Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Housing: How is the Government’s record public housing build programme supporting more people into trades training and apprenticeships?

Our Labour Government has delivered more than 13,000 new public homes in the last six years, with a further 6,000 new homes under construction or contracted. Our record of delivery has not only provided more homes for New Zealanders but training opportunities, too. Since 2017, more than 850 people across the country have gained valuable construction skills through Kāinga Ora’s apprenticeship programme, which helps to reduce our skills shortages and train the next generation of our construction workforce.

Anahila Kanongata‘a: How are the apprenticeship programmes supporting more women, Māori, and Pasifika into work?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Well, in order to ensure our construction sector can deliver on our Government’s significant infrastructure programme, we need to grow the diversity of our construction workforce. Through the Kāinga Ora apprenticeship programme, we’re actively seeking to recruit women, Māori, and Pasifika, as well as Kāinga Ora tenants, into apprenticeships. Over 40 percent of the over 850 apprentices, to date, have been Māori and Pacific, and I’m delighted to say 53 of the apprentices have been women.

Anahila Kanongata‘a: What regions are benefiting from encouraging young people into the building and construction sector?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Kāinga Ora’s partnerships with schools are helping to train the next generation of tradies all across the country. Kāinga Ora has eight partnerships with schools and polytechs, and it has five more currently being worked on. Communities across New Zealand are benefiting from this programme, including Dargaville, Onehunga, Rotorua, Hastings, Ōpōtiki, Wellington, Nelson, and, of course, Christchurch.

Anahila Kanongata‘a: How will the Government’s sustained and consistent investment in public housing continue to support the training of apprentices?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In Budget 2023, we continued our Government’s commitment to delivering public homes through our record build programme. This means more public homes and more apprenticeships.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, particularly the removal of the $5 prescription charge, which has seen 900,000 New Zealanders receive almost 3 million free prescriptions. Alongside extending 20 hours’ free early childhood education, extending targeted childcare assistance, making public transport permanently free for children under the age of 13 and half-price for more than a million people, removing prescription charges is a practical measure to support families with economic pressures whilst laying the foundations for a better future for the country—without making inflation worse, as unfunded tax cuts for the wealthiest would.

Christopher Luxon: Is the Prime Minister seriously saying that he and I should get free prescriptions, rather than giving Kiwis battling cancer access to drugs that are available in Australia but not here in New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No; on this side of the House, we would prioritise extra drugs for cancer patients ahead of tax cuts that would, for example, mean that somebody on a salary of $1 million a year would get over $50,000 a year extra in a tax cut. We actually think that funding Pharmac, along with our health system, our education system, housing, transport, and the other public services New Zealanders rely on is more important than tax cuts for millionaires.

Christopher Luxon: Why is New Zealand the only country in the Asia-Pacific region in recession?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because we had a cyclone at the beginning of the year. The member may not have noticed, but actually the contributing factor to the fact that we had a technical recession was the effect of the cyclone on our primary producers.

Christopher Luxon: Why, then, is inflation in New Zealand twice the rate of the US, Canada, and Japan, if inflation is all just a global problem—because they had weather events too?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I notice he left Australia and the UK off. At any given point in time, New Zealand’s inflation rate won’t be exactly the same as others around the world. I’m sure, given his in-depth knowledge of the economy, he would understand that. Australia, of course, were lower than New Zealand for a long period of time and then peaked higher and later than New Zealand in their inflationary cycle. Different countries have a different economic cycle. There can be no doubt, other than in the separate reality the National Party live in, that inflation has been a global problem over the last 18 months.

Christopher Luxon: Was Westpac right when they forecast $15 billion more in debt in the next four years, and does he take any responsibility for the explosion in debt and deficits?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Most economists are now picking that Government revenue will decrease, rather than significant increases in Government spending. That will have an impact on the Government’s finances. Everybody will be able to see what impact that will have on the Government’s finances when the Treasury release their pre-election fiscal update, which will be available to everybody.

