Oral Questions

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

Yes, I do, and especially our announcement of new targets for at least 80 percent of students regularly attending school and 80 percent of year 8 students at or above the expected curriculum level for their age in reading, writing, and maths. These are critical things to make sure that our kids can get the quality education they have and can follow the dreams that they have. Finally we have a Government that’s getting New Zealand back on track, getting our kids back to school, and making sure they’re going to do well.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did he say yesterday that the Suicide Prevention Office would remain open, when the Ministry of Health officials were saying at the same time that it wouldn’t?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said yesterday, the Ministry of Health said that they did not adequately brief the Minister. The Minister has made it very clear the functions of the Suicide Prevention Office will remain open.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Were any Ministers in his Government briefed on the Ministry of Health’s proposal to wind up the Suicide Prevention Office before it became public knowledge?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I don’t know how to be any clearer: we’ve had the Ministry of Health come out and say they did not adequately brief the Minister. Within a very quick and short period of time, the Minister responded by saying he wanted the functions of the Suicide Prevention Office to remain, and they will remain.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Prime Minister might have missed my question. I was asking about any Ministers in his Government. Of course, there are multiple Ministers of Health. The Minister that he’s referring to is not the Vote Minister; that is the Minister of Health. I was asking him whether any Ministers in his Government had been briefed on the proposal before it become public.

SPEAKER: Well, I think he probably did answer that, but he could perhaps say something else.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, no, I feel like I have answered it. I’ve answered it yesterday; I’m answering it again today. As I said, the Ministry of Health said they did not adequately brief the Minister. The Minister of Mental Health has come out and said that he wants the functions of the Suicide Prevention Office to remain and they will remain. That’s the situation.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was the Minister of Health or any other Minister in his Government briefed on the ministry’s proposals before they were made public?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did Ministry of Health officials just yesterday say that the role of the director of the Suicide Prevention Office will not be filled, other roles in the Suicide Prevention Office will be cut, and the work of the office would be integrated into other ministry work, which to most people sounds like the office is being wound up?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I can reassure you, the Minister has been very clear to say that the functions of the Suicide Prevention Office will remain.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he guarantee that his Government’s proposal to cut jobs from the Ministry of Health, including from the tobacco regulation team, will not lead to an increase in youth smoking?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are determined as a Government to deliver on the smoke-free 2025 targets. As that member well knows, we’ve had good progress in the last 12 months, and we’re going to march towards a 5 percent daily smoker target under smoke-free 2025.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he guarantee that his Government’s proposal to cut 6.5 percent from the budget of Customs will not lead to longer lines at airports, delays for our importers and exporters, and more illicit drugs entering New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can say to that member is that we finally have a Government that can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can end the wasteful spending, we can prioritise front-line services, we can deliver tax relief for low- and middle-income workers—folk that that member’s party used to care about—and we can make sure we can grow this economy.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That can’t possibly come anywhere close to addressing the question that I had asked the Prime Minister. I asked him whether he would guarantee that there wouldn’t be more illicit drugs coming into the country, longer lines at airports—

SPEAKER: I know what you asked him, and that is the problem. You’re asking him to give a guarantee which is in the nature of a yes/no answer, and I ruled those out yesterday.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Yeah, but he at least needs to address the question. I admit I can’t make him say yes or no, but he at least needs to talk about the question that was asked, as opposed to whatever he feels like.

SPEAKER: I’m not going to debate it with you, but I don’t think asking someone to guarantee something and then saying they must address that is in any way different from asking for a yes or no answer. Please ask another supp.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he guarantee that his proposal to cut 6.5 percent from the Customs budget won’t lead to longer times at airports, won’t lead to delays for our importers and exporters, and won’t lead to more illicit drugs entering New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can reassure that member is that this’ll be a Government that will rebuild our economy, restore law and order, and deliver better public services in health and education.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has she made about tax?

The answer to this question is that two weeks ago I released the Government’s Budget Policy Statement. This confirmed that there will be personal income tax relief in the Budget, and it noted that New Zealanders have not seen any changes to personal income rates and thresholds since 2010, apart from Labour’s introduction of a higher top tax rate. Now, for 14 years, people have been taxed more and more as their incomes have risen, much of that due to inflation. This Government will start to address that in Budget 2024.

