from the people who are having the free use of the public space and this legislation prevents them from doing so. It's just wrong. There's been no justification given for it. The regulatory impact statement that accompanied the bill didn't properly explain it. There has been a bombastic response from the other side to criticisms of it. It just doesn't withstand scrutiny. The Labour Party will be opposing this legislation.
Meager JamesJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. But grant that man a 20-year extension on his marine farm and you'll feed the entire nation. What an inspired bill by an inspired Minister—the Cod-father". I commend the bill to the House."
Bates CarlCARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's my absolute privilege to end this evening's debate with this bill being commended to the House. It is important for us to be removing red tape enabling businesses to continue to do the job that they need to do to support our farmers and our food producers and that's exactly what this bill does. I commend this to the House.
Radhakrishnan PriyancaHon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I cannot but agree with my colleagues on this side of the House: this is a terrible piece of legislation. It is lazy and it is irresponsible.My colleague Rachel Brooking laid out very clearly how climate change is accelerating particularly given that this Government feels no need to mitigate against the impacts of climate change we're going to see it accelerate even more quickly. We know that there are negative impacts of climate change on salmon farms for example in the Marlborough Sounds. We don't know how quickly things are going to deteriorate. That is the whole point of the reviews. That is the whole point of looking out for the environment that this piece of legislation runs roughshod over.To add insult to injury there was a very truncated consultation period. We know that there was inadequate time for this legislation to be considered. We also know that the overwhelming majority of those who submitted to the select committee were opposed to this legislation.For all of those reasons for the fact that from the point of view of the environment conservation of pure common sense this is terrible legislation. I do not commend it to the House.
Wedd CatherineCATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look I rise to support this bill because it is all about supporting our primary industries our food producers and it will enable us to drive more productivity and increase the value of our exports—double those exports in the next 10 years by value. This is really important because aquaculture is going to play a significant role in helping us do this in the next 10 years. That is strengthening the economy. That is supporting our primary industries. It's about driving more productivity and it's about a common-sense practical approach when it comes to legislation. This bill extends aquaculture consents by 20 years. It's significant to supporting our aquaculture industry in New Zealand. That is why I commend this bill to the House.
Anderson MilesMILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm very happy to stand in support of the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill tonight. I must say the Minister probably spoke very eloquently about the topic—Hon Rachel Brooking: Probably.MILES ANDERSON: Well he did Rachel and you agree with me. Look I couldn't add any more to what he said. I think the member from the ACT Party Mark Cameron also talked about those marginal and I suppose you'd say those desperate communities that are looking for economic development. I support the words that he said as well so I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call. I call Tākuta Ferris.
Lu NancyNANCY LU (National): I am standing to support the third reading of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill and I am actually going to end it on a very positive and future-looking forward-looking prospect note because this is about stopping the wasteful spending. This is about stopping the $1.2 billion that the last Government spent—and guess what? The rates still went up. Water rates still went up. It didn't fix anything. In fact $1.2 billion didn't even fix leaking pipes in our country.But what we will be doing is giving decision-making powers back to the local government back to people which is precisely how they voted in October. We are going to give the decision powers back to local government back to people who know how things work on the ground. By unlocking this potential by financially separating for example—taking an example of Auckland City; most populated the largest city in New Zealand—Watercare it can actually take on additional finances to fund water infrastructure and unlock future capacity for other infrastructure.So I am so proud to be speaking on this bill as the last speaker and to actually end it on a positive forward-looking—can't wait to see this happening on the ground for New Zealanders for Aucklanders and for all of our ratepayers. I commend this bill to the House.
