edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Potaka Tama; Russell DeborahTAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora. A couple of questions. What specific programmes is the Government implementing to reduce the number of individuals receiving sole parent support and what is the annual success rate in numbers of those individuals over the 2022 year and 2023 year to date? Final pātai is: will the Government asset test the intended recipient parents of the support and if not why not?Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Minister of Statistics): Thank you Madam Chair. Of course I'm not sure that the Government has in place any specific programmes to decrease the number of sole parents on benefit except perhaps we're ensuring we have free contraception available when people need it. That's not you know part of this legislation. The object of this legislation is to ensure that sole parents are treated fairly in comparison to parents who are coupled.I have now a couple of answers for some of the questions that the Hon Louise Upston and Harete Hipango raised. So in terms of the increase of the number of children that we expect to be lifted out of poverty by this legislation the change will be March 2022 and then March 2023. And the Hon Louise Upston asked was that incorrect because the number of sole parents increased; well the number of sole parents increased by 1200. That would not be sufficient to—unless they've all had several children—generate the increase in the children lifted out of poverty that's estimated in this bill between March 2022 and March 2023. So it really is due to the underlying economic conditions that has changed those numbers around.We expect in terms of the demographics of some of the families who will be affected by this—the numbers are being given that we expect that about 41000 families will be positively affected by this change in the legislation. So that's about 41000 families who will get the child support paid directly through to them instead of it being tapped by the State in-between. And so they'll be better off because of that. We think there will be about 20000 Māori families who will be better off as a result of this legislation and about 3700 Pasifika families who will be better off as a result of this legislation.
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Minister of Statistics): With respect to the unsupported child benefit the answer—I realise that members may not find it satisfactory but it's the one I've given several times already—is that Oranga Tamariki are working on what to do with respect to unsupported children. There's a major review going on there. Oranga Tamariki asked for this particular measure not to be included in this bill. That is the reason and I can keep on repeating that a number of times but that is the reason.I also want to just talk about in terms of the demographics—questions which were raised by the Hon Louise Upston. In terms of the demographics of the liable parents and the like I don't have those to hand. The objective of this bill is to correct the disparity between the treatment of sole parents and the treatment of parents in partnerships with respect to child support and whether or not they get that child support passed on from the liable parent. So that is the major—the primary—purpose of this bill. It is to correct that disparity. Of course data around liable parents is likely to be available on request. It is the sort of data that might well be available through IRD and the likes. So it is available but it is not the major reason for this particular bill. I may be able to find the data for Māori parents for her—or I'll see if I can do—on that.In terms of whether or not there would be an increase in sole parents as a result of this legislation—I think that was the question the member asked but I think the question she meant to ask was whether there would be an increase in sole parents claiming benefit as a result of this legislation—there is not expected to be. I've been advised that there is not expected to be an increase in the parents claiming benefit; that parents don't claim benefit because then they would get the child support pass-on I've been told. However that is exactly the sort of information we will get out of the review that has been built into this so that within a couple of years we should have some evidence around that which would answer that particular question.And I'll try to find out whether or not the increase in the children lifted out of poverty is because there was an increase in the number of sole parents on benefit.
Chhour KarenKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): I too am a little bit concerned about the unsupported child benefit being left outside of this bill but my question is really: was any consideration taken by officials or the Minister to include the UCB—or the unsupported child's benefit—within this piece of legislation so that these families did not miss out on the support as a temporary measure between now and when this other bill that we're thinking is being worked on in the future comes into place? Because after all isn't this bill about looking after all children and making sure that no child is living in poverty and helping every child to have the best quality of life possible. And was any consideration at all taken to adding the UCB into this bill temporarily until the alternative came around?
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. So the next question again—although I understand it's not the primary objective—I am interested in terms of the child support pass on the demographics or data on two levels. One is of the liable parent where the pass on occurs—and I'm making assumptions about them being higher-income earners for the level of pass on to go through. So that's one end of the question—the collection of child support from the liable parents and data around who the liable parents are. But more importantly and more importantly in terms of child poverty reduction the children in the families with sole parents who will receive the pass on—what is the percentage of Māori and Pasifika children who will benefit as a result of the sole parent child support pass on?