Stuart Smith: What have been the consequences of not adjusting tax brackets?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I can give the House an example, because I’m acutely aware that there are members of this House who adamantly oppose tax reduction for working people. In 2011, the median full-time wage and salary worker earned $48,000 and paid 15.5 percent of their income in tax. Today, the median full-time wage and salary worker earns $73,400.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It’s because wages are going up—that’s a great thing.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: He may not like it, but he should listen to the fact, because today that wage earner pays 20.6 percent of their income in tax, as compared to 15.5 percent in 2011. In other words—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: They don’t like growing wages—they don’t like growing wages.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —and, actually, the Leader of the Opposition should listen rather than interrupt—the average tax rate for someone who by definition is right in the middle of the income distribution has gone up by more than five percentage points, and that has happened because of the neglect and indifference of what long ago was known as the party of the worker.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Government continues on a daily basis to directly challenge your ruling as the Speaker, and that was another blatant example of it. Not only did you not stop Nicola Willis for a blatant attack on the previous Government but you actually allowed her to deliver a speech rather than an answer to the question.

SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect, there was quite a lot of interjection going on during that time, and I think that while the speech was too long—sorry, the answer was too long—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I rest my case!

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, I’ve never been one for long speeches, but it was too long an answer. But I don’t think that you could say that was an attack on the previous Government. Talking about what has historically happened is not unreasonable and not outside the Standing Orders.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The last bit of her answer absolutely was.

SPEAKER: Well, maybe I didn’t hear it because of some of the noise that was going on, but I will have a look at that on Hansard. I’m trying my best to be fair and even.

Stuart Smith: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why is the Government concerned about fiscal drag?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I note there’s a lot of sensitivity about the answers to these questions. The fiscal drag—

SPEAKER: No, with all due respect, that doesn’t help things either, so just start the answer again.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Sure. Well, the fiscal drag I have described affects people at all levels of income. As the years go by, they find themselves paying an increasing share of their earnings in income tax, and this can affect people’s perceptions of fairness in the tax system and as a result have a negative impact on compliance. Also, as people move into higher tax brackets, they face higher marginal tax rates, which can be a disincentive to work. This Government wants people to see a future for themselves and their families in New Zealand where they can get ahead if they work hard and keep more of their own money.

Stuart Smith: Will personal income tax relief in Budget 2024 be inflationary?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. Tax relief will be funded by reducing Government consumption and increasing revenue elsewhere, all sitting within the Budget 2024 operating allowance. Furthermore, that allowance will be lower than the allowance set by the previous Government. This means that tax relief is affordable, we will not be borrowing extra to pay for it, and tax relief will not add to inflationary pressures.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and especially our announcement of nine priority targets, including reducing New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions to align with our 2050 net zero climate goal. Of course, we’re going to achieve that by fast-track consenting so we can get more renewable energy, like windfarms, built, we’re going to remove the GE ban to empower our world-class agriscientists to actually manage methane emissions down, and, of course, we’re going to restore integrity to the emissions trading scheme.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister stand by his answer to me at question time yesterday that the Climate Change Commission’s draft advice on biogenic methane is “speculation”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t think I expressed it in those terms.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I can quote directly from the Hansard—

SPEAKER: Hang on, wait until I call you.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Point of order, Chlöe Swarbrick.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I would quote directly from the Hansard, in which the Prime Minister responded to a direct quote from the Climate Change Commission’s report.

SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Chlöe Swarbrick: All right, Mr Speaker. May I have another supplementary, then, to probe this point?

SPEAKER: Certainly not an extra one. Carry on.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What does he understand the role of the Climate Change Commission to be?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it provides important advice to the Government about the state of climate change in New Zealand.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he then agree with the Climate Change Commission, who said on Monday, and I quote, “there has not be an important or notable change in the understanding of the physical science on methane and how it warms the atmosphere”; or is he to extend his logic also to reopen the science on, say, gravity?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t know how to answer the last part of that question, but what I would just say is that we are determined to make sure that we update the science base on methane. It has changed over the last five years. It’s changed over the last 10 years. It will change in the next five years and in the next 10 years. It’s important that we get a common base of understanding of science knowledge so we can set the right targets.

Hon Marama Davidson: Science denier.

SPEAKER: Just wait—OK.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What exactly is wrong with the Climate Change Commission’s science such that the Government feels compelled to open a secondary review on the science of methane?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry—I missed the question.

SPEAKER: Could the member ask the question again?

Chlöe Swarbrick: What does the Prime Minister consider is wrong with the Climate Change Commission’s science on methane?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Nothing particularly. We have two reviews going on, answering slightly different questions to make sure that we get a common understanding of the science base.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: What process, if any, has she established for portfolio Ministers and Cabinet to review and approve the cost-saving proposals currently being consulted on by agencies through the Initial Baseline Exercise?

