Check Your Vote All bills

Parliament bill

Appropriation (2024/25 Confirmation and Validation) Bill

Royal assent

Last checked
July 15, 2026 15:49
Source captured
July 15, 2026 15:49
Source
View on Parliament.nz

What this bill does

The bill passed its third reading 68–53; the vote was not unanimous. Public money was spent or committed outside, or above, Parliament’s existing appropriations, requiring parliamentary confirmation or validation. To confirm authorised adjustments and overspending for 2024/25, and validate unappropriated spending for 2024/25 and specified 2023/24 capital spending. The bill confirms transfers between output appropriations and Minister-approved overspending within existing appropriations. It also gives legal validation to listed departments’ expenses and capital expenditure that exceeded appropriations or lacked appropriation or other legal authority.

AI-assisted summary based on the bill text and linked Hansard debates.

Latest voting result

April 22, 2026
Third reading: Passed Party vote

Ayes 68 · Noes 53

  • National Party Aye · 49 votes
  • ACT Party Aye · 11 votes
  • NZ First Party Aye · 8 votes
  • Labour Party No · 34 votes
  • Green Party No · 13 votes
  • Te Pāti Māori No · 5 votes
  • Ferris, Tākuta No

View the vote in Hansard

Arguments raised in Parliament

AI-assisted summary of the linked Hansard debates. Each point is grounded in the cited transcript.

Arguments for

The Government argues that creating a strategic coal reserve will give New Zealand’s energy sector dry-year cover, helping secure affordable energy for households and businesses.

The Government argues that expanding MSD case management will move more jobseekers into work, improving independence for beneficiaries and their whānau.

The Government argues that Resource Management Act reform will reduce consent and compliance costs, enabling faster infrastructure, housing, renewable-energy, and farm development.

The Government argues that moving Pacific employment support into the general MSD programme will avoid duplicate delivery structures while retaining support for Pacific jobseekers.

Arguments against

Opponents argue that funding the benefit-sanctions and traffic-light system is unjustified unless MSD shows that it moves vulnerable beneficiaries specifically into employment rather than merely off benefits.

Nuance and qualifications

The LNG dispute turns on supply security as well as price: the Government says New Zealand lacks sufficient gas molecules for industry and dry-year electricity, making LNG the only feasible short-term option.

MSD accepts that work exits cannot be credited to sanctions alone, because case management, training, and other services jointly affect beneficiaries’ employment outcomes.

Bill text

Appropriation (2024/25 Confirmation and Validation) Bill

Version published March 05, 2026 00:00.