Hipango Harete; Dean JacquiHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I acknowledge the Minister for the attempted answers to complex legislation however I am going to labour the point with this Labour Government and seek some direct answers please.Back to the UCB—the unsupported child's benefit. I've been advised that Oranga Tamariki is doing a review around caregiver payments but again the concern is: when is that going to be completed? How long is a piece of string? How long do our children have to wait before they become the direct recipient beneficiaries of these child pass-on legislation payments? That's my first question.The second limb is Minister the lack of external consultation. It's been noted that the Welfare Expert Advisory Group commissioned by the Minister for Social Development and Employment—so that Welfare Expert Advisory Group consulted with 3000 New Zealanders for its 2018 review of the welfare system. It's noted that its consultation included benefit recipients advocates and Ministry of Social Development (MSD) staff. So the Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommended that child support payments from the liable parent should be passed on to the receiving carer not just the sole parent beneficiary—a receiving carer is also an unsupported child beneficiary. So Minister IRD and MSD—it's been noted that the Minister engaged this Welfare Expert Advisory Group. The recommendations from that have been again kicked into touch by this Labour Government. Why is that? Why are our children not benefiting from this Government with some direct answers that are going to be accountable to our very children who need it the most and the caregivers who are looking after them under this Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): With apologies to the members in the Chamber there is a film crew up in the gallery. I'm advised that no permission has been sought or given for them to film so I'd ask them to clear the gallery.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you. Talking first about the child poverty numbers the Minister has clarified that that wasn't the primary objective of the legislation. I actually find that somewhat disappointing because actually I think that would have been a more noble objective in this instance. As I said the National Party still has reservations about this bill and that's why I want to interrogate some of it. So with those updated Treasury figures that have been built into the numbers that mean the regulatory impact statement from this year has changed from last year does that also reflect the increase in the number of sole parents on benefit from 12 months ago? And a related part of that question is: is it seen as a result of this policy that there may be an increase in sole parents and if yes by how many?
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Minister of Statistics): It may take me a while to just get my head around that last question I'm sorry. But if I can address the question raised by Karen Chhour who was concerned about debts caused by disruption or basically errors. Obviously if there's an error caused by the Ministry of Social Development or by the system doing something wonky then no there is no liability to pay—that's just a matter of fairness. But then recipients are required to advise a change of circumstance. And Ms Chhour asked if they failed to advise a change of circumstance would they then be liable for overpayments? Yes there is an obligation to advise a change of circumstance. Yes that can be confusing if you think that the system is doing it all for yourself. Nevertheless that obligation still exists and that exists right across our systems. So would they then be liable for overpayments if they had failed to advise a change of circumstances? The answer is yes they would still be liable for that.The Hon Louise Upton asked about why there was the change in the number of children living in poverty that would be lifted out of poverty by this measure. And I do want to point out again that the major purpose of the bill was to correct the disparity between sole parents and partner parents in terms of how child support was treated. Nevertheless it does also have the effect of lifting more children out of poverty. The reason for the change between the numbers in March 2022 to March 2023 was pretty straightforwardly that we have some different economic data over the course of that year. So that means that some of the data behind the modelling changed over that time and that was why we got those different numbers. I'm sorry I wouldn't be able to go into the detail of that modelling as I'm not an economist myself but that is the reason—I've been assured—as to why it happened that way. And I'm sorry Ms Upston that I think I lost the detail of the second part of your question there if you would care to repeat it. Thank you.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. And I thank the Minister in the chair for her answer about the provision of international evidence about liable parents paying. I'm interested to know though what estimates have been made in terms of the options put forward—what the estimate is both in terms of the number of liable parents who will now pay child support as due and second the child support that would be collected to offset this. And I'm sure that analysis has been done and the formulation of the options considered and then the decision. So that's my first line of questioning.I want to go back because I don't believe the Minister answered my question around the change of figures in the regulatory impact statement from March 2022 to March 2023 on the number of children that will be lifted out of poverty. And I think I would have unanimous support in the House that every party in this House wants to see fewer children living in poverty so the detail behind the change of the numbers is important. So the original estimate was that 7000 children on the fixed line AHC50 measure would be lifted out of poverty. That's increased to 10000 so quite significant. It would be really interesting to know the detail of what's behind that change.And then also in terms of the before-housing measure it was 5000 and with the revised figures in the regulatory impact statement it is 6000. And I'm interested to know of the other scenarios that were considered what the number of children on both of those measures that would have been lifted out of poverty were in determining option 2 that became option 6 that's now in the bill we're debating before Parliament tonight.