Ministers were asked in late December to work with their agencies to develop credible savings options for Budget 2024. Chief executives were expected to exercise good judgment in putting forward savings proposals, and Ministers have worked with agencies to refine them. The savings exercise is an ongoing and iterative process, including through Budget bilaterals between myself and various Ministers. Cabinet will be asked to approve the full Budget package.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it her expectation that Ministers will understand the full implications of their agencies’ final cost savings plans prior to Cabinet considering the Budget package, as set out in question time yesterday?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she concerned, then, that agency cuts won’t be finalised prior to Cabinet considering Budget 2024, and how does she expect her colleagues to consider and reject those proposals if the Budget has already been finalised?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, there’s two things happening here. The first is that agencies, as a matter of course, routinely, and have for many years made decisions to restructure their entities in order to focus on their core priorities and to drive efficiency. Some of the changes that are under way and change processes that are happening across the public service now are actually the result of reforms by the previous Government. For example, in the case of Health New Zealand, it was always an expectation that there would then be reductions in the number of roles at the Ministry of Health. The second thing that is happening here is that in some cases, agencies have made decisions at an operational level to begin change processes and to consult on those change processes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can the Minister of Health meet her expectations to understand the impact of the Ministry of Health’s cuts prior to Cabinet agreeing the Budget when final decisions are not expected to come until June?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I think I just answered that in my previous answer.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she say that her colleagues are able to reject proposals to freeze hiring at Oranga Tamariki and Police, or cut jobs from the tobacco regulation team at Health or the Suicide Prevention Office, when these are being finalised after Cabinet agrees her Budget?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because many entities have put forward proposals that Ministers have rejected. That is happening, that has happened, and I suspect it will continue to happen.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it not the case that she will pursue significant cost cutting to pay for her tax cuts package without knowing the full impact on the public, while leaving her colleagues to front the consequences of her decisions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I want to tell you about the impact it had on the public when that Government chose to increase spending—

SPEAKER: No, no—

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —at a rapid rate and the decisions—

SPEAKER: Sorry—resume your seat. No—take your seat. After all the discussion that we’ve had in recent days, don’t start an answer like that. Attacks on the Opposition for their political activities are not reasonable. Referencing decisions they’ve made and the consequences of those decisions as they affect portfolios now is in order, but the way that was presented was not quite to form.

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: To the rescue!

Hon Chris Bishop: The only one that needs rescuing is your deputy leadership. But anyway—Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hang on; just a minute. We’ve got a point of order being taken. They are heard in silence.

Hon Chris Bishop: There’s been a protocol, Mr Speaker, that political questions get political answers. That was quite a political question—very serious, quite charged, a politically charged allegation inherent in the question—and the Minister of Finance is responding in a political way. That’s always been the rule, sir, that political questions get political answers; straight questions deserve straight answers. Is the rule now that political questions can’t be political in their answers?

SPEAKER: No, of course not. But your version, your assessment of what is a politically charged question and mine, are clearly different. Your view on what is a reasonable answer and mine are different, but mine will prevail. Does the Minister wish to—point of order, the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We absolutely accept that point of orders will be heard in silence, but we also believe that the rule that points of orders should solely be points of orders should also be followed, and when they’re not, it’s likely to lead to disorder in the House.

SPEAKER: That is true, but given the nature of the ruling, I decided to let that slide. But it won’t be happening again. So, Minister, would you like to answer the question—or would you like to hear it again?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Oh no, I’m fine. Look, I can offer the member opposite real reassurance that every single member of this Government supports our decision to offer tax relief to working people by reprioritising some of the wasteful spending that was put in place by those members.

Question No. 5—Agriculture (Animal Welfare, Skills)

Question No. 5, Mark Cameron. [Interruption]

Mark Cameron: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Just wait a minute. Just giving the House a moment to settle.

5. to the Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare, Skills): What recent announcements, if any, has he made in his portfolio?

Today, the Minister of Agriculture and I announced our intention to improve freshwater farm plans to make them more cost-effective and pragmatic for farmers. I see freshwater farm plans as a key tool to support farmers to enhance the freshwater environment in the future, but the current system is too costly, too complex, and too inflexible. This announcement signals the Government’s intention to make farm plans fit for purpose and align to the particular circumstances of each farm and catchment.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order. Point of order. Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just seeking your guidance—given that this is a patsy question, it was filed to the Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare, Skills), the press release which is being alluded to—

SPEAKER: Sorry, that’s not a point of order.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, the press release that is being alluded to is—

SPEAKER: It is entirely the Government’s decision which Minister will answer a question.

