Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Tāloha ni, Mr Speaker. I thank the member for the opportunity to mark five years of the Government securing better outcomes for New Zealanders. In that time, we have added 10,000 more public homes, accompanied by record high building consents and putting an end to overseas speculators rorting the property market. We’re better supporting primary mental health care services with 2.3 million people now covered through primary care providers. We’ve increased the number of nurses by nearly 20 percent; the number of doctors by over 20 percent. Mr Luxon, we’ve lifted 66,000 children out of poverty and served more than 63 million school lunches. We’ve employed 5,200 people through Mana in Mahi; 215,000 people have taken up free apprenticeships and trade training. We’ve kept New Zealanders safe over COVID while delivering low unemployment and an economy that is larger than pre-pandemic. We’ve also cushioned the effects of the global cost of living pressures by lowering petrol excise duty, introducing half-price public transport and the support we’ve given to low and middle income New Zealanders. All of that shows why it’s important to have a Government who has a well thought-through and costed plan, because the alternative of an uncosted, untested, and frankly dangerous set of proposals coming from the Opposition, like UK-style tax cuts for the wealthiest New Zealanders, would take New Zealand backwards.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Why did the Government scrap the target for shorter wait times in emergency departments?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The previous Government’s record on targets was appalling, because what they did was set targets across government that actually didn’t take New Zealanders forward. In the health system, I am extremely proud of a Government that has increased health funding by 43.5 percent since 2017, has increased Pharmac’s funding by 43 percent in that time, and has extended free and low-cost doctors visits to those under 14. We’ve also covered 2.5 million people through mental health sessions. We’ve continued to lift those in the workforce. We’ve continued to support all of those at the front line. But here’s the rub. The health system would have been under even more pressure if we’d followed the National Party’s advice and opened the borders up. That’s when the health system would really have felt the pressure.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Can he confirm that nearly one in four patients are now waiting longer than six hours to be seen at an emergency department (ED), up from just one in 10 when Labour took office?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The last winter in New Zealand has been one of the toughest for our health system. The National Party might want to believe that COVID never happened. The National Party might want to believe that we didn’t have our first flu season for two years. But the truth is the health system withstood a one-in-100-year pandemic, and I’m actually proud of our health professionals. I don’t want to run them down like that member.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Is he aware that in the six years before his Government took office, the proportion of ED patients seen within six hours was never less than 91 percent—a figure Labour hasn’t achieved throughout the seasons now for four straight years?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I am aware of is a health system that we inherited that was in a complete mess, with underfunding of mental health, underfunding of public health, and underfunding of primary care. That is actually what we inherited. We know that there is always more to do in our health system, but this Government can stand proudly on a record of funding that his party can’t.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Does he really think that, after five years in Government, Kiwis being denied healthcare because of dangerously short-staffed emergency departments are going to buy his desperate attempt to blame previous Governments for failures that are happening on his watch?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I know New Zealanders see when they go into the hospitals of New Zealand is a health workforce that works incredibly hard on their behalf. They see a health workforce that has increased, in terms of doctors and nurses, by 20 percent since we’ve been in office. They see a health workforce where we’re actually funding the building of health infrastructure instead of the National Party who had zero dollars for two consecutive years for health infrastructure. We know it takes long-term, sustained investment to build a health system, and that is what we’re doing.

💬 Christopher Luxon: What is his response to the letter from senior staff at the previous Bay of Plenty DHB that stated that people with bowel cancer are waiting so long for treatment it is too late to cure them?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Anybody who has to wait a significant amount of time for bowel cancer treatment is something that all of us should want to improve. I note that the letter covers concerns described as being 15 years of failing to plan for the health system. We have invested significantly in the area of bowel screening, with over $200 million over the last four Budgets for bowel screening. I can note for the member that when that letter was written in December 2021, 88 percent of patients in the Bay of Plenty DHB were receiving treatment for bowel cancer within a target of 31 days. By August 2022, 96 percent of patients are now receiving. We’re getting on top of the problems that member ignored.

💬 Christopher Luxon: What does he say to the families of people who have lost loved ones after they were denied access to lifesaving treatment due to the blow-out in wait-lists under this Government’s watch?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I’ve already said in answer to a previous supplementary question, this has been one of the most difficult winters New Zealand’s health system has ever had to face: illness amongst staff, the COVID pandemic, flu breaking out all over New Zealand. What we’ve done is make sure that we’ve continued to invest. We keep working with all of the health authorities around New Zealand, not washing our hands, not underfunding like his Government did.