Chhour KarenKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I just was looking and thinking about some of the submissions that were made and some of the comments that were made within the select committee process. It was around debts caused by disruption to the automatic electronic system the sharing system that we're going to be using to identify what income is coming in and going out. There's a clause in there that states that debts caused by the errors would not be recoverable so we wouldn't be putting sole parents into debt through mistakes that were made through this new sharing system.But there's a section within the bill in new section 115A inserted by clause 64A about duties to advise around change of circumstances in relation to payments. There was a concern that people will feel because it's automated and because they think that everything's being done automatically that they may not have to advise on change of circumstance. There are examples on here where the person would have to advise the Ministry of Social Development on a change of circumstance and it was brought up that this may be confusing to a person that is receiving this child support in this way. If they fail to report on change of circumstances will they then be liable for any overpayments if they don't meet that obligation of reporting a change of circumstance?
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Minister of Statistics): In response to the Hon Louise Upston who asked about the evidence that liable parents were more likely to pay out there is of course no evidence from New Zealand yet because the change hasn't been put in place. However there is evidence from overseas research showing that that tends to be the case. I refer the Hon Louise Upston to Cancian M; Meyer D R; and Caspar E 2008 Welfare and Child Support: Complements Not Substitutes in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 27(2) pages 354 to 375 which will give her that evidence that she asked for. In terms of what we might have available for New Zealand in evidence there is provision in the funding for this to review the proposal over the next two years to see what actually does happen and to get the evidence from New Zealand as to what happens with respect to liable parents—what we hope will be the increase in liable parents paying child support.Both the Hon Louise Upston and Harete Hipango again focused on the unsupported child benefit and why that wasn't included in the child support pass-on. There is work being done as I said before in Oranga Tamariki on what to do with respect to unsupported children. I understand the request came from Oranga Tamariki not to include the unsupported child benefit in this particular piece of work but to wait until that review was done. Of course I can't explain when Oranga Tamariki will do that work because I do not have responsibility for Oranga Tamariki.
Hipango HareteHARETE HIPANGO (National): Following on from my colleague Louise Upston's question around the unsupported child benefit it's a cop-out and it's an easy answer to say that there's work being done by Oranga Tamariki addressing this issue. Again advocating the child's interest—and this must be about because it's called the Child Support—not the sole parent beneficiary support"—(Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill. So when is this piece of work from Oranga Tamariki going to address the recipients of the unsupported child benefit for our children? When is that? What is the time frame? Repeatedly I've stood in this Chamber and I have advocated from a child-centric point of view which this Government consistently—which is something that they are consistent about—dismisses the relevance the significance and the importance of our children in this legislation. When is this piece of work by Oranga Tamariki going to be completed to address this very issue of concern about not only our most vulnerable children who are in the custodial care of a non-parent—and often they are our kaumātua; our nannies; our koros; our aunties; our uncles; and sometimes older siblings; if not foster parents—but for the benefit of the children of Aotearoa New Zealand?"
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. I recognise my colleague will have a number of questions. So I want to start from that very point that the Minister has answered around liable parents because what is not evident in any of the documentation that would be very interesting given the cost of this policy being $354 million and there are lots of ways that you could alleviate child poverty with $354 million is: how many additional liable parents will child support be recovered from as a result of this policy? How much more child support in terms of quantifiable amount is expected to be received on behalf of receiving parents and what evidence do you have for that? That's my first set of questions around liable parents and the theory of the incentive. I'm interested in the evidence of that.I want to pick up on the comments that my colleague Harete Hipango raised about the unsupported child benefit—or the UCB—which is in a number of parts of this legislation that one was a really significant issue raised by submitters in the very short period of time they had to consider this—and I understand the work that Oranga Tamariki is doing but why is it not that as a stage one they could have been provided assistance? Most people would agree the most vulnerable children in New Zealand are those who are not in the care of their direct family and those who receive an unsupported child benefit fit that category. Therefore why wasn't the extension even if it was as a transitionary method until the final work—goodness knows how long that might be that Oranga Tamariki is doing that review—couldn't have been paid even in the short term? And what number of children would have been lifted out of poverty had that extension to the beneficiaries of the unsupported child benefit been extended the generosity of the State through this policy?
