Oral Questions

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

Yes.

David Seymour: How can Stuart Nash remain a Minister in his Government when he’s clearly unfit to be the Minister of Police, or are economic development, forestry, and oceans and fisheries just not that important to his Government?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Stuart Nash has displayed an error of judgment in his communication with the Commissioner of Police and in criticising a decision of the judiciary, and he’s paid a price for that in that he’s no longer the Minister of Police.

David Seymour: Surely the challenge is not to ensure he’s paid a price, but to ensure that all Ministers serving in his Government are competent and have high integrity—if Stuart Nash has had to pay a price for not being competent and having high integrity, how can he continue in this Government under all of those other portfolios?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I’ve indicated, I believe that removing Stuart Nash from the role of Minister of Police is a proportionate response.

Nicola Willis: Why does the Prime Minister continue to have confidence in a Minister who has shown not one, but two very grave errors of judgment?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated, I do believe that it was appropriate for there to be a consequence for Stuart Nash’s error of judgment. There has been one—he is no longer the Minister of Police.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister not see the irony that Stuart Nash’s defence was that he wasn’t the Minister of Police at the time of his offence, and the Prime Minister’s response is to make sure he’s not the Minister of Police again—does that mean he’ll reoffend again?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m confident that Stuart Nash won’t make that similar error of judgment again in the future.

Nicola Willis: Does the Prime Minister understand that this is not about meting out punishment; this is about who New Zealanders can trust to have the very significant responsibilities of a Minister of the Crown, and that Stuart Nash has not shown the judgment to be worthy of those responsibilities?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m certainly familiar with the expectations set out in the Cabinet Manual and my own expectations of Ministers.

David Seymour: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in a Minister who, number one, broke one of the most sacred traditions in the Cabinet Manual, the Policing Act, and our constitutional conventions; number two, went on the radio and boasted about it; and, number three, refused to apologise—surely that’s three strikes and he’s out, or is this Government only tough on crime when it suits them?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I’ve indicated, Stuart Nash demonstrated an error of judgment and he has paid a price for that.

Nicola Willis: Is it the case that the Prime Minister is not only soft on crime but soft on Ministers too?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, but I do want to acknowledge that in many cases when the members opposite refer to this Government as being soft on crime, they are, in fact, reflecting on decisions made by the Commissioner of Police about whether to investigate or prosecute individual cases. They’re criticising the very thing that there has been a consequence for in this House today.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “New Zealanders earning the average wage have seen their incomes increase significantly under this Government”, and what is the change in real after-tax average wages since 2017?

Yes. The Treasury advise that after tax, real wages have increased by 2.6 percent between the third quarter of 2017 and the fourth quarter of 2022. I’d also caution the member that this calculation excludes transfers such as the family tax credit and Best Start, which this Government has also consistently increased during our time in office, which of course increases the incomes of families.

Nicola Willis: Is he aware that according to Statistics New Zealand’s household labour force survey, after-tax average wages for Kiwi workers have increased by 16.5 percent since 2017 while the Consumers Price Index—that is, the cost of living—has increased by 20 percent, meaning typical New Zealand workers have gone backwards under Labour?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I was referring to the quarterly employment survey statistics, which are the same statistics that her predecessor as National Party finance spokesperson and former Minister of Finance Bill English consistently used in this House as the benchmark of wage growth under the previous Government.

Nicola Willis: Does the Prime Minister understand that nominal pay increases received by Kiwi workers have been eaten up by record increases in inflation and higher levels of tax?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Despite the very slow and measured tone of the member’s explanation to me, the quarterly employment survey does not bear out the claim that she has just made.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister really believe that people’s wages after tax are going up faster than inflation, and, if so, are Kiwis up and down this country struggling to make ends meet wrong when they say there is a cost of living crisis?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government has never denied that there is a cost of living crisis; in fact, it is our number one issue, along with ensuring that we support New Zealanders through the recovery from the cyclone.