Appropriation (2024/25 Confirmation and Validation) Bill EXPLANATORY NOTE GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT It is a basic constitutional principle that the Government can spend public money and incur expenses and capital expenditure only in accordance with appropriations made by an Act of Parliament and in an otherwise lawful manner. However, Parliament has, in the Public Finance Act 1989 (the Act ), conferred limited authority on the Governor-General to vary, by Order in Council, appropriations made by Parliament and on the Minister of Finance to approve expenditure in excess of an existing appropriation by Parliament. Any other unappropriated expenditure must be validated by an Appropriation Act. Section 26A of the Act authorises the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to direct that an amount appropriated for an output expense appropriation in a Vote be transferred to another output expense appropriation in that Vote. There are 3 restrictions. First, the transfer must not increase that appropriation for the financial year by more than 5%. Second, there must not have been any other transfer under section 26A of the Act to that appropriation during the financial year. Third, the total …
Read full bill text
Appropriation (2024/25 Confirmation and Validation) Bill EXPLANATORY NOTE GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT It is a basic constitutional principle that the Government can spend public money and incur expenses and capital expenditure only in accordance with appropriations made by an Act of Parliament and in an otherwise lawful manner. However, Parliament has, in the Public Finance Act 1989 (the Act ), conferred limited authority on the Governor-General to vary, by Order in Council, appropriations made by Parliament and on the Minister of Finance to approve expenditure in excess of an existing appropriation by Parliament. Any other unappropriated expenditure must be validated by an Appropriation Act. Section 26A of the Act authorises the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to direct that an amount appropriated for an output expense appropriation in a Vote be transferred to another output expense appropriation in that Vote. There are 3 restrictions. First, the transfer must not increase that appropriation for the financial year by more than 5%. Second, there must not have been any other transfer under section 26A of the Act to that appropriation during the financial year. Third, the total amount appropriated for all output expense appropriations for that Vote for the financial year must remain unaltered. A clause that confirms those Orders in Council must be included in an Appropriation Bill that applies to that financial year. This Bill confirms the Public Finance (Transfers Between Outputs) Order 2025, which was made under section 26A of the Act ( clause 5 ). Section 4 of the Act prohibits the incurring of expenses or capital expenditure, except as expressly authorised by an appropriation, or other authority, by or under an Act. Sections 8 and 9 of the Act require appropriations to be limited to a specified amount and limited to the scope of the appropriation. Section 26B of the Act authorises the Minister of Finance to approve the incurring of expenses or capital expenditure in the last 3 months of the financial year in excess, but within the scope, of an existing appropriation by Parliament. This is subject to a limit that is the greater of $10,000 and 2% of the total amount appropriated for that appropriation by all Appropriation Acts for that financial year. The approval must be given not later than 3 months after the end of the financial year concerned. Expenses and capital expenditure incurred under the approval must be confirmed in an Appropriation Bill that applies to that financial year. This Bill confirms expenses and capital expenditure incurred for the 2024/25 financial year with the approval of the Minister of Finance under section 26B of the Act ( clause 6 ). Details of this confirmation are set out in Schedule 1 . Section 26C of the Act requires the incurring of expenses or capital expenditure without appropriation, or other authority, by or under an Act to be validated by an Act of Parliament. For the 2024/25 financial year, certain expenses and capital expenditure were incurred that require validation by this Bill in accordance with section 26C of the Act. Clause 7 validates these expenses and capital expenditure, the details of which are set out in Schedules 2 and 3 as follows: Schedule 2 contains details of expenses that were incurred in excess of existing appropriations: Schedule 3 contains details of expenses and capital expenditure that were incurred without appropriation or other authority (including expenses and capital expenditure incurred outside the scope of an existing appropriation and expenses and capital expenditure incurred without appropriation at all). This Bill also validates capital expenditure incurred in the 2023/24 financial year by the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment without appropriation, or other authority, by or under an Act. DEPARTMENTAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT A departmental disclosure statement is not required for this Bill. CLAUSE BY CLAUSE ANALYSIS Clause 1 is the Title clause. Clause 2 is the commencement clause. The Bill comes into force on the day after Royal assent. Clause 3 states the purpose of the Bill, which is to confirm and validate matters relating to the 2024/25 financial year and to validate a matter relating to the 2023/24 financial year. Clause 4 defines terms used in the Bill. Clause 5 confirms the Public Finance (Transfers Between Outputs) Order 2025. That order, which came into force on 30 June 2025, directed that fiscally neutral transfers be made decreasing the amounts appropriated for certain output expense appropriations and increasing the amounts appropriated for certain other output expense appropriations. Clause 6 confirms the incurring of expenses and capital expenditure for the 2024/25 financial year in excess, but within the scope, of existing appropriations in accordance with the approval of the Minister of Finance under section 26B of the Public Finance Act 1989. The expenses and capital expenditure confirmed by this clause are set out in Schedule 1 . Clause 7 validates, for the purposes of section 26C of the Public Finance Act 1989, the incurring of unappropriated expenses and capital expenditure by departments for the 2024/25 financial year. The expenses and capital expenditure validated by this clause are set out in Schedules 2 and 3 . Clause 8 validates the incurring of capital expenditure by the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment for the 2023/24 financial year without appropriation, or other authority, by or under an Act. The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows: 1 Title This Act is the Appropriation (2024/25 Confirmation and Validation) Act 2026 . 