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I have to say that so much of what is said on the other side is full of sound fury and slogans but signifies nothing. The Government seems to think that body count matters—the number of people in the House—but what actually matters is serious contributions to the debate and these have been serious contributions to the debate on this side of the House.I want to pick up on two things that have been said by previous speakers. The first was by the Minister the Hon Simeon Brown when he opened and he said that the previous Government's legislation had been deeply unpopular. I'll tell you what will be unpopular and that will be the rates bills that are going to start arriving in people's letterboxes with the dramatically increased rates in order to pay for water services infrastructure. That will be unpopular and it will be caused by that Government. And it is caused because they have totally underestimated the cost of water services infrastructure in this country. It will cost $185 billion over the next 30 years. When we were in Government we actually had a plan to deal with that.The speaker immediately prior to me Ryan Hamilton was talking about how the problem had been solved for Auckland Council by tweaking the debt ratio. That's a Government that spends a lot of time telling us how bad debt is how it's appalling that we have Government debt but suddenly it's OK for local bodies to have a lot of debt? Let's remind them of something: central government pays interest costs at a lower rate because it typically has a higher credit rating. Local body governments do not enjoy the same credit ratings as central government. The costs of borrowing will be higher for local bodies. What this bill represents is central government shifting a cost that needs to be paid from central government to local government. And in doing so it is creating tremendous unfairness for the small councils for the councils who will be left out in the cold like Northland like the Far North like some of the areas of the country which simply do not have the rating base to pay for water services infrastructure. When the rates bills arrive in those letterboxes they simply will not be able to pay and that Government is abandoning them.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I move That the committee report progress.Motion agreed to.Progress to be reported.House resumed.
Tuiono Teanau; Kuriger BarbaraCHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill and reports progress. Madam Speaker I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill is set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. It is now time to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Carter Kahurangi; Ngarewa-Packer Debbie; Chhour KarenKAHURANGI CARTER (Green): I'm really interested in understanding the Minister for Children's definition of getting value for money when it comes to contracting services outlined in the Vote. I bring this line of questioning up as I have heard from many organisations including Kia Puāwai Functional Family Therapy which in 2023 had a 96 percent improved living situation key performance indicator (KPI) in relation to the support to 252 rangatahi in Te Tai Tokerau. Can the Minister explain to the committee what direction she will provide her ministry regarding the contracting services in the 2024-25 Budget if a 96 percent KPI is not considered value for money? How can the Minister responsible for prevention of family and sexual violence justify cutting a critical programme with her Ministry for Children that is designed to prevent harm at its earliest stages?In Page 153 of the Vote there is a success matrix—on page 153. How do you plan on meeting that despite repealing section 7AA decreasing the funding to contractors which include iwi and Māori organisations by $30 million and further not investing any more money into work programmes to support iwi-led care organisations? We want you to be successful in that Minister.In light of the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in State care findings which have absolute relevance to this portfolio and to prevention of family and sexual violence particularly the issues highlighted on page 57 about the impact of structural racism and the stripping of Māori culture that caused actual harm to children can you please tell us how you are planning to honour this and to be successful when you are not funding this?DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Kia ora. Minister just one question: if the model that works that is being reinvested in is a kaupapa Māori model—and let's use for example the boot camp model in Palmerston North. If mātauranga Māori and Māori culture has been indeed used to make that its point of difference then why aren't you saying that that's the model that's best utilised instead of letting it get branded as being a military versus a Māori cultural solution for Māori rangatahi?Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I'd just like to answer that question for the member and I thank her for that question. Yes there are iwi-led programmes within the military-style academy programme. There's also defence-designed programmes within the military-style academy and whilst there is a higher percentage of Māori within youth justice and a higher percentage of Māori within this programme it's not just a programme for Māori children; it's a programme for all children and it's making sure that all young people get the services and the care that they need and making sure that we provide to their needs. That includes te ao Māori and that's important to me also. So there is iwi-led programmes but like I said there's other programmes within that as well.