💬 Christopher Luxon: Is he embarrassed that nurses in New Zealand are now reporting that they’re fearful of working in our overloaded emergency departments?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again, I repeat what I said. We appreciate the work that our dedicated health professionals do. I’ll tell you what we’re doing about it, Mr Luxon—we’re paying them properly. We’ve lifted the pay by 20 percent, whereas under that party, it flat-lined. We’re making sure there’s more doctors and more nurses in our hospitals: 20 percent more doctors, 20 percent more nurses.

💬 Christopher Luxon: What possible reason could the Government have for still refusing to offer overseas nurses immediate residency to come to New Zealand?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government’s residency offer for nurses compares well to countries overseas. We’ve seen around 400 overseas nurses become registered in New Zealand since July. We have about 500 nurses’ visa applications. We’re working hard to make sure that the workforce we need is there.

💬 David Seymour: Can the Acting Prime Minister imagine anything his Government could do to make it easier for nurses to immigrate to New Zealand, and if he can imagine such a thing, when will he do it?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in answer to the previous question, the Government has got competitive offer when it comes to nurses coming to work in New Zealand compared to the rest of the world. We have a large number of visa applications, and we’re processing them as quickly as we can.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Acting Prime Minister believe New Zealand is a First World country when at least two people have died after being turned away from hospitals in the middle of our two largest cities this winter?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I am proud of the way that New Zealand and New Zealanders found their way through a COVID pandemic that killed tens of thousands of people in every other country—or other large countries—around the world. What we did is protect New Zealanders’ lives and livelihoods. In our health system, we have dedicated professionals who work hard. The member might have all the detail and all the information on those cases; I suggest he carefully works his way through and lets the investigations into them complete.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Minister accept that there’s a serious shortage of staff in our hospitals, with frequent reports such as this from an Auckland doctor, “Four nurses from our department have resigned in the last two weeks, one interventional room now closed as it can’t be staffed. It just goes on.”, and if he does accept that there is a serious shortage of staff in our hospitals, can he tell the House and the people of New Zealand why?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Our health system has been under enormous pressure this winter because of COVID, because of staffing shortages, some of which are a result of COVID, some of which are a result of the fact that, yes, our borders were shut. We covered in the House yesterday why that was an important thing for us to do. I repeat: there has been a 20 percent increase in the number of nurses in our hospitals under this Government’s watch. If we accepted the economic policies of the Opposition, including that member, there would not be enough money to pay for those nurses. There would not be enough money to employ those nurses. We know that’s true because it’s what happened the last time they were in Government.

💬 David Seymour: Is this Government’s handling of COVID-19 a triumphant achievement or its excuse for everything that goes wrong?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I am proud of the way all New Zealanders, not just the Government, responded to COVID. The results are all around us: we saved lives, we saved livelihoods in New Zealand. I don’t know why the member insists on talking New Zealand down.

Question No. 2—Education (Māori Education)

2. to the Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education): What recent developments has he seen that support Māori students in sciences and technology?

Last week, I attended the expansion of the Pūhoro Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Mātauranga (STEMM) academy in Te Tai Tokerau. Pūhoro was established in response to low engagement of Māori in STEMM-related career pathways. It supports rangatahi Māori with a pathway into high-value careers with a transition from secondary school to tertiary programmes, including connections to internships, industry opportunities, and employment.

Tāmati Coffey: Why are programmes like Pūhoro STEMM important?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The current under-representation of our people in the sciences, despite the skills of our tūpuna in these areas, attests to this; that needs to change. Pūhoro STEMM is a kaupapa Māori approach that seeks to improve equitable access for rangatahi Māori into science- and technology-related pathways. We are seeing great results, with almost two-in-five Pūhoro students gaining one or more science subject qualifications in 2021. This is nearly four times the science subject achievement rate for Māori in mainstream education.

Tāmati Coffey: How many students are supported by this programme?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The last two years have seen significant growth for the Puhoro STEMM Academy, having engaged 1,503 rangatahi in 54 participating schools and kura across nine regions to date. The expansion into Te Tai Tokerau becomes the 10th region Pūhoro supports.

Tāmati Coffey: Has the programme received any national or international recognition?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, it has. Pūhoro STEMM Academy has been nationally and internationally recognised for the work it does with rangatahi Māori. On a national level, it was the winner of two awards at the Diversity Awards in 2022. At an international level, Pūhoro STEMM Academy is one of three finalists in the global Engineering & Technology Innovation Awards 2022, to be held in November in London. This award recognises organisations who harness a truly diverse workforce or inclusive ethos, recognising the significant efforts of organisations globally that excel in their commitment to equality and inclusion across the diversity spectrum.

Question No. 3—Social Development and Employment

3. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she consider that current requirements relating to the effect of relationship status on someone’s eligibility to receive a benefit are fair and equitable?