Nicola Willis: Does the Prime Minister deny that under his Government, real wages have fallen behind the cost of living?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I have indicated, the quarterly employment survey data does not bear out the member’s claim. I do want to acknowledge, though, that we are in a period where we are seeing a significant escalation in costs as a result of higher than acceptable inflation, and we do want to see inflation coming back down so that New Zealanders who are working hard are able to get ahead.

Nicola Willis: Why won’t the Government reduce income tax levels for hard-working New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government’s focus is on making sure that New Zealanders who work hard can get ahead. I know the member wants to have a debate about tax, but she doesn’t seem to be able to land on her own tax policy when it comes to this particular matter.

Nicola Willis: Isn’t it in fact the case that under his Government, New Zealanders have gone backwards in real terms and are paying a higher proportion of tax than in any time in 17 years, and why hasn’t his Government acted to correct it?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, I refer the member again, for about the fourth time, to my primary answer.

Question No. 3—Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into the Terrorist Attack on the Christchurch Mosques

3. to the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into the Terrorist Attack on the Christchurch Mosques: What progress has been made on the Government’s response to the report of the royal commission of inquiry into the 2019 Christchurch mosques attack?

on behalf of the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into the Terrorist Attack on the Christchurch Mosques: Can I begin by acknowledging the 51 shuhada, their whānau, and everyone directly impacted by the horrific events of March 15th, 2019. The events left a lasting impact on our nation, and I know that our ethnic and faith communities want to see progress made to ensure that New Zealand becomes a safer, more cohesive country. That’s why our Government accepted in principle all 44 recommendations from the royal commission of inquiry’s report. We have made and continue to make steady progress across various areas, including improving social cohesion, on education and inclusion work towards reducing hate-motivated crime and racism; strengthening firearms laws; and countering terrorism and violent extremism. There is also current focus on improving our national security system to ensure that the events of four years ago are never repeated. The country has come a long way, but there is still more work to be done. Can I also acknowledge Kāpuia and everyone else across the public, private, and community sectors who are working hard to make New Zealand a better place.

Sarah Pallett: What progress has been made to strengthen social cohesion in New Zealand?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Last year, I launched Te Korowai Whetū Social Cohesion, which gives a shared understanding of what social cohesion in New Zealand looks like. This includes resources that ensure the Government’s work aligns with what we know strengthens cohesion, resources to guide collective action across various sectors to achieve cohesion, and a measurement framework that will help us to monitor progress. We’ve also launched a fund to support tangible, community-led initiatives that promote cohesion. This is work that responds directly to recommendations made by the royal commission and also wishes from the affected communities.

Sarah Pallett: What progress has been made to ensure ethnic and faith-based communities are better supported?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: This Government has taken a number of steps towards improving supports for our ethnic and faith-based communities. This includes the Safer Communities Fund, which provides $3.3 million in funding over three years for communities at risk from hate crimes and terrorism to be able to upgrade and implement security arrangements to help reduce the threats and impact of future crimes and acts of terrorism against their communities. We’ve also enhanced the Kaiwhakaoranga Specialist Case Management Service, which has brought in expertise from across Government agencies to be able to ensure that members of the affected communities are able to access the supports that they need. We’ve also established the Collective Impact Board to ensure that we continue to make improvements to that case management service.

Sarah Pallett: What progress has been made in regards to countering terrorism and violent extremism?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Progress in this area has been focused on work to improve the counter-terrorism effort through legislative change; better public engagement, strategy, and research; and specific initiatives as well. To date, work has included the launch of the He Whenua Taurikura, New Zealand’s National Centre of Research Excellence for Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism—that was in June 2022—to ensure that we continue to build knowledge that is New Zealand - centric about extremist threats within Aotearoa New Zealand; also, the annual hui that brings together civil society, Government, academics, and communities to collectively ensure that we create a safer Aotearoa. One initiative that I will mention is He Aranga Ake. It is a multi-agency disengagement framework intended to support individuals who may pose a violent extremist or terrorist threat of harm to a community or to themselves due to identifying with specific ideologies. Finally, there’s also been the awarding of 11 scholarships for the start of the 2022 academic year for Master’s research on counter-terrorism and countering violent extremism. This is work that the Government prioritises and takes seriously, and work will continue to progress.