Seymour David; Chhour KarenHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well thank you Mr Chair. I couldn't help but notice the previous Labour member the Hon Carmel Sepuloni seemed to get a bit more than she bargained for. But Minister I visited a youth justice facility with you about a month ago. I noticed that the people there seemed to already know you and then you told me that you'd been back there just two weeks later to hear from the people some more. I've heard you mention visiting quite a number of Oranga Tamariki facilities up and down New Zealand. I wondered if you could share what you've seen and experienced about the culture and the operations; what you've tried to do if you've tried to change that at all; and how that's influenced the way that you've come to the budgeting process that led to these Estimates.Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Thank you Mr Chair. These are really good questions. When I first came in part of the money that we had to hand back was actually money that was sitting unspent that had been bid for by the previous Government to provide community provider homes for young people. That came about because of Te Oranga and some issues that happened in Te Oranga. That money wasn't spent. It was sitting in a bank account unspent while we had youth justice facilities that were lacking in maintenance; that weren't fit for purpose for our young people. We had to lower the bed numbers in many of these facilities because they were not safe; the infrastructure wasn't safe. It was a terrible environment.I'll tell you what my plan was. I actually went into these facilities looked at what the issues were and made sure that we actually delivered in fixing those issues which we have done and we are still doing. We have to work through each one one by one to work out what those issues are. Epuni was an absolute disgrace. That has now been has been—Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Painted?Hon KAREN CHHOUR: —refurbished and actually made fit for purpose. Hell yes repainted. That place was like a youth justice facility. Those kids did not commit a crime. It is a care and protection unit where those young people deserve to be in an environment where they are not treated like criminals because they are not criminals—and that is how they had been treated for years and years and nothing was done. That facility needed a revamp. It has had a revamp and it is almost completed.In Auckland two facilities where I knew the moment I walked in that staff were not trained were not capable to deal with the high needs that these young people had were not treating them with dignity and respect. I could tell within two seconds that that place was not a place that I would be happy to put any young person.We have put standard operating practices in place in these youth justice facilities. We have set a standard of You are going to get some training"—which they never got before. We have changed management to make sure that training process is done across the board—across multiple youth justice facilities—so that no matter which one they go to they are treated with dignity and respect which they weren't being treated with when I took over."
Mooney Joseph; Chhour KarenJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Mr Chair. Look I would just ask the Minister for Children if she could explain to the House why she has undertaken a review of service contracts at Oranga Tamariki and the factors that have been taken into account in the review of those contracts.Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Thank you Mr Chair. So the ultimate main factor is that Oranga Tamariki has not been achieving on what they should in their core purpose; we've seen that in report after report after report. I could probably actually repeat a lot of the stuff that was done in reports three years ago that was done in reports 20 years ago basically word for word where we haven't improved in the way we're caring for our young people. We don't need any more reports. We need to deliver in that space and the way to deliver in that space is to actually support front-line services give them the tools they need to do their job and make sure that we are supporting them in that role and that hasn't been done well in the past.This is previous Governments and Governments before that Government so I'm not blaming it all on one Government. This has been going on for a very long time. We need to have the courage to make these tough decisions. Whilst people may disagree with these decisions because it financially impacts some people the trade-off I'm not willing to not do it. The trade-off is making sure that our children and young people when they come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki are seen in an appropriate time frame they're in a safe home once a social worker sights them and makes sure they're safe and if they're not safe making sure we're placing them somewhere safe. This is the reason why we have to do the review on the contracts because we have to re-prioritise our funding and our money to go to the right places for our young people.
Andersen Ginny; Chhour KarenHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I'd like to ask the Minister in relation to an exchange she's had with North Shore Women's Centre. So North Shore Women's Centre wrote to her last month and explained that the cut to their contract for Oranga Tamariki services would mean for them the loss of two front-line social worker jobs—that cut would mean that. It would mean that for an organisation that has working in the community for 38 years they will effectively close in April of next year without that funding now being in place.When the Minister responded to that plea that they will close on 8 August she stated to them that she's been assured that there will be no impact on front-line roles such as social workers in response to that that statement. And secondly she stated that she is confident that decisions will result in a better level of service delivery and outcomes. I would just like to understand why the Minister wrote that to a group that services 486 wāhine and 460 tamariki in the North Shore. How will they be provided with a better standard of service as specified by the Minister if they close in April of next year? And further to that point I would also like to understand—because this is the very question that the Children's Commissioner is inquiring into as to what her responsibilities are under the Oranga Tamariki legislation—when is the Minister in fact going to provide the information that is being requested by the Children's Commissioner?Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): So in regards to North Shore Women's Centre: North Shore Women's Centre were contracted for multiple services. I think it's around six or seven services that they were contracted for. And they were contracted for around $596000—two services have been discontinued so they are still being funded for those other services. The rationale for the funding decisions around that was because they did not align with core business for Oranga Tamariki which is to prioritise children who come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki or are in the care of Oranga Tamariki. Those were services to provide counselling for women which is a valid service. But there are many services on the North Shore that provide counselling for women and we need to make sure that we are actually putting that money towards our core purpose which is children—children in the care of Oranga Tamariki.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Their mums matter too.Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Yep but there are plenty of services that provide women's counselling and it is a duplication of service that can be provided somewhere else when that money could be used towards our children.
