HURSDAY, 1 SEPTEMBER 2022
Mr Speaker took th Chair at 2 p.m.
KARAKIA/PRAYERS
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the Queen 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.





MOTIONS
Mikhail Gorbachev—Former President, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I seek leave to move a motion without notice to mark the passing of Mikhail Gorbachev.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I move, That this House acknowledges the passing of the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, whose leadership was instrumental in peacefully ending the Cold War and promoting disarmament and democracy. 
Mikhail Gorbachev was one of the 20th century's most notable leaders and politicians. As General Secretary and as President, Mr Gorbachev brought strategic ambition and courage to his vision for the Soviet Union. 
Mr Gorbachev came to power in 1985. At 54 he was seen as a young man in the role, and he followed a succession of elderly and fragile leaders. The Soviet economy was stagnant, and in 1984 he is reported to have said to his future Foreign Minister, "We cannot live this way any longer." His polices of perestroika and glasnost to reform the USSR economy and society were radical in their attempts to reform the communist system. Mr Gorbachev was a man of purpose, determination, and resilience. The UN Secretary António Guterres has hailed Mr Gorbachev as having done more than any other individual to bring about the peaceful end of the Cold War.
Mr Gorbachev also faced significant foreign policy challenges, perhaps none greater than the threat of nuclear weapons. In his initial months in power, Gorbachev announced a unilateral freeze on deploying intermediate range missiles in Europe. Through engagement and dialogue, and with US President Reagan as a partner, he offered a different view of the world's future, amplified by this statement "A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought." Gorbachev's relentless efforts on nuclear disarmament and arms control reminds us of what is possible and can be achieved, even in times of conflict of heightened tensions. Mr Gorbachev understood the counterbalance required to preserve stability.
I want to be clear: the promise of reform under Mr Gorbachev does not match the realities of what we are seeing in Russia today. The New Zealand Government continues to condemn Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. This is a breach of international law where innocent lives are being lost. 
As we mark the passing of Mr Gorbachev, it is concerning to see Russia ignoring the lessons on his legacy, including a new threat of nuclear disaster at Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine. With this in mind it's fitting to end with Mr Gorbachev's own words: "There will be no winner in a war of all against all, particularly if it ends in a nuclear war. Faced with this dire threat to peace, we are not helpless. We must not resign. We must not surrender".
[Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] 
SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. 





Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): I rise on behalf of the National Party to join the Government in passing this motion today. As time goes on, there'll be fewer and fewer in parliaments like this who will remember the uncertainty and the fear that the words and images of the Iron Curtain and the Cold War conveyed. In the stand-off environment between the Soviet Union and the US, that fear was fuelled by an arms race that saw the development and installation of some 63,000 nuclear warheads equally divided between those two countries. It had to end at some point, and although Mikhail Gorbachev rose to the leadership of the USSR committed to the Marxist-Leninist communist system, he was clearly a man of vision and peaceful intention. Post the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, Gorbachev saw the need for change and introduced the words "glasnost"—openness—and "perestroika"—reconstruction—to the international vocabulary.
On the world stage, he exuded a comforting warmth. That was his personal style—the man who was telling the world that he wanted better for his people. It was this positioning that significantly reduced the fear and suspicion of those Cold War years. He embarked on summits with President Reagan of the United States to limit nuclear weapons and to end the Cold War. He ended the long Soviet-Afghanistan war, and he encouraged freer speech and democratised the Duma in his own country.
He was not, though, without his critics. Some say he went too far too quickly, and that led to the destruction of the Soviet Union. Post 1990 and the fall of the Berlin Wall, many Soviet States reclaimed their individual nationhood, and they thrive today. But despite his critics, he survived coup attempts, and I think that shows his vision was shared by many who were around him at the time.
His award of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 was much deserved, and served as an acknowledgment of the new and more peaceful world order his leadership ushered in. In the 30 years since his leadership concluded, it's an open question as to how well the legacy of glasnost and perestroika have served to the benefit of the Russian people. Without commenting on the current political leadership in Russia but concurring with the thoughts expressed by the foreign Minister, I think it's fair to say that Mikhail Gorbachev does leave a legacy as one of the great positive influences of the 20th century—a legacy and a vision that may well better serve the Russian people today.





GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, we acknowledge the passing of Mikhail Gorbachev, a significant 20th century leader with a complicated legacy. As politicians, this is perhaps a reminder to us all that our actions will continue to be judged throughout our lives and beyond. Iran's biggest land-bordering neighbour during my childhood there was the USSR. I remember his as the cat because "gorbe" means cat in Farsi and there were endless jokes about that.
But I also remember the refugees fleeing oppression across the border and the nation States that formed and were dismantled.
This was a man who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for helping bring an end to the Cold War and who reduced the threat of nuclear warfare to all civilisation. He also, I found out today, [Audio issue] Green Cross International. But I do want to acknowledge that while the end of the USSR enabled many countries to achieve some level of democracy and self-determination, it was also followed by significant hardship and regional turmoil. Terrible conflicts came in its wake. I want to acknowledge Chechnya and its people. I also want to acknowledge the people of Central and South America who experienced interference. The wounds of that time remain fresh for many across the world especially in that region, and that can't be forgotten. 
While New Zealand continues our proud history of advocating against nuclear armament, honouring the legacy that we say belongs to Gorbachev would mean that we stand as an independent, principled voice on the global stage today. It would mean refusing to recourse into old Cold War allegiances. It would mean scrutinising our allegiances to Five Eyes. It would mean scrutinising opaque military agreements that we enter into in the Pacific either on the side of the US or against China. We must call out our friends and allies for human rights breaches. We must commit to sustained cooperation and commitment across the political world as we advocate for peace and for solutions to the greatest global crisis of our time—the climate crisis.





BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to acknowledge the passing of the great Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Mr Gorbachev showed extraordinary leadership and increased human freedoms for hundreds of millions of people living in the former Soviet Union. His actions reunified a divided Germany, removed the Iron Curtain that divided Europe after the Second World War, and brought the Cold War to an end peacefully. He is one of the great leaders of the 20th century.
He is a man who chose peace, cooperation, and democracy and sought a better life for the people in the Soviet Union. He was a leader who saw the dignity of individuals over the group, and I wish to quote him directly. He said, "In the name of Communism we abandoned basic human values. So when I came to power in Russia, I started to restore those values; values of openness and freedom." He did so by embracing democratic reform and gave freedoms to millions of individuals by introducing key political and economic reforms to the Soviet Union, with the first being glasnost—transparency and openness—by allowing ordinary citizens to openly criticise the State, ending official censorship, publishing banned literature, and by helping to kick start independent journalism; and perestroika—the liberalisation of the economy and trade—allowing for more open and foreign trade.
Like for many New Zealanders today, the Soviet Union fell before I was born. But Mikhail Gorbachev's legacy is relevant more than ever today, with this striving for democracy and openness, as we see the current Russian leader turn to conflict over cooperation and restrict freedoms of speech, the media, and freedoms of association. 
Mr Gorbachev said, "My life's work has been accomplished. I did all that I could." However, we must continue to strive for democracy, for open Government, transparency, international rules-based order, cooperation, and upholding the rights and dignities of all people. 
The ACT Party calls on the Russian Government to honour his legacy by withdrawing from Ukraine. Once again, we acknowledge the great life and contribution of Mikhail Gorbachev to democracy, freedom, and transparent Government and we want to share our condolences with his family.
Motion agreed to.





BUSINESS STATEMENT
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 13 September. Legislation to be considered in that week will include the third reading of the Appropriation (2022/23 Estimates) Bill, along with all stages of an imprest supply bill; the committee stage and third reading of the Maniapoto Claims Settlement Bill; the committee stages of the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill, and the Plant Variety Rights Bill; and the third readings of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill and the Screen Industry Workers Bill. There will be an extended sitting on the morning of Wednesday, 14 September, and Wednesday will be a members' day.
CHRIS BISHOP (National): I thank the Leader of the House for the update. It won't surprise him to learn that I'm interested, as I'm sure we all are, as to what the current status of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23, Platform Economy, and Remedial Matters) Bill is, which appeared on the Order Paper on Tuesday, but has been removed from the Order Paper today. Has that bill been discharged by the Minister in charge, who I believe is the Minister of Revenue—although there is some dispute about that—and is it the Government's intention to reintroduce the bill, because, of course, we do have to set the annual rates for 2022/2023 at some point. 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I can assure the member that it is absolutely the Government's intention to introduce a taxation annual rates bill, and that will be done very shortly.





PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.
CLERK: Petition of Augusta Macassey-Pickard for Coromandel Watchdog of Hauraki requesting that the House place an immediate moratorium on accepting, processing, or granting applications for prospecting, exploration, or mining permits on, in, or under public conservation land in Aotearoa, andpetition of Sally Walker requesting that the House suspend the implantation of vaginally inserted mesh sling for stress urinary incontinence.
SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Papers have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK: Government Response to Report of the Social Services and Community Committee on Petition of Sue Brown, andJudicial Conduct Commissioner report for the year to 31 July 2022.
SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK: Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on thePetition of James Hilford, andReport of the Controller and Auditor-General, Inquiry into managing fees paid by South Auckland Middle School and Middle School West Auckland in 2018report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, Monetary Policy Statement, August 2022reports of the Health Committee on the2020/21 Annual review of the Lakes District Health Board and West Coast District Health Board, andPetition of Carmen Shanks.
SPEAKER: The report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Controller and Auditor-General's inquiry and the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee are set down for consideration. There are no bills for introduction.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities
1. Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green) to the Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities: What progress, if any, has this Government made towards addressing the issues identified by rainbow communities in the first Counting Ourselves survey 2019, in light of the second survey being launched today?
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities): I am aware that recommendation eight of the survey is focused on ethnic communities. I also know that since taking office, the then Office of Ethnic Communities started building relationships across rainbow communities. There has been a focus by the Ministry for Ethnic Communities to continue developing and strengthening those relationships. I also know that the priorities and the strategy of the new Ministry for Ethnic Communities were developed with input from rainbow ethnic communities, and that they are also named as a priority group within the strategy. Furthermore, the ministry has provided funding to rainbow communities through the ethnic communities development fund, and that includes funding to the Wellington Pride Festival and projects by Adhikaar Aotearoa. The ministry continues to build strong relationships and is also part of the cross-agency rainbow network that's a forum for collaboration across the Public Service to raise the profile of rainbow communities and their inclusion within the broader Public Service. Finally, with regard to the Counting Ourselves survey, I know that the ministry has been working with the agency administering the survey to ensure that the voices of rainbow ethnic communities are included as part of that survey so as to be able to inform future work as well. Just finally, the responsibility to support and address issues faced by our rainbow communities sits across Government, rather than in just one portfolio or one agency. We can see that quite clearly in the work undertaken by my colleagues across the health, justice, and youth portfolios.
Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: What progress, is she aware of, has been made on enabling queer—not queer pathways; clear pathways, aroha mai, for gender affirming healthcare, including gender affirming surgeries, given the unmet need for healthcare is as high as 67 percent?
SPEAKER: In so far as you're responsible. There's an element in there that I don't think you are.
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I mentioned, in as far as I'm responsible as the Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities, I think I've outlined the work that the ministry's been doing in this space. There is work towards the issue that the member's raised, but that sits within the delegations of the Associate Minister of Health.
Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Will she work with her officials to ensure resources are dedicated to health and wellbeing initiatives led by trans and non-binary communities and organisations, such as PATHA, the Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa, to ensure equitable outcomes for rainbow people?
SPEAKER: Again, in so far as the Minister is responsible.
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yeah, thank you, Mr Speaker. Once again, I am aware that there is work under way across Government that sits within various portfolios. I also know that, from conversations with the Minister for Youth, there is funding towards those communities through the youth portfolio too.
Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: What progress, if she's aware of it, has been made to better protect trans and non-binary people from discrimination, which two-thirds of them experience?
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I thank the member for the question because we do know that, particularly, young people within rainbow communities are at greater risk of being discriminated against, bullied, and harassed. All of my portfolios stand against that sort of behaviour that we've seen quite recently perpetrated on rainbow young people in their spaces as well. As I mentioned, you know, through the Ministry for Ethnic Communities more broadly, there is funding to support the wellbeing of rainbow ethnic communities, and equally through other portfolio-specific funding towards supporting their wellbeing as well.
Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Does she support making gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Human Rights Act, and, if so, why has the Government decided not to progress this work?
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I don't have responsibility for that. I understand that that falls within the portfolio responsibilities of my colleague Minister Allan.
Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Does she believe that a new ministry for rainbow issues would help address and pull together the range of concerns raised in the 2019 Counting Ourselves report?
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: As I've pointed to in previous responses, there is work under way across various portfolios that this Government is responsible for—more broadly, right from banning conversion therapy to being the first Government to provide targeted nation-wide funding for mental health services supporting rainbow young people, reducing wait times for gender-affirming surgery, and lifting the cap on the number of publicly funded surgeries. I think it's clear from the track record of this Government that there's a fair bit of work under way across various Government agencies and portfolios, and that's how it should be.




Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government's statements and actions?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes, particularly our work to improve access to mental wellbeing services by expanding the school-based Mana Ake wellbeing programme to more than 3,000 primary- and intermediate-aged school children living on the West Coast. Mana Ake is a school-based programme that gives around 195,000 children the skills and support to deal with issues that include grief, loss, parental separation, and bullying. It also provides advice, guidance, and workshops for parents, whānau, and teachers. Budget 2022 provided $90 million of funding over four years for the Mana Ake programme to enable ongoing service deliver in Canterbury and Kaikōura and start new services in Northland, Counties Manukau, Bay of Plenty, Lakes, and on the West Coast.
Nicola Willis: Does she stand by her statement in May this year that "We are not doing any work on any additional tax policy.", and how does she reconcile that statement with Cabinet's decision to change KiwiSaver tax policy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, every Government in every year, through Inland Revenue, will look at ways to refine and improve the tax system. If the member is seriously suggesting that no work should be done around tax integrity or tax avoidance issues, that perhaps speaks more to the member's priorities.
Nicola Willis: Has she asked the Minister of Revenue about what other new revenue-gathering taxes he might be cooking up, and, if not, why not?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister stays in contact with her Ministers on a regular basis and is very confident in the work of the Minister of Revenue.
Nicola Willis: Is she aware that the Minister of Revenue has a new IRD unit of six full-time employees working on a capital gains research project, and can she explain to New Zealanders what the purpose of this unit is if not to cook up new taxes?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister is not aware of what the member has said. What the Prime Minister is aware of is that the Minister of Revenue has been undertaking work which was publicised at the time of the Budget to make sure that all New Zealanders pay their fair share of tax—that, we know, is not an issue that's important to the National Party, given their tax policy.
Nicola Willis: Well, in light of that statement and the Prime Minister's attraction to this capital gains unit, will she rule out introducing tax changes for residential property?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister has been very clear that there are no new taxes being created by this Government, beyond that on which we campaigned. Given that the Leader of the Opposition is now taking his policy advice from the Minister of Finance, can I suggest that the National Party would be better off focusing on whether or not giving tax cuts to the wealthiest New Zealanders represents good policy. I might do a general debate on that next time.
Nicola Willis: Are you regretting the last general debate? Was Cabinet informed of any alternative—
SPEAKER: The member knows that she shouldn't start supplementaries with a narrative of the previous answer to the question that's been considered. Consider yourself told off!
Nicola Willis: Was Cabinet informed of any alternative options for dealing with KiwiSaver GST—for example, option three from this regulatory impact statement, which proposed simply making all KiwiSaver fees exempt from GST, providing the Minister of Revenue's much-sought consistency, and reducing the tax burden by $20 million?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, all of the options that were considered by the Minister of Revenue and other Ministers had both pros and cons. The example that the member gives would have seen smaller New Zealand providers potentially be far worse off than the current status quo situation. I repeat for the member: if the member wants to think about tax policy that is going to make New Zealanders better off, she should consider taking the advice of the Minister of Finance and ditching a tax cut for the highest-earning New Zealanders.
Nicola Willis: Who does she blame for yesterday's KiwiSaver tax debacle: the Minister of Revenue for proposing it, the Minister of Finance for encouraging it, or herself for leading the Cabinet that agreed to it?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, Inland Revenue, throughout its history, will look at proposals to be able to refine and improve the tax system. Where there is good public policy to make consistent the tax system, the Government will look at that. In this case, that particular policy was not appreciated by those that it was designed to help, and ran the risk, because of the way it was being interpreted, of undermining the KiwiSaver system.
Nicola Willis: When will that Prime Minister seek to ever make anyone responsible for their failures in her Government, including the cost of living payment being paid out to ineligible people, and a new tax on KiwiSaver that went to wipe a hundred billion dollars of New Zealanders' savings?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I stand by the record of the Government in making sure that we got New Zealanders through COVID; that we have an unemployment rate of 3.3 percent, one of the lowest in our history; and we have one of the lowest levels of public debt in the world. This Government is standing alongside New Zealanders. Today, New Zealanders will get the second tranche of the cost of living payment, for those earning less than $70,000. The member used to think it was important to look after those people. She doesn't want to do anything in that direction; she wants to cut taxes for the highest-income earners. We are the ones who have stepped up to support low and middle income earners.




Question No. 3—Finance
3. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The ANZ New Zealand Business Outlook for August was released yesterday, and it showed that business confidence had recovered somewhat while firms' own confidence in their activity had also risen. Nevertheless, sentiment does remain subdued amidst what are very challenging conditions for businesses as they deal with high inflation and ongoing supply constraints. While economic growth is forecast to slow this year, the resilience of the New Zealand economy and our strong fiscal position means that we are in a good position to support New Zealanders to deal with these challenges.
Helen White: What did the report have to say about business activity and its impact on the economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: General activity indicators including hiring and investment intentions also lifted, which ANZ noted was good news. ANZ said there was a mood lift that was evident among manufacturers, agriculture, and services firms.
Helen White: What other reports has he seen on business investing in the economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The overseas merchandise trade figures show businesses are investing to improve the country's productivity and support our recovery. Last month, Statistics New Zealand reported that imports of mechanical machinery and equipment rose 19 percent, to $1 billion, in July. On an annual basis, imports of mechanical machinery and equipment rose 26 percent, to $11 billion.
Helen White: What other reports has he seen on the economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: CoreLogic's House Price Index, which uses changes to property values, declined 1.8 percent in August, compared with a 0.9 percent drop in July. For the quarter, prices fell by 3.5 percent. CoreLogic is expecting further declines in prices, but they noted that credit arrears remain low as a strong labour market with low unemployment is supporting households with their mortgage repayments.
Helen White: What reports has he seen on the international context for the economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealand is not alone in feeling the effects of global inflation trends. The EU has reported that inflation rose 9.1 percent in August, compared with 8.9 percent in the previous month. In the UK, there are forecasts for inflation that range 13 and 22 percent for the year. Nevertheless, in New Zealand—
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Are we short of gas?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, that member's not. Nevertheless, in New Zealand, wages are outstripping inflation and most economists are forecasting that inflation has now peaked, although it will remain elevated for some time at levels above what we have recently experienced. That is why the Government continues to support New Zealanders, including low and middle income New Zealanders, through the cost of living payment that we'll pay out for the second time today.




Question No. 4—Housing
4. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Housing: How many KiwiBuild houses were built in July 2022, if any, and was this more or fewer than the number of KiwiBuild houses built in June 2022?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Six KiwiBuild homes were completed in June 2022. Early indications from our development partners showed that a further 10 homes were completed in July. As the Government underwrite was a tool designed to sustain housing construction during a cooling market, I'm not surprised by these low numbers. I note the build pipeline for homes and Government-backed developments is expected to increase in coming months, and we've received significant interest in the scheme from developers.
Brooke van Velden: Does she stand by her statement "I note that January is always the quietest month in the building sector.", and, if so, how does she reconcile that with the Housing Dashboard stating that zero new KiwiBuild homes were built in both June and July?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The member is incorrect to say the Housing Dashboard says that zero homes were completed in KiwiBuild in June. The Housing Dashboard is, of course, updated on the last Wednesday of every month, and it was yesterday, and what the member will see is that there were six KiwiBuild homes that were delivered in June. Public housing numbers are updated when they're triggered by code compliance certificates being issued. KiwiBuild numbers are updated when developers report completion because there's not an automatic trigger, so there sometimes can be a one- or two-month lag in those figures coming through. But, as I said, early indicators from the development community is July will deliver 10.
Shanan Halbert: What interest has been received recently in the Government's underwrite scheme KiwiBuild?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In the context of the current headwinds being experienced in the housing market, we've received significant interest from developers in recent months. I'm advised that in the last month alone, the Government has received 40 proposals to the scheme. To put this into perspective, there have been 29 proposals put in the previous two years. Given the significant interest from experienced housing developers and our changes to the scheme's settings for Government-backed developers, I expect momentum to increase in the next six to 12 months. We've already seen this taking place with KiwiBuild homes under construction as at July 2022 being 1,349, which is an over 10 percent increase to the 1,223 homes at the end of June.
Brooke van Velden: Does she stand by her statement that "KiwiBuild hasn't delivered the numbers we initially set out to do", and does she believe that six homes is an acceptable number of new KiwiBuild homes?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes. And in answer to the second part of the question, as I've explained to the member, what we are seeing is that KiwiBuild was not a tool that was going to be of significant utility during a heated housing market. If we look back over the last 18 months to two years, when you'd expect those developments to be signed up to KiwiBuild, developers simply did not need that tool in a hot market. Twenty-nine proposals were received over the last two years combined. As I have outlined in an answer to an earlier question, in the last month alone we have received 40 proposals.
Brooke van Velden: Is she going to borrow the big zeros from Waka Kotahi's Road to Zero advertisement to advertise KiwiBuild's progress when the Housing Dashboard still shows that there are zero homes built in July?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The member should listen to the answers that are given in the House—I imagine she just had to amend that answer from the one she had written on her page. As I said, early indicators from developers are that there are around 10 homes that are delivered in July.




Question No. 5—Energy and Resources
5. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What action is the Government taking to support access to cheaper, cleaner energy for people in public and Māori housing?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): The Government is rolling out 16 small-scale solar projects across New Zealand to support more households to access clean, affordable, locally generated electricity. Through the third round of the Māori Housing Renewable Energy Fund, 150 Māori households will directly benefit from improved energy affordability. Even more households will benefit through energy sharing.
Arena Williams: How will this help recipients reduce their energy bills?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: It will vary based on the household, but I'm advised recipients should get estimated savings annually of between $700 and $850 per household. Projects from earlier funding rounds are reporting that installing equipment like solar panels and household batteries has made a huge difference to whānau struggling with their power bills. Some have had their power bills drop by 30 to 50 percent, including some recipients saving over $1,000 a year.
Arena Williams: Why has the Government selected these 16 solar projects for funding?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Round three focuses on projects that are more innovative or in areas not well represented by projects that have already received funding in earlier rounds. There is approximately $3 million available for smaller scale projects that should support at least four houses, with the remaining $5 million for larger scale projects. This reflects the growing ambition that Māori organisations have for the role of renewable energy in their communities. Successful applications for the larger scale projects are expected to be announced in early 2023.
Arena Williams: Where are these projects happening?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: These projects are spread across the country, reaching communities that don't always see investment. There are seven projects in Northland, three in Waikato, one in Auckland, one in the Bay of Plenty, one in the Hawke's Bay, one in Whanganui, one in Masterton, and one in Motueka.
Arena Williams: Can the Minister give an example of how communities are benefiting from this funding?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: This funding round committed $400,000 to Mangatawa Papamoa Blocks Incorporation for a solar array and community battery for the Bay of Plenty. This solar smart grid across 35 homes in a papakāinga will feed into a community battery. This will enable energy sharing across houses, improving the community's resilience and independence.




Question No. 6—Revenue
6. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Revenue: Was he correct when he said of the KiwiSaver tax back-down that it was the decision of "[him]self and the Minister of Finance, as was the decision to put them in in the first place", and what other potential tax changes, if any, are officials currently working on?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): The assertion in the member's question is incorrect. I did not refer to decisions around the standardisation of GST treatment of managed funds as a KiwiSaver tax back-down. Inland Revenue (IRD), as stewards of the tax system, continually monitors for improvements, as they did under the National Government. Inland Revenue's work programme is currently available on Inland Revenue's website.
Nicola Willis: Was the Cabinet paper proposing changes to the tax treatment of KiwiSaver fees a joint paper between the Minister of Revenue and Minister of Finance, and what specific involvement did the Minister of Finance have in the development of the KiwiSaver tax proposal?
Hon DAVID PARKER: In answer to the first part of the question, no, the paper was in my name. In respect of the second question, obviously, the Minister of Finance was involved in the Cabinet decision, as were all Cabinet Ministers, and, as the member should be well aware, having worked for the Rt Hon Bill English, the Minister of Finance is involved in policy discussions and decisions on tax matters, as he is on numerous other policy areas.
Nicola Willis: When he was asked yesterday if he thought residential property is treated unfairly from a tax perspective, and he said, "they'd be right on that, but we haven't got that fixed yet", what was the fix he had in mind?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I don't recall the context of either the question or the statement that's been put to me, but in respect of the assertion earlier in a question that was put to the Prime Minister by the member, when she asserted that I have Inland Revenue, with a six-person unit, working on a capital gains tax, that's just plainly wrong.
Nicola Willis: Why did he issue a press release about the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23, Platform Economy, and Remedial Matters) Bill without any reference to the KiwiSaver provisions contained in it, which was set to bring in more tax revenue than all the other proposals combined?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Because I didn't expect it was to be as contentious as the proposals to charge GST on Airbnb and Uber share services.
Nicola Willis: When he said yesterday of his proposed KiwiSaver tax, "We didn't think it would be an issue.", did he consider that he is, perhaps, out of touch with the wishes of New Zealanders, who believe wiping $100 billion from their KiwiSaver savings is a bit of an issue?
Hon DAVID PARKER: It was never a tax on KiwiSaver, despite the misrepresentations that have been made. I would quote from today's National Business Review, quoting from a PricewaterhouseCoopers tax partner, who said, "The application of GST to fund management services was a mess and needed sorting, with a wide range of varying treatments by providers. Some were covered by informal agreements made by IRD 20 years ago, while many of the newer or boutique fund managers were simply accepting full GST. That leads to some distortions and complexity." That said, it was obvious that we lost that in the first day because of an orchestrated campaign led by the Financial Services Council. Sometimes, you know you can't win and it's best to retreat early.
Nicola Willis: Has he asked his Cabinet colleagues whether, following the KiwiSaver tax debacle, they have reflected on James K Baxter's words in his poem, "The Bay",
How many roads we take that lead to Nowhere,
The alley overgrown, no meaning now but loss?
SPEAKER: In so far as the Minister is responsible.
Hon DAVID PARKER: I would say the better saying would be,
You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em.