Golriz Ghahraman: Al salam alaikum. In light of the findings of the royal commission of inquiry that our current hate speech and hate crime laws did not allow religious minorities or most marginalised groups to even report rising threats or extremism, such that police and security institutions were not able to predict or respond to the terror threat, how does his Government justify leaving our communities still unprotected without implementing the law reform recommendations of the royal commission report?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Two answers to that. With regard to the legislative component of that, this is work that is complex, and that’s why work was—the Law Commission is undertaking a fulsome review into that to make sure that we get it right. Secondly, on reporting hate crime, there has been work led by the police on Te Raranga to ensure that we can report hate crime in a way that is better, and I understand that that is fully operational.

Question No. 4—Housing

4. to the Minister of Housing: What is the current nationwide median rent according to the MBIE rental bond database, and what has been the increase since October 2017?

The median rent is $575 as of January of this year—an increase of $175. For most of the last decade, rent increases have been above Consumers Price Index (CPI) inflation. This trend is now changing. CPI in the year to December last year was 7.2 percent, whereas the rent part of CPI was 4.4 percent. Unsurprisingly, what the evidence is showing us is that the way you solve a housing crisis is you build houses. What we are seeing in the centres where we have the highest number of supply going in is correlating with the lowest rent increases.

Chris Bishop: Does she accept her war on landlords is causing collateral damage for tenants by forcing rents upwards?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I don’t accept is that member’s framing. What this Government has done is put in place a range of measures to even the playing field. I don’t think it is too much to say that renters have the right to live in a warm, dry home. I don’t think it is a war on landlords to say that we want landlords to be part of solving a housing crisis but we want them to add to supply—i.e., solve a housing crisis.

Chris Bishop: Can she confirm that she was explicitly advised that her Government’s policy to scrap interest deductibility would cause upward pressure on rents and that has helped lead to the $175-a-week increase in the last 5½ years?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think we’ve been over this in this House so many times. What we had was we had some advice initially in December that told Ministers who were considering the policies that if all we did was remove interest deductibility across the board, that could be the outcome. Of course that was not the policy that was implemented; what we did was put in place an explicit lever to privilege new supply by allowing interest deductibility on new builds. And what I will point to is that over the term of the previous Government, rents went up 39 percent; under our Government, they’ve gone up 35 percent. So I don’t think that that party can say that they can point to that as the only reason.

Chris Bishop: Now she’s brought back interest deductibility for corporate investors doing build-to-rent developments, why won’t she bring it back for mum and dad landlords and reduce their costs during this cost of living crisis?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There is interest deductibility for mum and dad landlords if they add to the supply by building new houses. There is a 20-year carve-out.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: One of the measures she referred to earlier, reintroducing Kāinga Ora to areas where it wasn’t present since 1999 such as Woodville in the Tararua District—

SPEAKER: You need to make a—

Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister did not refer to any of those things.

SPEAKER: Yeah, the question needs to have a question in it. So making a statement is not a question.

Chris Bishop: What further rent increases should tenants brace themselves for in the coming months as interest deductibility ratchets up even further at a time of rising interest rates, and why won’t she stop her war on landlords?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think what I would like to see from that member is an actual housing policy rather than the empty rhetoric that we see from him. But I point to 2011, where there was a 6.7 percent increase in rents, against this year where there’s been a 4.5 percent increase. That party needs to understand that the way you solve a housing crisis is you build more houses, and that is what this Government is doing.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

The economy performed strongly in the September 2022 quarter, where Stats New Zealand reported that it rose 2 percent in the three months to September, following a 1.9 percent increase in the previous June quarter. On an annual basis, the economy was 6.4 percent larger than a year ago, and nearly 8 percent bigger than before the pandemic, ahead of most countries that we compare ourselves with. Most economists are forecasting, however, that the economy is unlikely to sustain this momentum in the December quarter when the GDP figures are released tomorrow. Those economists are forecasting a modest decline in GDP for the last three months of 2022 following those two quarters of extremely strong growth. Westpac’s economists say that they do not necessarily see this as marking the start of a recession, as data has been choppy since COVID.