Mark Cameron: What changes to freshwater farm plans is he considering?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: The sector has told us that the current system is rigid, with time and money needed to complete a farm plan not lining up with the level of risk for many farmers. Among other things, we will take a look at the certification and auditing requirements of the system, with a view to ensuring that future settings are justifiable on the basis of cost and environmental benefit. We will also make sure that we are doing as much as we can to reduce duplication in farm planning. Many farmers are already doing comprehensive farm plans that, in many cases, could easily be recognised as equivalent.

Mark Cameron: What value will an improved farm plan system provide farmers?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: In addition to supporting and to protect and enhance the environment, we intend to develop a flexible but robust system where farm plans can be specifically targeted to the unique needs of each farm and catchment. Ideally, these plans can stand in the place of local rules and consents for a range of common farming activities.

Mark Cameron: What does he intend to do for farmers in areas where a freshwater farm plan system is already being implemented?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: The system roll-out began under the previous Government in parts of some regions, including the Waikato and Southland, where farmers have to put these plans or have them developed by early next year. We want to give as much certainty as possible to farmers as we work through these changes, especially those that may already be putting their plans together. As part of that, we may look into whether the current requirements to complete freshwater farm plans could be paused.

Question No. 6—Māori Development

6. to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by all the Government’s policies and actions?

Āna, āna. Kei te tino tautoko i te anga whakamua o tō tātou Kāwanatanga, me ngā mihi matakoakoa ki tō tātou Pirīmia i āna kōrero tongarerewa i te Mane e hangā mai nei he whāinga mō tātou katoa.

[Yes, yes. I very much support the forward direction of our Government, and happily acknowledge our Prime Minister for his precious statements on Monday that goals will be created for all of us.]

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What is his level of involvement regarding the Government’s policy to remove section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act, which iwi leaders have stated really clearly will sever iwi partnerships, will further alienate tamariki Māori from their ‘hakapapa, and lead to more harm of tamariki Māori in the Crown’s care?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: He mema au nō te Kāpenata, ā, ka wānanga ērā momo kaupapa ki te Kāpenata.

[I am a member of the Cabinet, and those types of topics were considered by the Cabinet.]

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Was he consulted on the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority, and, if so, what is his view on the impacts this will have on Māori health inequities?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Ka nui hoki ngā kōrero i kawea atu e mātou o te Pāti Nāhinara me ngā rōpū haumi ki te Kāwanatanga haumi ki tēnei take mō Te Aka Whai Ora i te wā o te pōti, me te mea nei kua tukuna mai e taku manu hauora nei ngā pepa ki te Kāpenata. Kei roto au i te Kāpenata, kua kite au i ērā pepa.

[There were a lot of statements that were taken by us of the National Party and the coalition parties to the coalition Government about this issue for the Māori Health Authority during the election campaign, and my health leader here has passed those papers on to Cabinet. I am in the Cabinet; I have seen those papers.]

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Was he consulted on the decision to repeal Aotearoa’s smoke-free legislation, given that the Smokefree Aotearoa campaign was initiated and led by Māori, and smoking is the leading cause of preventable death of our people?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Ēnei pepa i kawea mai nei e te Minita, e Casey Costello, tērā uri o te Nōta, ā, i kawea atu ki te Kāpenata me te mea nei i kite hoki au i ērā pepa.

[These papers that were brought by the Minister, by Casey Costello, that descendant of the North, were conveyed to Cabinet and I also saw those papers.]

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What advice did he seek regarding the disproportionate impact that scrapping funding for section 27 reports in sentencing will have on Māori, which experts have stated will lead to further discrimination of Māori in the criminal justice system, higher rates of offending, and higher rates of Māori in prison?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I kite hoki au i ngā pepa i tukuna atu ki te Kāpenata, me te mō’io hoki ahakoa kua takahi i tērā ara ki te whakakore i ngā pūtea tautoko mō ērā ripoata, e taea tonutia ana e te marea e tae ana ki ngā kōti ki te kawe mai i ō rātou nawe e pā ana ki te āhuatanga, te tuakiritanga o te tangata, tōna hītori, her-tori rānei. Koirā hoki te ara i ngā rua tekau tau, tekau mā rima tau i muri.

[I also saw the papers that were given to Cabinet, and I also know that although that path to disestablishing the support funding for those reports has been walked, the public that appear in court continue to be able to bring their issues with respect to the character, the identity of the individual, his history, or her-story. That has been the way for the last 20 years or 15 years.]