Mālō ni, Mr Speaker. The welfare system is primarily based around income, assets, and the need of a household. We know that family structures have shifted over time. The Welfare Expert Advisory Group highlighted this in their report. I agree that further work is needed on this, and a review of settings that underpin financial assistance and eligibility is on the work programme for the welfare overhaul. However, what I am most focused on is providing immediate support for families in need. Since we’ve been in Government, our changes have led to around a 40 percent increase in after - housing-cost income, inflation-adjusted, for those on a main benefit, and an increase in income of $243 per week for couples with children.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she think that disabled people should be able to remain financially independent, no matter their relationship status, and, if not, is she putting more families in need into hardship as a result of these rules?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We do believe that disabled people should be able to live financially independently. We have moved to increase benefits through our welfare system significantly since we took office, and we have also invested in other measures to support disabled people, including being committed to the roll-out of Enabling Good Lives across the country. There is, as I said, a need for a review of relationship settings within the welfare system, and that’s something that’s certainly on the cards.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Will she pause investigations into issues relating to relationship status for applicants who may lose their income support as a result of these rules while she makes her review?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) staff have to follow the legislation as it stands now, and so there is no way that any fraud investigation can be paused. However, as the Welfare Expert Advisory Group pointed out, the system that we undertake with regards to investigations of potential fraud cases is a three-step process that is fair and reasonable, and that is the process that we will continue to follow whilst these rules are in place.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she have confidence in how the Ministry of Social Development is making determinations off the fact of relationship status, and, if so, why are MSD staff tasked with figuring out whether people are in a sexual relationship even if they are financially independent and not living together?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I do have confidence in MSD staff. I think, though, that it would be unrealistic of me not to think that every now and then a determination they make could be wrong, and so that is why we have the review committee in place so that people can challenge those decisions if they deem them to be questionable or incorrect.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why did the COVID-19 Income Relief Payment, which supported thousands of people who lost their jobs in 2020, have a higher threshold for a partner’s income than the jobseeker benefit before partners lost their income support?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The income relief payment was not business-as-usual. It was a temporary payment that came about because of the extraordinary circumstances that we were facing with respect to COVID. Many families who did lose jobs would not have anticipated that that was going to happen. We needed to put an urgent measure in place, but, as I said, unlike our welfare system, that was temporary and we had no intention to carry that on.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she support changing the relationship settings for main benefits to be consistent with those proposed for the income insurance scheme, which, at this time, has full, individualised support to prevent inequity between different types of support in similar circumstances?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I’ve said, a review of relationship settings within the welfare system is something that’s certainly on the cards.

Question No. 4—Environment

4. to the Minister for the Environment: Mālō ni. What actions is the Government taking to reduce resource consenting costs for infrastructure?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The current resource management system takes too long, costs too much, and has not adequately enabled housing nor infrastructure, nor managed cumulative environmental effects. An Infrastructure Commission report on consenting infrastructure projects found consenting costs for medium sized infrastructure projects have increased 150 percent in the last 10 years, to 250 percent of what they were a decade ago. Developers are collectively spending $1.29 billion on resource consent processes, or 5.5 percent of project costs—benchmarked against costs in the UK and the European Union, which range from 0.1 to 5 percent of project cost. You can see we’re at the extreme end. Times also increased by 150 percent. This is why we are repealing and replacing the Resource Management Act (RMA), which will improve efficiency and lower consenting costs and improve environmental outcomes.

💬 Lemauga Lydia Sosene: How will the replacement for the RMA reduce infrastructure consenting costs?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: There will be major cost savings which will benefit not just the infrastructure providers but the public and private funders of the projects. Improvements will reduce the number and costs of consents. Designations for infrastructure will be simplified, with less relitigation, and designations lasting longer. The designations process will be more flexible and available to a wider group of providers.

💬 Lemauga Lydia Sosene: What work is the Infrastructure Commission doing to assist the Government?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: A new chapter in the national planning framework to enable infrastructure is being developed by the Infrastructure Commission. It will enable standards to be used for activities associated with the likes of housing and infrastructure—for example, earthworks or sediment or noise control. This will avoid the need for bespoke conditions and will also enable more activities to be permitted activities.

💬 Lemauga Lydia Sosene: How will the replacement for the RMA improve district plans and reduce costs?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: RMA planning documents will be consolidated from over 100 to 15 Natural and Built Environments Act plans. Plans will be fast to prepare, reducing in time from about 10 years under the current system to a maximum of four in the new system. Plan quality will be improved by adopting the independent hearings panel approach, which was initiated by Rodney Hide when he was here. More activities will be permitted with fewer notified consents needed, and the new Act will require councils to publicly report on their performance.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Sounds exciting.

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: It is.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does he think his job in the short term is to limit growth in spending, especially when inflation is high?

Point of order. That is not the question that was lodged. The question that was lodged with me and that we have given answer to is significantly longer and different than that.