Anna Lorck: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The strength of the jobs market is continuing to support the New Zealand economy. Statistics New Zealand reported that the unemployment rate remained at a near-record low of 3.4 percent in the December quarter, while the number of people in jobs hit a record high of 2.86 million. The average hourly wage rose 7.2 percent, to $38.19, matching the current rate of inflation. We know that many Kiwi families are doing it tough in the face of cost of living pressures, but they do so while in record numbers in paid work and with wages matching inflation. This will help ease some of the pressure they are under, along with other actions the Government is taking.

Anna Lorck: What reports has he seen on the demand for labour and its impact on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The SEEK New Zealand employment report rose 0.9 percent in February, following a 2.2 percent gain in the month before, in January. On an annual basis, job ads rose at a slower pace of 7.3 percent. Looking at the regions, Auckland’s job ads were flat in February following the flooding event in late January, while also, obviously, in Hawke’s Bay, there was a 15 percent drop in the aftermath of Cyclone Gabrielle. Overall, the employment market is strong, but there are areas in New Zealand who are doing it tough.

Anna Lorck: What reports has he seen on the manufacturing sector and its impact on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Activity in the manufacturing sector expanded in February. The BNZ - BusinessNZ Performance of Manufacturing Index, or PMI, rose to 52 last month, to be slightly below the long-term average of 53. New orders and employment rose while production eased slightly. In the wake of the floods in January, activity in the northern region, including Auckland, was flat, and also, obviously, in the Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne area it was weak following Cyclone Gabrielle. Overall, the manufacturing sector continues to support the New Zealand economy.

Anna Lorck: How does manufacturing activity in New Zealand compare internationally?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Globally, the PMI stood at the break-even mark of 50, with the US, eurozone, UK, and Japan all contracting while New Zealand was joined in expansion by Australia and China. New Zealand does find itself well placed to deal with a challenging global environment and the recent extreme weather events. We have a solid balance sheet, near record-low unemployment, growing exports, rising tourist numbers, and an increasing number of overseas workers arriving to fill vacancies. We will continue to take a balanced approach that gives us flexibility and choices to support New Zealanders in a challenging economic environment.

Question No. 6—Environment

6. to the Minister for the Environment: Is it important to the Government to reduce plastic pollution rapidly in Aotearoa New Zealand; if not, why not?

Yes, which is why we banned single-use plastic bags, which has meant 1 billion fewer plastic bags have ended up in landfills. It’s why we are phasing out hard to recycle plastics that contaminate other recycled plastic. It’s why, from 1 July, we’re banning more single-use items, which will reduce single-use plastics going into the dump by 2 billion items per annum. It’s why we’ve launched the Plastics Innovation Fund, why we’ve expanded the waste levy, why the COVID recovery fund provided $60 million to recycling, why the Waste Minimisation Fund has been expanded in breadth and amount and has funded over 100 waste reduction projects, and why we’ve developed product stewardship schemes for farm plastics, plastic packaging, e-waste, large batteries, and tyres, plus a number of other measures.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he agree with his ministry’s estimates that a beverage container return scheme would divert an estimated 1.7 million containers from landfill or becoming litter pollution each year; if so, why has his Government stopped work on achieving these important environmental gains?