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What level of involvement did he have in the decision to reintroduce referendums on Māori wards which breaches Māori rights to representation in local government?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: It’s absolutely marvellous to see so many Māori councillors on councils throughout the country, and the coalition agreements have stated that the Māori wards issues will be put to all constituencies that have not already agreed to the Māori wards. That’s what the coalition agreement stated and that’s what we are following today.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. If I can just clarify, my question was specifically on what level of involvement did he have in the decision to reintroduce referendums on Māori.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Thank you for that question. I am a member of Cabinet and we have received papers in relation to that matter, and Cabinet has taken decisions accordingly.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What is his view on the implications that policies such as the Fast-track Approvals Bill, the Treaty principles bill, the removal of section 7AA—

Hon Shane Jones: Matua’s bill.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: —from Oranga Tamariki—

SPEAKER: No, just hang on—hang on. Wait please. The deal is—I don’t want to name anybody here, but we don’t speak while the question is being asked, so please start that again.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What is his view on the implications that policies such as the Fast-track Approvals Bill, the Treaty principles bill, the removal of section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act, the ministerial alienation of te reo Māori, and the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority will have on Māori fundamental rights and interests, and on the wellbeing of your and my mokopuna?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I am a member of the Cabinet, and as a result I take very close to heart the notion of collective Cabinet responsibility, and there have been a number of issues that have emerged out of various bills and pieces of legislation and policies that you’ve referred to. I am absolutely strengthened and motivated to ensure that the rights and interests of Māori—such as Treaty settlements—are preserved through those processes, as you can see in the draft legislation for the Fast-track Approvals Bill, which I hope ultimately will be passed, and iwi and other Māori groups can take advantage of that legislation.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has the Government made about shorter wait times for elective treatment?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister launched ambitious health targets as part of the Government’s target suite. This will help improve the lives of all New Zealanders. One of these targets was shorter wait times for elective treatment. This target aims to see 95 percent of people wait less than four months for their elective treatments. This won’t be easy, but the Government is committed to improving the lives of all New Zealanders through better, more efficient public services. We look to deliver the public services that New Zealanders deserve.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Why is an elective target important?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This target was chosen because the treatment times that we used to expect and achieve just six years ago have reduced. Wait times for elective treatments have turned into a highly stressful experience, with patients having no certainty as to when they will receive access to the care that they need. As of September 2023, only 62 percent of patients waited less than four months for their elective treatments, down significantly from around 97 percent in late 2017. This is not good enough, and we want to deliver better care.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Is this target too ambitious given the current state of the health system?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This target is not meant to be easy to achieve. We’re not here to do what is easy; we’re here to do what is needed. Despite the very hard work of our front-line health workforce over the past six years, our wait times have continued to grow. That’s why we are taking a different approach by putting targets back at the forefront of our decision making. These targets will direct attention and resources and set a clear agenda for where our health system should be heading.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does his ambition include a reduction in the ESPI 5, or planned care treatment wait list, in the coming financial year?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Our ambitions are to improve all of the wait times that we announced in our targets and, as we have said, the baseline will be set as of 1 July 2024.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How will the Government track progress against this target?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We last achieved 95 percent between early 2015 and the end of 2017, so we know it’s possible. The health agencies will report results each quarter, with the first quarterly result expected to be for the July to September 2024 period. This reporting will be robust to ensure we can target resources appropriately.

Question No. 8—Mental Health

Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to point out I am pre-empting this question a bit, that it will be around the Suicide Prevention Office. I’m happy to proceed with the question; I just want to point out my delegation for suicide prevention is not Associate Minister of Health; it’s for mental health. It’s in the sheet, yeah.

It’s not necessarily a point of order, but you managed to make a point, I suppose.

Well, point of order, Mr Speaker. Noting that, it is, I believe, actually fair to say because the question was put to the Minister for Mental Health. The Minister for Mental Health is confused as to why it’s down as the Associate Minister of Health, and given we didn’t put it there, I think it doesn’t have to be right away but it would be good to know how it’s ended up here like that.

That’s fair enough. There is a process that you’re well aware of as to how those questions do get put down. It is the—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: That’s why I didn’t do a point of order.