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Minister of Statistics): I'll answer the member who just spoke Harete Hipango first as to why children on the unsupported child's benefit weren't taken into this bill. It's a straightforward reason: it is because it is being considered by Oranga Tamariki as part of the long-term work to reform the system of financial assistance and support for caregivers. So that issue is being addressed in that particular review where it's the appropriate place for it to be addressed I believe. In response to the Hon Louise Upston who is concerned about the differential between sole parents and other parents—I think the real concern was about parents being liable for their children and using their resources to support their children before calling on the resources of the State. One of the things in terms of a behavioural response to the child support practices in place at the moment is that we know that it discourages—it discourages—liable parents from actually paying child support. We know that there has been a great deal of information to suggest that if child support paid by a liable parent flows through to the caregiving parent then the liable parent is much more likely to pay. So indeed it does encourage liable parents to take up their responsibilities.
Hipango HareteHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Whilst the Minister's contemplating her responses to the questions posed by my colleague Louise Upston I turn to clause 5 of the bill replacing section 9 which is headed UCB"—which is "unsupported child benefit"—"beneficiaries must apply for formula assessment".So Minister and officials advisers my question is focused not so much on as the Minister answered unfairness to the sole parent recipients but actually the unfairness to the child or the children who will be the direct beneficiaries of payments from a liable parent. Minister submissions have been made by members of the public such as the Child Poverty Action Group Community Law Centres of Aotearoa and Salvation Army Te Ope Whakaora identifying that this bill is effectively addressing the rights of sole parent beneficiaries by way of the process of pass on of payment from a liable parent rerouted from IRD directly to the sole parent.New section 9 inserted by clause 5 in the bill identifies and sets apart that a child who is in the care of not their sole parent for which a liable parent is responsible for direct payment towards the upkeep of that child—New Zealand has a number of children who are not in the care of one or other parent. That is effectively either a grandparent a foster parent or a family member not deemed as a sole parent beneficiary but as an unsupported child benefit beneficiary. Minister can the answer be provided please why there is a discrimination directly as a result of clause 5 of the bill which identifies that a child who is in the care of not a sole parent but another caregiver—why the UCB beneficiary is not entitled to the liable parent pass-on payment for the direct benefit of the child?So the focus of my question is not about fairness to sole parent recipients but actually it's about fairness to all children be they either in the care of the sole parent or a non-parent who is a caregiver under the unsupported child benefit beneficiary."
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Following on from that because it's evident from the regulatory impact statement—or at least in some of it because there are still heavy redactions in the regulatory impact statement. So there is still a lot that's not open and transparent to the public or to this House. But in terms of the options that were considered given the Minister's comment about it being to change the status of the sole parent benefit to match others I'm interested to know given that one of the drivers of the welfare system—and I'm not quoting directly but perhaps I should. Let me quote directly: the general purpose of … welfare assistance … [is] to use all available resources before seeking financial assistance [through the Ministry of Social Development]." whether or not in considering the options available for this bill that liable parents—who tend to be fathers—are responsible for their children irrespective of whether the receiving parent is receiving welfare or not. So the fundamental principle here is that families are responsible for their children and in the child support legislation the liable parent is responsible for their children and they pay the receiving parent accordingly. The question of principle that I'm interested in the Minister responding to is whether or not that then means that there should be a differential with the sole parent benefit because it is about the liable parent financially supporting and providing for their children irrespective of the receiving parent's economic status—i.e. whether they're on a benefit or not and whether that should be agnostic in terms of the pass on of support. If you are then saying that the liable parent is liable then those funds—it's entirely appropriate that it offsets the costs associated with the sole parent benefit. So I'm interested in the Minister's explanation for this legislation as to why that differential shouldn't have been maintained."