Hon DAVID PARKER: If I heard the member saying 1.7 million, no, I don’t think that is correct—it’s a much larger number than that. But the reason that the Government has deferred decisions on container return schemes—they have been deferred until the next Parliament—is that we think that the number one priority at the moment is the cost of living. This would have had an impost on consumers and we think it’s better to defer that decision until the next Parliament.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he agree that a container return scheme would ensure that beverage producers and retailers shared the costs and responsibility for the waste they create, instead of those costs being loaded on to nature, communities, and councils?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, but that doesn’t mean to say that we should be doing this right now. I think everyone in this Parliament agrees that New Zealand has a poor record when it comes to the management of waste. I think it is good that we have maintained a consensus across Parliament about all of those listed steps that I’ve already outlined. I personally thought we would be putting at risk that consensus in a cost of living time, and I think it is appropriate to delay this decision until the next term as this Government focuses on cost of living pressures.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Is he comfortable that stopping work on a beverage container return scheme means we will continue to only recover and recycle 46 percent of these containers each year, leaving the rest to be landfilled or become litter pollution?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I agree a container deposit scheme would make a difference; I’m also aware that in addition to the steps that I’ve already outlined, we’re in the process in Cabinet of making final decisions on the standardisation of kerbside recycling. At the moment, too much rubbish ends up in the recycling, contaminating it, and too much good stuff is going in the bin and not being recycled. Those are other measures which will also improve the collection of beverage containers.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Is he proud that Aotearoa New Zealand continues to lag behind all the states in Australia, which either have or plan to launch a container return scheme this year?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’ve actually been to one of the meetings between the Australian states that invites New Zealand along, and it is true that Australia, whilst behind Europe, is ahead of us when it comes to the better management of their waste streams. We are catching up through the initiatives that I listed earlier, but the member is correct that those states do have a container return scheme that New Zealand doesn’t yet have.

Hon Eugenie Sage: What does he say to New Zealanders who want seabirds, turtles, and marine mammals to be safe from swallowing and being killed by plastic pollution such as discarded plastic bottles?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, I would share their concern. I would also note that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is leading work to land an international agreement to reduce plastic pollution in the oceans and that the steps that I outlined earlier also help in that regard.

Question No. 7—Immigration

7. to the Minister of Immigration: What recent announcements has he made regarding visa settings for partners of migrant workers?

Recently, I made two important announcements for migrant workers and their families. Firstly, following on from signalled changes to work rights for partners last year, I announced how these changes will be implemented in practice. From 31 May this year, partners of most temporary migrant workers who wish to work in New Zealand will be required to apply for a partner of a worker visa. These changes will apply to most partners of essential skills and accredited employer work visa holders. I also announced an expansion to eligibility for the victims of family violence visa, which enables migrants who are victims of family violence to obtain a six-month open work visa independent of their partner. This will now include partners of temporary migrants, whereas it currently only applies to partners of New Zealand residents.

Marja Lubeck: What conditions will apply to the partner of a worker visa?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Partners of migrant workers will be able to work for any accredited employer, generally, as long as they are paid at or above the median wage. They will not need to have a job or a job offer to apply for the visa and they will not need to engage with Immigration New Zealand if they change jobs. Partners will also be able to apply for a work visa from offshore. This is a significant simplification from previous proposals which would have previously required a full accredited employer work visa while keeping protections in place to guard against the proliferation of exploitation and low pay, which were the hallmarks of a previous Government’s immigration policy.

Marja Lubeck: Why did the Government take time to ensure a more streamlined approach for partners to obtain a work visa?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As I said in December, we wanted to consult widely on proposed changes to partner work rights and have responded to feedback from stakeholders. This was to ensure that we facilitate access to labour in a tight market while continuing to move away from the previous approach, which put many of these migrant workers into very low-wage positions in which they were vulnerable towards exploitation. It’s a part of our broader shift towards a high-wage, high-skill economy which views migrants as more than just labour units. The approach I outlined last week still requires partners to acquire work rights in their own right, while ensuring the process for doing so is simple, provides certainty for migrant families, and provides protections for vulnerable individuals.