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s right, and so I’ll take a good look at it. Thanks very much.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. It does raise a reasonably substantive issue. The Government is ultimately responsible for determining which Minister is responsible for answering a question, but where the question is a broad one, like whether the Minister stands by all of their statements and actions, there can be very limited grounds for transferring that from one Minister to another, because, ultimately, the Government, if they have transferred it, have determined that the Associate Minister of Health is better to answer questions on whether the Minister for Mental Health stands by their statements and actions, or not. That seems a slightly odd decision, given that the Minister for Mental Health is the same person and is in the House. So if the question’s been transferred, it must have been the Government that transferred it and they must have a rationale for doing that.

Speaking to the point of order. This is mysterious. I’ve just checked, Mr Speaker. The question was lodged to the Minister for Mental Health; the Government did not transfer it to the Associate Minister of Health. Somewhere along the line—and I think the Clerk is checking right now—the question has made its way from being lodged to the Minister for Mental Health, which I think the Minister for Mental Health is happy to answer in that capacity, and it’s gone on in the Order Paper as the Associate Minister of Health, but the Government didn’t transfer it—

Well, we could have a massive inquest here, or someone could seek leave for the question to be directed to the Minister for Mental Health.

Mr Speaker, I seek leave of the House for the question to be directed to the Minister for Mental Health.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

8. to the Minister for Mental Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

First, can I just take a moment to acknowledge how triggering the conversations have been around suicide for many people in New Zealand who have been affected by suicide in their families and their communities. Yes, I do stand beside my statements and actions, specifically that mental health and suicide prevention is a priority for this Government. My priorities for mental health, addictions, and suicide are to increase access to timely mental health, addiction, and suicide prevention support; number two, to grow the mental health and addiction and suicide prevention workforce; and, three, strengthen focus on prevention and early intervention.

Ingrid Leary: Does he stand by his statement this week insisting that the Suicide Prevention Office would not be a victim of the Government’s cost cutting?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Yes. Look, can I take the opportunity to clear something up. I saw the change document for the first time, with the officials taking me through it, on Monday. They have taken me through it and showed, with the change proposal, the proposal is actually to go from 5.5 fulltime-equivalents (FTE) in the Suicide Prevention Office, which it currently is, to 6.5 in the change proposal, which is only a proposal but it will increase capacity and capability in that office that will remain open. It has been misleading: the Public Service Association put out a press release that it was to close; I was never informed of that, and it was not to close.

Ingrid Leary: Why did his health officials double down on their advice to the media yesterday, saying that the number of roles to be disestablished and the number of roles to be integrated were, essentially, exactly the same as what they advised last week?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, in response to that question, I can only go by the assurance I got when I was given the change proposal for the first time on Monday. They took me through it and showed me where it has gone from 5.5 FTE to 6.5 FTE. I want to be very clear—and the officials have acknowledged I wasn’t sufficiently briefed—I was not told it was to close. I’ve always been very clear. There’s been a lot of discussion in the sector that is critical of the Suicide Prevention Office. One major commentator has called for it to close. I do not want it to close.

Ingrid Leary: What is the practical difference between retaining only the functions of the office and closure, given that the Prime Minister has just confirmed in the House today that there are current roles that will no longer be filled?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: I’ve been very clear—and I was even interviewed by Jack Tame on Q+A—that I’ve been disappointed by the Suicide Prevention Office; I think it’s lacked real leadership. The sector has been disappointed. But I’ve never been of the view to delete it; I’ve always been of the view to, actually, how we can give it clear expectations, manage it, targets, and goals. As part of the review of the Suicide Action Plan that I’m due to take in the next couple of months, I will be doing that with the Suicide Prevention Office.

Ingrid Leary: Why did he ask his officials to publicly apologise?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: I did not ask the officials to publicly apologise.

Ingrid Leary: Why are officials publicly apologising when they’re actually just following Government directions to find 6.5 percent funding cuts across health?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, that’s very simple, because the fiscal sustainability programme clearly states to find savings while still delivering quality public services, and delivering a Suicide Prevention Office is a quality public service.

Question No. 9—Social Development and Employment

9. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s recent statement that the average adult now is on the benefit for 13 years on average, and the under-25s are on the benefit for an average of 24 years?