Upston Louise; Russell DeborahHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. For those who have just tuned in to the committee of the whole House this is a recommendation that was agreed by the Government in the report of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group which reported back in May 2019. So I'm going to give a bit of a time line to help the Minister in the chair answer some of the questions. May 2019 was the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report back and in March 2022 the regulatory impact statement (RIS) was drafted. So what generally happens is that a piece of legislation goes to a Cabinet committee and the Government of that day decides. So it's somewhat puzzling that it has been 12 months later on 26 March before a bill then landed in this Parliament—oh and then it became urgent. Then it became urgent because the Government wanted to be able to say it had done something by 1 July which is—guess what!—a mere few months before an election. Fancy that! Unfortunately as is common with the Minister in charge of this bill we had another rushed process. That's why it is really important in the committee of the whole House to have a high level of scrutiny because the public didn't have the opportunity to scrutinise it fully in the select committee. So as I say my first question is around the pure essence of this legislation. Is it about increasing welfare payments—in this case—to sole parents or is it about lifting children out of poverty? If it is the latter I'd like to know why the numbers affected in terms of the numbers being lifted out of poverty according to the RIS would change and what the evidence is for the change. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Minister of Statistics): I thank the member for her questions. As I see in the legislative statement for the bill at the second reading of this bill the major purpose of this bill is to correct an unfairness between sole parents on benefit and other families on benefit. So that is the purpose of the bill. The fact that children are lifted out of poverty is of course a good thing but the major purpose of the bill is in fact to correct that anomaly between the way that sole parents were treated and the way that coupled parents were treated.
Upston Louise; Dean JacquiHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. I expect that members will have a lot to discuss in the committee of the whole House stage for this piece of legislation. I did indicate in the second reading which was only yesterday that National supports it but with some significant reservations so my expectation is that as a result of the committee stage those reservations will go one way or the other. My first question to the Minister in the chair is: what is the primary objective of this legislation? Is it around child poverty reduction and why is it that the figures for the number of children who would be lifted out of poverty by this bill have changed from the regulatory impact statement until now? Madam Chair it would be really helpful to get some answers so—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! It is up to the Minister as to when the Minister addresses the questions. In order to keep the debate going members should seek a call.
Dean Jacqui; Belich CamillaCHILD SUPPORT (PASS ON) ACTS AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeParts 1 and 2 Schedule and clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come first to the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill and we begin the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 28 and Part 1 of the Schedule Amendments to child support legislation". CAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 and 2 stand part."
Dean JacquiHOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House is in committee on the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill and the Charities Amendment Bill.
Lorck AnnaANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you Madam Speaker. What an opportunity it is to stand and talk about Budget 2023 which provides support for today and builds for tomorrow. However I thought it might be appropriate to start with the description of what tukituki" means—as the MP for Tukituki—in te reo and it means "attack". It is appropriate tonight to tukituki the National Party for what has to be one of the worst things that I can think of that I heard prior to coming into the House. The National Government is going to make women pay—women pay—for contraception if they are elected. They're going to make them pay for the fee for contraception. As a mother of five daughters it is a duty of mine to stand in the House tonight and say that the National Party is doing an absolute disservice—a disservice—to play politics against a policy that will change people's lives will protect people will help the health system and care for women. For the National Party to think it's right to fight a policy like this purely on politics speaks absolute volumes for how sad and negative and frankly despicable that the National Party will go to those sorts of lengths when this is the right thing for women and it is the right thing for New Zealanders.You cannot trust the National Party. You cannot trust them on what they will cut next. Will they cut police like they cut our community cops?Shanan Halbert: They cut them last time.ANNA LORCK: They cut them last time. Will they cut the winter energy payment that keeps people warm during winter? They have said that they will; that is their plan. The only thing they are prepared to put up is the super age. They want to cut super for 65-year-olds and 66-year-olds. The only other thing I reckon they'll put up is GST because they have a track record. They told New Zealanders to trust them that National would cut taxes and they wouldn't put up GST but they did. And they love tax. Don't think for a minute that the National Party doesn't love tax. So in tukituki-ing the National Party I want to bring it back home to what we are doing for Hawke's Bay right now. We've just announced a billion-dollar cyclone recovery package as part of our commitment to working together with Hawke's Bay. Part of that is $100 million to help regions hit by cyclones to build back stopbanks. We've put forward a $6 billion resilience plan to build back that critical infrastructure that has been smashed through the cyclone—roads electricity lines communication lines lifelines that were so necessary. We have to have the resilience for the future to make sure that we build back safer we build back smarter and we build back for a better future for our region. That's what the National Party should actually be saying: "Good on you. Good on getting on with the job." But instead I've heard nothing but negativity and attacks on women's health tonight. Thank you Madam Speaker."