Marja Lubeck: Why is expanding access to the victims of family violence visa important?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: While immigration settings do not cause family violence, it is incredibly important that they do not pose a barrier to those who need to escape abuse. The expansion of access to the victims of family violence visa works in tandem with the work the Government is undertaking to implement Te Aorerekura, the National Strategy to Eliminate Family Violence and Sexual Violence. This is just the start, and further work is planned to ensure that we provide the right support for migrant victims of family violence.

Question No. 8—Health

8. to the Minister of Health: How many people in the six months following the establishment of Health New Zealand waited in hospital EDs more than 24 hours under the shorter stays in emergency departments indicator, and what was the longest ED wait time?

In answer to the first part of the question, from July 2022 to December 2022, 3,600 patients spent 24 hours or more in an emergency department (ED) from presentation to discharge. This does not mean those people are waiting for more than 24 hours to be seen and treated; this is 24 hours to complete all of treatment, transfer, or discharge. It will include patients under observation whose treatment or diagnostics will have been commenced or concluded. In answer to the second part of the question, I advise that a figure on the longest time spent in an emergency department requires an audit and is not possible in the time available for an oral question.

Dr Shane Reti: If 3,600 people waited more than 24 hours in an emergency department, why won’t she bring ED targets to the forefront of her health policy instead of what she has stated?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The member is aware from other written questions that a large number of those people who waited longer than 24 hours was at Palmerston North Hospital, and I think that instance there illustrates the difference between our health policies incredibly well, because whereas on that side of the House they like to set up targets and think that is the solution to every problem, our Government has built 11 new beds in order to make sure that patients can be discharged from the emergency department. We will back up areas where improvement is needed with, actually, resources.

Dr Shane Reti: Why are urgent emergency department and surgical wait-list targets not at the forefront of her policies but this year’s flu vaccine target is?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: In order to address the long and unacceptable wait times in emergency departments, we will need to take action on multiple fronts. That will include—as we have already done—announcing the roll-out of an influenza and COVID vaccination programme. It will include multiple actions in the community to keep people out of hospital. It will include better coordination of the flow of patients through emergency departments works in order to make sure that discharges from the hospital are freed up. All of these things need to happen, and Te Whatu Ora is presenting an integrated plan to do it.

Dr Shane Reti: Is the 3,600 people waiting more than 24 hours in an ED department in the second half of last year double what it was in the first half of the year, before Health New Zealand was created?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: There has been an increase and, therefore, we need to make sure that the multiple impacts of COVID on our health system are addressed in a systematic way, and that is the focus of the plan Te Whatu Ora is implementing.

Dr Shane Reti: Does it show how out of touch she is with emergency departments that Waikato Hospital, which has worse figures than nearly half of those on her hotspot list, is not even included on the list, and how does she explain that to the hard-working staff at Waikato ED?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That’s a long bow. I’ve spent plenty of time in my career in emergency departments and have visited three emergency departments during my time as health Minister. We continue to work to make sure that all of these departments improve their performance.

Dr Shane Reti: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table an unpublished written parliamentary question showing the 24-hour wait time across the EDs.

SPEAKER: Can you say that again? I—

Dr Shane Reti: I seek leave to publish an unpublished written parliamentary question showing those waiting more than 24 hours in an emergency department.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. It may be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Question No. 9—Health

9. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcement has the Government made about HIV?

On Sunday, the Prime Minister announced the release of the national HIV Action Plan, laying out our plan to eliminate local transmission of HIV by 2030 and ensure that people living with HIV have healthy lives free from stigma and discrimination. Our targets are ambitious, but we’re ready to make a big stride.

Glen Bennett: What are the prioritised actions?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: One of the key things to achieve elimination is to make sure that we have good access and use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Therefore, we’re funding an update of PrEP clinical guidance to make sure New Zealand is up to date in that area. We’ll be funding the scale and roll-out of innovative testing for HIV, developing a monitoring plan, and working with community organisations so they can be effective in HIV prevention.