Yes, in its full context. The Prime Minister was referring to independent evidence produced by Taylor Fry in 2022, which reported that someone on the jobseeker benefit is expected to spend 13 years on benefit throughout their lifetime. The same evidence shows someone on a youth benefit is expected to spend 24 years on benefits throughout their lifetime.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she aware that the Taylor Fry report she just quoted actually says that only 0.5 percent of people on the benefit are expected to spend 24 years on a benefit throughout their lifetime?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Anyone that spends up to 24 years of their future lifetime on welfare is a major issue for this Government, and that’s why we are focused on fixing it.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why, then, has the Prime Minister and the Minister continued to say that under-25s are on the benefit for an average of 24 years?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because that’s what the Taylor Fry report has said. For someone who goes on to youth payment or youth parent payment, unfortunately, the future lifetime expected that they will spend on welfare is up to 24 years. That is a disaster from anyone’s book and why we are focused, with a social investment approach, on where the group have the highest risk of poorer life outcomes and interrupting it. We are not interested in allowing young people in this country, whether it’s a small number or a large number, spending that amount of time stuck.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she aware that for that tiny 0.5 percent proportion of people, the modelling has taken into account seven additional risk factors, including acute unplanned care from a public hospital, interaction with Oranga Tamariki, and exclusion from school, and, if so, why didn’t she create a target to reduce those risk factors, as opposed to just getting 50,000 people off the benefit?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The Taylor Fry modelling is based on really careful analysis of the IDI data, which is why it is so rich. It looks at people’s past outcomes with the intention of trying to disrupt that from happening in the future. Whether it’s one person, whether it’s 100, or whether it’s 100,000, every one of those people counts, to me, and I am unwilling to sit by and let them get stuck.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she confident in the accuracy of her and the Prime Minister’s comments that the average young person is spending 24 years on a benefit?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said in my primary answer, the context in which that was given was a discussion about long-term welfare dependency—the horrendous change that we have seen under the last six years with a significant increase in young people going on to welfare and staying on it—and the Taylor Fry report was one piece of the evidence that shows why we must prioritise this group.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Will she commit, going forward, to be clear that only 0.5 percent of people are predicted to spend 24 years on the benefit, as per the Taylor Fry report?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What I will commit to this House is that for every single person, we will do our best to get them off welfare and into work, because that’s what improves their life outcomes. Whether it’s one year or 24 years, it’s not good enough.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the Taylor Fry report released under the Official Information Act—

SPEAKER: Sorry, when the House is silent, we can all hear what you’re saying.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the Taylor Fry report Social Outcomes Modelling—2022 Results, released to me under the Official Information Act.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

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

Question No. 10—Justice

10. to the Minister of Justice: What target has the Government set for a reduction in violent crime?

The Prime Minister announced on Monday that the Government has set a target to see a reduction in the number of people who are the victims of an assault, robbery, or sexual assault by 20,000. By setting a focused and ambitious target to reduce the number of victims of crime, we can focus attention, resources, and accountability towards achieving better results.

Cameron Brewer: Why does this Government want to see a reduction in violent crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: It’s important that all New Zealanders feel safe in their homes and in their communities. It’s estimated that around 185,000 Kiwis or 4.4 percent of the population are victims of an assault, robbery, or sexual assault, and we don’t regard that as normal or acceptable. The previous Government targeted reducing the prison population while violent crime increased. We have changed the target to reduce the number of victims of crime.

Cameron Brewer: What steps have already been taken to help reach the target to see a reduction in violent crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the Government’s already taken a number of steps, including the introduction of a significant legislative package aimed at tackling gangs; we’re boosting the powers of police to search gang members and other high-risk offenders, in addition to providing more access to rehabilitation for people on demand; and we’ve stopped funding for cultural reports.

Cameron Brewer: What steps are next to help reach the target to see a reduction in victims of violent crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We’re restoring the three-strikes legislation that the previous Government repealed, showing that we will not tolerate repeat violent offending in our communities. We’ll give judges additional tools to deal with serious repeat youth offenders, including military-style academies. We’ll also limit excessive sentencing discounts so penalties actually fit the crime. There are, of course, many factors that have contributed to an increase in violent crime in our communities, but one of the immediate tools available to us is to restore real consequences for crime.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: How will his gang patch legislation assist in achieving those targets when advice provided to him by the Ministry of Justice on 27 November states clearly that there’s no strong evidence to show that such actions work to reduce long-term offending and, in fact, risks making it more difficult to change offending behaviours and may drive an increase in gang numbers?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I think it was the mixed attitude towards gangs over the past six years that led—a contributor, no doubt—to a 50 percent increase in gang membership in our community. And so I think everybody acknowledges the negative impact that gang membership and intimidation in our communities have on our towns and our communities. And so that bill is designed to give the police extra powers to deal with gang intimidation, and that will help.

Question No. 11—Disability Issues

11. to the Minister for Disability Issues: When did she receive the briefing titled “Changes to Equipment and Modification Services and flexible funding to manage Whaikaha expenditure” and what actions did she take upon receiving the briefing?