Improving Arrangements for Surrogacy Bill — Government Adoption of Member's Bill
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: 2021/22 Annual reports for:Health Promotion AgencyTaranaki District Health BoardWhanganui District Health BoardUpdated Government Response to the Report of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee on the Inquiry into the Review of the Radio New Zealand Charter2023-2026 Statement of Intent for the Retirement CommissionStatement of performance expectations for the year ending 30 June 2024 for the Retirement CommissionUpdated Strategic Intentions 2021-25 for the Ministry of Transport.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No bills have been introduced.
Rurawhe AdrianIMPROVING ARRANGEMENTS FOR SURROGACY BILLGovernment adoption of member's billSPEAKER: Members I have received a letter from the Minister of Justice informing me that the Government with the agreement of the member in charge has adopted the Improving Arrangements for Surrogacy Bill.
Dean JacquiWEDNESDAY 31 MAY 2023The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon JACQUI DEAN (Assistant Speaker—National): 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.
Tuesday 30 May 2023 - Volume 768
Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 65New Zealand Labour 62; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Noes 54New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
12. Question No. 12—PoliceCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 12—Police12. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer" if so why?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): I stand by my full statement that: "It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1800 extra police."Chris Baillie: Does she believe police feel safer given that there's been a 300 percent increase in assaults against police since 2017 and if police don't feel safe how can ordinary New Zealanders?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Assaults on front-line police are absolutely unacceptable and that is exactly why this Government has invested in the Tactical Response Model (TRM). This has been trialled in areas and different districts and now has been funded to be rolled out right across New Zealand. What the TRM delivers is a combination of intelligence and extra kit to make sure police are deployed and fully equipped to respond to higher risk in individual circumstances.Chris Baillie: Does she believe that victims feel safer considering there has been a 121 percent increase in serious assaults resulting in injury since 2017?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I am never happy to see that there is an increase in victims of crime. That is why we continue to invest in important initiatives like Te Aorerekura led by Marama Davidson which enables greater investment in our communities to reduce family harm so that young people do not grow up in homes exposed to high levels of family harm and go on to cause other issues later in life. It's important we invest 10 years from now to see the problems that we are seeing presenting here today in New Zealand.Chris Baillie: Does she believe women feel safer considering there was a 19 percent increase in aggravated sexual assaults between 2017 and 2022?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: It is not acceptable that there has been an increase in assaults on women. That is why we continue to invest unlike the potential of a "coalition of cuts" which would do what has happened in the previous instances where people have had services cut and enabled those responses not to kick in and help people who need it.Chris Baillie: Isn't it the case that when she says she feels safe it's because she's in the back of a Crown limo while New Zealanders who are going about their daily lives are being terrorised by thugs and don't feel safe?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No"
11. Question No. 11—Digital Economy and CommunicationsNAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister for the Digital Economy and CommunicationsQuestion No. 11—Digital Economy and Communications11. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications: How is the Government supporting the game development sector?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications): Talofa lava Mr Speaker. This Government is committed to supporting the growth of our game development sector by investing in our digital and technical sectors and supporting Kiwis into good tech jobs. Through Budget 2023 we are introducing a new rebate scheme for game development studios. This will provide a boost for gaming studios to flourish and grow right here in New Zealand. The scheme which will see eligible studios receiving up to a 20 percent rebate will go a long way to ensure New Zealand remains a great place. This is an exciting sector to operate in and will help create the New Zealand that we want to see in our future: a high-skill high-wage resilient and sustainable future for New Zealand.Naisi Chen: Why is this investment needed?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The game development sector is a creator of high-skill high-wage jobs right here in New Zealand. This Government is very proud to support its further growth and development. This sector has been rapidly growing and has significantly contributed to lifting New Zealand's productivity and wealth. In 2022 it brought in more than $400 million in revenue with over 96 percent of this being in weightless exports. As part of the digital technologies industry the game development sector aligns with our vision for a low-emissions high-wage economy and we are committed to making the best investments possible for the future of our economy.Naisi Chen: How will this scheme work?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The 20 percent rebate will be available to all game development studios who meet a minimum spend of $250000 per annum. The threshold will enable studios to receive up to $3 million in a rebate funding. It's great news that this scheme will be backdated to 1 April 2023. That means businesses will already be eligible to receive this much-needed support. This scheme will provide an incentive to gaming studios to continue to build and develop right here in New Zealand.Naisi Chen: What feedback has the Minister seen on the announcement?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Heaps. I've had great feedback both in person and through the media. New Zealand Game Developers Association chairwoman Chelsea Rapp has said I'm elated. It's such a relief to see the Government has heard our concerns." The chief executive of RocketWerkz Stephen Knightly has said "It's great to hear the Government is taking tangible action to support not only interactive games but also the wider digital economy too." BusinessNZ CEO Kirk Hope has said "This attention to an emerging industry is welcome and it signals New Zealand is in a competitive space for development." I'm also hearing stories directly from stakeholders in the sector that this announcement is going to make a strong tangible difference to their business."