Glen Bennett: What areas will we be focusing on to achieve HIV elimination by 2030?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The plan focuses on five key things: reducing new and locally acquired HIV infections, improving Māori health and wellbeing in relation to HIV, decreasing mortality, removing stigma, and increasing equity. I’m confident this plan places Aotearoa in a great position to eliminate transmission for future generations.

Glen Bennett: How else is the Government supporting rainbow communities?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The goals of the HIV Action Plan will be supported by the strides we’re taking across the health sector to improve responsiveness to rainbow communities. Across multiple determinants of health, rainbow and takatāpui - identifying people experience poorer health outcomes than the general population, and these inequalities are greater for trans and non-binary people. This Government is committed to a health system that gives all New Zealanders the opportunity to achieve good health and wellbeing outcomes, regardless of who they are.

Question No. 10—Education

10. to the Minister of Education: What are the Government’s professional learning and development (PLD) priorities, as listed on the Ministry of Education website, and how many, if any, teachers engaged in maths PLD in 2022?

To the first part of the question, there are seven PLD priorities that underpin regionally allocated PLD. For English medium: cultural capability, local curriculum design, and assessment for learning. For Māori medium: mātauranga Māori and te reo Māori, marau ā-kura, and aromatawai. Digital fluency remains a priority across Māori and English medium. To the second part of the question, I am interpreting this as centrally funded PLD. In 2022, at least 260 schools and kura engaged in maths PLD as their priority focus from the regionally allocated PLD fund. Some of these PLD contracts included clusters of schools—schools working with each other—so the actual number will be higher. The ministry informs me that schools reported that this included 9,398 teachers, and, in addition, 569 teachers and leaders from across 294 primary schools were engaged with Just-In-Time Maths workshops around the country. Over the 2022 school year, $14.1 million was supported for maths PLD from the centrally funded appropriations.

Erica Stanford: If maths is such a priority, as she stated in the House yesterday, can she explain why it is not on the Government’s professional development priority list for teachers?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Maths is a priority. Central PLD funding is allocated to the regions for them to allocate to meet the needs for their teachers. Schools must pick PLD programmes that fit within the seven priority themes. Now, I need to give an example of how this would work. Developing Mathematical Inquiry Communities (DMIC), which 139 school communities completed in 2022, fits in the cultural capability priority theme. Research from the past two decades tells us that Māori and Pacific learners thrive when learning environments are responsive to their cultures and contexts. DMIC develops mathematical capability through collaboration and culturally responsive pedagogy because the evidence shows it works.

Erica Stanford: When her own Government’s commissioned report told her that only half of year 4 teachers felt “moderately confident in teaching any strand of mathematics”, why did she then not bother to find out exactly how many teachers across the 41,000 teachers teaching primary and intermediate maths are engaging in maths professional development?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I think the answer to my first question would show that from the centrally funded PLD funds, 9,398 teachers are getting centrally funded PLD. That is on top of their own PLD that schools will be paying for, as they also see it as a priority.

Erica Stanford: When she was told by the international mathematics and science study that over half of teachers felt that their professional support in maths was fair, poor, or very poor, why did she not immediately put maths on the professional development priority list to ensure that all teachers are getting the support that they need?

Hon JAN TINETTI: The member misunderstands that the priority areas are what underpins the philosophies for the different areas. Maths is a priority for this Government. We have put that out in our strategy documents. We have put that out in our action plans to meet the goals of that strategy. PLD is a central focus for those strategies.

Erica Stanford: Why hasn’t she made maths professional development an urgent priority on that list over the last six years when around half of year 4 teachers don’t feel confident teaching any strand of maths, half of teachers don’t feel supported, and less than half of year 8 kids are at curriculum in maths?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I have.