💬 SPEAKER: Did you read it off this?

💬 Nicola Willis: I did read it off the sheet. The Minister is correct; I lodged a different question. It was longer and substantially different. However, the clerks informed me they had changed the question to that which is on the sheet, which is why I’ve read that. But I’m happy to revert to my original question, which I far preferred.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: So do I. So why don’t you do that?

💬 SPEAKER: No, the question is the one written on the—

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I will answer the question as it is on the sheet, because that is the process we have in the House, but I think we need to reflect—and perhaps we can go away and talk about it afterwards. Just after 1 p.m. today, I was advised that the member wished to change the wording of the question that had been lodged, and we had begun working on since it was lodged. My understanding was that the question wasn’t going to be changed, but it’s on the sheet; I’ll answer it as it is.

💬 SPEAKER: There were actually two changes.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order. I think the Minister of Finance has laid out what happened. You’re exactly right. I think you just said—that’s the point I was going to make—that the question was changed after it was lodged, quite substantially, and then there was an attempt to slightly alter the wording around 1 o’clock, but that did not happen. And the question is as it is on the yellow question sheet. So it hasn’t changed.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That advice came after 1 o’clock, Chris. But I said I’ll answer it.

💬 Chris Bishop: No one’s acting in bad faith here.

💬 SPEAKER: It’s not substantially different, from my understanding.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s very different.

💬 Nicola Willis: Mr Speaker, I’m very happy to revert to the original question that the Minister is prepared for.

💬 SPEAKER: No, we’ll have question No. 5 as written on the yellow piece of paper.

💬 Nicola Willis: To the Minister of Finance: does he think his job in the short term is to limit growth in spending, especially when inflation is high?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As Minister of Finance, I have many jobs, one of those is to make sure that spending that is undertaken matches what is set down in the Budget, also to make sure that it is responsible. The latest set of Treasury forecasts show that over the forecast period we are limiting growth in spending. Indeed, Government expenses are set to fall from 35 percent of GDP in the 2021-22 year, which was obviously marked by the responses to Omicron and Delta, down to 29.8 percent of GDP in 2025-26.

💬 Nicola Willis: Has he read reports of the $28 million Australian Budget repair package that unwinds wasteful or unnecessary Government spending, redirecting it towards higher-quality investments and priorities, and will he take a similar approach in New Zealand?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve had a good read, actually, of the Budget that Dr Chalmers laid down last night. It contains a number of interesting things. I look forward to the member endorsing the wellbeing approach of the Government there, getting up to a 45 cent top tax rate, investing in fair pay agreement - type work, all of which is in that legislation. What I do note is that, obviously, the Australian Government will make decisions appropriate for Australia, but in the Budget itself, actual expenses across the forecast period in fact increase as a percentage of GDP in the Australian Budget.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why is the Government prioritising a $370 million merger of TVNZ and RNZ, $35 million subsidising people to buy Teslas, and $60 million to design a jobs tax when New Zealand is in the midst of a cost of living crisis?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member is well aware, we have taken a number of significant steps to address the cost of living pressures that New Zealanders are feeling. We also, at the same time, think it’s kind of important to address an issue like climate change and actually make sure that we decarbonise our transport fleet. The member obviously can’t walk and chew gum at the same time; we can.

💬 Nicola Willis: How does subsidising New Zealand’s wealthiest people to buy Teslas help with climate change?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Making sure that we have fewer internal combustion engine vehicles on the road and more electric vehicles on the road is a good thing. I know that the National Party’s approach on climate change is to deny and delay and defer; not us.

💬 Nicola Willis: How does the Minister think the woman who has switched her diet to shakes to cut her grocery bill would feel about him getting up in this House to defend the wealthiest New Zealanders getting subsidies to buy Teslas as his response to climate change?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m thrilled the member’s raised the topic of the wealthiest New Zealanders. I wonder what the woman in that article would think about a political party who thinks the highest priority right now is to cut the tax of the wealthiest New Zealanders, because that’s the National Party’s policy. It’s the member who should be ashamed and apologising to that woman.

💬 Hon Michael Wood: Can the Minister confirm that over the last year, the average emissions of new vehicles coming into New Zealand has declined by 19 percent under the Clean Car Discount policy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I absolutely can confirm that, and I can confirm this Government’s commitment to decarbonising our transport fleet. On this side of the House, we believe that it is perfectly possible to support New Zealanders through a cost of living crisis while at the same time getting on with dealing to an existential threat to our planet. The National Party has never wanted to take action on climate change and nothing has changed.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why are New Zealanders’ real wages lower today than when Labour came to office, and isn’t it the case that, just as the Australian Labor Party has shown in the last day, a responsible Government can rein in wasteful spending, deliver tax relief, and repair the country’s finances?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This Government has a plan to get New Zealand into surplus quicker than the National Party did after the global financial crisis. We’re keeping our levels of debt low. Our unemployment is one of the lowest in the OECD. Here in New Zealand, our Government knows that it is about striking a balance. That member thinks it’s about giving tax cuts to the wealthiest New Zealanders; we think it’s about supporting all New Zealanders.