10. Question No. 10—EducationPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill) to the Associate Minister of EducationQuestion No. 10—Education10. PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill) to the Associate Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement regarding the early childhood education sector's reaction to the conditions attached to the 20 hours' free funding I can't explain why they think it's unaffordable" when an open letter representing three-quarters of the ECE sector was sent to her office explaining it to her?Hon JO LUXTON (Associate Minister of Education): I stand by my whole statement: "I can't explain why they think it's unaffordable that would be up to each individual centre as to how they run their own business." What I can explain is that Budget 2023 delivers a minimum of an 80 percent increase to the current funding rate for children two and over in ECE. This is specifically to help centres adopt and implement the policy.Penny Simmonds: So is the early childhood sector wrong when they say that the criteria attached to the Government's flagship policy will increase childcare fees for families and negatively impact on the viability of centres with the risk of more centres closing and if so why?Hon JO LUXTON: To the second part of the question: centres close for a range of reasons including population growth. And it is important to note that this is an opt-in subsidy which centres do not have to offer to parents. It doesn't come into effect until March of next year so there is plenty of time to work with the sector.Penny Simmonds: So is the Minister concerned that 96 early childhood providers have closed between January and May this year and does she believe the Budget policy announcement will increase or decrease the number of providers closing?Hon JO LUXTON: In response to the first part of the question as I said in my previous answers centres close and open for a variety of reasons including population changes in an area. Penny Simmonds: Who is correct: the Minister who claims the Government's flagship policy is workable or the ECE sector who say "Quality ECE will be put back 50 years"? Hon JO LUXTON: What I will say is that this is not a new policy. The subsidy has been in place for three- to five-year-olds for more than a decade. So we know it can work because history tells us so. [Interruption.]SPEAKER: Order!Penny Simmonds: Does the Minister agree with the ECE sector who say they were "expecting a Ferrari and got given a lemon" that will increase fees for families and will she concede that the Budget's flagship policy should go back to Minister Tinetti's whiteboard?Hon JO LUXTON: The Government's ECE package in Budget 2023 is designed with families front of mind and aims to take the pressure off the cost of living by removing barriers to services."