Christopher Luxon: Given, and by his account, the economy is doing great, why are there 55,000 more people on the job seeker benefit than when Labour took office, including 8,000 more in just the last four months?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are more people in New Zealand—that is absolutely correct. The New Zealand economy’s fundamental indicators are looking more positive. Inflation is trending down, GDP growth is returning, and we continue to have record low unemployment. On this side of the House, we are unapologetic about our commitment to keep Kiwis in jobs. I note that’s quite a contrast to members on the other side of the House, who are being quite open in their intention to increase unemployment.

Christopher Luxon: Why, then, if everything is so swimmingly great, are there 55,000 more people on job seeker benefits?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I’ve indicated, the population is, of course, larger, but we should also note that there are more people in the labour market.

David Seymour: How is it possible that Government spending has increased by 70 percent over six years for no measurable improvements in outcomes, with 70 percent of New Zealanders saying the health system is worse than in 2020, 64 percent saying the justice system is worse than in 2020, and 57 percent saying the education system is worse too?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh, I am so glad that the member asked that question, because while he doesn’t think that it’s a positive outcome that New Zealanders’ wages are rising, we believe that is a positive outcome, on this side of the House. We believe the fact that more New Zealanders are in work than ever before is, in fact, a positive outcome. We believe that New Zealanders having better access to healthcare, such as the 3 million free prescriptions that New Zealanders have received, is a positive outcome. We believe that 77,000 fewer New Zealand children living in poverty is a positive outcome. We believe that record levels of renewable energy generation in New Zealand is a positive outcome. We believe that reducing New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions is a positive outcome. We believe that extending the coverage of free-trade agreements to cover more of New Zealand exports is a positive outcome. We believe that more New Zealanders in apprenticeships, upskilling for the future of our workforce, is a positive outcome. We believe that building more classrooms to accommodate roll growth so that kids aren’t learning in hallways, libraries, and gymnasiums, as they were when we came into Government—we believe that’s a positive outcome. We believe that building more State houses than any Government since the 1950s is a positive outcome. I could go on for a long time.

David Seymour: Could it be the case that the Prime Minister just talks far too much because he has those beliefs but the public, including Labour voters, don’t share them and are now abandoning his Government in droves?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I would say that the election campaign’s just getting under way, and I’m looking forward to meeting the member and the members opposite on the campaign trail. When even his own coalition partner calls him divisive, I think maybe he should take a little bit of a look in the mirror.

David Seymour: Does that mean the Prime Minister is looking forward to a campaign running on fear of the Opposition’s record in future because he’s given up running on his own; and if that’s the case, does he understand that hope always beats fear?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, first of all, if the member actually has a record of the future, he should share it, because I didn’t know that it was possible to have such a thing. But when it comes to campaigning on fear, I would again invite the member to take a long, hard look in the mirror and consider the way he is trying to demonise a large segment of New Zealand society—a segment of New Zealand society that have too often been kicked around for political benefit by members who sit on that side of the House.

Christopher Luxon: Isn’t it a vote of no confidence in his Government that after six years of running health and education and the economy into the ground, almost 35,000 Kiwis have voted with their feet and left New Zealand over the last year?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: An 87,000 net migration to New Zealand—the population is growing in New Zealand. Yes, post-COVID, some people left and some people came back. Overall, 87,000 more people are in the country now since we’ve opened the borders than there were before.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. to the Prime Minister: What advice or reports, if any, has he received regarding the rising threat of white supremacy in Aotearoa?

Since becoming the Prime Minister and Minister for National Security and Intelligence, I have not received any reports or advice solely about the rising threat of white supremacy in Aotearoa New Zealand. I receive regular classified reporting on counterterrorism, including on violent extremism, which I’m not in a position to detail in the House. However, I note that the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service released the New Zealand’s Security Threat Environment Report 2023 on 11 August 2023. That report covered a range of security threats facing our country, and it stated that “White Identity-Motivated Violent Extremism (WIMVE) continues to be the dominant IMVE ideology in New Zealand. Young people becoming [more] involved in W-IMVE is a growing trend. W-IMVE adherents in New Zealand express views, which include but are not limited to, rhetoric relating to anti-Semitism, anti-Rainbow Communities and various white supremacy narratives, such as anti-Māori and anti-Islam.”