2 Commencement This Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent. 3 Purpose The purpose of this Act is to— a confirm and validate matters relating to the 2024/25 financial year; and b validate a matter relating to the 2023/24 financial year. 4 Interpretation In this Act,— 2023/24 financial year means the financial year ending with 30 June 2024 2024/25 financial year means the financial year ending with 30 June 2025. Terms or expressions used and not defined in this Act but defined in the Public Finance Act 1989 have, in this Act, the same meanings as in the Public Finance Act 1989. 5 Confirmation of Order in Council directing transfer of amounts between output expense appropriations The Public Finance (Transfers Between Outputs) Order 2025 is confirmed. 6 Confirmation of expenses and capital expenditure incurred in excess, but within scope, of existing appropriations and approved by Minister of Finance The incurring of expenses and capital expenditure approved by the Minister of Finance under section 26B of the Public Finance Act 1989 for the 2024/25 financial year and described in subsections (2) and (3) is confirmed. The expenses and capital expenditure are the expenses and capital expenditure incurred in excess, but within the scope, of the existing appropriations set out in column 3 of Schedule 1 . The amounts of the approved expenses and capital expenditure are shown in column 4 of Schedule 1 alongside the existing appropriation for which the approval was given. 7 Validation of unappropriated expenses and capital expenditure for 2024/25 financial year The incurring of expenses or capital expenditure by a department in the circumstances set out in subsection (2) or (3) is validated for the purposes of section 26C of the Public Finance Act 1989. The circumstances in this subsection are that, for the 2024/25 financial year, the department incurred expenses in excess of the existing appropriations set out in column 3 of Schedule 2 alongside that department. The circumstances in this subsection are that, for the 2024/25 financial year, the department incurred expenses or capital expenditure without appropriation, or other authority, by or under an Act against the categories of expenses or capital expenditure set out in column 3 of Schedule 3 alongside that department. In this section,— capital expenditure means the amount of capital expenditure set out in column 4 of Schedule 3 alongside the relevant department department means a department specified in column 1 of, as appropriate, Schedule 2 or 3 expenses means the amount of expenses set out in column 4 of, as appropriate, Schedule 2 or 3 alongside the relevant department. 8 Validation of unappropriated capital expenditure incurred by Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment for 2023/24 financial year The incurring of capital expenditure by the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment for Vote Business, Science and Innovation in the circumstances set out in subsection (2) is validated. The circumstances are that— a the amount of capital expenditure is, for the 2023/24 financial year, $5,602,000; and b the capital expenditure was incurred in relation to loans made to Hiringa Refuelling New Zealand Limited; and c the capital expenditure was incurred without appropriation, or other authority, by or under an Act. 1 Confirmation of expenses and capital expenditure incurred in excess, but within scope, of existing appropriations for 2024/25 financial year with approval of Minister of Finance The following table is small in size and has 4 columns. Column 1 is headed Administering department, column 2 is headed Vote, column 3 is headed Appropriation, and column 4 is headed Amount $(000). Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Administering department Vote Appropriation Amount $(000) Police, New Zealand Police Departmental Output Expenses Road Safety Programme 5,294 Social Development, Ministry of Social Development Non-Departmental Capital Expenditure Student Loans 21,296 2 Validation of expenses incurred in excess of existing appropriations for 2024/25 financial year The following table is small in size and has 4 columns. Column 1 is headed Administering department, column 2 is headed Vote, column 3 is headed Category of expenses or capital expenditure, and column 4 is headed Amount $(000). Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Administering department Vote Appropriation Amount $(000) Defence Force, New Zealand Defence Force Departmental Output Expenses Navy Capabilities Prepared for Joint Operations and Other Tasks 19,102 Non-Departmental Other Expenses Service Cost - Veterans’ Entitlements 1,451,000 Public Service Commission Public Service Multi-Category Lake Alice Unit Torture Redress Payments 5,358 Transport, Ministry of Transport Non-Departmental Other Expenses Transport Connectivity with Isolated Communities 0.406 3 Validation of expenses and capital expenditure incurred without appropriation or other authority for 2024/25 financial year The following table is small in size and has 4 columns. Column 1 is headed Administering department, column 2 is headed Vote, column 3 is headed Appropriation, and column 4 is headed Amount $(000). Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Administering department Vote Category of expenses or capital expenditure Amount $(000) Business, Innovation, and Employment, Ministry of Business, Science and Innovation Non-Departmental Capital Expenditure Energy: Investment in Infrastructure projects 1,353 Defence Force, New Zealand Defence Force Departmental Other Expenses Response to the sinking of the HMNZS Manawanui – ex gratia compensation 6,320 Justice, Ministry of Te Arawhiti Non-Departmental Other Expenses Stafford v Attorney-General Litigation Settlement Costs 2,400 Māori Development—Te Puni Kōkiri, Ministry of Māori Development Non-Departmental Other Expenses Stafford v Attorney-General Litigation Settlement 660,000 Public Service Commission Public Service Non-Departmental Output Expenses Lake Alice Unit Torture Redress Payments 19,560