Question No. 6—Tourism

6. to the Minister of Tourism: What reports has he seen on New Zealand’s tourism recovery?

I’m pleased to report that New Zealand is set for a strong summer as the tourism sector continues to recover. It is encouraging that August 2022 was the first month in nearly 2½ years where a holiday has been the most popular reason for travel by overseas visitors, replacing visiting friends and relatives, which has dominated the reason for travel from April 2020. The August numbers show that demand for New Zealand is still there from international tourists.

💬 Rachel Boyack: What is contributing to New Zealand’s tourism recovery?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Well, the cruise summer season’s already under way, with over 40 cruise vessels expected over the 2022-23 season, bringing an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 visitors to our shores. Our Great Walks, which opened on Monday, have seen close to 20 percent of bookings made by international visitors, bringing yet more visitors to our regions to see our stunning natural beauty and experience local Kiwi hospitality.

💬 Rachel Boyack: What economic benefits will cruise passengers bring?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: It’s projected that between $350 million and $510 million will be spent over the 2022-23 summer period by cruise passengers. Regional ports, too, will benefit. Timaru, for example, will be seeing 12 cruise ships over the next year—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: Timaru?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: —Timaru, yes—and Stewart Island will see 20.

💬 Rachel Boyack: What major events will help bring tourists into New Zealand?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Major events are returning to New Zealand at pace. For example, the FIFA Women’s World Cup tournament alone is projected to bring tens of thousands of visitors to our shores, especially now we know we’ll be hosting reigning world champs the United States. There are some huge events hitting regional New Zealand this year. For example, Rotorua will host SIX60, the Whaka100 Mountain Bike Marathon, and Crankworx, all before the end of the year. These visitors will inject much-welcomed money into the sector through accommodation, transport, food, and meals, not to mention visits to our beautiful tourist attractions.

💬 Rachel Boyack: What support has the Government provided to the tourism sector throughout the pandemic?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: I’ve always acknowledged the tough times that the tourism sector has had over the past few years. The Government has invested more than $600 million to help the industry through COVID and help them set up for the return of international tourists. New Zealand’s borders are open, international bookings are flowing in, and we’re set for a cracker summer.

Question No. 7—Children

7. to the Minister for Children: What reports, if any, has he received regarding the death of Malachi Subecz in State care and what specific actions, if any, has he taken in response to those reports?

I’m yet to receive the practice review from Oranga Tamariki as I’m waiting for this report to be finalised and to ensure that Oranga Tamariki has been able to engage with the whānau at their pace before any findings are shared. I’m determined to understand where Oranga Tamariki could have and should have done better and to make sure it doesn’t happen again. That’s why I asked for these reviews to be done. It’s important to remember that Malachi was not in the care of Oranga Tamariki. Reports of concern were made to Oranga Tamariki regarding his safety and Oranga Tamariki recognise their failures to act appropriately on these.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Has the Minister seen or received the draft system review report and, when he does, when will it be made public?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: In answer to the first part of the question, no.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Minister accept the need to overhaul the reports of concern process given there was a failure to investigate multiple reports of concerns regarding Malachi at various levels of Government?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I expect that’ll be addressed in the practice review report.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can the Minister confirm that Malachi’s whānau contacted his office to report to him the abuse that he was suffering?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I understand that someone in my office was contacted on 3 November 2021 by a member of Malachi’s whānau. Concerns were raised that day with Oranga Tamariki.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Who in the Government is responsible when children in State care, or trying to get State care, die?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, that depends. First of all, the person who actually killed the child is the person responsible, but we have to make sure that we look under every stone to find out where the system may have gone wrong, which is why we’ve also asked for a system review as well as the practice review.

Question No. 8—Justice

8. to the Minister of Justice: Mālō ni, Mr Speaker. What changes is the Government making to counter-terrorism laws?

Last week, I announced that the Government will be strengthening our counter-terrorism laws through changes to the control orders and terrorist designations regime. These changes will improve the effectiveness of the law and make it harder for people who are known threats to undertake terrorist activities. I’d like to thank, as well, just all parties for their constructive engagement on the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill, and I look forward to members’ contributions at first reading this afternoon.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What amendments are being made to the terrorist designation scheme?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The bill strengthens the terrorist designation scheme by making it explicit that it covers individuals in prisons. Overseas, we have seen examples of how, in prison, terrorists continue to attempt to influence and incite others from behind bars. The bill makes a series of technical changes to further reduce any ability for designated entities to be glorified or to support others in carrying out acts of terrorism.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What amendments are being made to the control orders regime?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The bill makes changes related to convictions for objectionable publications, home detention and community-based sentences, greater judicial discretion, and more flexible name suppression requirements. In addition, these amendments will improve the effectiveness of the control orders Act and expand the criteria for high-risk individuals who can be covered by the restrictions which limit their ability to undertake an attack.