Cameron Mark; Chhour KarenMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair and congratulations Minister on your undertaking. Thank you so much for speaking to the committee today. Can you extrapolate some of your remarks a little bit further Minister in regards to the contracts you've just alluded to and the fact that they are being reviewed? What would it look like in terms of fiscal impacts Minister if this approach had been taken earlier by virtue of the outcomes that so many are interested in today? Can you speak to that Minister? I certainly think it would illuminate the conversation further and the committee would further understand the wellbeing that perhaps hadn't been invested in when it came to young people.Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Thank you Mr Chair. Look I think it's really important that a review is undertaken of contracts. Needs change communities change and we need to make sure that actually what we are funding is fit for purpose for children in the care of Oranga Tamariki children coming to the attention of Oranga Tamariki and that we're making sure we meet their needs.Since becoming the Minister that has been my focus. My focus has been on the children and young people that we have been failing so miserably over the years and making sure that when they do come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki we are responding in time—are we giving Oranga Tamariki the tools necessary to respond in time when a report of concern comes in; are we making sure that we are vetting caregivers appropriately; are we sighting children when they come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki? That needs to be funded that needs to be funded well and we need to resource the front line way better when it comes to the care and protection and that's part of this service contract review: are these providers providing a service that is making a difference and making our young people that are in Oranga Tamariki care or at the attention of Oranga Tamariki safer; are we breaking the cycle of harm in these homes; are we actually getting outcomes for the services rather than looking at how many people come through the door; are we looking at how they leave; are they any better off; and have we broken that cycle of harm; are those young people safe in the homes they're in? That is what I am focused on.So that is all part of this assessment of these contracts to make sure we are getting value for our young people that are in the care of Oranga Tamariki.
Chhour KarenHon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Bear with me—first time doing this so just let me address one of the points from Willow-Jean around the 6.5 savings exemption. I think it's really important that whilst we have more money given back to us than we returned it's a good exercise to go through to make sure that we are spending our money wisely and that the money is actually going where it needs to for children in care. So the total overall savings for the restructure for Oranga Tamariki was $200 million overall for savings from reducing from the back office and only the back office and that was over four years. And there was also a $200 million reduction—a 20 percent reduction—in travel for staff within Oranga Tamariki by using better use of technology. But ultimately Oranga Tamariki received $33.3 million more than it returned to the Government through Budget 2024. And I think that also addresses the question from the Green member around the $120 million baseline savings. Ultimately we received $33.3 million more than we returned to Government through Budget 2024. The accountant processes—yes it went back but we got returned more than we gave back.
Andersen GinnyHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thanks very much Madam Chair. I'd like to ask the Minister to talk us through the 248 roles that are being disestablished at New Zealand Police. I would like to have a level of reassurance from her that this will not in fact impact the front line. Also would it be possible for the Minister to give us a bit of a steer on what services are able to be delivered for police with that 248 roles being cut? Specifically service delivery in relation to beat patrols the visibility of police on the street; to responding to family violence when there's need for that within the community; and also the third one in terms of crime prevention. Thank you.
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora Madam Speaker. Any legislation that supports the work and professionalism of social workers is something that we support to in fact ensure we get it right. Social workers make a profound impact on the lives of individuals on the lives of families on the lives of our communities. Their work often is under-looked or under-noticed because the work they do is around transforming and often reforming individuals whānau and families.They work in challenging situations. They work at the coalface of communities. And so therefore we need to ensure that as a Parliament and as legislators we are ensuring that we have the right pieces of legislation the right supports the right tools in place but also the right sets of accountabilities and responsibilities. That's why we support the Social Workers Registration Amendment Bill.When we look at the bill as has been said already from around the House and from my colleague the Hon Carmel Sepuloni this is non-controversial. It is legislation that goes through a process—or last went through this process in 2020 under a Labour-led Government and therefore we are here to stand and support as it goes to select committee.Now social workers—they're advocates they're champions they're cheerleaders they're counsellors they're budget advisers they're critical thinkers they're dedicated they're resilient they're resourceful they're empowering they're mediators they're courageous. Social workers are the lifeblood that brings our communities together. Therefore I commend this bill to the House.