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree that the use of divisive rhetoric or hate speech from political leaders—whether they are joking or not—can lead to violence against marginalised communities?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I believe that all political leaders have a responsibility to take care in the statements that they make about all of New Zealand’s citizens and groups, and we have a particular duty of care to ensure that the statements we make don’t inflame tensions, such as those I have just mentioned.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is he doing to protect people’s ministries from acts of violence due to political incitement?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, our public servants deserve our full support. They do not deserve to be demonised in the way that they have been. I don’t believe that making jokes about blowing people up is a particularly funny or responsible thing for political leaders to do.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he believe the ACT Party leader’s comments regarding the Ministry for Pacific Peoples—that he would send a guy called Guy Fawkes in there and it would all be over—have the potential to incite violence against Pacific people and the ministry itself?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I have indicated, I believe that political leaders all have a responsibility to be careful in the language that they use. I don’t think that making statements about blowing people up—even if they were, poorly, intended in humour—is the sort of thing that responsible political leaders should do.

Rawiri Waititi: Why did the Government, under his leadership, back down from passing legislation to protect marginalised communities from hate speech?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are issues—legitimate questions—being raised around hate speech. It is a very fraught area because it does intersect with issues around free speech. That is why we have asked the Law Commission to do more work in that space, because we do acknowledge that there are pressing interests amongst the community for more action in this area but there are also countervailing concerns around the rights to free speech. We think that the Law Commission will be able to produce some recommendations that I hope we as a Parliament as a whole can actually debate in a constructive manner. I think that’s more likely after an election than immediately before an election, but I do think the issues that are being raised here should be taken seriously.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister then stand by the factually incorrect statement he made to Newshub on Saturday “The idea that you’d make a joke about blowing up an ethic minority is something that isn’t really that funny”, and, if he does not stand by that statement, will he apologise for confusing Government waste and a story about a Government department with a race of people, turning a debate into something it never needed to be?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I do, because, as I have also said publicly, I believe that member is deliberately and wantonly playing the race card in this election, and he should be ashamed of himself.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Westpac’s view of the outlook for the New Zealand economy as being “elevated persistent inflation, an over-heated economy set for a prolonged period of low and below trend growth, a high fiscal deficit in cyclically adjusted terms and an elevated current account deficit”, and what responsibility, if any, does he take for this economic outlook?

In answer to the first four parts of the question, inflation is coming down and is forecast to be back within the target range in the September 2024 quarter—a fact I know the member is aware of after last week. We’ve reached a turning point in the cycle and, as forecast by Westpac, the economy is set to grow over the next few years against a tough global backdrop. The average operating balance before gains and losses deficit as a percentage of GDP under this Government has been lower per year than under National during the financial crisis, and the current account deficit is forecast by Westpac to keep closing. While our net international liability position is at 48.4 percent, it is lower than the 53.4 percent we inherited in 2017, and well down on the 84.3 percent of GDP it hit in 2009. In answer to the fifth part of the question, this is undoubtedly a challenging time for Kiwi households and businesses. I take responsibility for supporting them as we have done and will do into the future—including nearly record-low unemployment, wages growing faster than inflation, lower Government debt than the countries we compare ourselves against, and New Zealand being one of the few countries in the world which received a credit rating upgrade during the one-in-100-year COVID economic shock.

Nicola Willis: Who does he agree with: the Prime Minister, who this morning said, “We are turning a corner [economically]”—or the BNZ, who said, “The wheels are starting to well and truly fall off the New Zealand economy”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I obviously agree with the Prime Minister, who, in turn, is agreeing with ASB, who had the headline on their story: “A turning point for the economy is coming.”