💬 Ginny Andersen: Will the Government consider further changes to the control orders regime?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The control orders regime is subject to a statutory review scheduled for 2023. This is timely, given that this is a technical and emerging area of law in New Zealand. Further changes can be considered during that review period to ensure the regime is working effectively.

Question No. 9—Health

9. to the Minister of Health: How many people with bowel cancer at Tauranga Hospital are estimated to have progressed from curative to palliative treatment plans due to patients having been on the waiting list for months longer than the recommended times?

The member’s question relates to a letter written by a number of clinicians last year, at what was then the Bay of Plenty District Health Board, to their chief executive at the time, regarding concerns about what they described as 15 years of failing to plan for the health needs of that region, as well as other issues. That 15-year period encompasses the entire time the previous National Government held office. The letter was subsequently passed to Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand when the new health system took effect. One of the statements made in December last year, in that letter, was that “Patients are being diagnosed with bowel cancer, having been on our waiting lists for months longer than the recommended times, and this is leading to palliative rather than curative treatment plans.” Officials have advised me that the only way to answer the member’s question would be a manual review of every patient’s clinical notes. Even if a meaningful assessment could be made in each case, the member’s question has no time frame on it, and it is therefore not possible to answer. What I can tell the member is this: in December 2021, when the letter was sent, 88 percent of patients in the Bay of Plenty District Health Board region who received treatment for upper and lower gastrointestinal tumours did so within the target of 31 days. Secondly, in the most recent reported period, ending in August 2022, 96 percent of patients in that region received treatment within 31 days, and this compares to 88 percent nationally. It’s important to note both that the rates of bowel cancer diagnosis have been trending upwards while diagnosis in emergency departments has been declining. I am advised that this is almost certainly because of the success of the National Bowel Screening Programme, which this Government has invested $203 million into after the previous Government didn’t properly fund it, and which we have now rolled out nationwide.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Is it correct that only cancer patients who were able to receive chemotherapy were offered a cancer specialist appointment at Tauranga Hospital and others went to their GP?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can’t comment on that, but given that member’s long track record of getting his facts wrong, I would say it’s more likely wrong than right.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Has he seen the letter that he just reported to in his first answer, from medical oncology, saying that only patients who are to receive chemotherapy are offered first specialist assessment; all other patients are to be managed by a GP, without the opportunity to discuss their case with a specialist?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I point out, and the member is well aware, that the letter was addressed to the then chief executive of the Bay of Plenty District Health Board and, effectively, called upon that chief executive to remedy a number of issues. But the letter was also very clear that the issues that they were dealing with, as many clinicians today are dealing with, is the consequence of a system that was routinely underfunded for many, many years, including the entirety of the previous Government’s period of time. The reason we are making the changes we are is that we needed to see change and improved performance. This Government inherited a bowel screening programme that had such limited funding and no chance of being rolled out nationwide. We have now committed more than $200 million. We now have a nationwide bowel screening programme that is making a significant difference, because, when it comes to the National Party, they are all talk and no trousers.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Why did the chair of his waiting list task force say on TV ONE last night that targets were a distraction; yet, as the acting medical officer of Counties Manukau, in the board meeting of 23 February this year, that same person accepted a report titled Metrics that matter, describing surgical targets, and why, then, were targets metrics that mattered in February but, at the Minister’s task force stand-up yesterday, the exact same targets are now a distraction?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: So that question just demonstrates the sheer and utter confusion that that member dwells in. I think the main point is this: it is widely accepted by many clinicians that targets are not a plan. Targets don’t deliver service. Targets don’t improve services. What you need is a plan. The National Party thinks that if you have a target, magically things will happen. What we do know, from the 2019 research into the National Party health targets, is that they were manipulated and dodged and did not deliver good healthcare.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Did he support the COVID vaccination target?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: This Government follows clinical advice, and there is epidemiological research that says that in order to reach a level of herd immunity, there is a level that you have to reach, and we followed that clinical advice. But, when we are running services, when we are operating services, we focus on having a plan and resourcing it, not like the National Party that declares they’re going to do bowel screening, doesn’t resource it, doesn’t fund it, and lets it flounder.

Question No. 10—Health

10. to the Associate Minister of Health: Mālō ni. What recent announcement has the Government made regarding maternal mental health?