Question No. 7—Conservation
7. RACHEL BROOKING (Labour) to the Minister of Conservation: What is the significance of Conservation Week 2022, and what does it aim to achieve?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Conservation): Meitaki e te Vaa Tuatua. Next week, we mark Conservation Week, which is our opportunity each year to increase awareness of, and connection with, our natural world. Every year, thousands of New Zealand roll up their sleeves and get involved in conservation activities at home or attend one of the many events across the country. Engaging with nature benefits our environment and also ourselves: Ka ora te whenua, ka ora te tangata. When the land is well, the people are well; and when Papatūānuku thrives, we all thrive. This Conservation Week, I encourage all members of this House to get out into our backyard, roll up their sleeves, and support.
Rachel Brooking: What is this year's theme for Conservation Week?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This year marks 53 years of Conservation Week, with the theme "Take a moment to act for nature—e mahi mō te taiao". The campaign asks people to make a connection between their wellbeing and our environment as simple acts for nature can be beneficial to both themselves and the environment. This was something we all realised during COVID-19 lockdowns and this campaign aims to ensure we don't forget that special connection.
Rachel Brooking: What events can people participate in to mark Conservation Week?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: There are a number of things people can do to celebrate Conservation Week, such as organise a community rubbish clean-up, volunteer for a conservation-based organisation, or do something at home like plant a native tree or get involved in a local trapping programme. I will be celebrating this week by celebrating by visiting the Wildlife Hospital in Dunedin, checking out the Isaac Conservation and Wildlife Trust captive breeding programme in Christchurch, as well as spending a day with our conservation team in the Abel Tasman.
Rachel Brooking: What have been some of the significant conservation achievements in recent years?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This Government has prioritised conservation as part of our build back better agenda across the country. This has seen us make good progress in protecting our environment and endangered species. The member will be pleased to know that as part of Jobs for Nature there has been 51 employment opportunities created as part of the Tucker Beach reserve project in Queenstown, resulting in over 10,000 riparian plants being planted, 18 hectares of weed control, and two kilometres of new fencing being constructed as of June 2022.
Rachel Brooking: What recent progress has been made to protect endangered birds such as kākāpō?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: We are making strong progress to restore the population of kākāpō with numbers increasing by nearly a third from 197 to 252. As the second-biggest breeding season on record, this is the start of a new era for kākāpō conservation. However, we cannot take our eye off the ball. We must continue the important work to protect this critically endangered taonga.




Question No. 8—Environment
8. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister for the Environment: Is he concerned that the estimated 10,000 resource consents necessary for farmers to comply with intensive winter grazing standards will not be issued by the 1 November deadline, and how many farms are currently compliant with winter grazing standards across the country?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Intensive winter grazing releases sediment to waterways. At a 15 degree slope, I'm advised that twice as much sediment is lost as at 10 degrees, and at a 20 degree slope, the amount of sediment lost is 300 percent. Under the intensive winter grazing regulations, intensive winter grazing is a permitted activity on slopes up to 10 percent. Ministry for Primary Industries modelling at the time of that showed that a very small percentage of fodder crops are on slopes of more than 10 percent. I'm advised the 10,000 number referred to by the member is based on an aggregate of theoretical maximum amounts of intensive winter grazing, and that that has not been verified on the ground and is likely to be on the high side. None the less, I have asked my officials to look into the expected number.
Mark Cameron: What would the Minister say to farmers shelling out an estimated $1,500 to $10,000 for a resource consent with no guarantee that it will arrive in time to sow their winter crops?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, I'm not in a position to give advice to farmers as to how to manage those costs, except to say that when a resource consent is applied for and granted, it is generally a multi-year consent, so those costs are spread over a long time. In respect of the time period, this has been coming for some years. In respect of the people that do have intensive winter grazing that is on slopes of greater than 10 degrees or that are concerned that they might infringe the rules, they should contact their regional council early. In fact, the rules don't apply to the planting of crops; they apply to the grazing of them, which will generally be from the onset of winter next year. But I would encourage people to contact their councils earlier so that there are no untoward surprises.
Mark Cameron: Does the Minister stand by his statement made in relation to extending the 1 November deadline, "I'm not convinced that that is necessary, but I will consider it."; if so, has he considered it?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, I do stand by that quote and I am considering it. I do think it's important that we do have some constraint on poor intensive winter grazing process and we do that through the Resource Management Act. The ways in which I am considering it include the verification of the number of consents that the member has referred to and consideration, if that number is too high—and it may not be, but if it was—how we could address the worst end of the problem. We are making progress on this issue as a country, and as a consequence of both central government, local government, and farmer action, but that doesn't mean to say that we should turn our back on the worst, most risky practices.
Mark Cameron: So will the Minister delay the deadline for intensive winter grazing compliance to ease the burden on overstretched regional councils and allow farmers to get their crops in the ground ready for next winter; if not, why?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, I'm advised that this will not overwhelm regional councils, even if we were to proceed as the current law says. I'm also advised that, in respect of some applications for resource consent which have already been made, some have been turned around by councils in a matter of days; it's a non-notified application.




Question No. 9—Justice
9. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all her statements and actions on youth justice?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Yes, in the context in which they were made.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why did she dispute that there has been a 500 percent increase in ram raids since 2018 on radio yesterday?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Because I am advised that the most recent full years of data available is that in 2018, there were 84 incidents and in 2021, there were 303 incidents—an increase of 260 percent in that period. Regardless of the number, I think we can all collectively agree that an increase in this particular type of youth offending is dissatisfactory to all of us.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: What does she say to the Hamilton mum who believes kids, including her son, are being exploited by organised criminals: "It's insane to think about it, but look at what's going on … 14-year-olds ram-raiding, absolutely giving no Fs about anyone."?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: To that mother, I would say that we collectively are all concerned about the increase in activity in youth ram-raid offending, in particular. While over the past 10 years we have seen a steady decrease in youth offending, we have seen a particular spike in a couple of areas—both Auckland—and in particular types of crime, like youth ram raids. So to that mother, I would say, "This Government takes these things seriously." We have seen, since 2017, 268 prosecutions for a range of ram-raid - related offending and 324 youth referrals. We will continue to ensure that the policy settings are correct to combat these types of rises.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she think the youth justice system is sending a clear and effective message about community concerns over youth crime, when just sentences to youth justice residences declined by 50 percent while ram raids have increased over 500 percent?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: To the statement that I just said prior, overall, there has been a decrease in youth criminal offending over the past 10 years. We've seen that nationwide, and what we have seen is a sharp increase in this particular offending, which is unsatisfactory. As I just stated, there have been 768 prosecutions for a range of ram raid-related offences and 324 youth referrals over the past couple of years. These are serious offences and we can see that the police, and indeed the other parts of the system, are taking this seriously.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the Government believe serious and persistent youth offenders currently face sufficient consequences for the damage they inflict on victims and their communities?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I think there are a range of issues that we, as a Government, need to consider in terms of ensuring that the policy settings are ongoing and constantly fit for purpose. On this side of the House, this is something that we are working very, I guess, closely on and expect to have some announcements in the next period.




Question No. 10—Education (School Operations)
10. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): How is the Government supporting young Kiwis to lift their literacy and reading skills?
Hon JAN TINETTI (Associate Minister of Education (School Operations)): The investment the Government has made into evidence-based and community-led projects is delivering positive results evidenced in the latest evaluation from the Reading Together programme, that supports parents and whānau to encourage strong literacy at home. An example in the Samoan community, evaluation showed a positive change in reading habits for families, with almost 90 percent of parents feeling more confident in helping their children learn to read. 
Marja Lubeck: What are other examples of community-led literacy programmes that are delivering results?
Hon JAN TINETTI: Taonga mō ngā Tamariki is an intergenerational whānau reading and literacy programme for tamariki who have whānau in the care and management of Corrections. The programme has a positive impact by providing books and resources for children and parents, with over 90 percent of participants reporting enhanced knowledge and skills to constructively support their children's enjoyment of reading.
Marja Lubeck: What work is under way to support kids starting out at school to get the best start to early literacy learning?
Hon JAN TINETTI: Through our Better Start Literacy Approach, all new entrant and year one teachers have access to training in an integrated approach to developing critical writing and reading skills in the first year of learning. This approach is steeped in the best of international and domestic research developed by the University of Canterbury over the last 10 years.
Marja Lubeck: How do these programmes fit into the Government's wider strategy for literacy?
Hon JAN TINETTI: We have released our literacy strategy, which is ensuring solutions are customised to our kids' needs rather than a one-size-fits-all cookie cutter approach. We're ensuring assessment is fit for purpose so that kids are assessed as individuals and supports are tailored to the learner, as well as providing clarity for teachers about what they need to teach and when.
Marja Lubeck: How has research and evidence driven the Government's strategy to lift literacy achievement for Kiwi kids?
Hon JAN TINETTI: Our strategy is evidence based and draws on domestic and international best practice and expert advice. It also caters to the New Zealand context and ensures that we place the learner at the centre and leave nothing to chance.




Question No. 11—Local Government
11. SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Local Government: Does she agree with Gore District Council Mayor Tracy Hicks, who said, "The Government appears impermeable to seriously entertaining an alternative model for the Three Waters reform", and does she believe she has adequately addressed the concerns of local government during Three Waters reform?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): No and yes.
Simon Watts: Is she concerned that so many councils have called for stormwater infrastructure to be exempted or delayed from integration into her mega entities, and what does it say about her reforms that, years in, there isn't even consensus over if it's three waters or two waters?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: We established a stormwater technical working group with experts and representation from the sector to deliberate over these very important issues, and we have taken on board their recommendations.
Simon Watts: Does she agree with Hayden Turoa, who said that "Central Government continue to misunderstand, opting for models that pitch community and hapū against each other", and is she concerned that hapū, councils, and communities feel the Government is turning them against each other?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I'm mindful that there are a range of views about the effectiveness of councils working with hapū and mana whenua in this area. Those range of views are taken on board and adopted within the governance model to ensure that councils and mana whenua can work constructively together around Te Mana o te Wai aspirations. That will be an overall improvement to the current system.
Simon Watts: Is she concerned that many mayors, including Timaru mayor Nigel Bowel, have said that instead of helping their communities, these reforms will actively, and I quote, "Hinder them", and why are so many councils still saying they're better off without her reforms?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Again, there are a range of views amongst mayors and leaders and councils. Take, for example, the Mayor of Ruapehu, Don Cameron, who said, "Reform is essential, where our debt attributed to three waters will be paid back by the [water services entity] and our further work will be properly prioritised and carried out in a timely manner [with no] cost to council,"—and that's in favour of the reform.
Simon Watts: Can she name a single council previously opposed to Labour's three waters proposal that supports it because of the changes she's made, and, if not, what does that say about those changes?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I certainly don't want to misrepresent the views of councils who have unilaterally supported the need and case for change. How that's achieved—yes, there are differing views. However, throughout this whole process, we have taken on board, through a range of mechanisms and engagement, those views from councils, and adopted them within the governance representation aspects of the changes being forwarded.




Question No. 12—Courts
12. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) to the Minister for Courts: What is the Government doing to ease the pressure on the coronial system?
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Courts): On Wednesday night, I presented the first reading of the Coroners Amendment Bill. This bill will address the coronial backlog in a number of ways. Significantly, it will establish a new judicial position called associate coroner to reduce the coroners' workload by doing the more administrative, straightforward functions of the coroner. The introduction of this bill, with cross-party support, amends the Coroners Act to give piece of mind to our grieving families who have had loved ones in the coronial system.
Vanushi Walters: What else does the bill do to address the pressure on coroners?
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Additionally, this bill will also allow the cause of death to be recorded as unascertained natural causes, when the coroner has concluded that the death is from a natural cause and no further investigation is necessary. And it will provide coroners the sole discretion to decide whether a coronial inquiry should also include an inquest, while maintaining the requirement to consult interested parties and consider their views. These amendments will all help to ease the pressure and reduce the backlog in our coronial system.
Vanushi Walters: Has the Government made further investment to alleviate pressure on coroners?
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Yes. In addition, Budget 2022 delivered operating funding of $28.5 million over four years and $1.6 million of capital funding to help reduce the coronial caseload. This will also allow the appointment of four new permanent coroners and support staff. We know more must be done to improve access to justice for families and whānau, and it is why we as a Government have committed also to a wider, longer-term review of the coronial system as announced earlier in the year.
Chris Penk: Why has the Government taken nearly five years, during which time the average number of active cases at the Coroners Court has exploded to over 6,000, to introduce a bill that is described by the departmental disclosure statement as having no, or only minor, impacts, such that the regulatory impact statement was not even worth producing?
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: I disagree with the member. What I will say, though, is members have to be mindful the judiciary lead this. Coroners are members of the judiciary, and we have to respect their independence in the way that they conduct the roles.
Vanushi Walters: Who will be consulted in this longer-term review?
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: I indicated at the courts Estimates hearing this year of the need to progress a wider long-term review of the coronial system. It's my expectation that the review will involve agencies such as the police, judiciary, pathologists, and Ministry of Health, though our focus will remain on keeping our whānau at the centre, and those who have lost a loved one at the heart of our engagement in everything we do.
Vanushi Walters: What role, if any, do cultural practices play in these amendments to the work of coroners?
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: I acknowledge the critical importance of cultural practices relating to death, particularly for those in our Pacific, ethnic, and faith communities. It's my expectation that any engagement will also seek to consider and uphold these cultural and faith views. For that reason, this bill complements other work being led by the Ministry of Justice to improve the coronial system, including a project to better integrate culture and tikanga Māori into coronial processes, and by appointing clinical advisers to assist coroners with this cultural component. The combination of all of this will help reduce the wait time grieving families are experiencing in our coronial system, and I do want to emphasise this is a significant part—the cultural intelligence in this work is part of something that that other side doesn't understand.
 





SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Appropriation (2022/23 Estimates) Bill.
ESTIMATES DEBATE
In Committee
Debate resumed from 30 August on the Appropriation (2022/23 Estimates) Bill
Education Sector
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Appropriation (2022/23 Estimates) Bill. The Standing Orders provide for 11 hours of debate on the Estimates. There is one hour, six minutes remaining in the debate.
The Business Committee has determined that the debate will end at the conclusion of the debate with Minister of Education. The Business Committee has determined to organise the debate by portfolio, so there will 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 only. The Government has indicated that the Minister of Education will be available today.
Each debate will be led by a call from the chairperson or a member of the committee that considered the Estimates most closely related to the Minister's portfolio. Once this debate expires, questions will be put that the Votes stand part of the schedules and on the provisions of Appropriation (2022/23 Estimates) Bill.
The time for the debate has been allocated for parties on a proportional basis, and may be taken as parties see fit during the debate. The New Zealand Labour Party has 20 minutes remaining, so I caution members of the other side, if you want questions to be answered, you might want to ask all your questions at—well, actually, it is up to you, but just know that there are only 20 minutes for the Minister to respond to your questions. The New Zealand National Party has 37 minutes remaining. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has six minutes remaining. ACT New Zealand has 11 minutes remaining. Te Paati Māori has eight minutes remaining.
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 being debated is that the Votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriation 2022/23 stand part of the schedules. Members, we have the Minister of Education to speak to the portfolio. I call on the chair of the committee, Marja Lubeck.





MARJA LUBECK (Chairperson of the Education and Workforce Committee): Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to take a call as the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee. Our select committee met on 22 June and 27 July to consider Vote Education, Vote Education Review Office, and Vote Tertiary Education. We heard evidence from the Minister of Education, the Ministry of Education, the Education Review Office, and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. We also received advice from the Office of the Auditor-General. 
Budget 2022 is seeking $20.23 billion for these three votes. This compares with the estimated $20.04 billion that was spent in 2021-2022. Of this funding, $16.172 billion is for Vote Education, which funds more than 2,400 schools and more than 5,000 early learning providers. Four billion dollars is for Vote Tertiary Education, which provides funding for tertiary education providers, including eight universities, three wānanga, and Te Pūkenga and its 16 subsidiary companies—former Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics. Thirty-eight million dollars is for Vote Education Review Office. 
Over the past five years, we've seen significant increases both in education spending and in the number of public servants supporting the portfolio. Our committee has scrutinised these trends and asked about the causes of and outcomes from these increases. We've heard there are a number of causes of the increased spending, including more learners in the early childhood and tertiary sectors and overall demographic changes. We've also heard that the additional people hired by the Ministry of Education are front-line staff, such as educational psychologists and speech and language therapists; that the increase in staff is causing observable benefits, such as decreased wait times for the Ongoing Resourcing Scheme. 
I would like to touch on three areas that the committee, in particular, paid attention to in our review, which are the introduction of the equity index, student attendance, and the reform of vocational education. Budget 2022 is seeking $292.5 million for the equity index, which will replace the school decile system in 2023. The equity index is intended to better allocate funding to schools that needs additional resources based on information from Statistics New Zealand to assess the socio-economic characteristics of students and their likely achievement levels. There will be an extra $75 million in funding per year under the new system. Although most schools will receive more funding, about 10 percent of schools may qualify for less. We asked what checks and balances will be in place and heard that, allowing time to adapt, no school will receive less operational funding in 2023 due to the equity index and from 2024 any reduction in funding will be capped at 5 per cent per annum. 
Our select committee completed an inquiry into school attendance in March 2022. A key recommendation in our report was a target of at least 70 percent of students attending school regularly—that is, 90 percent of the time that a school is open—by 2024; 75 percent by 2026. The Government has adopted this recommendation. Its attendance and engagement strategy is also targeting reductions in the number of students who are moderately absent, missing two or three days a fortnight, and chronically absent, missing more than three days a fortnight. Schools will lead the response to moderate levels of absence and strategy will see schools receiving more support to do so. 
The committee has devoted a lot of time to Te Pūkenga, which is central to the Government's reform of vocational education growth. We noted concerns from the Auditor-General and heard that the Minister agreed with these concerns and believed that Te Pūkenga has more work to do. We noted that during the consultation phase of Reform of Vocational Education, the Minister made statements that Te Pūkenga's head office should be modest and nimble and we heard that the Minister stands by those statements. We also asked how a significant deficit that Te Pūkenga was projected to run would be addressed. We heard that while the Minister considers the projected $110 million deficit for 2022 unacceptable, it was better than the projected deficits that would have occurred without the reforms. Both the Minister and, through a separate process, Te Pūkenga itself were confident the final deficit for 2022 would not be as high as a $110 million. 
This being my fourth call in this Estimates debate, I'd like to emphasise this point and acknowledge the new format that we considered these entities within, and, in particular, the increase in ministerial accountability. For many years, Ministers' participation in this debate would be limited to taking one or two five-minute calls that would address Opposition members' points infrequently. The Estimates debate has been transformed into 11 hours of parliamentary scrutiny of Ministers in a way that no Minister during previous Governments was ever subject to. Thank you.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. Given that we've only got 15 minutes left of the Minister's time, I do hope, in the spirit of democracy, he'll keep his answers short. I know that he's always been really good in select committee in making his answers short and to the point and getting straight into it, so I hope that will continue today.
I want to start my questioning around the issue of literacy, because we had a question in the House today from Jan Tinetti around the teaching of literacy. I wanted to get some clarification from the Minister on what the view is going forward, because there's quite a bit of conjecture out there in the sector about what's going to happen with the common practice model. So I guess what I want the Minister to answer is: moving forward, will we have more of a structured literacy approach, like the associate Minister alluded to and actually said on Q+A on Sunday, when prompted, that the evidence showed that this was the best system—actually, her quote was "I haven't seen any evidence that shows me anything different.", when asked about structured literacy being the best way to teach children to read.
What I want to ask the Minister about is his comments earlier in the year, where he said that some kids learn to read by looking at the pictures and interpreting the words. That suggests a very different approach, which is the three cueing system. What I want to know from the Minister is: are we going to get a hybrid approach where we have a mixture of a structured approach, like structured literacy, together with the three cueing system, which we've had in the past, some sort of hybrid, which the comments from the Minister and the associate Minister suggest, or are we going to have more of a structured literacy approach and get rid of the three cueing system? So I guess the question is: are we getting rid of the three cueing system; is that his intention, or will there be a hybrid?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I'll try and keep my answers as brief as possible. If the member wants to block up a number of questions, and then I'll try and address them, that might actually help to save some of the time.
But in terms of literacy, my view on literacy is that the Government will get into difficult territory if it starts to dictate to teachers how they should teach. The New Zealand Curriculum sets out what we expect young people to be learning when it comes to literacy and numeracy. The exact methods that teachers use in order to teach are matters of professional judgment for the teachers. There are different methods, and different methods work better for different children. Reading recovery, for example, has been very successful for some children; we know it doesn't work for all children. I think that those are matters that teachers should make professional judgments around.
In terms of the resources supplied to schools, though, because that does have an impact, what the member will see is that the Ministry of Education are refreshing the resources that are available—for example, the Ready to Read series has been refreshed and it includes a combination of whole-language learning and a more phonics-based approach. So I think our role centrally is to provide resources to schools. It's teachers' judgments as to how best to teach individual children.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Just going back to that, the Associate Minister has been talking about a common practice model. Now the Minister gets up and says "But no, we don't want to dictate to teachers what they should do; it's their professional judgment." So how does a common practice model fit with that? I hope the Minister will answer that. It's quite important for the sector. 
I wanted to just switch now, I guess, to NCEA learning recognition credits. I don't want to get into an argument about whether or not we should have given them or not, because I think that this side of the House disagrees with what happened; that's beside the point. It's now happened. I want to ask the Minister: what happens now? We've got a cohort of kids who've had three years of getting ghost credits or learning recognition credits for learning that they haven't actually had—they haven't achieved those credits. So the question is: what is he putting in place at Te Pūkenga? For example, it'll be mostly those kids, I assume, who are heading into tertiary study at Te Pūkenga; less so the universities, because usually they've got a bit more support from their parents. But the kids who are going into Te Pūkenga, what is the Minister putting in place? What is he advising to be put in place for those kids who've had three years of ghost credits, basically, who haven't received the learning that they need and are going into tertiary study without all of the learning that they need? That's one question.
I'll carry on because I know he wants me to bank everything up. The other question is around early childhood education. We note in the Budget documents that the Minister did not get the level of funding he wanted to put into pay parity for early childhood teachers. Now, the Minister will remember speaking to me at Estimates where I asked him—and at that point in time, we didn't know that he didn't quite get as much as he wanted, but he's forged ahead with it anyway. At that point in time, I said that the amount of money that's been put into pay parity is not enough for the sector so the costs are going to have to be made up somewhere else, either in quality or in increasing fees. And the Minister at that point said, "Fees may be increased but those centres are perfectly capable of absorbing it in their profits." And when I asked him about those profits he said, "Well, that I know, anecdotally, get profits."
My question now is to the Minister: knowing now that you didn't get everything that you wanted in your Budget bid, are you expecting fees to go up to cover that because you didn't quite get what you wanted? And, secondly, why is it that last week another survey has gone out to the sector to ask for data from them around their teaching workforce and the amount of time they've taught for and how much they're remunerated? Because, surely, that information would have been relevant before the Budget bid? And does the fact that that's happening again suggest that the data that they were relying on was faulty and not completed? And what will happen if the data that he gets back now shows that it is significantly underfunded and lots of small centres will end up either having to close or massively hike their fees or increase their class sizes? I'll leave it at that. I think that's three questions.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the Minister, I just want to inform the Minister that the National Party has allowed five of their minutes to be transferred over to you, Minister, in order to allow you to answer more of their questions.





Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I thank the generosity of the opposition for that. If I can perhaps work back through those questions—if I start with pay parity in early learning. Obviously, when the Budget process has been put together, I have been asking for as much funding as I can possibly get to get to pay parity as fast as we possibly can. In every Budget round, I have not been able to get enough money to do that, but we've continued to make progress. So what we actually offer to the sector after each Budget is very much dependent on the quantum of funding that we get. Next Budget, I expect that there'll be another instalment of additional funding for pay parity, and I hope we can make more progress there. It is quite a complex scenario that we're dealing with because every early learning service has a slightly different operating model, and know that the data that central government holds on the different operating models of early learning services is patchy in places.
Some of the bigger providers have been very good at supplying data. Some of the bigger providers have actually said that the funding rates that we are offering will be sufficient for them because they can manage more of the unders and overs, as there will always be in a situation like this, across their network. Whereas smaller providers, including some of the community-based providers, particularly if they employ a high proportion of experienced teachers, will find that more difficult. That is one of the reasons that we are continuing to seek more data so that we can make sure that the forecasting and the modelling is as accurate as possible. It is a difficult area. We have not yet got it 100 percent right in any of the attempts that we've had to head towards parity. That is, at least, in part because we're not the employer and we don't have the information, so we'll continue to work with the sector to try and get it as right as possible. But we always must recognise that, ultimately, these are private businesses and they'll make decisions about their operating models and the service that they provide to their families, based on a whole variety of different factors—Government funding being one of those factors.
There is another complicating factor in that the kindergarten and primary and secondary school teachers are shortly to be in bargain, and that the settlement from that is likely to further complicate the parity picture again. We, as a Government, will be working to make sure that the parity gap doesn't increase as a result of that. So there will be further decisions to be taken around that at the appropriate time. Of course, we can't take those decisions until we know what the effect of collective bargaining will be, and, of course, that bargaining is nowhere near the point where we get that information.
In terms of the NCEA, I'd caution the member about using the phrase "ghost credits" and other such phrases that could undermine the credibility of the qualification that young people are leaving our secondary schools with. The learning recognition credits that the Government has used as a result of the COVID-19 disruption is a very similar formula to that used by the National Government, following the Christchurch earthquake, to recognise the disruption to learning that young people experienced in that year. As the opposition spokesperson for the then-Labour opposition at the time, I was very careful in making sure that we were critiquing the decisions that the Government was taking, but not in a way that was going to undermine the credibility of the qualifications of those students. But I think we need to take great care there. I have been very, very mindful in making decisions about the awarding of learning recognition credits—and they are still learning recognition credits, they're not bonus credits or anything else, they recognise learning that has taken place. We've been very careful to make sure that we're preserving the credibility of the qualification.
I am confident, based on the advice that I have received, that there is a difference between learning that has not taken place and learning that has taken place but has not been able to be assessed. I think that that is an important distinction to be made.
In terms of the support that young people are getting out the other end of their NCEA, there are a variety of supports available there. There are some young people who have not had the opportunity, because of COVID-19 disruption, to demonstrate what they can do, and, therefore, attain their NCEA. We have a summer school programme that's supported byTe Aho o Te Koura Pounamu—The Correspondence School to make sure they have an opportunity to catch up over summer. We've made a change so that if they go back to school for a short period of time next year in order to complete their qualifications because they didn't get the opportunity to fully complete them this year, that they'll be able to be awarded their qualifications during the year, so they won't have to wait for another full year before their qualifications are being awarded. So they'll be able to do that, and, of course, they'll be supported to do that and resourced to do that, if they want to go back to school, say, for one term, or for however long it is they require to get that support.
But in terms of the support provided by the universities, as the member has indicated, I'm confident that the universities are able to support young people, where they need it, to transition into university. In terms of Te Pūkenga—in fact, any vocational education providers—that has been one of the key factors in the development of the unified funding system. It's been about making sure that we're recognising the needs of learners as well as the needs of providers. So there are three components to the unified funding system, one of which is the learner component, which is very much designed to ensure that institutions are resourced to provide learners the support that they need, recognising that some learners will need more support than others.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to move, now, to the pilot that's been done recently for the literacy and numeracy corequisites. The Minister knows that last year, only one-third of those students who participated in the pilot passed the numeracy and literacy corequisite.
I understand the second part of the trial was done last term. I want to know, has the Minister seen those results? Were they any better? Can he enlighten the House? I know that they were due out this week; we have been able to find them. I was wondering if the Minister could tell us what the results have been for term 2 pilot. 
The question is: what will he do moving forward, given these results are so dire? Is he looking at adjusting the level of the test down for a number of years and ratcheting it up? Or is he looking at a programme of getting those high school students up to standard for numeracy and literacy? And how will he be implementing that? That's the first question.
The second question is around the number of unenrolled children—there's 8,500 unenrolled children and we note that in the latest budget round, the Attendance Services only got a yearly increase of $1.5 million, which isn't enough to even start to look at—when you take into account inflation. 
Those are the services that help to get these unenrolled kids back to school, so my question to the Minister is: what are we doing about these kids, the 8,500? I think he knows very well that number is probably a lot larger, given that schools have been asked to stop unenrolling students when they get to the 20 days so that they don't get lost out of the system; but for all intents and purposes, they are actually unenrolled because they're not showing up at all. What programme is being put in place to get those unenrolled kids back to school?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Thank you, Madam Chair. In terms of literacy and numeracy, it's a topic that I could spend a lot of time talking about, so I'll try and keep my answers as brief as possible.
One of the reasons that we introduced the concept of the literacy and numeracy corequisite was that I was of the view—and it was backed up by the review of the NCEA—that the thresholds around literacy and numeracy in NCEA were insufficient, that young people were gaining NCEA without reassurance that they had the appropriate levels of literacy and numeracy.
There was a change to the way a young person could achieve NCEA's literacy and numeracy requirements during the tenure of the last Government. That meant that a broader range of credits were regarded as sufficient to satisfy the literacy and numeracy requirements. 
I think that the overwhelming feedback we had during the review is that that pendulum has swung too far, and in fact there was insufficient focus on making sure that the very important foundational learning around literacy and numeracy was being appropriately credentialed by the NCEA. That is why we started to move towards something that was more specific.
In terms of the trialling of that, it is important that we pitch that at the right level, but it shouldn't be, in my view, adjusted because students aren't meeting that level. If we determine that the requirements are at a certain level in order to have basic foundation skills in literacy and numeracy and young people are not reaching them, then we need to make sure they reach them; we shouldn't lower them simply because they are not reaching them.
Erica Stanford: How are you going to do that?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: And that is the fundamental job of schools. You know, we need schools to be making sure that young people leave with the skills and with the qualifications that they are required to be able to thrive in the world outside of school.
I'd point out to the member, there's a lot of politics we could trade about this. The 15-year-olds and 16-year-olds that are being assessed at the moment as potentially you know—this was the generation that went through primary school with national standards. National standards were supposed to fix this problem; they didn't. In fact, the problem got worse during that period of time. There's a lot of politics we could play with it.
In reality, I don't think the solution is a political one. I don't think national standards are to blame for it—I don't think they fixed it, but I don't think they are to blame for it. I think the drivers behind our literacy and numeracy problems in New Zealand are many, varied, and complex, and those who aim to have the one magical solution to them are generally providing people with this false promise that will never be realised because there is a lot more that sits underneath that.
In terms of unenrolled students and the work of the Attendance Services: I think the Attendance Services have an important role, but what we've seen in recent times is that the work of the Attendance Services has moved further away from schools. So yes, Attendance Services and increasing resources to them is important. But the extra work we're doing to move resources closer to schools so that they can follow up on non-attendance is also important.
The Urgent Response Fund and the flow-on from that—the title we gave it just suddenly escapes me, but the continuation of the Urgent Response Fund, which provides up to $10 million a year for the Ministry of Education's regional offices to provide direct resourcing to schools to deal with issues like attendance will mean that they can have attendance officers in school, on their school sites, following up, and they can gain extra funding to do that. That's one of the purposes of the fund. So it is about making sure that we get resources closer to schools to follow that up.
There are other things that we can do in terms of the cross-Government basis to support the attendance challenge. Police, for example, in Auckland ran Operation Attend, where they worked with schools to follow up on non-attendance. It actually had some very positive results. Other Government agencies can play a part here as well.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call Erica Stanford again, I just want to say that the Labour Party has about seven minutes or so left, but that other parties also still have minutes left to go.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): This will be my last question, and it's just the same question I already asked earlier but the Minister didn't answer. There is going to be a common practice model for teaching literacy; that's what the Associate Minister said. And yet, today, you, Minister, got up and said that teachers will be able to use their professional judgment: "We don't want to dictate how they teach literacy."
So which is it? Will there be a common practice model that dictates how teachers are to teach literacy, or will there not be? Or will it be a situation where we have a common practice model that includes lots of different varying types of approaches to literacy, like the balanced approach, the whole language approach, structured literacy, and let teachers pick and choose which bits they want. I think this is really important if the Minister could answer that, because it doesn't quite gel up between what he's saying and what Jan Tinetti's saying in terms of the common practice model. Thank you.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I don't think there's a contradiction between what the Minister Jan Tinetti and I are saying. You're going to have common practice models that can include a wide range of things. That doesn't mean that we're dictating to teachers how they should apply their professional judgments.





CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of quick ones, Minister. I'd just like clarification on the Government's attitude or the support of kāhui ako and what the Government's position is with that now. I'm aware of continued support for implementation; however, I believe the in-school positions are going. That's the first thing.
And I just wonder if you can clarify for me what's going on with the learning support coordinator positions currently, please, and moving forward over the next year or so, what's happening? Thanks.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I'll try and answer those very quickly. In terms of kāhui ako, the Government supports the idea of collaboration between schools and early learning services. So the concept of kāhui ako is something that we support. Do we think that the resources could be applied more flexibly? Yes, we do. However, having said that, most of the resourcing is tied up with commitments made under the collective agreements with the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers' Association and the New Zealand Education Institute. So any further change there would be the subject of bargaining, and there already has been. In the last bargaining round, there was a decision taken, as part of that, to remove some of the resources around kāhui ako in order to fund other parts of the settlement. Any further changes are, obviously, then the subject of bargaining, because pretty much all of the rest of the resourcing now is tied up with commitments under the collective agreement.
In terms of the learning support coordinator role, it remains the Government's ambition to roll out more learning support coordinator roles, but that's obviously subject to getting the funding through future Budgets to do that.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I want to ask—
Chris Penk: Bonus round.
ERICA STANFORD: —the Minister—great! No, I wanted to ask the Minister about Reading Recovery. As we know at the moment, Reading Recovery is a three-tier intervention that's based on the whole-word approach, the three-cueing system. So it's very much that sort of system. Jan Tinetti, in her interview with Jack Tame, said that the evidence suggests that we use a more structured approach to teaching literacy, like structured literacy, and then went on to say that we should rename Reading Recovery and teach it in a way that is more of a structured literacy approach. 
So the question to the Minister is: Reading Recovery is tied in with Marie Clay and her way of doing things, which is the three-cueing model. It was odd for the Associate Minister to say that, "Well, if we just get rid of it, we won't have a three-tier intervention." Is it your intention, Minister, to replace Reading Recovery with something that is similar—a three-tier intervention that has got a more structured literacy approach, that has a different name, that is very different than the three-cueing system, as she intimated? And if that is the case, are we going to get rid of the three-cueing system in New Zealand, like they have done around the world?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I don't want to be dismissive, but the Government hasn't made decisions about that at this point. Will there continue to be a more intensive level of intervention? Yes, there absolutely will be. Are we looking to make sure that we're doing that in the most effective way possible? Yes, we are.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): What does that mean—"the most effective way possible"?
In 2018, the Government had a literacy report done by Massey University, which told them everything that they needed to know. Some parts of it have been implemented; I understand that. But the evidence very clearly shows that a structured literacy approach in big contrast to the three cueing system. So if we're going to be introducing structured literacy—which is what it sounded like, from what the Minister said to Jack Tame—how can it be that we then continue with a reading recovery programme, which is in direct contradiction to that, which teaches children to look at the picture and use context to work out words; those things are in direct contradiction to each other.
So the question is, with this tier three intervention, what is going to be? The Minister must have some idea. Is it going to be based on the latest science? And if that's the case, well then that would suggest what Jan Tinetti has been saying which is that the latest science—I go back to my quote that she said, "I haven't seen any evidence to suggest anything different than a structured literacy approach." Does that mean that we're going to be getting rid of reading recovery as it stands today and replacing it with a tier three intervention that is based around a more structured literacy approach?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): As I indicated to the member, the Cabinet—the Government—has not made decisions on that yet. But I would say to her that I generally try and review a balance of research in these areas. I never take one single research report or one single evaluation report as a gospel.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): The reading recovery contract is up for renewal. We know that it runs out early next year and will be very soon up for renewal. So when is the Cabinet going to make a decision on whether or not they continue with the reading recovery programme, given that the contract needs to be renewed?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I can't add any more to the fact that we haven't made decisions on that yet.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I want to go back to the learning support coordinators that we were talking about earlier. It was the Government's promise to introduce these, and I understand that the Minister just said that it will depend on future Budget bids, so we will have to wait and see if that happens. What I want to know from the Minister is: how will they be rolled out differently to when they've been rolled out in the past? The reason I ask is because some very needy schools have not got access to learning support coordinators—I can see the Minister nodding. It was rolled out in a very higgledy-piggledy way. No one quite knows how it was done. Can the Minister explain to this House how it's going to be done differently this time to make sure that those schools who have the most need for those learning support coordinators are going to get access to them?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I disagree with the phrase "higgledy-piggledy" in terms of how they were rolled out last time. They were rolled out, last time, based on the Ministry of Education's assessment around which schools were most prepared to roll out the new learning support model. That has led to some inequity. So we will use a different approach to rolling it out if we extend the roles further in the near future, and, of course, that will be part of Budget decision-making. So decisions haven't been taken on that.





CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate this is not a question on notice to the Minister, so I'll understand if the specific nature of it means that he's not able to answer. But in relation to the mighty electorate of Kaipara ki Mahurangi—north-west Auckland and north and a bit of the west, actually—the Minister may be aware, and, in fact, I think he and his office have engaged in correspondence, and certainly the Ministry of Education has, about the need for an additional high school in the area. It is a fast-growing population which is seeing not only, most obviously, the growth of residential housing but also early childhood education centres and primary schools, which include intermediate schools in that area. 
These are all growing. New institutions, as in centres and schools, are being added and classrooms are being added to existing ones. So the obvious question is that as those children get older and inevitably need schooling of a secondary nature, what is being provided for them in the area? I understand that between—I think I am correct in saying—2023 and 2026, it's intended to establish such a school, but I wonder if the Minister can give any updates, even if it's merely in relation to acquiring land as opposed to subsequent steps that would be needed to achieve that for the benefit of the area. Thank you.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I want to ask the Minister whether or not he thinks that his Associate Minister was speaking out of turn—or made promises or comments, sorry, that perhaps she shouldn't have on the Jack Tame show Q+A on the weekend? Because she was very clear that reading recovery would likely be renamed, it would likely be a structured literacy approach, and it wouldn't continue as the three cueing system, as it is. Now, the Minister has just said that the Cabinet hasn't made a decision on that. So if he could let us know whether or not the comments that Jan Tinetti made on the weekend can be relied on. 
The comments that she also made were around the fact that the science and evidence that she had seen meant that there wasn't anything else that she had seen that was anything better than structured literacy, when she was asked around this. So the question to the Minister is: why on earth, if that is the case, if that is what the evidence says, as Jan Tinetti has said—why on earth are we having a common practice model that the Minister has said today is going to include everything, whatever a teacher wants to put in there? It might be three cueing—if I look at the picture, guess from the context, have a look at the first letter of the word and try and guess it. Why is it, if all of the evidence and all of the science around the science of reading points to a decoding of the word to learn to read—why is it that this Government don't have the courage to stand up and say, "This is going to be the common practice model.", as Jan Tinetti herself said on Q+A, when pushed by Jack Tame this weekend? And isn't it the case that the Minister is just trying to keep everyone happy at the expense of teaching our kids to read in the manner in which the science suggests is the best way to teach them to read?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I reject the member's characterisation of what I have said and what the Minister has said. In terms of my confidence in Jan Tinetti, I have absolute confidence in her. She is a longstanding, well-respected primary school teacher and principal, and of course I trust her to make judgments and to make public statements in her areas of delegation, and this is one of them. 
But I've also made it very clear, as Minister of Education, that I will continue to trust the judgments of teachers. When it comes to decisions around how each individual child will best learn the content of the curriculum, then, ultimately the teacher in the classroom is the person who is best positioned to make that. We need to provide resources and support to teachers so they can do their jobs as effectively as possible. But I am not going to dictate to them—in the way the last Government tried to, with national standards—exactly how to do their jobs, because it doesn't work. 
So in terms of the question from Chris Penk around growth in his electorate, I don't have the 39 catchment plans that are contained within the National Education Growth Plan with me. But they are probably the best place to look for guidance around where we envisage extra schools are going to be required. I will say to him that one of the most tricky things in this area is we know, in many cases, exactly where we need additional schools, but we won't confirm that publicly until we've actually bought the land, because it immediately inflates the value of the available land in that area. The ministry are out in the market all of the time buying land. Sometimes people can't visibly see the progress that they're making until the deal is signed. There's often good reasons for that.





SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Two statements, and a question, but they are sort of all questions, too. I've been going around my own electorate, which is mightier than KKM—it's known as Tāmaki, come and visit some time. But talking to the various schools and principals, one point of feedback, it's certainly around growth and how to keep anticipating. That's always a challenge, as you'll understand, Minister—to anticipate the growth and find the funds for it. But certainly in our electorate, we're seeing greater intensification. A number of the schools are looking to expand their classrooms, but I will say they're also grateful for the buildings that have been done. They're also indicating questions around how much time can teachers be given to learn elements of the new curriculum, including the likes of the New Zealand history curriculum. While they welcome that, they're finding a little bit of a tension.
The question, though, is around—and I'm not fully up to speed on this. Several principals have talked to me about the regulations or guidelines around restraint of students and saying that this has been waited on for almost two years now. I could be wrong on the specifics of that, and that's not to prejudice my principals and teachers, but they feel at the moment quite exposed without those guidelines, and there's a growing frustration that these are not yet present to allow the schools to appropriately deal with their students. So I'm just wondering if the Minister has any information, obviously, to give to the committee but, in turn, that we could share to our principals around when we might anticipate these guidelines around restraint.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm happy to follow up for the member and get some further information for the member and get some further information on when the guidance around the guidelines will be updated. It has been a really contentious issue. 
The guidelines were the ones developed by Hekia Parata, with the support of the then Opposition, because I think we agreed that seclusion in the use of the restraint in a lot of contexts was wrong. However, having said that, I know that there's a sense amongst some in the profession that the pendulum has swung too far the other way, to the point where reasonable steps that they might have previously taken are now ones that they are cautious in doing so. So further guidance—and I haven't looked at it for a wee while, so I don't have that—was being developed by the Ministry of Education. I'm happy to follow up and get back to the member.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): A point of order, Madam Chair. Can I just ask how long the Minister has got left to speak? 
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): He has just over four minutes left.
ERICA STANFORD: Four minutes—OK, thank you. 
I want to go back to the literacy conversation we were having with the Minister around the common practice model. The whole point of the literacy document that was put out earlier this year, the Literacy & Communication and Maths Strategy, and then the action plan, was to put in place a common practice model. The common practice model, as it was explained, was to make sure that across the board, teachers were teaching the common practice. Now, the Minister today has continually told us that there won't be a common practice—we will not tell teachers how to teach. In fact, we will allow teachers to use whichever model they think is best for their class and their students. If that is the case, what is the point in having a common practice model, and what is going to be in it? If everything is in the common practice model, then why have a common practice model, because that's pretty much what we already have, which is everything is available to everyone. What was the point in spending all of the money, time, and resources on these groups to set up what is a common practice model that, in reality, will mean absolutely nothing?
My question to the Minister is: has he backed down? Has he bowed to the sector after what happened on the weekend where the Associate Minister clearly laid out what I thought were some really great, insightful comments around the use of structured literacy and made it sound like that was going to be the common practice model. We've been failing children—and it's not a political thing; we've been failing children in reading for decades. We know from international studies, we know from the National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement data, we know from our own internal data that things are going backwards at a great rate of knots, and the Literacy & Communication and Maths Strategy, when it came out—which didn't say a lot; we were waiting for the Minister to say what it actually meant, and finally we got something from her on the weekend, which was very much in favour of structured literacy. 
Now, the Minister has told us today that he's going to be providing lots of resources, and that's all very well and good—lots of resources for teachers so that they can pick and choose. Great, an increase in resources, but that's a very different thing than a common practice model. What is a common practice model if it's just a model that includes absolutely everything that a teacher can choose from? How is that going to shift the dial?
Chris Penk: How is that common?
ERICA STANFORD: You know, it's not common at all. Well, I suppose it's very common, because there's everything. 
Look, I really want the Minister to be really clear: what is a common practice model going to include, because at the moment, it sounds like we were just about to get there with Jan Tinetti's comments on the weekend, and now this feels like a massive U-turn away from what she said, away from the evidence and back to, "Well, we'll just let everybody choose whatever they want to do.", which is the thing that has been failing us for so many decades, because we've ignored the science of reading. 
So please, Minister, tell us what the intention is for a common practice model, without telling us about resources, because that's a separate thing. What is a common practice model, and what will be included in it? Will it just be one way? Will it be two ways? Will it be three ways? Will it include the three-cueing system, especially—because that's the bone of contention that lots of other countries around the world have gotten rid of because of the evidence that it doesn't work. 
So please, Minister, you need to explain to us the difference between a common practice model and your comments around "We will not dictate to teachers how they should teach kids to read." Those two things don't sit together, and I just want some clarification on what a common practice model is, and what it will include.





CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou e te Whare. I'll keep this as brief as possible, because I have addressed these questions to the Minister throughout the Estimates debate but I think it's really worthwhile putting it on the record in the House and also putting the question to him directly.
These Estimates occurred almost in parallel with our process for the People's Inquiry into Student Wellbeing, a document that I know that the Minister now has on his desk. Within this report, there is a crunch of data that shows that students are doing it incredibly tough. Here, I'd like to read just an excerpt from a story that we got permission to share.
This is Wiremu's story—and I quote—"I'm a full-time student and work 20 hours a week. To make ends meet I borrow money, stay with family until I can afford to leave, sacrifice certain things like hygiene products and do without food every few weeks and don't go to the doctor or dentist. It's not like I live in one of the most expensive cities or somewhere flash either. I sleep in an uninsulated garage with a large garage door that lets rain in. It's only half carpeted. In the winter the walls condensate and both sides of the windows frost over. I went looking for new places to stay recently but I could not afford a single one of the places I viewed despite them being pretty run down. When COVID hit, my kura offered support. I tried to access the support and I did everything that was required of me, but they didn't follow through."
That, of course, is reflective of the circumstances that many students shared with us with the COVID hardship fund, which we obviously canvassed throughout this Estimates review. It also is pretty reflective of the broader experience that shows in this report that two-thirds of students regularly cannot afford the basics.
So my question to the Minister is, what are the variables necessary for the Government—or the context, politically, or otherwise—that will see him implement a universal student allowance?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Just to come back very quickly to Erica Stanford's most recent comments, there is absolutely nothing contradictory between saying that we could have a common practice model and high quality resources for teachers and then saying that we're still going to trust teachers' professional judgments about how best to teach the children in their classroom. That is what a quality education system looks like.
In terms of the questions raised by Chlöe Swarbrick, in terms of we increase tertiary student support, it really is going to depend on the overall economic situation facing the Government and our ability to do that, as the member is well aware, for my entire working life, I have been advocating for a better deal for tertiary students, and I'll continue to do that.
I'm not able to make any pre-commitments at this point around a universal student allowance or, in fact, any other forms of increased tertiary student support, but I will point to the Government's record in that regard: increases in student allowances; the eligibility for things like the Cost of Living Payment; the hardship fund; first year fees-free; the targeted training and apprenticeships fund, the TTAF. There are a range of things that this Government has done that have been designed to bring down the cost of tertiary education and to better financially support tertiary students.





CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Turning then to the issue of student debt, we have in the Estimates on page 14 of the Education and Workforce Committee's report, but in page 83 of the broader Estimates document for anybody following alone at home, notation of the fact that there is $1.8 billion in overdue student debt; $1.7 billion of that is owed by people now overseas. The Minister will be aware, as I addressed in the select committee hearing, that these were also questions I put to the Minister of Revenue and I understand that there had been some work on it. As noted in the Estimates document itself, it states that the Minister said work was done on this in 2018 but had not looked into the issue in the past 18 months. So to that effect, knowing that debt accumulates interest for those students, particularly past students who are now overseas, and given that there hasn't been much work done on it in the past 18 months, may I ask the Minister if he intends to move ahead with any work in the future or at present?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I can certainly assure the member that we are very keen to get those students who are overseas, or former students who are overseas with student loan debt, repaying their student loans. And so we will continue to work to try and improve our data in that regard, improve our contacts with those people in that regard. The IRD do a great job, I think, of leading that process. It's not to say that it's perfect. In terms of any future policy change around that, as I've indicated to the member before, it's not something that I have been actively considering.





CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): To the point as raised in my initial question to the Minister around the hardship faced by students, we know that this is disproportionately being felt by those who have historically been structurally marginalised. But we also know based on this data, and recent data collated by Dr Sereana Naepi from the University of Auckland, that this is concentrated particularly with postgraduate students. To that effect, I have been hearing from a number of constituents in Auckland Central, but also tertiary students across the country, who have been speaking to the diverse approaches that universities, and even faculties within universities, are taking to the issue of stipends. We are seeing there is massive discrepancy in the value being paid out to students. I'm wondering if the Minister's done any work on this, particularly given that hardship and that barrier to access study and therefore the research that our country is powered by, or, if not, he would encourage the Education and Workforce Committee to do more work in this space.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): In answer to the first question, no, it's not a topic that I have done a lot of work on. In answer to the second question, of course I am not going to direct select committees, but it is an area that I think is worthy of further investigation.





CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the time for this debate has now expired. 
A party vote was called for on the question, That the votes contained in the Appropriation (2022/23 Estimates) Bill stand part of the schedules.
Ayes 75
New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.
Noes 45
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Motion agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 5 be agreed to.
Ayes 75
New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.
Noes 45
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.





House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The committee has considered the Appropriation (2022/23 Estimates) Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.





REMUNERATION AUTHORITY LEGISLATION BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 25 August.
WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Can I start by thanking you for the opportunity to finally take a call on this Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill at its second reading. It has been on the agenda for several House sitting days now, and my name is there, and it's getting closer and closer to me, and today, just as I'm about to depart on a taxi to get back to the Far North, it's finally my chance to make this brief call. I'll make it brief because my friendly neighbour, flatmate, and neighbouring electorate member here is after me and she has a flight at the same time.
So we are here to debate the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill, which transfers responsibility for determining remuneration of certain judicial bodies and statutory officers to the Remuneration Authority to recognise the judicial nature of those positions. Currently, those decisions are made by the Cabinet fees framework. This bill proposes to transfer those to the Remuneration Authority. The bodies and offices to which this bill is related to are the disputes tribunal referees, community magistrates of the District Court, chairperson and deputy chairpersons of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, deputy chairpersons and members of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, environment commissioners, and deputy environment commissioners of the Environment Court, and tenancy tribunal adjudicators. 
This piece of legislation is important, because we believe it will enhance public confidence in our judicial system by making changes relating to the responsibility to determine remuneration of some of our statutory and judicial officers and transferring that to an independent body, which is the Remuneration Authority, thereby enhancing public confidence in the integrity of the independence of these tribunals who make decisions that do affect ordinary New Zealanders greatly. 
And so, with that, I just want to acknowledge the Justice Committee. I don't want to say they didn't have a huge amount of work, but I do note that they only had four submissions, only two of which were actually in scope—two were ruled out of scope. They were both supportive of the legislation, and the select committee were unanimous in recommending this bill back to the House unchanged. So I want to thank all of those involved, including the officials, and I commend this bill to the House.





Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. I also rise to take a brief call. My friend, flatmate, and neighbouring electorate MP in Northland has outlined the tribunals. This is a bill which does a small but important job. It takes a number of tribunals, from the Disputes Tribunal to the Human Rights Tribunal, and it takes them out from under the Cabinet Fees Framework and puts them into the independent Remuneration Authority. It sounds not much, but it is in fact the defence of one of the pillars of democracy, which is the independence of our judiciary. It is incredibly important that our judiciary remain free from political influence. And I say that to all of those who occasionally ring me and ask why it is that our Government has not pushed for certain penalties when judges bring them down. The reason is if we are able to influence the judiciary, then that way lies the demise of democracy, and we see all over the world today the situation where democracy is being eroded because it is too little regarded, too much taken for granted, and that is no way to maintain something.
So for that reason, it is a small but mighty step to preserve the independence of the judiciary, to preserve our democracy. I commend the fierce independence of the judiciary in this country. If you have worked outside this country, if you have worked with academics and lawyers from overseas countries, you will know that is not always the case, and you will have heard stories from them that are, frankly, frightening, about what happens when a judiciary is, in fact, subject to political influence, political insecurity, or economic insecurity. That way lies fascism; that way lies madness. I commend this bill to the House.





SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Look, there are some good points and bad points. I mean, first and foremost, I actually agree with Dr Emily Henderson and Willow-Jean Prime that we've waited a very long time to give our little orations on this bill, so it's nice to be here. But I do have to take umbrage with this whole demise of democracy. I mean, the first comment that she uttered just dripped with political bias—I mean, the continuum of political instability is not a line between communism and fascism, but it's a horseshoe. In other words, basically, the fascists are the communists and the communists are the fascists—they're all the same and democracy sits in the middle. I mean, it's just nutcase stuff. So if we're going to be talking about this Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill supporting democracy—which it does—we could do without comments like that. 
But to add to the point, again, under the notion of what this bill seeks to do to enhance our democracy, there is a dripping irony today that we've had to sit through a Labour-sponsored bill around plain language which is setting to define what New Zealanders are allowed to or not to say, and literally in the last hour, I'm picking up news that Local Government New Zealand in its wisdom has decided it will decide, along with its activist groups, which candidates are worthy of being elected or not. So for a Government to stand here and trumpet its bill and how it's protecting democracy, yet on the other hand wanting to dictate to Kiwis what words they can use and who, rightfully, can stand for democratic election, I find, is a word I'm not allowed to use in the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr O'Connor, we will dictate at the moment that you will return to the bill, please.
SIMON O'CONNOR: Yeah, probably—probably. So, returning to the bill, it's pretty—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, you will, Mr O'Connor.
SIMON O'CONNOR: Oh, very good. We like to follow instruction in this democratic world. Remeration, remuneration—I don't know why I can never get my tongue around that. Basically, it's moving the authority from Cabinet to an independent authority. Do you know what? That's a really good thing, and despite having waited weeks to give this speech, I don't feel there's much more I need to say.





CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I, too, have waited some weeks to make a contribution on this Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill.
I have seen some previous speakers and listened to their speeches, and there was—in some of the speeches—a bit of a lack of enthusiasm about this particular bill. But that is not a sentiment I share. I'm incredibly enthusiastic about this Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill for the main reasons that it fundamentally supports the notion of separation of powers and also enhances judicial independence.
The main issue that I wanted to cover in my short contribution today is really that currently we have the Cabinet Fees Framework, administered on behalf of the executive, paying, essentially, the salaries of people who are part of the judiciary working on tribunals. Now, a lot of the members of the public won't necessarily know the difference between a tribunal and a court. To them, they are impartial decision makers and they have integrity, and it's important that that's upheld. So the move, then, to make the payment of salaries of some of these tribunals more independent is incredibly important. So I support the move to make the independent Remuneration Authority the one who is charged with paying these particular salaries.
Two particular examples that I want to mention quickly. I think it's particularly important for immigration, where the Minister can hear appeals at immigration tribunal—I think it's particularly important to make sure that that is seen as independent. The second example is the Human Rights Review Tribunal, which of course can make declarations of inconsistency with pieces of legislation. It's also particularly important that that tribunal—which also shares that power now with the courts, following another new piece of legislation that this Labour Government has brought before the House—are seen to be, and are, independent. So I commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.





ORANGA TAMARIKI AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Children: I present to the House a legislative statement on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I move, That the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
The bill amends the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 by partially repealing the subsequent child provisions so that the subsequent child provisions will only apply in respect of parents with a conviction relating to the murder, manslaughter, or infanticide of a child in their care; repealing a redundant provision relating to data sets; making a number of minor and technical amendments aimed at improving clarity and addressing omissions and ambiguity in the Act. I'll talk more about the partial repeal of the subsequent child provisions later in this speech.
But before I do, I'd like to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for their examination of the bill during the select committee stage, and all of the submitters for their contribution and time to the bill. By majority, the Social Services and Community Committee recommends the passing of the bill, with a number of changes aimed at improving the readability and workability of the bill. These changes are set out in the legislative statement, so I'll only mention three of the changes in this speech.
The first change reflects the importance of ensuring that the family is able to have private deliberation time as part of family group conferences, without the chief executive and/or their delegate present, unless they're invited by the family, of course. New clause 6A clarifies that there is no automatic entitlement for the chief executive or their delegate to attend family deliberation time.
Another change relates to clauses 33 and 34 and new clause 6B. Clauses 33 and 34 sought to clarify that youth justice family group conferences could make decisions and formulate plans when a child or young person was not in need of care or protection but was in need of assistance. However, submitters considered that the phrase "in need of assistance" required further clarification. The committee has recommended modifying section 28B of the Act, in new clause 6B, and clauses 33 and 34 to remove the term "in need of assistance". These changes will also help to align provisions relating to youth justice family group conferences with those relating to care and protection family group conferences.
The final change I want to mention relates to the power to make regulations in relation to the assessment, training, and support of caregivers and care providers. Submitters were concerned that clause 43 as drafted would mean that an assessment of the suitability of care providers would no longer be covered. The committee has recommended changes to address this and clarify the wording used to describe care providers.
I'd also like to acknowledge that there were and are some submitters who are disappointed that this bill does not make the fundamental changes to Oranga Tamariki, as I can understand that. People, particularly Māori, have been waiting for change for a number of years. When Oranga Tamariki was established, it was recognised that what had gone before and that its predecessors had not worked—that is, they were not sufficiently working with families and whānau, hapū, iwi, and communities to protect our children. We know that Oranga Tamariki still has more to do to live up to expectations in that regard. Many of us want to see change and that Oranga Tamariki make a positive difference in the lives of all children and young people and for the families and whānau and the communities in which it operates. At the same time, I'm aware that progress and results will not happen immediately. Trying to achieve quick wins will not result in the fundamental change required.
This brings me back to the partial repeal of the subsequent child provisions—the part of the bill that is not supported by all members of the committee, and I'm disappointed in that. The subsequent child provisions were enacted by the previous Government and currently apply where a parent has previously had a child permanently removed from their care or has a murder, manslaughter, or infanticide conviction for the death of a child in their care. The bill proposes to partially repeal those provisions as they apply to subsequent children where a parent has had the care of a previous child removed and it has been determined that there is no realistic prospect of return to the parents. These provisions will, however, be retained where they relate to parents who have been convicted of the death of a child in their care. This reflects the seriousness of those offences.
The proposed change reflects a first-principles review of the subsequent child provisions, which found that the provisions were not promoting the best interests of children, rather the provisions were causing harm, particularly for children with an older sibling already in care. This is because a court is required to determine that there's no realistic prospect that an older sibling who has already been removed would be returned to their parents' care, a process that results in additional and potentially traumatic court proceedings of that older sibling. The subsequent child provisions have also placed social workers in a difficult position and undermined their ability to work meaningfully with whānau, hapū, iwi, and communities. The proposed change will support social workers to use their skills, their expertise, and their professional knowledge, as appropriate, in an area of work that requires significant sensitivity and skill. 
Finally, the subsequent child provisions have significantly damaged the relationship between Oranga Tamariki and Māori. The Waitangi Tribunal found that the provisions caused prejudice to Māori and would be a continuing breach of the Treaty until they are partially repealed. Partial repeal, therefore, supports a rebuilding of relationships with Māori. Rebuilding the relationship with Māori and with communities is an important part of the future direction for Oranga Tamariki, which is about empowering communities. Empowering whānau, hapū, and iwi to support their own, to help the children and young people, the parents and the whānau who live in their communities. And that change is vital if we're going to improve the outcomes for children, young people, and their families and whānau in the long term.
Finally, I think it's important again to acknowledge social workers and the work they do to support our most vulnerable children and young people and our most vulnerable families and whānau. 
[Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
Thank you for what you do.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.





MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand for the National Party in opposition to this bill. As the Minister has pointed out, it was a split decision within the Social Services and Community Committee—a select committee that, I have to say, does tend to work very well on many of the issues that we deal with and in a collegial manner. But, of course, there are some philosophical differences around the table, and this happens to be one of them.
The Minister has outlined the changes that are going to happen as a result of this piece of legislation, but I would just like to realise, for the House's benefit, and clarify the two main ones that are of particular concern.
One of them is the subsequent child provision, which is in the bill in Section 18B, and the consequential changes associated with that partial repeal, which I will explain a little bit soon. And then there was another repeal which is considered to be redundant, and that was information sharing which is contained in section 66D.
Now, this wasn't a bill that attracted a huge amount of attention from the public. One of those reasons may have been that the select committee was also dealing with the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People's Commission Bill, which did attract a huge amount of attention. And so I think having these bills running concurrently, I think, distracted a little bit from that one actually reaching out to many of the submitters that may have otherwise been involved in providing feedback to the select committee.
As a consequence, only 24 written submissions were received by the select committee. Out of those, 11 submitters presented orally to the select committee. So not a huge amount of feedback for the select committee to be able to gauge the interest nor to have provided to us some of the arguments for or against some of the provisions contained in this bill.
The bill, as I said, contains a couple of parts. The first of those is around the subsequent child provision. The part of that that's being repealed does not apply to this one. This is the one that's actually being retained within the bill. And that is, as it relates to parents who have a conviction for murder, manslaughter, or infanticide of a child or young person in their care, which is the section 18B(1)(a) provision. The decision was made and the bill was not designed to exclude that, so that has been the part of this Section 18 that is staying active.
The other part of it is the bit that is going to be removed, and that is, for parents who had a previous child or a young person removed from their care where there was no realistic possibility that that child would be returned to that parent.
So these are the most extreme cases of concern around wellbeing and safety for these children. And for many of those children, they go on to be placed into homes for life, where they are considered to be safe, secured, and loved by the parents, the adopted parents, or the caregivers who provide those homes to them.
So the part that is staying is the bit that is probably the most extreme, which is around murder or manslaughter or infanticide. The bit that is being removed is the bit where a previous child has been removed from a parent and has no likelihood of being returned. So the design this provision was put in for in the first place was to ensure that where a child had been removed from a parent, the children born subsequently to the same parent was an automatic consideration for the safety of that subsequent child—that second or third or fourth child, or however many the parents went on to have. So, in effect, what it was doing was ensuring that there was a mandated and automatic response when subsequent children were born into that family. Basically, what it was there for was to provide greater oversight of the safety of those subsequent children. So that is the National Party's view: it is that the reason that that provision was put there in the first place was focused entirely on the safety of subsequent children—and there is no argument that lots of work needs to be done with families, that wraparound services are provided to families to ensure that they get the support that they need to make sure that they become safe, loving parents, providing for their children—but by eliminating this clause in this piece of legislation, it simply removes a safety valve that is in place.
It's interesting, when we go back and look at some of the statistics, this provision has been used around 19 times since the Act came into force, which was in mid-2016. So it's not something that has been used without a huge amount of consideration and discretion. So when I look at the rationale for unwinding this provision within this bill—and I've heard the Minister express this in her opening remarks, where we need to build relationships with families and rebuild relationships. And that's all very well, but actually, this isn't about the families; this is about the children. This is where we separated in the select committee when we were debating this bill. This bill is focused on the parents. It's focused on the system. It is not focused on the children. And we make no apology for taking that position.
We have to remember, too, some of the children that have been victims of serious crime, and it's a sad day for New Zealand when we have international rankings that refer to New Zealand as one of the poor performers in the world. We are ranked really lowly in terms of being able to provide for child wellbeing outcomes. I'm going to quote—this is outdated data; it was last year's data—we were 35 out of 41 in developed countries for child wellbeing outcomes. In 2003, which was the latest data I was able to source, UNICEF ranked us as the third highest amongst rich countries for its child maltreatment death rates. That is a shocking record of abuse of our children. And the sad thing is, this bill is not going to provide that safety net, that safety valve that we need. 
So I think what we're doing with this bill—or what the Government is doing with this bill—it's setting out to improve practice within the system and it's setting out to make pathways easier for those that interact with it, but it has lost its focus for the safety of children. We have to wonder whether it is actually with the practice that there is an issue or with that law. I would argue that the issues we have are with the practices that are employed, not with the law. So I think we have found a separation in terms of where our focus lies. Our focus on this side of the House lies with the safety of children, ensuring that the systems are in place. This bill does nothing to build the resources of our social workers who work tirelessly to support these families. It doesn't create one new social worker. It just makes the system easier. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before I commence my speech, I would like to just acknowledge, this is the first opportunity I have to acknowledge you in the chair as the Deputy Speaker. Congratulations, sir.
I'm here to speak quite briefly on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill, and I'd just like to acknowledge the previous speaker, Maureen Pugh, who spoke quite sensitively about this matter. I think it is one that is serious and important. 
I want to acknowledge and thank the Minister Kelvin Davis first and foremost, for bringing this bill to the House, and for the Minister Nanaia Mahuta who took his place and presented his speech and statement. We did only have 24 submissions, and we heard from 12 submitters via video conference during a time where most work was online. I want to also acknowledge how much more complex that made the work process for the officials—parliamentary counsel, the Office of the Clerk, but also for the Social Services and Community Committee, who, by and large, we do work very collaboratively together. 
I'm quite pleased, today, to be speaking to this bill, because I do recall a time in 2016 when this piece of legislation came in, and the House may recall that at that time I was the manager of a women's refuge, and we recall having the conversation about the work that we did with the mothers who had often had warnings or had children uplifted from them about what hope this piece of legislation gave them. I can tell you, it was quite a harsh piece of legislation for those families. Those mothers always wanted their children back. They always, always wanted to do the right thing. They had lost their children and they were working very hard, and this piece of legislation, brought in by the National Party in 2016, changed the onus or burden of proof to actually make these under-resourced, these very complex presenting families, prove that they were worthy parents, and it was a difficult thing for us to work with them about.
I want to be really clear that the submissions that we heard were, by and large, positive, and the subsequent child aspect was probably the most complex part of the bill, or the most controversial. I do acknowledge that there were differing views at the table.
I would just like to go through the wording of the legislation that we changed in regards to the subsequent child. So first and foremost, "a subsequent child is any child, born or unborn"—keep that in mind; unborn also—"who has a parent who has been convicted of the murder, manslaughter, or infanticide of a child or young person in their care or custody". So that's the first part. That's the part we are not repealing. That is the part that is staying in place.
The second part—this is the part that we are repealing: "who has had a previous child or young person removed from their care and there is no realistic prospect that the child or young person will be returned to the person's care." Now, the previous speaker said those words, but I want this House to sit for a moment in actually what that means. The children or child who has previously been placed with another family has to go to court, and that child has to be part of the process that says that their parent—their birth parent—will never, ever, realistically, be their parent again.
I would like to ask the House whether that is harmful or not, and I believe it is. I certainly understand the concept around why this was put in place. The mechanism and the use and how this occurs to those families, and even if it was 19 children or 19 families that this has happened—this a redundant but it is also a repugnant part of the legislation that we have, and I'm very delighted to be removing it. 
I would like to finally just say, there was another large of pile of things that we changed in this bill, and so I'm just going to very quickly just a read a list and then I'll take my seat. So we changed parts of the Evidence Act, the payment of fees and expenses for youth advocates. We clarified and made clear the function for family group conferences and youth justice family group conferences. We clarified restraining orders and when and where they are appropriately applied. We amended transitional provisions and amended the ultimate right of the chief executive or their representative to attend a family group conference at the deliberation point, which is not necessarily the best point for that person to be at.
So with that, I am delighted to stand in this House and to see this piece of repugnant legislation be partially repealed. I commend this bill to the House. 





JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill. The National Party opposes this bill. 
The National Party brought in legislation that brought in the subsequent child removal policy, which took effect in 2006. The then Minister, the Hon Paula Bennett, said at the third reading, "This legislation will also switch the onus on parents who have killed or severely abused or neglected a child, and they'll now have to prove they are safe to parent subsequent children." So to be clear, the law that is being partially repealed today is that currently a "subsequent child" is any child born or unborn who has a parent who has been convicted of the murder, manslaughter, or infanticide of a child or young person in their care or custody, or who has had a previous child or young person removed from their care and there is no realistic prospect that the child or young person will be returned to their care. So it's quite a high threshold. 
Unfortunately, New Zealand has a real problem with violence towards children in this country, and unfortunately I have seen this in courts around the country where I have practised previously. I've seen it in Auckland, I've seen it in the Bay of Plenty, and I've seen it in the South Island, Christchurch, across the bottom of the South Island. There is a high rate, unfortunately, of abuse towards children. We need to put the best interests of children first to make sure that those children are cared for. 
There is also—and I've seen this numerous times in cases that I have seen—a reluctance by those involved around the children, whether it's family members or other agencies, to raise the issues of children being abused. So it's actually quite difficult and it takes quite a few steps usually before something comes to the attention of the relevant agencies. And so we need to recognise that reality and we need to take steps to ensure that the children, and their best interests, are always taken into account first and we do what we can to ensure that they are looked after. 
New Zealand's a great country, but we need to also face facts. It ranks 35th out of 41 developed countries in the Wellbeing Outcomes for Children. Every eighth homicide victim in New Zealand from 2004 to 31 March 2019 was a child. New Zealand has the seventh highest rate of child homicide in the OECD. New Zealand also has the highest rate of teen suicide in the OECD. I make those points, because this is a sober issue and one we have to really consider very, very carefully. We all want to try to do the best thing. We want parents to be the best that they can and provide the best environment for their children, and anyone else who has children in their vicinity. But we also have to recognise that we have a problem, and that's what this subsequent child policy aimed to address: to provide a clear criteria. A high threshold needed to be set before a child could remain in their care. And just to repeat that, again, the part of it that will remain is that a subsequent child is one who has a parent who has been convicted of the murder, manslaughter, or of infanticide of a child or young person in their care or custody.
The second part, which this bill is looking at removing or changing is, where they had a previous child or young person removed from their care and there is no realistic prospect that the child or young person will be returned to the person's care. So we need to take into account, when we consider this, that if it has been determined that there's no realistic prospect that a child will be returned to a person's care, can that person realistically be suitable to have another child in their care? It's something that we need to really take into account. The National Party isn't confident that the right approach has been taken here.
There is also another issue around the dataset provisions, which have been changes. This bill repeals section 66D. The dataset provision, 66D of the Act, came into effect on 1 July 2019, part of a suite of information-sharing provisions named in Part 2. Under that section, any agency that creates a dataset from more than one source of information is required to publicly notify of details of that dataset. The notification must include the types of information used in the combined datasets, the source of those types of information, the purpose or purposes served by creating or analysing the combined datasets, and the privacy safeguards relating to the use of the combined datasets. Oranga Tamariki has found that the dataset provision could place an unnecessary administrative burden on child welfare and protection agencies without achieving the level of public accountability originally envisaged. In addition, since 2016, when the original dataset provisions were proposed, a number of initiatives across Government, they say, have, effectively, rendered the data redundant.
However, an alternative view is that this provision hasn't been adequately utilised and that it is a good provision to enable that information to be captured, which can inform decision makers, who have responsibilities to ensure the protection of children, so they have the information that they need, from a variety of different datasets, to identify children who could or have been abused. 
There's an argument to be made that there needs to be more upskilling of those who would supply the information. Unfortunately—I won't say the name of the particular victim—there was a case not that long ago where a centre was aware of injuries to the child and didn't report them. There needs to be some consideration of how we address that situation, rather than pulling back on the dataset provisions, I would suggest.
I certainly have seen, unfortunately, in my time practising, that there are often a lot of little indicators that lead up to a serious crime of violence committed against a child. Those little indicators can build over time, people can excuse them and say, "Well, it's not that bad", but then it just builds and builds, then something really bad, unfortunately, happens. So we need to be able to pick up on those small indicators and those little warning signs, those little warning flags, before it gets to a serious stage. I would suggest that we need to actually look at how to improve this provision, improve the ability of organisations to utilise that provision effectively to ensure we can pick up on those flags before it becomes a serious issue and children suffer.
I would say that the National Party absolutely values children, as I'm sure every single member of this House does. We deeply value the wellbeing and welfare of all New Zealand children, and of all New Zealand children who have to, unfortunately, I would say, end up in State care. I say unfortunately because, ultimately, we want children to be in a safe and caring environment among those who are their family and whānau—that is the ideal situation. We want everyone to be able to get there. The reality is, unfortunately, that we are not in that position and we do have parents who are, unfortunately, unable to properly take care of this children in this country. Those earlier statistics I quoted, it's not things I'm happy to say, because it's a sad moment, it's a sad statistic for the country, but it is one that we need to really have at the top of our mind, I would suggest. It's not acceptable that New Zealand has the seventh highest rate of child homicide in the OECD. Underlying that is the serious damage being done to children before it gets to the point of homicide. There's, unfortunately, a very high rate of child abuse in this country.
So that is the reality that we have to grapple with. We have to work out the best way to address that, to improve the strength of families and the ability of parents to take proper care of their children. And we have to have the relevant law in place so we can ensure that the relevant agencies that are charged with taking care of children in cases where those who should be their caretakers are not able to—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, sorry, speaker, my apologies. There's been a leak of the clock, and it's to your credit that you've been able to speak so nobly and with such good vocabulary for that time, but, actually, I have to say to the speaker, the time is up.
Joseph Mooney: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER:: But well done carrying on.





ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. It's always an honour and a privilege to make a contribution in this House. Today, it's the second reading of the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill and I'll make a short a short contribution.
I want to acknowledge all the submitters. I want to acknowledge the Minister and his leadership in shepherding this important bill—which is partial of what he intends to deliver in his portfolio as the Minister for Children. I want to acknowledge the officials and the select committee.
We've heard the Minister clarify what the bill does, but I will focus on two matters that the bill does. So the bill amends the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 and it partially repeals the child provisions so that subsequent provisions will only apply in respect to parents relating to murder, manslaughter, or infanticide of a child in their care.
What happens now is that if a mother is pregnant, it has to be reported to the State and the Family Court has mandatory oversight if the children in the care of the parent have been permanently removed by the State. So what this bill does is that it only will apply for parents who have been convicted of murder, manslaughter, or infanticide of a child in their care. A Family Court conference is held to make decisions about the care of the unborn child before the child is born if it's reported in the subsequent provisions.
What happens? Currently, the Family Court conference allows for family deliberations to be private, but it doesn't actually clarify that Oranga Tamariki must not be present. What clause 6A does is it actually says that that Oranga Tamariki, the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki, or its representatives, must not be party to private family deliberations at Family Court conferences unless it's invited. 
Lastly, I want to acknowledge the Oranga Tamariki Māori rōpū, the
[Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
especially, the leadership of Danny Thompson, Maureen Rapata-Kemp, and Foulis Foster, because for years they have been championing the fact that the Māori engagement and decision making for mokopuna who are reported to Child, Youth and Family—Oranga Tamariki now—must involve family deliberations without the State.
That's what this bill will do; it will enable family deliberations at family court conferences not to have Oranga Tamariki or its representatives present during those deliberations. And in those words, I commend the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill to the House.





JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I've been standing a few times in this House, recently, to speak to Oranga Tamariki - related legislation. The conversations have not been comfortable recently, so it's a bit of a relief to be able to stand in the House in support of the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill today.
I didn't have the luck or the time, unfortunately, to be on the select committee to hear all of the submissions. There were 24 written submissions and I have gone through those, and I think there were 11 oral submissions. So I am really interested in the committee stages that are due to come to hear more of that nuance, because I know so much of that detail comes in the conversations, and I'm picking it up, primarily, from the written materials.
In this contribution, I do want to primarily focus on the subsequent child policy, noting that most submissions also focused on that part of the bill. That part was introduced, I think, came into law in 2016, under the then National Minister Paula Bennett. What it did was introduce a provision or a policy into the law that if somebody had had a child removed from their care because of murder, manslaughter, or infanticide or a child had been removed that Oranga Tamariki—then Child, Youth and Family—did not believe would be returned, then if they were to have a subsequent child, then the social workers would have no discretion but to conduct an assessment of that child's safety and then must apply for one of two orders from the Family Court.
So if they were satisfied that the child would be safe, then then social worker would have to go to court for a confirmation of the decision not to apply for care and protection. So they'd have to go to court to confirm that they would not take that child, because presumption was that they would take that child. Or, if they were not satisfied that the child would be safe, the social worker had to apply for a care and protection order.
I was in Parliament at the time that that law passed. The Green Party raised concerns, along with others in this House, about the outcomes of that law. We understand, as we've heard from other speakers tonight, the sense of real-heart concern that we all have for the wellbeing and the safety of our children in this country and our duty to do what we can and have laws that will protect them.
But there was a problem at the time around the practices within Child, Youth and Family—and part of it links to that sense of wanting to protect and the images that we have in our head of who we need to protect children from and also a failure to acknowledge the prevalence and the intersection between intimate partner violence and child abuse, as I think has been quite eloquently mentioned previously by Angie Warren-Clark.
So in the first reading of that bill, in 2013, it had just been the previous week where the former Police Commissioner Howard Broad had released a review into the complaints system of Child, Youth and Family. At that time, he raised concern that their practice—of the organisation—was failing to adequately meet their legal obligations of checking on the wellbeing of children and that court decisions relying on social work evidence suffered from pre-determinable bias because of the reliance on that information and a lack of consistency from social workers across the board. We have not resolved those problems, and that policy exacerbated the harm from that pre-determined bias.
And what we hear—I know that sounds like a complex way of putting it for some people. But to put it in simply, in some levels, is 48 percent of pregnant women, if I'm remembering correctly, whose pēpē Māori were taken into State care before birth had been in State care themselves. So if we're thinking about the biases that are built into our system as well as the harm that our system has created and that we compound through interventions, this policy had a really significant role in causing harm.
And we are still hearing—a social service provider up in Auckland was just telling me a few weeks ago about how every single day they are working with whānau who have had their children taken or have been threatened to be taken, not because of abuse, but because of poverty and struggle to get housing.
So you think about this policy and where there's been a history of a child being removed and you're doing the assessment on whether that person is going to be safe, and they're struggling to find permanent housing or space for their new baby or they're struggling to pay their bills, it's an understandable leap for the social worker to go, "Oh, actually, no. They're not going to be safe."
It puts the onus on that parent to do all the work of proving, "Hey look, I've done all of these programmes, I've got off the drugs, I've got my family support, my abusive partner is now being dealt with by these people—like to make all of the cases to overcome that inherent bias is, what we've heard in too many reviews, just bloody impossible. And kids have been taken from loving parents.
And what we've also heard is that the problem with that policy is, particularly when it's the babies that have been removed, how long it takes after they've been removed to make your case to prove that, actually, now you're safe. And this came up in the Waitangi Tribunal; and it might be six months, it might be eight months, it might be a year. And when I say those numbers in the House, but that may not sound like a long time, but you think about that, the first period of life, the absolute initial bonding time, where that baby is attaching to somebody else, to another family that you have disrupted—the Crown has disrupted that attachment to them and their mum and their whānau, and the harm of that cannot be undone. So I am incredibly pleased to be seeing this policy amended. 
I want to note, too, to some of the points that were made previously, that Judge Becroft's submission to the Waitangi Tribunal about the impact of this policy—and I will try and quote it here if I can find it—described the provisions as "pernicious" and "totally unnecessary piece of legislation" that "should be repealed tomorrow."
He considered the introduction of the legislation had to lead to a culture shift of Oranga Tamariki that exceeded actual application of that statute, noting that more broadly, the onus of proof shifted to parents to prove their ability to safely care for subsequent children, rather than the earlier onus on Oranga Tamariki to prove a parent could not safely care for subsequent children. And go back to that conversation and think about what it would take to prove to probably a Pākehā social worker for—
Hon Todd McClay: That's so racist.
JAN LOGIE: —a Māori woman struggling against poverty—
Hon Judith Collins: What a racist comment to say.
Hon Todd McClay: What a racist comment. Disgusting.
JAN LOGIE: —to prove to a Pākehā social worker in a system that's made pre-determinations that she is going to be safe. And to try and pretend that it's inappropriate to say that when all of the data tells us—ha, ha!—the Waitangi Tribunal has ruled, our children's commission has come to conclusive conclusions that the system has inbuilt structural racism; I'm not even going to deal with a pretence that that is not real. We need to get rid of this policy, and today is not a day too soon.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 13 September 2022. Thank you for your work this week, members.
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.