6. Question No. 6—Pacific PeoplesDr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister for Pacific PeoplesQuestion No. 6—Pacific Peoples6. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: How does Budget 2023 foster the development of Pacific language initiatives?Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Minister for Pacific Peoples): Fa'afetai Afioga Fofoga Fetalai. Budget 2023 prioritises investment in skills alongside the cost of living support and infrastructure investment for cyclone recovery. For Pacific communities our languages cultures and identities are essential to health and prosperity. The Budget brings this to life with a new investment of $13.3 million to deliver our Pacific Languages Strategy. The Budget investment ensures our communities have more opportunities to hear speak and learn our languages. It is also another reason to celebrate during Samoan Language Week. Mitamita i lau gagana maua'a lou fa'asinomaga" which translates to "Be proud of your language and grounded in your identity."Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Are there wider implications for Pacific languages and wellbeing through Budget 2023?Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Fa'afetai tele lava. In the Pacific peoples portfolio we are funding new initiatives worth a total of $51 million on top of other investments to date. This year's Budget built on $683 million invested since 2019 which means over $734 million has been invested over successive Pacific wellbeing packages. Thriving languages is a key goal for Pacific communities under the Lalanga Fou framework and so too is the goal of building prosperous communities. We are investing almost $17 million in this goal which will be focused on Pacific workers and businesses.Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What feedback has the Minister received from Pacific communities to the Budget initiatives?Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Malo lava. Feedback from a week of touring the country to answer questions about the Budget made it clear: the top impacts on Pacific communities are those shared across other Kiwi families. Alongside our Deputy Prime Minister Carmel Sepuloni who is currently representing Aotearoa New Zealand at Samoa's 61st anniversary of independence commemorations Pacific communities want to make it easy to put food on the table help our children to get a best start in life and lower the barriers to good healthcare. When Pacific communities looked at Budget 2023 they identified four major wins: 20 hours' free early childhood education for 2-year-olds; $5 prescription fees scrapped; free public transport for under-13s half price for under-25s; 100000 warmer Kiwi homes. Whether you're a pre-schooler a young person aspiring to get into a new career or one of our Pacific elders this is the Budget for our people."
Omer IbrahimIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a short call on the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Mr Watts not everything has to be about race. The purpose of this Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is to improve the focus on the understanding of how people with personal injuries are accessing the accident compensation scheme. It increases transparency of the levels of access to the scheme including any disparity in access to the scheme by Māori and identified population groups. As the Minister said ACC is an integral part of our social support system in New Zealand and is part of the fabric of our country but we know that access to the scheme is currently not the same for all New Zealanders. This is the heart of this bill not what the Opposition is making sounds about—race and division. It's just simply this: all we are asking for is just that the scheme is accessible equally to everyone and that we do have some sort of transparency for these disadvantaged groups of the population.We all know in our communities people who rely on this scheme and people who are struggling to access it at the same time as well. This is all about fairness and transparency. It's a good bill. It's going to make a difference in people's lives. I commend it to the House.
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on this the third reading of the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.I support this bill and I was lucky enough to be on the Education and Workforce Committee when we were considering this bill. The reason that this bill came about I think arose from a matter which has been referred to by previous speakers: the issue that we had with birth injuries. That was quite a significant issue and unfairness within the ACC regime was remedied to the credit of the then Minister Carmel Sepuloni in the legislation that we passed to allow those injuries to be considered under the ACC scheme.Now this I think led to a few questions in terms of who is actually being served by this ACC scheme which—as all members across the House have spoken of—is so essential to the way New Zealand works. It is fundamental to the way that New Zealand addresses its accidents and I think is something that we were all proud of. The issue really was that it wasn't necessarily treating all populations the same. So this bill remedies that and requires ACC to report on it. And it's great to hear the National Party don't disagree with that and think it's well-meaning at the very least.The second thing is it brings forward eligibility for the minimum rate of weekly compensation from the sixth to the second week. Now that is not nothing. For those people who are injured that could be everything—that could be getting by; that could be making do—and in an era where we have issues with the cost of living I think that it is absolutely essential that we pass this important piece of legislation. If the National Party do agree with it in terms of the thrust of it and if they do agree with the fact that people need money in their pocket in the second week not the sixth week then they should do what their conscience tells them and support it.
Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill — Third Reading
Coffey TāmatiTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Things move very quickly sometimes in this House and sometimes they move incredibly slowly. This is an example where the bill has moved very quickly. Can I say that Labour is absolutely committed to the idea that we have improved access to our justice system. Our justice system needs to be respected and committed to by this House but we need to keep tweaking it whenever things aren't working. This makes sure that we have got advocates for people in the Family Court who are going through really tough times. We need to make sure that they have got access to people who can speak their language who can walk alongside them on what can sometimes be an incredibly hard and tough and tumultuous journey and somebody that can actually stand in their corner. That doesn't always happen but this bill is going to help in that respect; make sure that those families those people those individuals have got somebody—a Family Court Associate—to be able to help them navigate the system. For that reason I commend this bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.