Nicola Willis: Who was correct: the Prime Minister, who said this morning “[We’re seeing] inflation coming down”, or the BNZ, who said last week, “Inflation refuses to die. In fact, inflation has recently accelerated [driven by] local body rates, an excise tax hike, insurance costs and rapidly rising petrol prices.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I, of course, agree with the Prime Minister, who, in turn, interestingly enough, agrees with Westpac—who were used in the member’s primary question but dropped for the supplementary question—because they also noted that inflation is coming down.

Nicola Willis: Who was correct: the Prime Minister, who said “[We’re seeing] GDP growth returning”, or the ANZ, who said “the economy is slowing, the export outlook is challenged, and unemployment is set to rise”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Look, I thank the member for serving up another lob to me. I agree with the Prime Minister and, funnily enough, Westpac—the primary question subject for the member—who also see economic growth in our future.

Nicola Willis: Is it really the Minister of Finance’s position that everything is looking so rosy with the economy, and, if that is the case, can we expect the pre-election fiscal update to reflect that rosiness?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have stood in this House day after day indicating that we understand, on this side of the House, that times are tough for many New Zealand businesses and many New Zealand households. The global economy is slowing, and it is a very challenging period. What that requires in response is a balanced approach that looks after New Zealanders, eases the cost of living pressure, puts public services back on the footing that it needs to be on, but does not engage in unfunded tax cuts that will ultimately be more inflationary and put more pressure on those Kiwi households.

Nicola Willis: Does the Minister of Finance recall in May last year describing inflation as a “short term challenge”, and given the cost of living crisis has now entered its 27th month, why should New Zealanders trust either his or the Prime Minister’s promises that everything will be better?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: At all times, we have stood up in this House and talked about the forecasts that we have seen from the likes of the Treasury, the likes of the Reserve Bank, and, indeed, the retail banks that the member has been quoting today. Inflation is coming down in the eyes of all of those people, and while it is a very tough time for many New Zealand households, we know that what households need is a Government that supports them to ease the cost of living pressure while balancing that against providing public services, not a party that has unfunded tax cuts to the tune of billions of dollars and no way of making it add up.

Question No. 5—Education

5. to the Minister of Education: What action is the Government taking to ensure the teaching of maths, reading, and writing is consistent across the country?

The Government has announced that we will regulate core teaching requirements of maths, reading, and writing to guarantee foundational teaching and learning of these subjects. This is work that has long been in the pipeline, having first been outlined to the sector and wider public in March last year in the Government’s maths and literacy strategy. Core teaching requirements have been welcomed by the sector and experts as it will deliver clear and consistent education from Kaitāia to Invercargill. Therefore, the Government has opted to embed this into legislation so that no learning is left to chance.

Angela Roberts: How will parents, teachers, and students know whether they are progressing in the new maths and literacy curriculum?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Every subject in the new curriculum will have maths and literacy progress steps to ensure maths and literacy learning is embedded and contextualised within teaching practice. Progress steps will also enable teachers to track a child’s progression over their education and identify where further support may be needed to move to the next step. Parents and students will have visibility of this progression plan and have confidence that their child is well supported to progress in their maths, reading, and writing skills in a way that suits them.

Angela Roberts: How will teachers be supported to implement the core teaching requirements?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Teachers will be well supported with guidance, professional development, and materials to implement these changes and ensure there is consistency across all schools to give all kids equal opportunity. This prevents teachers from having to recreate the wheel every lesson. The core teaching requirements will provide clarity on what needs to be taught and when throughout the curriculum, so no learning opportunities are left to chance.

Angela Roberts: How are the core teaching requirements different from national standards and standardised testing?

Hon JAN TINETTI: National standards were a complete and utter failure. They were neither national nor standard, and taught children how to pass a test rather than progress in their education. The difference is this Government is focused on evidence-based teaching and learning. We are legislating core teaching requirements that will add to teachers’ existing expertise by giving them evidence-informed practical guidance to enhance the way they teach literacy, communication, and maths.

