Appropriation (2024/25 Confirmation and Validation) Bill

Committee of the whole House—Annual Review Debate Social Development and Employment CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Minister for Social Development and Employment is now available for one hour to respond to members’ questions. The Minister, the Hon Louise Upston. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:01): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to just make some opening remarks ahead of the select committee comments, and then I’m more than happy to answer questions. So this is obviously the debate on the 2024/25 annual review for Vote Social Development. As I said at the annual review hearing, which was back in December last year, my highest priority as the Minister is to support New Zealanders into work, while ensuring those who genuinely can’t work are able to draw on support when they need it. We have a Government target to reduce the number of people receiving the jobseeker benefit by 50,000 by the year 2030. Of course, the faster we can help those on benefit find sustainable employment, the better the outcomes are for them, their families, our communities, and of course, our country. I’m conscious that we’ve only got a short time, so I just want to provide some brief statements and then answer questions. I’d like to acknowledge some of the work that’s been done by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) during the year in review, 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025. As expected in the current economic climate, in the uncertain global environment, the overall number of people in the year in review receiving a benefit increased. However, our Government’s welfare reset is getting results and helping job seekers to be work-ready and proactive about stepping into the opportunities that exist to either, you know, be ready for work as the opportunities are there. So in the year in review, MSD supported 80,700 people off benefits and into work. Given the economic circumstances in the year in review, I think that’s a really great result. MSD answered around 4.4 million phone calls, funded community support services accessed by over 94,639 people, and processed 271,500 student loan and student allowance applications. The focus on employment and proactive staff engagement is really helping more people to move into work. In the 2024/25 year, this included expanding case management from a capacity of 60,000 to 70,000, and that included the implementation of phone-based case management. We’ve also increased our Kōrero Mahi seminars, which saw a total attendance of approximately 70,000 people throughout the year. We implemented community coaching, which funded a further 2,100 places for youth job seekers to address barriers and support them into employment. This was achieved despite a tight fiscal environment. MSD saved a total of $352 million during the year in review, with more savings forecast in out-years. This included $15.7 million in savings from contractors and consultants, with more savings from this category also being reprioritised within the Ministry; and also 17,000 saved with changes to make the workforce more efficient. There is, of course, much more work ahead of us; we’re very clear about that. And I do want to acknowledge the incredible work of every one of the team at the Ministry of Social Development, who do an amazing job to help New Zealanders overcome the barriers they face to employment. I want to thank them on the record for their hard work, for their dedication, and the incredible public service they provide. Happy to take questions, Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, I’ll call Willow-Jean Prime, but I just wanted to make a comment. So last night, we had a bit of an issue. So if there are any Associate Ministers in the House—I’d like to ask the indulgence of the ACT Party for any Associate Ministers to sit over here, because we can’t have officials coming out onto the floor of the House. Simon Court: I indulge thee. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you, Simon Court. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:05): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call. This annual review debate is for the 2024/25 financial year, and it’s an opportunity to reflect on what the Government has done for our most vulnerable people. People who are seeking extra support and assistance, and also assistance to get a job—often the most vulnerable of our people. Unfortunately, when we do this, we can all see that this Government is making things worse. They are taking away opportunity and then kicking people when they are down. Let’s start with the most obvious: this Government took office promising to reduce jobseeker numbers by 50,000. What we can see is that they are closer to increasing it by 50,000 than they are to decreasing it. Over 25,000 people have ended up needing to turn to State assistance under great duress due to this Government’s failures. The record is stark: unemployment is up, food insecurity is up, child poverty is up, and more and more jobs are being lost. And what has this Government done? They have sanctioned vulnerable people when they simply need support. They’ve slashed funding for community services and made it harder for people to get the help that they need. I want to start by asking questions around those jobseeker numbers, the targets, and the sanctions. Quite obviously, this target has not been met, and I see from the Government’s own tracking that the chance of meeting this is becoming less and less likely every day that they are in power. But I want to ask the Minister about something that she said in the 2024 Estimates hearings. During that hearing, my colleague the Hon Carmel Sepuloni noted that she had received an Official Information Act (OIA) response about the measure for the target. In that OIA response, the Ministry for Social Development and Employment recommended that work exits be the measure of success for the target, not the number of people on jobseeker support. The Minister has referred to that in her opening comments. The Minister’s reply was “You’ve also got to look at what’s happening for the numbers coming in and staying in.” My question for the Minister is: what is she doing to understand the people coming on to jobseekers and staying on, and the people leaving and staying off? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:08): Thank you, Madam Chair. The member has referred to the jobseeker target, which was, of course, as I mentioned in my opening comments, to reduce the number of people on the jobseeker benefit by 50,000. That’s by the year 2030. So I accept that the target is at risk, but every day I get up and go to work, that is what I’m focused on. Because what we do know is that the best way to reduce hardship is for families to be in work. While I accept, and I said in my opening remarks, that the economic conditions in the 2024/25 period were incredibly challenging, but actually we saw 80,700 people leave benefit and go into work. The member asked the question and referred to the difference between work exits and jobseeker numbers. If I’m blunt about it, actually work exits is an easier target. But I’m more interested in people actually being in employment, leaving jobseeker benefit, and being on a better pathway towards independence—which is why I accepted a far more challenging target, which was around the number of people on the jobseeker benefit. We want to see real results and real outcomes, and we’re not afraid of having an ambitious target that will be challenging for us to meet. But we know the difference that people coming off the jobseeker benefit and being in work makes. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:10): Thank you, Madam Chair. I did ask the Minister to explain more to help me understand what she is doing to understand the people coming on to the jobseeker benefit and staying on, and the people who are leaving and coming off. I don’t believe the Minister addressed that. While the Minister is getting some guidance there, the next issue I would like to ask about is the sanctions and the traffic light system. I understand that the Minister has an early assessment of the traffic light system that she uses to talk about its success, but, as far as I can see, success relates to people simply understanding their obligations, and not actually success in getting people into work. Can the Minister tell us how she is assessing the impact of her sanctions in terms of actually getting people into jobs? This is important because so much resource is going into the sanctions and obligations, and we need to know that this is a good use of those resources. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:11): I thank the member for their question. One of the changes that we’ve made is the Kōrero Mahi seminars. Before someone comes on to the jobseeker benefit, they have that initial participation in this seminar, which is all about understanding what support and services the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) can provide to them and, on the other side of it, what responsibilities they have if they sign on to the jobseeker benefit. It’s about having really clear expectations, a greater understanding of what people’s responsibilities are, and—really importantly—what support is available through MSD, and then the traffic light system is all about having a really simple way of being able to demonstrate that somebody is fulfilling their obligations or not. In the year in review, we’ve seen high degrees of great people participating at green, which means they’re on track, they understand their obligations, and they’re fulfilling them. I do want to be very clear in this committee of the whole House—because it has been misrepresented on many occasions—that nobody is sanctioned if they can’t find a job. The sanction regime, which is the same graduated sanction regime that was in place under the previous Government, is only used if they don’t fulfil their obligations. We have seen great success with the traffic lights. We do know that it’s about being clear about what the expectations are and an easy way to see if people are on-track or off-track, and less than 1 percent are at red, which really indicates that people are clear about their expectations and it’s working. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Joseph Mooney, as chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee. JOSEPH MOONEY (Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee) (17:13): Regs review? Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I rise to speak as the chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee to the annual reviews of the Ministry of Social Development for 2024 and 2025. It is the organisation that sits at the centre of our social support and employment system. The Ministry of Social Development has enormous reach. In 2024-25, it administered over $44 billion in non-departmental expenditure, with superannuation and core benefits accounting for the majority of that spend. While total departmental revenue fell by just over 8 percent, the ministry recorded a surplus and received a clean audit, with all major control environments rated as good, a positive improvement on the year prior. In employment, the committee spent significant time examining the Welfare that Works programme. Case management continues to be one of the ministry’s most effective tools, with around 70,000 clients now receiving this support, up from 60,000 the year prior. We heard clear evidence that targeted, intensive support works, particularly for younger New Zealanders, with nearly half of those completing community job coaching entering employment by the end of June 2025. The context is telling. At the same time, as of June 2025, more than 216,000 people remain in jobseeker support, with forecasters suggesting numbers will peak in 2026 before declining. The ministry was candid with us that the Government’s longer-term reduction targets are under pressure from current economic conditions, but we were encouraged by the fact that over 70,000 people moved from being on an employment benefit into work last year, which is more than 10,000 than the year before. We were also reassured by improvements in benefit entitlement accuracy, with performance lifting steadily over the year, although of course there’s always more work to do, particularly for supplementary payments and disability-related payments. This is an incredibly important agency to support vulnerable people, to support New Zealanders achieve their goals in life and, where possible, get into employment, and to assist those who fall off the tracks that our society has within a whole raft of different ways. I acknowledge that it has been a very challenging couple of years, and the ministry is performing a very important role, but we were encouraged by the reports that we received and heard as a committee. With that, I commend our report to the House. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:15): Thank you, Madam Chair, after the chairperson of our select committee showed up to work— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, I don’t— Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: —because he doesn’t want to get sanctioned. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, but I’m going to stop it right there. It’s not a fair comment. There was a change in time as I came in to take my role in the Chair and we moved the agenda slightly, and so it was not the chairperson’s fault that— Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Oh, OK—it was 5 o’clock on mine, so— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, it’s not your fault either, but I just think that that was an unfair comment. Hon Member: You didn’t check the email. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Sure—OK, Madam Chair. As I was just exploring with the Minister around the sanctions and the traffic light system, one of the things that I’m concerned about is that the evaluation only looks at exits, and not exits into work. How does she know that it’s not the case management system or job coaching that is actually achieving work exits and that it is nothing to do with the sanctions? Why did the review not include that? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:16): Let me talk about a couple of things. I think, going back to the question that the member asked prior to this, one of the other significant increases is in the investment in case management. There were 60,000 people in case management, and there are now 70,000. Case management is the most effective programme that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) funds and delivers, and it is the significant increase in the number of people in case management that is a strong correlation to what we are seeing in terms of work exits. The evaluation of the traffic light system that the member referred to isn’t within this annual review period. What I would instead draw her attention to is the evidence around sanctions, which shows it can result in more exits from benefit. That is 84.7 percent of people, and this is where the impact is. Where there is someone who moves from green into orange, 84.7 percent are resolved after they contact MSD. Part of that is then what support is available, are they accessing it, are they participating in their obligations, which might be contacting their case manager, it might be participating in training—those sorts of things. All of those together are the things that have a greater impact and that lead to greater work exits, and so, as the member would well know, it’s not one thing. It is a multitude of many services and supports that MSD provide that is contributing to those high work exit numbers, and in terms of the evaluation of the traffic lights system, that’s not in this year of review. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:18): I appreciate the Minister saying that the review isn’t in this period that we’re covering, but it is to review something that is in the period that we are covering, so I believe that the Minister can actually talk to what is from that review. The reason that I’m asking this question is because significant resources are being put into the sanctions and obligations, and I want to know why the review is looking only at exits and not exits into work, and how do we know that the sanctions and the traffic light system are worth the amount of money that the Minister is spending on that? There is also the significant impact that it has on some of our most vulnerable people. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (17:19): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to raise an issue that relates to people having their benefits cut or prevented from accessing a benefit because they’re deemed to be in a relationship in the nature of marriage. We know that disabled people are particularly hard hit by this policy. In previous annual review debates, the Minister noted that this is just the longstanding policy, but I’m interested in knowing whether the Minister supports the policy altogether that has been used in the period we’re reviewing. That’s my first question. My second question relates to the number of people with a client integrity service case completed from 1 July to 30 June in the year that we are reviewing. We have seen the breakdown by ethnicity, and I am particularly concerned that as MSD moves from early intervention to investigation, once you move to investigation, the ethnic disparity over who’s more likely to be investigated turns to a really concerning figure, which is that Māori are more likely to be investigated once they move towards those more kind of heavy-handed interventions that could result in prosecutions, could result in prison time, and could result in tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of debt. My second question is: why are Māori more likely to be investigated for things like welfare fraud than their counterparts when that is not the case for early intervention and facilitation processes which do not show that Māori are disproportionately targeted by these less burdensome and consequential interventions, like I said? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:21): I want to clarify the question the member’s asking. Are you asking specifically in question two in relationship to the relationship rules, or is it a much broader question? If you could just clarify, please. Thank you. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (17:21): The reason why I raised the relationship rules is because historically we know that most investigations, or the largest reason for investigations, is to do with someone’s relationship status. I accept that there may be other reasons, but that has been the largest reason historically. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:21): I thank the member for his question. In terms of the relationship rules, they are longstanding rules, and they are in place because an underpinning principle of the welfare system is that it’s based on a household rather than an individual. I know that there are some people who disagree with it and believe that support should be based on each individual. There is no view to changing a longstanding principle of the Social Security Act. Moving on to the member’s second part of the question, I don’t have that detail in front of me in terms of the disproportionate number that he is suggesting are being investigated. What we do know is, unfortunately, Māori have a disproportionate number of people receiving benefit and then, further down the track, in interventions or, in this case, in investigations. It does then lead to that there’s a higher proportion that are also being investigated. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (17:22): I’ve got the figures in front of me. For example—I’ll just compare Māori with European, for example, in this case—for early intervention, it’s 636— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just wondering, could the member come a little bit closer to the microphone, and if I could just ask the people on my right just to—we’re getting a few conversations going on, and I think the Minister and I are probably struggling to hear some of what you’re asking. Thank you. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: No worries. Thank you. For early intervention it is 636 Māori versus 996 European; for facilitation, it’s 1,150 Māori versus 2,487 European. But for investigation, there are more Māori: 861 versus 828. What this tells us is that the more heavy-handed approaches tend to be used against Māori in a more frequent way than for European counterparts, compared to the early intervention facilitation which do not risk, for example, someone being prosecuted. With those figures in front of the Minister, does she have any concerns that there’s disparities along ethnic lines for the more heavy-handed approaches that MSD can take? Moving on to another topic—so I’d really be keen to just, now that I’ve provided the figures, get the Minister’s view on this—does the Minister have concerns that the rate of declines for hardship assistance for food has increased at a time where the cost of living crisis has been skyrocketing? What does she think that the increase in the decline rates shows, and what are the impacts down the line for families that are missing out on basic essentials such as food? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:24): Thank you for bringing to the attention of the committee those statistics around early intervention and investigations. I’ll go away and have a look at that in more detail. In terms of the hardship declines, there obviously have been changes around emergency housing, and my colleagues spoke to those last night, so I won’t cover that in my comments today. There have been no policy changes around the hardship grants. That’s the first thing I want to say. In terms of the numbers that are granted, they are very in line with previous years, which is what you’d anticipate. In terms of the number of declines, there is greater clarity around what the policy is. Some of the rules were relaxed during the COVID years, and they were just put back in place now that we’re well out of the COVID years, but there has been no policy change. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (17:25): Thank you so much, Madam Chair. The rules around the use of discretion have not changed, even within the previous Government. It was just the amount that people could access before they had to show exceptional circumstances, which takes me back to the question of: what does she attribute to the increase in the rate of decline for hardship assistance for food over the period that we have seen? Is that a matter of having a culture problem in the front-line Work and Income offices? Is it just that people do not need assistance for food, which doesn’t seem to be the case, because every bit of feedback from stakeholder tells us that people out there are needing assistance for food more and more due to the cost of living crisis that we’re experiencing. I’m interested in knowing what, if anything, the Minister can attribute this increase in the rate of decline for assistance for basic stuff like food to? I’m not talking about emergency housing; I’m very narrowly talking about assistance for things like food and toiletries and other essentials that can be provided through those hardship grants. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:26): Madam Chair, thank you. I do believe I answered that in terms of there’s been no policy change. But some other settings—for example, approval by a manager—were taken out during the COVID years and put back in when the COVID period ended, which is the period in which our Government has been in place. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:26): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in terms of that, though, can the Minister outline to us—because we’ve seen the declines in food grants, for example; the emergency food grant applications rose by 60 percent between 2023 and 2025, and demand is increasing. Why is the rate of declines rising? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:27): I’ll say it one more time: there has been no policy change. It is operational guidelines that MSD follow, and I’ve explained the difference between the COVID settings and what we have now. We have granted a similar level of food grants—1,288,773—which is very in line with the year prior. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK—Willow-Jean Prime. I will say that I have heard the Minister answer that question on three occasions. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:28): Ah, yes, she said the number is similar, except for the demand has gone up and the number of declines has gone up by 60 percent. How does she explain that? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I believe she has—Ricardo Menéndez March. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (17:28): Thank you. I wanted to go back to the relationship roles and particularly the cancellation of benefits due to them. Has the Minister seen reports or accounts from people on the benefit that people who may have flatmates who they may have just been cohabitating with have been deemed to be in a relationship in the nature of marriage—particularly with disabled people who may just be cohabitating with really close friends? If so, if she has heard those accounts, including from organisations who have long called these policies “outdated” and not reflecting our modern-day life, does she not have any concerns whatsoever around how this policy is applied, particularly for disabled people? There are some examples where disabled people on the Supported Living Payment completely lose access to their benefit and are made to be fully financially dependent on whoever MSD seems to be their partner, even if they are not. When we talk about “partner”, MSD defines it as “a relationship in the nature of marriage”, but that seems like quite a very, very specific thing to be trying to define when we know in practice people get their benefit cut just because they may have gone on a few dates. If she has not seen any accounts, how does she know that the policy is fit for purpose? Or has she seen accounts from beneficiaries and organisations such as Child Poverty Action Group, who have long called for these rules to be overhauled? That is destroying people’s lives—particularly disabled people who are made to be financially dependent—through no fault of their own or decision of their own but on whoever MSD decides that their partner is. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:29): Madam Chair, I’ve been warned by the whips that I need to keep my comments short. I have already answered the question in terms of the policy. I accept that not everybody agrees with it, but it is a longstanding principle of the Social Security Act. ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (17:30): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Over the 2024-25 financial year, homelessness has spiked. The Salvation Army State of the Nation Report showed more than half of the 112,000 or so homeless people in Aotearoa are aged under 25. Homelessness in my electorate of Tāmaki Makaurau has more than doubled in the time, to almost 1,000. My question— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ve just been advised by the Minister for Social Development and Employment that homelessness is actually not part of her portfolio, so perhaps— ORIINI KAIPARA: Let me state this: my question centres on rangatahi or youth homelessness, which does fall under the social development and employment portfolio. During the period in review, 54,612 benefit sanctions were made. What impact has that had on rangatahi homelessness and homelessness in general in Tāmaki Makaurau and across Aotearoa? The second question is: how has the Minister’s decision to impose financial sanctions instead of non-financial sanctions improved rangatahi homelessness or homelessness in general? Thirdly, what specific measures has the Minister championed to ensure rangatahi who are either at risk of or experiencing homelessness receive rangatahi-specific housing support and wraparound care? How many care-experienced rangatahi have become homeless or transient within 12 months of leaving care in the past five years? There are five questions specifically under that portfolio that I put to the Minister. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:31): The issues related to housing, social housing, homelessness were covered in the annual review debate last night with Minister Potaka, so I won’t be covering that. In terms of the question around the use of financial sanctions versus non-financial sanctions, in the year in review, the non-financial sanctions hadn’t been implemented. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (17:32): Thank you, Madam Chair. Going to non-financial sanctions, what does she make of the fact that out of the total sanctions that have been applied, non-financial sanctions, to my understanding, make less than 0.5 percent of total sanctions? A significant amount of money has been spent in updating the Ministry of Social Development’s system so that these sanctions could actually be used, but it seems like they’re not being used altogether, basically. Does she accept that this could lead to, or be seen as, a failure or a policy failure, or, if not, how does she explain the fact that basically no one is able to be placed in community work experience or money management? On the money management side of things, is it because, basically, the way that the policy’s designed means that almost everyone, or at least the average beneficiary, would be left without being able to afford their home if they’re put on money management? On community work experience, would it be the case that front-line organisations just simply do not want to take people in, because the benefit sanction’s unworkable? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:33): The policy for non-financial sanctions had only just commenced with two of the sections, and there are conditions around when they can be applied, for clients who are either in case management or who have dependent children and it’s their first obligation failure. What I do want to just put on the record of the House is that financial sanctions were very much a direct response to concerns raised when there were children in benefit-dependent households where a financial sanction was imposed. What we wanted to do was come up with a range of non-financial sanctions for that set of criteria. For the period which we are reviewing, the non-financial sanctions were very early, and it’s too early to be able to assess their use. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:34): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have a series of questions in and around job losses. We know that there are 32,000 fewer jobs under this Government, and so I had a couple of questions for the Minister for Social Development and Employment. You’ll be familiar in your own area, in Taupō, that around the areas of Tokoroa, there have been significant job losses over the past year to 18 months. Kinleith Mill lost 150 jobs, Kinleith plywood 119, and Winstone Pulp’s Ruapehu mills—230 there. At the very same time, we’ve seen these job losses and closures. You would think that for a Government that says they want to create the conditions for jobs and they’re going for growth and things like “the economy is stronger when more people are working”, if these closures are happening, it would’ve been the right time to increase ability for people to take up training, take up opportunities, and retrain in areas where they might need to. She’ll be aware that Toi Ohomai in Tokoroa had 60 job losses in and around the same time that we’ve seen three closures of wood manufacturing. I’d like to ask the Minister, first of all: how is she creating the conditions for jobs and going for growth when there is a simultaneous kick in the guts for working people who are losing their jobs and losing access to retraining? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:35): I will keep my comments in terms of the scope of the portfolio, which is around the redeployment support service, and give two examples. One was the Smithfield Alliance in Timaru, with about 700 affected workers, and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) worked very closely on the ground with those workers. The example that the member gave in Tokoroa, project phoenix, was stood up as a combination of work across Government agencies, council, and Toi Ohomai to work really closely with affected workers, and I’m really proud of what MSD have done on the ground. I know it’s a really challenging situation when a business makes the decision to close, but MSD have been on the ground early, supporting those workers. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:36): Thank you very much. Does she think it was the right use of Government money to be giving a significant amount, undisclosed, for, for example, Robbie Williams to come to Auckland when people in her own electorate aren’t being given adequate support by the Ministry of Social Development to be able to retrain and to get the support, and those on the ground unemployed are not receiving adequate support? Is that the right choice for this Government? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): In as much as it relates to this portfolio. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. There are other areas that have been impacted by job losses. We’ve got Northland, Hawke’s Bay, Taranaki, and also Nelson-Tasman, which have all sustained significant job losses. There seems to be no plan in place apart from a target for the Ministry of Social Development to have people off the jobseeker benefit. What is the plan for regional New Zealand to be creating the conditions for jobs and going for growth when we have seen record levels of people laid off? And, I’m sorry, but if the Minister is going to tell the committee today that fast track is the solution for Northland, Hawke’s Bay, Taranaki, Tasman, and Southland people who are now unemployed, the people out there find that answer to be unsatisfactory. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:37): As I said in my answer to the previous question, it is incredibly challenging when a business makes the decision to close. I’ve given two examples of the support that the Ministry of Social Development has provided in the year in review, and I’m not going to speak outside that time frame. ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (17:38): Did the ministry receive any direction in 2024-25 to shift away from equity-focused or Tiriti-based approaches? If so, who made that decision, and how was it justified? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:38): No. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:38): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just going back to the questions around food insecurity and the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s answers, what I want to know is: what is she doing to make sure that people actually have enough food? No? I also understand that an evaluation was undertaken of the Food Secure Communities programme, which was conducted last year. Can the Minister tell us when this report will be released publicly? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Minister says it’s outside the year in review. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: It was undertaken last year. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:39): I’m not going to comment on things that are outside the year in review, and as the whips have warned me, I’ve got to keep my comments short. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:39): The review was undertaken last year, which is the year in review. When will it be publicly released? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I think the Minister’s answered that question, so I suggest, given the Minister’s short of time—and it is a House constraint, not the Minister’s choice—I would say just ask as many questions as you have, and we’ll try and get the answers as collective as possible. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Yeah, just trying to get answers, but clearly not getting any in terms of that. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, the Minister gave you an answer. She said that last question was out of her scope. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: But it was undertaken last year, which is— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m not arguing with you; I’m just saying you’ve received an answer. You don’t have to like the answer. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Sure. Going back to the non-financial sanctions, and, again, the Minister for Social Development and Employment made the point that they were not in use, I think, in the review period. Again, this is a review of things that have been undertaken within the annual review period—sorry, we’re talking about our review and the annual review period. In terms of the non-financial sanctions, what I’m concerned about is if they had not come into effect and the policy wasn’t being implemented, does that mean that there have been people who should have been eligible for the non-financial sanctions who have actually received a financial penalty instead? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:40): During the year in review, there were 69 non-financial sanctions that were applied, and it was not throughout the entire year of the financial review. ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (17:40): The annual report confirms persistent disparities for Māori clients. What steps has the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) taking to strengthen their Māori initiatives to close this gap? What steps—I’ll continue on and ask all the questions, as you duly noted. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, that’s fine. ORIINI KAIPARA: What steps are Oranga Tamariki taking to reduce the overrepresentation of tamariki Māori in State care and in youth justice facilities, following Dame Karen Poutasi’s review of the children’s system—are you going to stop me? No. What concrete changes were implemented during 2024 and 2025, and what is the funded implementation timeline going forward? Does the Minister accept that rising hardship demands signals a failure of policy settings, and not just service delivery? Lastly, why should whānau who are struggling right now have confidence that MSD is meeting its purpose when hardship indicators continue to worsen? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:41): I’m interested to know from the Minister what her plan is for creating the conditions for jobs in the Hawke’s Bay. I recently attended a public meeting there where employees, growers, and also local representatives were there, discussing the closure of Wattie’s— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That is outside the scope of the financial year that we are discussing. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: What, the job closures—the closures, or the impacts on the community? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’re discussing the annual review for a specific time, and the questions that you’re asking— Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: —and current as well, I believe. It’s current and— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, only if they extrapolate out from what has been discussed in the report. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: OK, I’ll remove those questions about the closures. If the Government doesn’t want to talk about recent closures, that’s fine. What is the Minister’s plan for the Hawke’s Bay for creating the conditions for jobs in that area, which has had increasing unemployment over the past year? One of the issues that I’m aware of is that there is a lack of job opportunities there now, and there’s also been a lack of a Government response in that space. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:43): I will say again that this is the annual review for the financial review from the 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025, and so that is the year which we are considering. I’ve given specific examples of how the MSD redeployment team works, and if the member wanted to ask questions of the Minister for Economic Growth around our growth plan and “Going for Growth”, then that would be the appropriate place to ask those questions. But I would just say again that every single person that our Government supports to exit the benefit into work is a victory. It’s a win for that individual, their whānau, and the community, and that’s what I’ll continue to focus on. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:43): I’m interested to pick up on an issue that we covered over the last year—and at the last select committee, as well—in the Hutt Valley in terms of youth employment. There has been a recent termination of a contract. Yes, they still get He Poutama Rangatahi funding, but we’ve got a local youth provider, which the Minister is aware of, that has not received funding and that is now unable to help young people in the Hutt Valley to retrain. What steps is she taking to make sure that there are opportunities available for young people who need to get the additional support? I understand there has been another contract awarded. I don’t know if that’s public or not yet. I was told last time I asked that it wasn’t public and it wasn’t able to be told, but I’m aware that the new contract has gone to a provider that works with people that are far quicker to place. They don’t need the extra assistance, time, or the extra effort in place to help them, whereas the original contract actually helped harder-to-reach individuals. So I’m interested to know what the Minister has been advised. Was she aware of it simply going for low-hanging fruit for job placements, instead of helping harder-to-reach rangatahi who need extra assistance? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:45): Thank you, Madam Chair. In addition to those questions, I’m quite interested in how many young people who received job coaching have found employment—what percentage—and how long they have stayed in employment. What programmes has the Minister engaged with to achieve the 1,600 places that regional providers have had for people aged between 18 to 24 who are on jobseeker support? Some questions around the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs: I want to know if there has been any change to the funding and criteria. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:45): In terms of the question around job coaching, 45 percent of those participating in phase 1 have so far achieved employment outcomes. In terms of the questions around Youth Inspire, a fair and partial procurement process was undertaken by the ministry. To the member Oriini Kaipara’s questions. The questions you asked around Dame Karen Poutasi and Oranga Tamariki are outside the scope of the Ministry of Social Development. ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (17:46): How is the ministry continuing to measure the effectiveness of Te Pae Tata, a Māori strategy and action plan, in improving employment for Māori? One final question from me: how would the ministry address the concerns from the whaikaha community, or the disabled community, about potential service delivery issues, particularly for whaikaha who are Māori—for the Māori disabled community? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:46): Thank you, Madam Chair. There is another appropriation that I’d like to ask the Minister questions about—and it’s a different line of questioning to the ones we’ve covered—particularly around the historical claims appropriation. The Ministry of Social Development received an appropriation of $81.87 million in Budget 2024, which the Minister told us was to speed up the process for claimants with a lodged claim. I’d like to ask the Minister what this funding was actually spent on and if it is having an impact. Were more staff employed or were processes improved, and, if so, how? Are times to closure starting to reduce? Finally, is there a target or a maximum time cap in which these claims processes that she would like to see are to be received? I can see the Minister is just processing those questions, and so I’d like to give her the opportunity to do that. Again, we have asked some written questions around this and we know that the average time is about four to five years, and so with that appropriation, I’m interested to understand what the Minister is seeing from that: whether they’ve employed more staff, whether the times are reducing, and what the target is in terms of that and what the maximum time cap is. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:48): The appropriation was to increase the speed and also look at improvements to the process. One of the challenges is at the same time we were doing that work, of course there’s been a lot more awareness about the claims process, and so we’ve also seen a significant increase in the number of claims coming in. I’m happy to provide more data to the member on that because I know it is a topic of interest, but I don’t have those figures with me right now. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:48): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate that the Minister can’t comment on specific operational issues such as tenders for the Youth Inspire, and so I thank you for the information. But I’m interested to know, generally speaking, whether the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) collects information on provider rejection rates of clients from MSD that they have declined to work with. For example, if there’s a provider who’s got a contract and someone has being referred to them, and then that contractor is declining to work with that individual for whatever reason, does MSD collect that data, and, if not, why not? Is she aware that contracts have been awarded to providers that regularly reject referrals from MSD, and what is the point of the contract if they’re rejecting people who need that service? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:50): Thank you, Madam Chair. Different topic to that of which my colleague is asking about, in particular it’s the housing supports including boarders’ contributions. Now, I understand that this is just coming into effect now in 2026, but my questions are around the advice that the Minister received, which will fall within the review period. So what advice did the Minister receive regarding how this change might contribute to homelessness? I’ve had correspondence from some people who this change affects and they say that they will have to evict their boarders, who themselves are struggling to get by and may end up in worse situations because of the interactions that it will have for them. What advice did the Minister receive regarding how the reductions in the accommodation support that people hosting boarders will experience may lead to increase in demand and other forms of income support? And given the cost of living crisis that we have and worsening under this Government with the fuel price rises, has she considered delaying the implementation of this change? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:51): So the policy has come into effect in March of this year, and the policy was set in the year in review. It was based on the principle of fairness where every contribution from a boarder should be taken into consideration in terms of the support that somebody receives, and the first two shouldn’t be excluded. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:51): My last question was: given the cost of living crisis that we know we have at this point in time, and is being worsened by the fuel crisis, has the Minister considered any changes to this policy? I just want to ask one more on that boarders contribution. So the question around what advice did the Minister receive about it impacting on accommodation support and demands for other income support, therefore, potentially cancelling any savings that is being planned by this budget initiative? The Minister didn’t speak to that. Could she please answer that question? No? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, the Minister’s got no more time available to answer questions, other than yes or no. So if you can maybe hone it in a little bit for the last—just before the dinner break. We have two minutes left. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Two minutes left. Do I have two minutes left on my side? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): If you can come up with some very quick questions that get a nod or a— Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Oh, I don’t have two minutes left either. So are we just going to sit here and— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You don’t have two minutes left either. Well, then, if nobody’s got any minutes left, I think it’s probably—I’ll just check with the Clerk. Yeah, if I seek leave of the committee to suspend for the dinner break and—I seek leave. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. In which case, it’s time for me to leave the chair for the dinner break. Thank you. Sitting suspended from 5.53 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.