Earlier this month, I announced our investment of $10.1 million over four years in maternal mental health. This will result in better and more widely available care for new and expectant mothers around the country. The funding will ensure that children, mothers, and whānau can access specialist services around New Zealand, and access to appropriate Māori services will be improved. These investments continue to build on the funding from the 2019 Wellbeing Budget, which invested in front-line mental health and addiction services and other early interventions.

💬 Dr Tracey McLellan: How will this address gaps in maternal mental health care?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The funding will be invested to fill gaps in care identified by last year’s maternal mental health stocktake. In particular, it will target support in the regions where it is needed most. The $10.1 million will add more clinical and non-clinical staff, as well as packages of care to provide more support to whānau with higher needs, including home-based supports.

💬 Dr Tracey McLellan: Why is it important to invest in maternal mental health care?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Supporting parents’ mental wellbeing during their child’s first 1,000 days is important for the long-term emotional, mental, and physical wellbeing of the child. Support for perinatal mental health that is accessible for all pregnant or post-natal women when they need it most is also key. It is estimated that the care packages from this investment will help support approximately 700 people per year following the fourth year of investment.

💬 Dr Tracey McLellan: How does this complement other initiatives?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: This Government is committed to ensuring parents receive the support they need during pregnancy, birth, and in the post-natal period, so as to make New Zealand the best place to be a child. This investment complements several other initiatives rolled out by the Government to support mothers in the post-natal period, including the Well Child Tamariki Ora enhanced support pilots, pregnancy and parenting services, and recognition of maternal birth injuries by ACC.

Question No. 11—Education (School Operations)

11. to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): What percentage of decile 1 students achieved each assessment in the 2022 NCEA Numeracy and Literacy pilot, and what specific questions, if any, were not culturally “appropriate” in this pilot, as she claimed yesterday in question time?

In regards to the first part of the question: in reading, 195 students participated, with 24.1 percent achieving; in writing, 135 students participated, with 2.2 percent achieving; and in numeracy, 179 students participated, with 10.1 percent achieving. Now, these numbers stand in stark contrast to the decile 10 students, who achieved 84 percent, 61 percent, and 77 percent, respectively. This does point towards the Government’s approach to tackling inequity in the system through our barrier-free access suite being the right one when combined with targeted plans to lift maths and literacy attainment across the country. In regards to the second part of the question: as I said in the House yesterday, feedback we have received from some teachers who participated in the pilot was that—in their professional opinion, which I will not second-guess—the assessment wasn’t culturally appropriate.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I think you know what I’m about to say, which is that the second part of the question is extremely specific, which is about the specific questions, if any, that were not culturally appropriate in this pilot. And as the next part is “as she claimed yesterday in question time”, which has been authenticated and accepted—it’s on the yellow sheet—the Minister is required to answer that question.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes. The Minister should—you definitely addressed it, but considering the answer that you gave yesterday, you haven’t answered it.

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: As I’ve already said, it’s important that we consider the views of all stakeholders and experts. And as Minister, it would be completely inappropriate of me to second-guess their opinions. About half the teachers who participated in the pilot thought the assessment wasn’t equitable for all learners in reference to the content. I will not second-guess their opinions.

💬 SPEAKER: Just a minute; I’m going to read exactly what was said yesterday. I’m going to give the member two extra questions, and she can ask questions around that, if she wishes.

💬 Erica Stanford: Can she please provide us with one example of the type of question that she believes, or she was told about, that was culturally inappropriate?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: As I’ve said yesterday, as a former teacher—and you’ve asked about the type of question—we know that some students, if you put the reading text in front of them and they don’t understand the context, they will struggle to attempt to solve the issue that was put in front of them—as I’ve said, if they don’t understand the context. Obviously, we have people on the other side of the aisles here who don’t understand education at that level. So let me give a specific example. When I was a teacher, there was a PM reader called “Treasure Hunt”. Many times we’ve struggled with our young people understanding the word “clues” because they had no context of what a “treasure hunt” was. That’s an example of what that might be in that assessment.

💬 Erica Stanford: Is she seriously saying that she doesn’t expect 15-year-olds, after 10 years of compulsory schooling, to be able to use the knowledge they’ve gained to write about something they may have not experienced firsthand?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: I think that if people even in this House had to look at an area that they had not been involved with—and obviously I can use the example of education, because that’s very obvious from the questions that are coming from the other side—they would struggle to write about it at the in-depth level. We need to contextualise learning. It is a fundamental part of education to contextualise it.

💬 Hon Kelvin Davis: Would she expect somebody who had never been on a marae before to be able to stand up and write about an experience or understand the experience of being on a marae?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: That’s a very good question, because, no, I wouldn’t. I would actually, if I was a teacher in that situation, want to contextualise that with our young people first. I’d also want to contextualise it with adults first.