Question No. 6—Transport

6. to the Minister of Transport: Is he confident the draft Government Policy Statement on land transport will give effect to the transport targets identified in this Government’s emissions reduction plan; if not, why not?

Yes. The Government Policy Statement (GPS) on land transport is one component of enabling emission reductions in the transport sector. Some of the emission reduction plan actions relate to such investment, whilst others require different interventions, such as regulatory change to, for example, improve the make-up of the fleet.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Has a climate impact assessment been undertaken on the draft GPS on land transport?

Hon DAVID PARKER: As was the case with the draft GPS released in 2021 by, amongst others, the then Associate Minister of Transport, no climate change impact assessment is done at the time of the draft; it’s actually done at the time when individual projects are committed to.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he agree with the Climate Change Commission draft advice “The transport system needs to change at all levels to provide New Zealanders with more low emissions options.”, and, if so, how does he reconcile this with the reduced proportion of funding going to public transport in his draft GPS?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In general terms, I agree with the quote that the member put in her supplementary question. The GPS provides increased funding for public transport services, for public transport infrastructure, for the rail network, for walking and cycling improvements, and for coastal shipping. It also includes new funding for inter-regional public transport.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Why has the proportion of spending for public transport in the transport fund reduced from 20 percent in 2021/22 to 18 percent in 2022/23 to now 17 percent as forecasted in this GPS while we are in a climate crisis and when people in New Zealand desperately need better public transport?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The main reason for those changes in relative percentage would be the massive increase that’s going into road maintenance, which is necessary, in part, to deal with the likes of the storm damage that we had earlier this year.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he agree with the International Transport Forum at the OECD, which states “The continued dominance of road infrastructure in national investment priorities is not in line with the need to decarbonise the transport sector and makes reaching the Paris Agreement goals even more challenging.”; if so, how does he justify an upper spending limit of over $4 billion on new roading projects that could be put to transforming our public transport system, which benefits not only the people who use it but also our roads?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In the first three-year period covered by the GPS, I would note that the major investments in Auckland are in the likes of the north-western busway.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Has he seen the Essential Report poll that showed 72 percent of New Zealanders supported improving public transport, rail, and coastal shipping over building new roads, and does he agree, then, therefore, that doing the right thing for the climate would also be popular in New Zealand?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I haven’t seen that poll, but I will look it out.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Minister of Health: What announcement has she recently made regarding free prescriptions?

This Government is reducing the cost of healthcare for New Zealand households by removing the $5 co-payment for prescription medicines. Yesterday I was proud to announce that since the $5 co-payment has been removed over 3 million free prescriptions have helped around 900,000 New Zealanders. Removing the $5 charge has made it cheaper for New Zealanders to access the medicines they need. This has had a meaningful impact for many households, particularly those who have multiple prescriptions to fill on a regular basis.

Sarah Pallett: What financial impact has this investment had for New Zealanders?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The 3 million free prescriptions has put approximately $8.4 million back in the pockets of 900,000 New Zealanders. Free prescriptions are part of the Government’s 10 point plan to reduce the cost of living, and mean people are less likely to get sick, less likely to live with pain, and less likely to need time off work for illness.

Sarah Pallett: Why has the Government moved to improve access to medicines?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: We know the $5 charge was a barrier to some New Zealanders accessing the medicines they need. Now, the 21-year-old student won’t have to worry about having enough money for her contraception; a young man with epilepsy can stay in training and keep his driver’s licence; the father with diabetes gets his life-saving medicine for free. Our track record is to invest in Kiwis’ health.