Hansard

April 22, 2026

Appropriation (2024/25 Confirmation and Validation) Bill — Committee of the whole House—Annual Review Debate · Full day report

Committee of the whole House—Annual Review Debate Pacific Peoples JOSEPH MOONEY (Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee) (09:01): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and talofa. Mālō e lelei.Kia orana. Welcome. It’s great to rise as the chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee to make some brief comments on our report to the House on our annual review of the Ministry of Pacific Peoples for 2024/2025. In 2024/25, the ministry’s total revenue expenditure was essentially balanced, with revenue of $29.29 million and expenditure only $5,000 less. The ministry reported that changes to its personnel costs were mainly due to vacancies not being filled and ongoing reductions in overall staff to meet the Government’s savings expectations. The auditor rated the ministry’s financial information and supporting system and controls as good, with some improvements recommended. They did note that the ministry’s management control environment and its performance, information supporting system, and controls did need improvement and recommended that major improvements be made at the earliest reasonable opportunity. We did look at unemployment and economic developme…
Read full Hansard debate
Committee of the whole House—Annual Review Debate Pacific Peoples JOSEPH MOONEY (Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee) (09:01): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and talofa. Mālō e lelei.Kia orana. Welcome. It’s great to rise as the chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee to make some brief comments on our report to the House on our annual review of the Ministry of Pacific Peoples for 2024/2025. In 2024/25, the ministry’s total revenue expenditure was essentially balanced, with revenue of $29.29 million and expenditure only $5,000 less. The ministry reported that changes to its personnel costs were mainly due to vacancies not being filled and ongoing reductions in overall staff to meet the Government’s savings expectations. The auditor rated the ministry’s financial information and supporting system and controls as good, with some improvements recommended. They did note that the ministry’s management control environment and its performance, information supporting system, and controls did need improvement and recommended that major improvements be made at the earliest reasonable opportunity. We did look at unemployment and economic development and did note that the unemployment rate for Pacific peoples is 10.9 percent compared with the average rate of 5.2 percent across the entire population. The ministry told us that they continue to work closely with other agencies that have direct responsibility for areas that support Pacific peoples in the areas of unemployment and economic development. We heard that the savings that it had made were mostly in back-office functions and not in those crucial forward-facing roles. It said that it had invested $10 million towards economic growth each year through initiatives such as the Pacific Business Village, Tauola Business Fund, and the Pacific Business Trust. One of the ministry’s priorities in delivering for Pacific communities strategies 2025-2028 is a strengthened focus on data equity. The ministry works with other Government agencies in relation to Pacific data, advising what data is available, the quality of the data, and any related issues. I note that that is crucial for ensuring that the right information is in front of decision makers. We did look through other things, including artificial intelligence, Pacific diaspora, performance measures, staffing, and underspending, and those are available to members of the public who wish to look at it. So with that, I recommend our report to the House. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (09:03): Kia orana, Madam Speaker, and popongi manea to everybody. Warm Pacific greetings to the House, even though it’s cold outside. Let me start my questions with a bit of context around how many Pacific peoples, myself included, view the role of the Ministry of Pacific Peoples—in particular, Pacific peoples here within Aotearoa New Zealand and around the Pacific. The Pacific is the front yard and the back yard of Aotearoa New Zealand. You don’t go anywhere unless you fly over one of our Pacific Island nations and relatives, so that’s really important. We have a Treaty of Friendship with Samoa. It’s the only Treaty of Friendship that we have—a very, very important relationship. We have countries which are actually part of the New Zealand Realm—the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, along with the Ross shelf down in Antarctica—so that points to a very different type of relationship. We also have growing Pacific populations here within Aotearoa as well. There are more Cook Islanders here, more Niueans here. I think now there are more Tongans here within Aotearoa New Zealand, but I’ll let the Hon Jenny Salesa confirm that or deny that in terms of our Tongan population. But it does actually point to the importance of a place such as the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, because when people come and go from the Pacific, it’s just families connecting with families. The border is just this thing that we have to pass through in order to make those connections, and so that is the difference between this ministry and the others, because we need something here within Aotearoa New Zealand to make sure that we can recognise that aspect, which is very different and unique to other ethnicities, in my opinion. As a part of the review, we did cover a number of aspects. I did want to see where the Minister has landed with these, given that he’s only been in the role for five minutes, but he’s probably been very diligently going through all the different bits and papers and talking with his officials. One of the issues that came up was around the potential merger of the Ministry of Pacific Peoples, noting that that wasn’t going to happen. The Prime Minister himself did say that that wasn’t going to happen, but I do want to know whether that’s in the plans. It was something that has been considered. There was a considerable amount of media about it and a lot of angst and anxiety within Pacific communities themselves, so I want to know whether that is at all on the work programme, and if so, why, and if not, why not? So that’s a question I want the Minister to address, and if he could, if he agrees with the context which I laid out as well, to give us those answers within that context. In that report as well, we did talk about employment figures, unemployment figures as well. That was touched on by Joseph Mooney in his address. I want to know, what is the Minister planning on doing about Pacific unemployment? It is sharply rising. Our people are being impacted. What is the plan there? What didn’t work in the year that we have been reviewing, in the Minister’s opinion, and what will the Minister do to make sure that those unemployment figures are being resolved? What are the plans that are in place? Those are my initial questions. Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu) (09:07): Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Talofa lava. Mālō e lelei. Kia orana. Warm Pacific greetings to you all and especially to our Minister for Pacific Peoples. Before I go on further with my contribution this morning, can I just acknowledge the passing of Fata‘ali‘i Kamisi Sepuloni late last week. He was laid to rest earlier on this week on Monday—one of our community leaders and a very strong supporter of our party, but especially his daughter, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni. When a new Minister takes up a portfolio like Pacific Peoples, communities—our Pacific communities—are entitled to ask a very simple question: what are your priorities for Pacific people, Minister? Now, that question matters because priorities determine budgets, priorities determine staffing, programmes, initiatives, and political attention. They reveal whether Pacific peoples are indeed truly valued by the National-led Government or whether Pacific people are being treated as an afterthought. Can I at this time just remind all of us in this House that according to the census figures of 2023 projected forward to this year, there are over 500,000 Pacific people in Aotearoa New Zealand today. Just following up from my colleague Teanau Tuiono, there are more Tongans in Aotearoa today. There are between 110,000 and 112,000 Tongans here now, compared to 104,000 Tongans in Tonga. But in terms of our overall population of this country, 5.5 million, having half a million who are from the Pacific is a big and significant number. This is why the questions we’re asking of the Minister today are important. Pacific people face real pressures today. Right now, unemployment figures are high. Youth disengagement is also high today. Cost of living pressures are experienced by everyone in Aotearoa New Zealand, but more so—we would argue as Pacific MPs—experienced by Pacific people, because we have such low incomes coming in to our families. We also experience pressures on health and on education, and we also have concerns about the voice of Pacific people within Government. Yes, we have a voice as parliamentarians—there are six Pacific MPs right now in Parliament. Can I also just remind everyone, all of the six Pacific MPs are on this side of the House. There is no Pacific representation on the Government benches right now, which is why it’s even more important that we ensure what Teanau Tuiono spoke about, in terms of the voice of Pacific in Government agencies, remains. Yes, we have some words from the Government now that they will continue and not get rid of the Ministry for Pacific Peoples—a ministry that, by the way, has been fought for and advocated hard for by so many Pacific people over so many years. Can I just go back to the priorities, though: we have looked at what this Government has done, particularly to the Ministry for Pacific Peoples. When this Government came in, there was a direction that Government agencies cut staffing by 6.5 to 7.5 percent. But what did we see happen at the Ministry for Pacific Peoples? It was cut by 40 percent—four-zero. What is that about? My questions for the Minister are: what are your actual priorities, Minister, for Pacific people? What measurable outcomes is the Minster aiming to deliver over the next 12 months? Which Pacific communities and what issues will the Minister prioritise? Would it include youth unemployment? Business support? Language revitalisation? Health? Housing? Education? Anything else, possibly, the Minister could be thinking of? How can the Minister and this Government claim that Pacific people are a priority if, at the same time they might make that claim, they are cutting programmes and institutional capacity within the Ministry for Pacific Peoples to deliver on those priorities? These are not partisan concerns. These are legitimate questions of leadership we would like to ask the Minister to answer. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Pacific Peoples) (09:12): Talofa. Kia orana. Mālō e lelei. Bula vinaka, and warm Pacific greetings to all and to this House. Thank you very much for the opportunity to say a few words. I wanted to just listen to some of the concerns raised by my colleagues on the other side of the House before I started off. I was asked to focus first on our priorities. The priorities of this Government for Pasifika people are very clear and they’re the same as our priorities for the whole of New Zealand, which is to have a strong economy that can provide a good standard of living and provide jobs; that’s number one. We inherited some real challenges a couple of years ago with very high interest rates and high inflation, which was adding to the pressure on households, so our number one priority has been to reduce that inflation and those interest rates to help families have more money in their pockets. Then, of course, as we’re all conscious that we’re in a very topsy-turvy global climate, with fuel prices going up, so what this Government has done is put an extra $50 a week into the households of working families through the Working for Families system to help people. That will help many Pacific communities. So number one, we want people to be able to look after themselves and their families, in work, in a strong economy. Our second focus has been to help to ensure that there is a good quality education system that equips our children. If you live in Auckland, like I do, a significant percentage of the kids in our schools—I think 25 percent, comes to mind—are of Pasifika origin. Our future as a country—in Auckland, or across—depends on those children being equipped to succeed in a modern world. So the very simple basics of that are encouraging kids to be at school. Again, we inherited a real problem with very low levels of school attendance, particularly for Pasifika kids—I think around 50 percent attending regularly. We’ve had a real focus and priority to grow that percentage. The good news is we’ve made some progress there; up 5 percent—one of the fastest areas of growth. Still a terrible situation and a long, long way to go. So that’s number two. Thirdly, a good quality health system that provides for the health needs of the Pacific community. They are substantial; the Pasifika people across the board have worse outcomes in health, and that is why there is enormous amount of attention and focus here, and we can go into the details. Housing is another area where this Government, again—I don’t want to over politicise these things, but we’ve had the other side talking about tough conditions for people during the previous administration under Jacinda Ardern. In one year, house prices went up 30 percent—one year. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I just want to remind the Minister that we’re talking about a specific period in time, and anything related to that at this point in time. Thank you. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you very much, Chair. That’s a useful reminder. So that’s the broader context. I was asked about the priorities; I suppose the point is, where does the Vote and the Ministry for Pacific Peoples fit in this? Because in no way is the $58 million put aside in the Budget for the Ministry for Pacific Peoples the extent of the Government’s commitment to focus on Pacific peoples; it is one slice of that. As the Prime Minister has indicated this term, we’re not suggesting making changes to those arrangements. But what we have done—and the previous member referred to a reduction in numbers—is we don’t make the assumption that separate programmes and separate duplicated programmes on particular things run by the Ministry for Pacific Peoples is automatically the best way to get outcomes for Pasifika people. So in the area of programmes for young people who are not in education or school, across Government we have many programmes of varying effectiveness. The previous Government set up a separate programme within the Ministry for Pacific Peoples to do that again. Madam Chair, I might just go on a little bit longer if that’s all right? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s fine, yes. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Our approach is actually, well, why do you have a different group replicating a programme that is across Government, handled by the Ministry of Social Development? Why would you have two different situations. It’s better to have that within the overall Government programme, rather that separate it. That is one reason why we’ve rejigged things in this Government, and I think that makes absolute sense. Overall, of course, across the public sector we have made reductions in the number of people employed, because the previous administration very significantly increased the Public Service, and also very significantly increased our deficit. It is not sustainable for us, as a country, to carry on as we were because big deficits have extremely large debt and we have to manage things appropriately. Just a quick summary of the areas of the Pacific communities budget: $58 million was what we had in the Budget—$40 million of that was for housing and financial capability initiatives, including programmes such as Our Whare Our Fale housing supply initiative; there was $6 million for education, employment, and skills programmes, including Tupu Aotearoa and the Toloa Scholarships supporting Pasifika learners; $6 million for economic development and business support, including services delivered through the Pacific Business Trust—who I’m going to be meeting tomorrow; looking forward to that—enabling Pasifika businesses to scale and create jobs; and $6 million in community, language, and leadership initiatives, including Pacific languages and community programmes. Again, yes, we have that allocation through the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, but, wearing another one of my hats, for example arts and culture, there’s a very significant investment in Pacific music and arts and culture through Creative New Zealand and many other places. I remember handing an award to Diggy Dupé, a great Pasifika artist in Auckland at an awards ceremony a year or so ago. Right across Government, there’s an enormous amount of investment to encourage and support the Pacific communities. Why? Because, as has been outlined before, it’s a very significant part of our demography: half a million New Zealanders. We want them to do well. The Pacific communities bring so much to the complexity, the variety, and the diversity of our community’s workforce, our creative sector, and every element of our lives, and our basic priority, as the Government, is that we want all of those people, as well as all New Zealanders, to do well; to, fundamentally, be able to look after themselves and their families; to have the opportunity to contribute in meaningful work; and to also be able to contribute to our community and to do well. That’s by way of introduction. I’m happy to answer further questions. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (09:20): Kia orana, Madam Chair, and warm Pacific greetings to the Minister for Pacific Peoples and other members of the Whare. Actually, often when we hear the warm Pacific greetings salutation, it reminds me of Dame Luamanuvao Winnie Laban because, when she was the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs, she kind of started that phrase as part of her patter of rolling out the salutations, and so it’s great that the Minister and others have continued in that particular vein. The Minister has just responded on a few things that I want to put some questions to him on. He talked about the Government currently having a strong economy. I think that the experience of Pacific communities all around Aotearoa New Zealand would beg to differ with you, Minister. The economic state that they are experiencing in this country, which you and your Government are leading at the moment, is far from strong when they have to make decisions on a daily basis. Things are going in the opposite direction. Pacific unemployment is extremely high, and I have a number of questions about that that I intend to ask the Minister. The Minister has talked about the Government’s commitment to focus on Pacific peoples. My question to the Minister is: how many Pacific families have benefited from his Government’s announcement of a $250 payment per fortnight—just one Pacific family would be good, because that would make a huge, huge difference. Minister, you were talking about the Government’s focus—excellent. You’ve got this $250 a fortnight, and that would be welcomed by many, many families—particularly Pacific families—and so to hear about just one from him would be quite helpful. The Minister has also talked about Auckland and the large Pacific population in Auckland, and that’s true. There are other Pacific communities all around New Zealand, including in my community of Palmerston North. He has talked about having a good health system for our Pacific communities. My question to you, Minister, is: how can that be the case when we look at communities like Palmerston North, where our Pacific communities are finding it really difficult to get a colonoscopy because the wait times are extremely high and inadequate, where the gastro department is, basically, on shutdown, where the emergency department (ED) in our region has the worst stats in terms of waiting times for any ED in the country, and where a mental health facility that was invested in by the previous Government took quite some time to open? How are these decisions and these circumstances making a real difference for Pacific communities all around the country? I won’t go into housing and about selling off all the land. How can Pacific communities be housed if all the homes that were supposed to be built have been cancelled and all the land is up for sale—that barren land that many people see around the place? Those are my questions in response to the Minister. Pacific unemployment: now, we are experiencing in this country the highest levels of unemployment in a decade, so when the Minister says that this is a strong economy and that this is a Government that is focused on delivering for the needs of Pacific communities, how can he defend the fact that Pacific unemployment rates in New Zealand are the highest they have been in many a year? Why, Minister, has the Government failed to arrest that trend over recent quarters? Despite the clear evidence of what is, I guess, severe regional disparity in terms of Pacific unemployment as well, the Government seems to continue to rely on fairly generic employment programmes, and so what is the Minister doing and what has he done? I appreciate that the Minister is new to this role, but what is the Government doing to focus on region-specific, Pacific-led initiatives to arrest the trend in terms of the high unemployment that the Pacific community are facing at the moment—and that is in the context of the fact of the disproportionate impact on Pacific communities. If we look at the figures, a lot of those job losses have historically been in service sectors, construction, and manufacturing, where huge numbers of our Pacific community rely on those sectors for employment opportunities. What is the Minister doing to alleviate that concern, because the trend is looking—well, it’s terrible at the moment, and it’s continuing to look pretty negative, as well. Those are just some questions around unemployment. The final one, obviously, is youth unemployment. That is of real concern for Pacific communities, and while Pacific young people continue to experience what are unacceptably high levels of unemployment—which runs the risk of long-term disengagement—what is his Government doing to arrest this clear state of inaction? TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (09:25): Thank you, Madam— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just a reminder that the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has got four minutes and 47 seconds— TEANAU TUIONO: I’ve got four minutes? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Four minutes and 47 seconds. TEANAU TUIONO: I’ll use those four minutes wisely, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. One of the things that we did talk about that I do want to acknowledge was the fact that there are 500,000 of us here in Aotearoa New Zealand, but those 500,000 are connected to the wider Pacific. I think it’s really important to remember that context, and the context that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples plays in helping the Government to navigate its way around cultural issues and community issues, as well, is incredibly important. I do want to acknowledge the work that the officials did on my member’s bill, the restoration of Samoan citizenship bill. It went through the House to third reading and actually got the full support of the House, and I acknowledge that we’ve actually got three members in the House who helped to move that through: Cameron Brewer, Tom Rutherford, and Jenny Salesa, who all worked very, very hard on that. The role that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples played in that—and I would like the Minister’s reflections on that—was in helping to provide that cultural capacity and helping to provide the ability to inform the Government on how to navigate those issues. As a Pacific person who was born here, and who is part of the Cook Island community and who has spent a lifetime going to Samoan events, I’m actually not Samoan, and so having expertise in the Ministry for Pacific Peoples was important to help to inform the Government—and of course, in this case, the Parliament—on how to best navigate those issues. It was something that the ministry did successfully, and so my question to the Minister for Pacific Peoples is: what is he doing about making sure that that capacity and that capability is bedded in to the Ministry for Pacific Peoples? I do hear the comments around “Actually, we can outsource it.” Well, I don’t know about that. I think that some things need to be foundational and some things need to be part of the core part of how the ministry functions, and so that’s one question that I would like the Minister to elaborate on. Also, I’d like some reflections from the Minister on the restoration of Samoan citizenship Act, as well. What is he aware of? We did talk about this briefly in our annual review, and so is he aware of the number of submissions that came through? How many people have been supported, and how many families have been supported, as well? I think that that would help to enlighten the committee and, indeed, the public that this House can actually get some stuff done and can work together. So my question here is around that cultural capacity and that skill set capacity, which I think needs to bedded in within the Ministry for Pacific Peoples: what is he doing to make sure that that is there? It is something that’s incredibly important—being able to offer advice to other Government departments, which also have to navigate issues with Pacific peoples. It is a complex area, so making sure that that expertise is in there is incredibly important. Now, I do want to come back to the issues around unemployment. As others have said: what is the Minister planning on doing about it? The numbers are not good. We have more of our people right across Aotearoa New Zealand getting on a plane and going to Australia. There is some work that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples has committed to. Given that fact, what is the Minister proposing to do? What is the Minister— Hon Paul Goldsmith: Do you want to leave me some time to answer? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You’ve still got some time. TEANAU TUIONO: —proposing to do within this particular space, as well? Thank you, Minister Goldsmith. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Pacific Peoples) (09:29): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I do note that the warm Pacific greetings that I had from the other side were followed by some pretty chilly comments soon after— Tangi Utikere: Trying to balance them. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes. Yes, of course, it’s blindingly obvious that we have relatively high levels of Pasifika unemployment at the moment, which is something that everybody in this Government is focused on reducing—because we’ve had one of the deepest recessions for New Zealand since the early 1990s. As I’m sure all Pasifika people, like all New Zealanders, recognise, there are big, long lags in the economy following events. The big event that we had was an over-stimulus during COVID, leading to high inflation, leading to high interest rates, leading to a recession. New Zealand is suffering the consequences of those decisions. How do we deal with it? It’s not a little, particular programme that’s going to fix it; what fixes unemployment is economic growth. And how do you get economic growth? Well, you get economic growth, fundamentally, from investment—somebody somewhere deciding they’re going to put some money into a new business, start something new, hire some new people, buy a new plant and equipment, and grow something so as to create jobs and wealth and opportunity. And how do you get that investment? Well, some very practical things, like what this Government did, which was change the tax laws so that businesses can expense those investments in new plant and equipment straight off and get the tax relief. Those are the simple things. Bringing in investment from overseas, having a predictable tax system where people feel confident to invest—some of those basics are what this Government is doing, and, over time, that will grow the economy. There were some comments made about the health system, and I just want to give a couple of stats which show you the difference between talk and an approach where folk think that success is based on what you spend rather than what you get out the other end. That is around immunisation rates. When National last left office, in 2017, 95.2 percent of Pasifika children were fully immunised at 24 months of age—95.2 percent. When Labour left office six years later, that had collapsed to 75 percent, so a whole 20 percent drop in six years—below herd immunity, below the levels of effectiveness that we needed to deal with diseases such as measles and a host of other diseases that cause real problems for health. You can talk about health, and you can talk about spending more money on health and more money on Pasifika programmes, but if the actual outcomes of what you achieve over six years is a catastrophic drop in immunisation rates, I think that’s a problem. What have we managed to do in two years? We’ve lifted it from 75 percent to 82.6 percent. We’re reversing the problem, but it’s not something that you can fix overnight. When we talk about fixing the basics and building the future in this country, one of the basics in health, for Pasifika people and for all New Zealanders, is getting that immunisation rate back up. When you take your eye off the ball and focus only on, “These are the programmes I’m going to do; this is the money I’m going to spend.”, but don’t focus on actually achieving things, then everybody suffers. I’m very proud of the progress we’re making so far. There’s still a lot more work to do. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just noting that there’s only six minutes left of the debate and the member has enough time, but the Minister’s got a few seconds left at the end that we’ll allow him to answer, unless ACT is generous and gives the Minister just a fraction of the time at the end. So, away you go. Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu) (09:34): Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and mālō e laumālie, Minister, and everyone in the House of Parliament. The Minister has just been talking about basic facts and statistics, so I’d like to begin with some statistics. The number of additional Pacific people who are now unemployed since this National-led Government came into office in December of 2023 is 13,000 people. The number of additional Pacific unemployed in Auckland, where the majority of Pacific people live, since the National-led Government came into office is 5,300. When we talk about basic things that are important to people, one of those things that are most important not just to Pacific people but to, I suspect, everyone in Aotearoa New Zealand is work—is employment. That is where I want to pick up this contribution, because I want to talk about a programme that we know works, and this is a programme that is still there at the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, but it has been really scaled back—it’s been cut a lot—which is the Tupu Aotearoa programme. The main question for the Minister is: why cut a programme like that, which was effective, the evidence shows that it works, and it assisted Pacific people actually to get employed—because for our Pacific people, especially our Pacific young people, employment support is not something that is a one-size-fits-all. What this Tupu Aotearoa programme did—actually, it was developed by Pacific people, for Pacific people, but, actually, with consulting with young people, consulting with leaders and community, consulting with employers and making sure that it is a programme that works on the ground. It also consulted with our families, our churches, and they found out what the actual barriers for Pacific people are and how we could ensure that we address those barriers so that our Pacific people can find a job and actually retain that job. This is why the programme Tupu Aotearoa matters: because it was built by Pacific, it was culturally grounded, and it provided comprehensive wraparound services around our Pacific people. It is not just a theory; this is an initiative that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples implemented, and we know it works. In fact, I read somewhere that they were able to place around about 1,300 people into jobs. We heard the Minister in his contribution before saying something along the lines of, “Separate programmes that are run in certain and different ways are not as effective, and the programmes that this Government is now investing in are what is effective or best for Pacific.” But I ask the Minister, is it really? Is cutting—and this is one of my questions, because we know from the annual reviews that $22 million was cut from the Tupu Aotearoa programme— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Two minutes of the debate left. Hon JENNY SALESA: My question, Minister, is: was that $22 million cut from the Tupu Aotearoa programme returned to the centre and invested in new employment programmes for Pacific, or was it returned to the centre and invested for everyone? This question is particularly important because Pacific have the highest unemployment rate in the country—12 percent. If, indeed, we are focused on ensuring that people actually find a job, get a job, and retain a job, this is an important question. The other question, Minister, is: why cut an initiative that was actually working? Can the Minister tell us what the reasons and justifications are for cutting this programme? Was there an impact assessment done? Was there any evidence that the programme was failing? Were providers consulted before the funding was cut? Were Pacific communities consulted before the decision was made to cut this initiative? We argue from this side of the House that cutting programmes like this that were effective is not strategic. It is not efficient. It is certainly not consistent with the claim that the Government is actually ensuring that they look out for Pacific people. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Pacific Peoples) (09:39): Of course, the member preferred to use all the time to speak rather than to listen. She was on broadcast rather than receive, and that’s fine. I’ve got 30 seconds left, and I would just make the point that a little bit of accountability and responsibility would be nice to hear from that member and that Government, because the reason why there has been an increase in Pasifika unemployment is purely and squarely at the hands of the previous administration that overcooked the stimulus, leading to inflation, leading to higher interest rates, leading to a recession in this country. If they can’t accept that, then I really think they’ve got a lot to learn. The reference to cuts in Tupu Aotearoa—cutting the programme—is incorrect. It is being transferred to the Ministry for Social Development (MSD). There have been some savings in that process, but the goal of delivering the fundamental programmes in the community continues. It’s just who’s best to manage that, and we think, rather than having separate management lines—well, I do need to get on to the next thing. It’s been a very useful discussion, but what I would say as we continue through this Pacific Peoples budget process—just a reminder of what are the four targets that we’re really focused on. One is in health: better delivering healthy housing interventions; second, Pasifika business growth: creating 200 new jobs every year through the particular role of the business trust; three, it’s in housing: collaborating to build affordable homes through the Pacific Building Affordable Homes Fund; and, fourthly, in employment and education: the placements such as through Tupu Aotearoa, which is being transferred to MSD, and also through the Toloa Scholarships. The good news is that, on all of those fronts, we’re making excellent progress. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The time for this debate has expired. The question is that the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Government for the 2024-25 financial year be noted. Motion agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question now is that the reports of the committees on annual reviews be noted. Motion agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That clauses 1 to 8 and Schedules 1 to 3 be agreed to. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 53 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris. Clauses 1 to 8 and Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to. Bill to be reported without amendment. House resumed. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Madam Speaker, the committee has further considered the Appropriation (2024/25 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to. Report adopted. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This bill is set down for third reading immediately. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—Labour) (09:44): Point of order. Sorry, we’re just a little bit confused on this side of the House; maybe we could seek some clarity. The Minister hasn’t moved anything. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Clarity on? Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: The moving of the bill. We’re just a little bit unsure about what was happening. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Clearly everyone is. We will sort it. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (09:44): Speaking to the point of order, the House is in an extended sitting, and in that circumstance, when, effectively, the Minister had a requirement to seek a call—in light of the fact that he did not seek a call after what was a significant period of time, the bill should be discharged. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh) (09:45): For clarification, the Minister had stood up when I got the point of order, but it’s not a Government Order of the Day—and I had called that the bill was set for third reading. It’s not like I’m introducing an order of the day. We are all good.

Documents and supporting material