Erica Stanford: How can she look parents in the eye and guarantee that their child is getting the best possible education in maths when she cannot guarantee that the Government has adequately supported teachers to teach maths in the last six years?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I have confidence that our teachers know how to assess their students and communicate this to parents. I won’t be bringing in national standards again, which were a complete failure. What I am doing is ensuring our curriculum is crystal clear on what needs to be taught and when, so that learning is not left to chance.

Question No. 11—Economic Development

11. to the Minister for Economic Development: What announcements has he made on transforming the advanced manufacturing sector?

on behalf of the Minister for Economic Development: This week, I launched the Industry Transformation Plan for Advanced Manufacturing. The Government is focused on the issues in front of New Zealanders right now—in particular, the cost of living and recovering from Cyclone Gabrielle. These plans set out how we can transform industries by increasing innovation and productivity, which will drive higher wages and living standards in a non-inflationary way. I would like to thank Brett O’Riley from the Employers and Manufacturers Association and Rachel Macintosh from the E tū union for their leadership in getting this advanced manufacturing plan over the line.

Naisi Chen: Why was advanced manufacturing identified for our industry transformation plan (ITP)?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The advanced manufacturing sector has significant untapped potential to increase productivity and higher-wage jobs, and to support the transition to a globally competitive, lower-emissions economy, the plan sets out how this can be achieved.

Naisi Chen: What funding has been allocated for this plan?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As a first step, the Government has committed $30 million to implement a number of immediate actions identified in the plan. This includes $3.65 million for company-specific advice on adopting advanced technologies and processes, $4 million to upskill manufacturing workers in digital skills, and $2.9 million for company-specific support to achieve circular, low-emissions manufacturing.

Naisi Chen: How will this transformation plan be affected by the recent extreme weather events?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Advanced manufacturing is vitally important throughout the country, including in the regions severely impacted by recent extreme weather. Right now, many business and workers will be responding to the devastating aftermath of these events. Even as we respond to these immediate challenges, we cannot lose sight of the long-term aspiration for a high-wage economy. Delivering the actions set out in the ITP will help us work together through current pressures and transform to the high-wage, low-emissions economy that will provide economic security for New Zealanders.

Andrew Bayly: Why, having been the Minister for more than three years and having spent a quarter of a million dollars on the advanced manufacturing transformation plan, does that plan not identify any time line when the initiatives must be implemented?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, this is a plan that has been developed with the sector. The sector has helped identify the priorities, and, unlike the member, we’re not going to dictate from Wellington exactly how this is done. We trust our advanced manufacturing sector.

Question No. 12—Police

12. to the Minister of Police: Is she satisfied with the Police response to Cyclone Gabrielle in Hawke’s Bay, and is she satisfied that Police deployed enough staff to the region throughout the response?

Yes.

Nicole McKee: What does she say to the 2,600 locals who signed a petition calling for the Eagle helicopter to stay in Hawke’s Bay beyond the disaster response, and does she know whether police are going to trial a full-time air patrol in Hawke’s Bay, like the 2020 Canterbury trial?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: While I have huge empathy for those members of the community that are affected, what I do say is that Eagle was, of course, there from the 17 February through to 5 March. That is a decision that police will have to make, but we will be having a debrief of what the policing response was and seeing what lessons can be learnt.

Nicole McKee: What does she say to a Hawke’s Bay resident who said, “When it was around there was that huge sense of security, that there was that extra set of eyes, that people who were up to no good were going to be much easier tracked from [the air].”, now that the Eagle helicopter is gone and 145 police officers will soon return to their home bases?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I say to those residents is that there will be a fifth contingent of outside officers from outside the district that will be coming in to replace the fourth contingent that was there. So we will continue to provide additional support.

Nicole McKee: Has the Government given police enough resources to set up mobile units in Hawke’s Bay in response to feedback that the 105 non-emergency line was too difficult to access, and, if so, is she aware of why locals were ignored for two weeks before police established these units?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We will of course continue to review the ongoing requirements in Hawke’s Bay.