Sarah Pallett: How is this change supporting the better health of New Zealanders?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Removing the $5 prescription co-payment means we are investing in simple treatments that prevent chronic conditions becoming emergencies that need hospital treatments. We’re making it easier to get blood pressure treatment so that fewer people have strokes, people have access to diabetes treatment to prevent kidney failure and blindness, and we are making it easier for people to get cholesterol treatment to prevent their heart attacks. Proposed changes to reinstate the payment while proposing tax cuts for millionaires are both unfair and out of touch. Labour’s track record is to invest in health, and that’s all at risk under a National-ACT Government.

SPEAKER: Order! Yeah, Government cannot use patsy questions to attack the Opposition. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I withdraw and apologise.

Dr Shane Reti: Does she think it’s appropriate that members of Parliament like me and her receive a $5 co-pay relief, or would that money be better spent on cancer drugs?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: All people are entitled to medical treatment and what’s more I noticed that every method that that side of the House proposes to try and target this does mean that some people will miss out. I believe in universal access to healthcare.

Question No. 8—Education

8. to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied with the state of schools in New Zealand?

I am satisfied that the rapid action taken by this Government to improve attendance is working, with 412 initiatives funded across 762 schools and 84 additional attendance officers in place. I am satisfied our teachers are to be well supported to teach the new maths and literacy curriculum, with core teaching requirements to be legislated so it’s clear what needs to be taught and when. I am satisfied that barriers to education have been removed by programmes such as free healthy school lunches, free period products, counselling in schools, and removing school donations. Is there more work to do? Yes. But I am satisfied that under this Government schools are best placed to support learning environments for our kids to thrive.

Chris Baillie: Is she aware that Melville High School in Hamilton has had to hire private security guards to “ensure that everyone goes home safely at the end of the day”, and, if so, what is the Ministry of Education doing to support schools like these?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I haven’t had that information come across my desk.

Chris Baillie: How can the Ministry of Education begin to understand whether it is helping to improve school safety when it doesn’t collect information on assaults on students or staff members, even if it involves the use of weapons?

Hon JAN TINETTI: The Ministry of Education went through a very big restructure last year. Te Mahau was created, which is very close to schools, and they have officers that work very, very closely and close with those schools and know those schools and the issues that they are presented with, and are supporting them.

Chris Baillie: Is she aware that the number of home-school students increased from 6,000 in 2017 to nearly 11,000 in 2023, and does she accept that this 81 percent increase is an indication that parents are losing faith in the education system?

Hon JAN TINETTI: That member will be aware that a big reason why that happened was because we had been through a pandemic. Sometimes they do forget that there has been a pandemic that has created a disruption to our school learning. What that member should also be aware of is that those home-school numbers are coming back down again because those people are re-entering school. And what is happening is that there is a growing number of them coming back into the schooling system and showing great support for the State system.

Question No. 9—Health

9. to the Minister of Health: What is the latest Faster Cancer Treatment (31-day indicator) result, and what current hurdles are there for improved cancer management?

The Faster Cancer Treatment 31-day indicator is the proportion of patients who received their first cancer treatment within 31 days from the date of decision to treat. Health New Zealand’s most recent clinical performance metrics for January to March 2023 is 83 percent; the target is 85 percent. I am confident performance against this metric will improve as our efforts to grow our workforce take effect. To the second part of the question, a hurdle to purchasing expensive cancer treatments is when a politician promises to purchase specific medicines without allowing Pharmac to negotiate a good deal and make our dollar go further.

Dr Shane Reti: Is 83 percent the worst Faster Cancer Treatment 31-day indicator in the past five years?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: It is not that different from previous performance against that indicator.

Dr Shane Reti: When will the Cancer Control Agency complete the chemotherapy gap analysis with Australia, for blood cancers such as myeloma and leukaemia?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That work is under way. But, speaking of the cancer agency, that agency does tremendous work to define how we should better look after cancer. And it’s a reminder of one of the many initiatives that this Government has brought in to improve cancer care, after the previous Government disestablished the Cancer Control Council. It’s also worth remembering the 10 linear accelerators our Government has built, when no cancer radiation treatment and infrastructure was built under the last Government. It’s worth remembering that the last Government promised to implement HPV screening, something this Government has brought in. It’s also worth remembering that the bowel screening—

SPEAKER: It’s also worth remembering this is not a speech.