💬 Erica Stanford: What specific support will she implement next year for the 98 percent of decile 1 students that failed the co-requisite to ensure they pass this foundational literacy and numeracy assessment before they leave school?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: We’ve already announced some work in this area with our $20 million loss of learning package, and that will work towards and go towards assisting those pupils who are struggling in this area with targeted tutoring. Already, a number of schools have taken that up and are reporting early on that; they can see that this will be a support to them. But this is also something that I want to talk about with the teachers a bit more, because they are the experts in this area about how we can support them as a Government.

💬 Erica Stanford: What sort of questions in the numeracy exam were not culturally appropriate?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: We have heard from teachers that there has been a lot of reading in those exams. And if you are an English learner who is second language and struggling to read, it doesn’t give you an accurate understanding of your numeracy level.

💬 Erica Stanford: Isn’t it her Government and under her watch that the Ministry of Education set these exams and have piloted them now twice; and why is it that she is standing up here today telling us that they are not appropriate for children who are unable to read?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: That’s exactly what a pilot is. I’m not sure that the member understands the concept of a pilot, but it’s to work through what these exams will look like. What I will say is that this Government is committed to our young people achieving and the integrity of the exam remaining high. To question that integrity is a little bit concerning from the Opposition, who have in the past put in failed experiments as their answer to declining levels of literacy and numeracy over the past few decades.

💬 Erica Stanford: How is she going to ensure that the exams are culturally appropriate to cater for the many different cultures in this country; and is she considering multiple different exams based on the culture of the person taking the exam?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: That’s exactly what the pilots are for. And I am concerned the member’s understanding of that word “culture” seemed to go straight to race, and I am not prepared to be race-baited by that member.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order. We have been listening very carefully to the Associate Minister’s answers. That’s now the fourth time, in response to very straight, very serious questions about a matter of extreme public importance, that the Minister has had a political flick—in the most recent case, an unparliamentary flick—at the Opposition. My colleague Erica Stanford is asking very serious questions in a very straight manner, and she’s entitled to expect straight answers, not political attacks, from the Minister.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Mr Speaker, I take Mr Bishop’s point. However, I also take the rulings that you’ve made in recent days. Throughout the Minister’s answer, there were interjections, continuously, from members opposite, and in that environment it is highly unsurprising that there might be some political flicks coming back.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Mr Speaker, whether or not that is the case, nothing excuses a Minister breaching Speaker’s ruling 44/1 by accusing a member of race-baiting, which is strictly prohibited in this House.

💬 SPEAKER: Thank you, the Hon Michael Woodhouse—that is absolutely correct, and on that matter I will require the Minister to stand, withdraw, and apologise. On the issues raised by Chris Bishop, that’s also correct. I’ve listened carefully. There were elements of out-of-order interjections, yes, but the questions were straight up. They were straight-up questions, and they did not need some of the comments that were made, but on the last one, that was definitely out of order, and so I will require the Minister to stand, withdraw, and apologise. I will award one more supplementary question.

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Erica Stanford: Does she agree that the purpose of education is to expand a child’s mind outside of their own localised experiences, and, if not, how does she ever expect New Zealand children to succeed on the world stage?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: That’s why we are putting these pilots in place: to improve our education system so our children will not only survive but thrive.

Question No. 12—Education

12. to the Minister of Education: Does he agree with the statement from the Te Pūkenga organisational direction and design - analysis of feedback report that said “Legislation that only allows one CE is a risk to a Tiriti-partnering model”; if so, is he considering amending the Education and Training Act 2020 to allow for co-leadership as a way of honouring the Treaty?

on behalf of the Minister of Education: No and no.

💬 Chris Baillie: Is the Minister concerned with a statement from the Tertiary Education Commission’s mid-August briefing that states “the overall failure of Te Pūkenga to progress key areas of work over the past two years means it will be some time before the key benefits sought from the establishment of Te Pūkenga will be realised.”, and, if so, does the Minister believe that implementing more co-governance will help to realise these benefits sooner?

On the second part to that question, no.

💬 Chris Baillie: Does the Minister agree with one respondent quoted in Te Pūkenga’s analysis and feedback report, who said that “not having Māori at the chief executive level is an ‘imbalance in mana’ ”, and does he believe that addressing an “imbalance in mana” is more important than addressing Te Pūkenga’s $110 million debt crisis?

No.

💬 Chris Baillie: Which problem does the Minister believe Te Pūkenga Council should be focusing on: addressing Te Pūkenga’s $110 million debt crisis or hiring more bureaucrats, such as co-leadership positions for executive directors, in the name of co-governance?

No discussions have been had around co-leadership.