I received the briefing on 23 February 2024. I noted that Whaikaha was making changes which were needed to reduce its forecast deficit as recommended, and, as I have said multiple times, these issues are inherited from the previous Labour Government, and I am taking urgent steps to address the situation with a review. We have also put extra funding in to support Whaikaha through to the end of this financial year, and we have signalled that Whaikaha will get more money in the next Budget.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How does she rationalise that with answers she gave in the House that suggest the first time she knew about the changes to reduce flexibility of disability support services was when she signed out a briefing on 14 March?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I certainly received the briefing on 22 February that these were initiatives that Whaikaha was considering, and then they confirmed on 14 March that they would be implementing those changes. They also informed me in that briefing that before implementing these changes, Whaikaha had a comprehensive communications and engagement plan outlining the changes being implemented. They also said they had tailored messages for each audience focused on ensuring people needing disability support the most continued to receive support.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why did she only formally advise the finance Minister of eligibility changes that resulted from Whaikaha’s funding shortfall on 20 March, two days after the announcement was made and implemented, as she has confirmed in written parliamentary questions No. 3593 and 3599?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Because we were discussing Budget issues at that meeting on the 22nd.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why, given she was first aware of the proposed changes on 22 or 23 February, did it take her till 25 March to first go to Cabinet, considering over 26,000 carers have been impacted by these changes?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Because in that paper on 22 February, Whaikaha had outlined two initiatives that they were taking to reduce its projected deficit. They also outlined that they were working with Treasury to see if their bid for cost pressures could be considered early. Also, in late February and late January, Whaikaha had informed me that their updated forecast showed that they would be within 2 percent of the threshold, which is manageable by me as a Minister, and they were working to reduce it to a zero deficit.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Is the Minister therefore saying that this time line is correct: that she first became aware of Whaikaha’s funding issues on 15 December 2023, was briefed on proposed changes on 22 February, signed out changes on 14 March, the changes were then announced and implemented with immediate effect on 18 March, but that she didn’t act till 25 March?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No. No, I’m not saying that. I am saying that throughout this process, Whaikaha were updating me on their financial situation. In January, they updated me that they had reduced the deficit and they were working to bring it down to zero. In February, they put forward initiatives that would further reduce the deficit. In March, they weren’t able to fulfil that reduction, and therefore it was discussed at a budget meeting.

Question No. 12—Education

12. to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on curriculum and assessment?

Last week, I announced significant changes to the NCEA Change Programme that has been under way since 2020. It is a priority for this Government to ensure that we have a world-leading curriculum. This document should be the foundation of a high-performing education system supporting teachers to excel and learners to reach their potential. The current approach puts the cart before the horse, designing assessments before having a curriculum in place, and it is not best practice to design assessment before knowing what is to be assessed. Curriculum is the priority so that we can then deliver well-designed assessment standards that we can have confidence in. And to achieve better public services, I will be delaying the NCEA Change Programme by two years while we complete the curriculum.

Dan Bidois: What feedback has she received on this announcement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The support for this announcement from principals, parents, unions, and teachers alike has been overwhelming. The Post Primary Teachers’ Association president Chris Abercrombie was quoted in the New Zealand Herald this week saying, “It’s important that we get a really good curriculum base … good assessment folds out of good curriculum.”, while Dr Nina Hood, founder of The Education Hub, agreed that the curriculum refresh needs to be finalised before redeveloping NCEA to ensure that it was “a robust and fit for purpose qualification.”

Dan Bidois: How will this announcement lift student achievement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Parents want to know that their children have every opportunity to succeed, and success starts with strong foundations. In addition to teaching the basics brilliantly in our primary and intermediate schools, this Government has a laser focus on delivering a knowledge-rich curriculum to all students, right up to year 13. This decision will lift student achievement by delivering a knowledge-rich world-leading curriculum which acts as a central resource for teachers and a crucial tool to guide assessment and qualification design. The decision will ensure consistency across the country so that every child, no matter where they live or attend school, will have access to the same knowledge at each year level.

Dan Bidois: What recent reports has she seen on the curriculum?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve seen the recent Education Review Office report into the Aotearoa New Zealand histories curriculum. This report highlights issues within the New Zealand histories curriculum but that are also issues experienced across all curriculum areas—high level, vague, and lacking in specificity is not what the sector wants. The report shows that teachers want a more explicit curriculum with more off the shelf material and resources. Teachers are the most valuable resource that we have, and I will be working at pace to deliver what they need to experience success in the classroom, lift student achievement, and get this Government on track to meet our ambitious targets and deliver better public services.