Dr Shane Reti: Is 83 percent the worst 31-day Faster Cancer Treatment indicator in the past five years?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I am aware that that figure has been around the target across the five years. If that member wants a more specific answer on those statistics, they are welcome to put that question on notice.

Dr Shane Reti: Has she asked officials to assess how many people go to Australia each year to receive cancer medicines that have significant clinical benefit that Australia funds and we do not, and, if so, how many people is that?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: This Government has increased the budget for Pharmac considerably—by 51 percent. And it has had a tremendous impact on the treatment of cancer in New Zealand: multiple treatments for advanced non-small cell cancer, for ovarian cancer, for breast cancer, for myeloid leukaemia, for refractory follicular or marginal-zone lymphoma—the list goes on and on.

Question No. 10—Local Government

10. to the Minister of Local Government: What Government initiatives will help limit future local government rates increases?

Kiwi households and businesses are doing it tough. Across the board we are implementing measures to take the pressure off. Most local authorities are faced with no choice but to put rates up to meet the rising costs of providing services to communities. It is important that Government supports local government to keep rates down. One example of this is the Government’s affordable water reforms. Without these reforms, rates rises will become unbearable. Through these reforms, we’ve managed to keep forecasted rates rises down. For example, the establishment of the Auckland and Northland entity will avoid the doubling of charges projected in Auckland Council’s 2021 to 2031 long-term plan. This will also bring average household charges in Northland down to similar levels to those in Auckland.

Rachel Boyack: What would repealing and reversing the affordable water reforms do to rates rises?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Repealing and reversing affordable water would be a disaster for the rate-paying public. For example, in the Wellington region, which uses the council-controlled model, a model that has been put forward by some as an alternative to reforms would see a 60 percent rates increase by 2054. These are forecasts that have been verified by engineering consultancies Beca and Farrierswier. To put that kind of pressure on Kiwi households is unfair and unjustifiable.

Rachel Boyack: What would repealing and reversing the affordable water reforms mean for infrastructure investment if councils can only rely on rates?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: New Zealand faces up to $185 billion of required investment in water infrastructure, and local authorities have told us that they cannot do it by themselves. If affordable water reform is reversed, small and rural councils will be left out in the cold and without the means to make the required investment. Councils in Otago and Southland, for example, by 2054 will need to introduce annual household charges of nearly $10,000 per year to make the required investment in their infrastructure. Many of these councils are near their debt ceilings or their populations simply can’t cope with higher charges. That means critical investment won’t be able to be made and levels of service will decline.

Rachel Boyack: How is the Minister showing commitment to the sector to help them keep rates under control?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: When I visited all 55 rural and provincial councils, the messages I heard were consistent: localism works, but councils can’t be left to fend for themselves with only limited ways to generate income. Small and rural councils can’t rely on rates from large populations or significant businesses to cover their costs. I’ve been clear that under any reform I undertake as Minister, no small or rural council will be left behind. I note that no such commitment is being offered by members on the other side of the House.

Question No. 11—Education

11. to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statements and actions?

Yes, in the context in which they were given and taken.

Erica Stanford: Why did she announce a policy that makes the methods that teachers use to teach numeracy and literacy mandatory when the final Common Practice Model document that outlines what those practices actually are is not due to be published until November—after the election—according to the time line published by the Ministry of Education?

Hon JAN TINETTI: As I said when I announced that yesterday, to make certain that teachers have enough time to engage in the process from here through to when the final copy comes through but also in the 18 months that they will have to work through that document so that we can make changes as a Government.

Erica Stanford: On The AM Show this morning, when she was asked if structured literacy would be one of these compulsory methods of teaching New Zealand kids how to read, why was she unable to confirm this, stating, “I haven’t seen, to be fair, what has come back from the expert group yet.”?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Because I haven’t seen what has come back from the expert group.