Social Workers Registration Amendment Bill — First Reading
Willis NicolaHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): As the member who has just resumed her seat Megan Woods knows from her time as the Associate Minister of Finance Treasury provide advice on how such matters are to be treated and I accept the same advice that the member accepted which is that this does not constitute a liability. It does not meet the test required to do that. I'd also note for the member that the $24 billion figure she is throwing around is actually the upper range and it is dependent on a number of factors. I'd also note for members of this House that the national contribution is significantly higher than the reduction required over the following emissions budget following decisions taken by the previous Government. In terms of our emission reduction budgets we are currently consulting on a plan that will be able to achieve the emission reduction goal set out in the zero carbon Act in the second campaign period and we're on track to achieve those in the first period.We have been unapologetic and I think very clear in a way that has been useful to the market in saying our key mechanism for reducing emissions will be the emissions trading scheme. Our recent moves to reduce the future allocation of units to that scheme has been a good response. That member took a different approach. Her approach was to put a carbon price across the economy that drove up prices for everyday people and then she used that money to invest in projects for profitable multinationals. She went around the country signing cheques for profitable companies to help them on their decarbonisation journey. And here on our side of the House we said that actually hard-working everyday people who don't make multimillion-dollar profits deserve to keep a bit more of what they earn. We campaigned on a higher dividend and that is partly how we funded our tax policy. I think that actually if you want sustainable emissions reductions in the economy it's not sustainable to say to the working people You will pay ever more tax and ever higher costs so that Megan Woods can go and cut ribbons."Finally I would say that I do respect the McGuinness Institute and the contribution it has made to public debate over many years but on this matter I beg to differ."
Smith Stuart; Willis NicolaFinanceSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to speak on this Estimates committee stage. When the coalition Government took over we were left with the economy in a perilous state like the Kaitaki drifting towards the rocks. But fortunately we had an incoming coalition Government that was ready and up for the task and a finance Minister who realised that while Kiwis were doing it tough and having to tighten their belts and cut down on spending or reprioritise spending she didn't think it was appropriate just to leave it to Kiwis to do that. The Government had to do the same thing as well. So she embarked on a line by line—looked right through all of the Government expenditure at different Government departments and found 240 different savings initiatives. So my question to the Minister is: that's a fantastic job Minister but is that the end of it? Is that all the possible savings and reprioritising that is able to be done? Is there more potential to get expenditure from the back office out on to the front line to deliver services to Kiwis in a more efficient and effective way?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Thank you Madam Chair. I thank the member for the question. As the member implies our fiscal strategy is that we wish to get debt back down under 40 percent of GDP. In order to do that we need to get the books back into surplus. If we had stuck with the operating allowances left to us by the outgoing Government that date of balanced books wouldn't come until the 2030/31 fiscal year obviously far too long to be running in the red. So we have set a very prudent fiscal policy in which we will have much tighter operating allowances.We got off to a great start in this year's Budget with 240 individual savings initiatives across Government. But the work must continue. In answer to the member's question there are always opportunities to look across the billions of dollars the Government spends to judge what the best value for money is and what the investments that should be a priority for New Zealanders are. So Ministers are in a continuous process of looking at initiatives to judge whether they are delivering what it says on the tin whether they are delivering the outcomes promised and whether there are better uses for those resources. That is actually the way that households run themselves. That is the way that small businesses run themselves. And we may have got out of the habit as a Government over the past six years of doing that but over these next few years it is going to be essential and this Government is looking forward to doing that work.
Pugh MaureenESTIMATES DEBATEIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members the House is in committee for consideration of the Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill. The Standing Orders provide for 11 hours of debate on the Estimates. The Business Committee has determined to organise the debate by portfolio so there will be no sector-specific debates. All Votes are available for debate but only specific Ministers will be available each day to speak to the indicated portfolios. The Government has indicated that the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Children will be available today.The Business Committee has also determined that any member may commence the debate on a portfolio despite Standing Order 348(3). This debate expires after 11 hours at which point questions will be put that the Votes stand part of the Schedules and on the provisions of the Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill. The time for the debate has been allocated to parties on a proportional basis and may be taken as parties see fit during the debate. New Zealand National has four hours 23 minutes New Zealand Labour has three hours three minutes the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has one hour 15 minutes ACT New Zealand has 59 minutes New Zealand First has 43 minutes Te Pāti Māori has 32 minutes Darleen Tana has five minutes. The Estimates debate should be relevant to the Government's current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. A compendium of the reports of select committees on the Votes is available on the table.The question is that votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriation for 2024/25 stand part of the Schedules. Members we start with the Minister of Finance. The Minister is available to speak to that portfolio from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m.