Erica Stanford: Can she confirm that the teaching practice for math contained in the draft Common Practice Model that states that “A critical maths [theory develops] critical awareness about wider social, environmental, political, ideological, and economic issues [and] recognises the importance of understanding, interpreting, and addressing issues of power, social justice and equity” will be a compulsory method for teaching mathematics?

Hon JAN TINETTI: The member has selected a quote from the principles and pedagogical approaches, a draft document for teaching professionals—for teaching professionals, not politicians. The pedagogical approaches in the Common Practice Model are theoretical frameworks or approaches to teaching informed by evidence on how students learn. Let me put that in layperson’s terms: it is putting learning into the context of the students, and it will lead to better learning outcomes.

Erica Stanford: Can she explain why the Government has now backtracked by mandating the methods teachers must use in literacy and numeracy when the previous Minister of Education Chris Hipkins stated in just September last year, “The exact methods that teachers use in order to teach are matters of professional judgment for the teachers. … ultimately the teacher in the classroom is the person who is best positioned to make that [decision]”—effectively refusing to even contemplate mandating teacher practice?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Yes, I can say that I absolutely agree with the former Minister of Education. The fact that the member thinks that’s what the Government is doing here shows she has misunderstood the announcement.

Erica Stanford: How can the New Zealand public and parents trust a Government that is mandating, or asking an expert to mandate, the teaching practice teachers will use to teach literacy and numeracy when those actual practices will not be released until November this year, after the election?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Because it is about providing clarity about what needs to be taught and when. The announcement is to get teachers on board with this decision, to get them to come with the decision. I will notice that I have had a number of teachers who have contacted me to say that this is a good move and they welcome it.

Erica Stanford: Supplementary question—

SPEAKER: I’m sorry, you’ve run out of supplementaries.

Question No. 12—Justice

12. to the Minister of Justice: What progress has the Government made on preventing litigation abuse for victims of family violence?

Today, the Government introduced a bill to strengthen the courts’ powers to protect victims of litigation abuse in family proceedings. Litigation abuse is where someone uses the court system itself to harass, contact, or control their victim rather than resolving legitimate disputes within the court system itself. The Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill provides better protections for victims of family violence by providing judges with the power to make orders in response to litigation abuse. I remain proud of our strong track record of supporting victims compared to the previous Government, which cut funding to Victim Support.

Vanushi Walters: Why is litigation abuse an important issue for the Government to work to prevent?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Litigation abuse includes the type of cases where an abuser may present fabricated allegations or file multiple court documents that take the victim’s energy, time, and money to respond to. We have seen the court system used to cause even further harm to victims of crime. This is simply unacceptable and it is not in line with our expectations of how the court system should work. This bill provides better protections while ensuring that there is appropriate access to courts.

Vanushi Walters: How does the bill help address litigation abuse?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Under the new provision, courts will have to take a broad view of conduct in the family proceedings to determine whether someone is abusing the court’s processes—for example, by using the process to harass someone. Once a determination has been made, the court can then decide to make an order requiring the court to review and approve further steps in proceedings to ensure that they are, in fact, appropriate. Currently, victims of litigation abuse must meet a high threshold before they can access the protections they should be entitled to. The protections focus on the types of documents and proceedings rather than the patterns of abuse. That is unacceptable and this bill will improve victims’ rights and experiences in our courts.

Vanushi Walters: How does the bill fit into the Government’s wider reforms supporting better outcomes for victims?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: This bill is part of a first phase of reform and sits together with the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill, which addresses known issues in the justice system by reducing the risk of children being questioned about consent in court and giving greater choice in complaints in sexual violence proceedings around name suppression. Also, there are three pilot programmes in place to improve safety and help navigate the court system for victims of serious crime, to strengthen support for child victims of sexual violence, and to ensure victims’ views are provided in bail decisions; and, finally, additional funding to help Victim Support and the Victim Assistance Scheme.