TUESDAY, 28 MARCH 2023 [Volume 766] The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS Hon JENNY SALESA (Assistant Speaker): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Amene. [Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King, and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.] VISITORS Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—Secretary-General SPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to welcome Stephen Twigg, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, who is present in the gallery. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I take this opportunity just to remind the Parliament that we are holding a reception for Mr Twigg in your lounge at 6 o'clock, and I'd appreciate it if as many members as possible could come to meet the gentleman. Thank you. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Akhtar Zaman requesting that the House require banks to reduce their mortgage interest rates petition of Jared Rigg requesting that the House urgently revise the Citizenship Act 1977 to grant automatically at birth citizenship by birth to any child born overseas to a New Zealand citizen who was born in New Zealand. SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers. CLERK: 2021/2022 annual reports for the New Zealand Productivity Commission, Government Superannuation Fund, Public Trust, Education New Zealand, Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, Civil Aviation Authority, Government Communications Security Bureau, New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. 2022/23 statement of performance expectations for Auckland Light Rail Ltd and the Pharmaceutical Management Agency 2022-24 statement of intent for Auckland Light Rail Ltd. SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, entitled Tertiary Education Institutions 2021: Audit results and What We Saw in 2022. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Reports of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the: 2021/22 annual reviews of: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, Broadcasting Standards Authority, Commerce Commission, Electricity Authority, External Reporting Board, Financial Markets Authority, New Zealand Tourism Board, AgResearch Limited, NIWA, and New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd annual reviews of ESR, GNS and Landcare Research New Zealand Limited, 2021/22 annual reviews of the Accreditation Council, the Real Estate Agents Authority, and the Retirement Commissioner Grocery Industry Competition Bill and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, Long-term Insights Briefing 2022. Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill. Reports of the Environment Committee on the 2021/22 annual reviews of Predator Free 2050 Ltd and the Ministry for the Environment. Reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the: 2021/22 annual reviews of Kiwi Group Holdings Ltd, Ōtākaro Ltd, Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd, Government Superannuation Fund, Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation, Inland Revenue Department, New Zealand Infrastructure Commission, Office of the Controller and Auditor-General, Pike River Recovery Agency, Reserve Bank of New Zealand, and Treasury, and financial statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2022. Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the 2021/22 annual reviews of the New Zealand Customs Service and the Border Executive Board. Reports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the 2021/22 annual review of Statistics New Zealand and of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Reports of the Intelligence and Security Committee on the 2021/22 annual reviews of the Government Communications Security Bureau and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. Reports of the Petitions Committee on the petitions of Sina Shad and two petitions of Wendy Baker. Reports of the Primary Production Committee on the briefing on the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill and the Increased Penalties for Breach of Biosecurity Bill. SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The briefings and the report on the financial statement of the Government are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills. CLERK: Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill, introduction Resale Right for Visual Artists Bill, introduction Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3), introduction Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill, introduction Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill, introduction Severe Weather Emergency Recovery Legislation Bill, introduction Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill, introduction. SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Prime Minister 1. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes, in particular this Government's actions that mean, from the end of this week, around 1.4 million New Zealanders will have a bit more money in their pockets to help deal with the cost of living. While the measures that we've taken alone won't fix everything—and we've still got more work to do to bring down inflation and the cost of living—they will make a difference, and, right now, I know that every little bit helps when it comes to making ends meet. Christopher Luxon: Does he agree with his new education Minister that no progress has been made lifting achievement for kids about to enter high school in the last five years, and is this acceptable when half are below expectation in reading, writing, and maths? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject that that's what the Minister of Education said. What we have done as a Government is remove national standards and replaced it with a system where progression and student progress can be better measured and reported to parents. That is a stark contrast with national standards, which set our education system back. Christopher Luxon: Will he join National in committing to a target of 80 percent of year 8s being at or above curriculum by 2030? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member can set all sorts of targets. The reality is—what we want to make sure—that students are making progress, that that progress is visible to their parents, and that our performance in these areas does improve. I would note that the primary measure that the member has been using—and many others have been using—are our results in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which measure the results of our 15-year-olds, when it comes to literacy and numeracy. Those 15-year-olds were at primary school during their formative years for literacy and numeracy while national standards were in place. Christopher Luxon: Why did he reject the Royal Society's recommendation to require primary and intermediate students to do at least an hour of maths each day? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Schools make decisions around how they structure the school learning day, and, actually, I trust the judgment of teachers to create an environment that's stimulating for young people so that they are learning the curriculum that they need to. Christopher Luxon: If the status quo is so good, why, after five years of this Government, did two-thirds of our year 10 students fail a basic writing, reading, and maths test? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That was a pilot test that was being put in place to test the new literacy and numeracy standards that this Government is putting in place, because we're not satisfied that the literacy and numeracy requirements for the NCEA—that were put in place under the last Government—are actually resulting in our school leavers leaving school with the literacy and numeracy skills that they need. Christopher Luxon: Does he stand by his 2019 statement that the curriculum needs a stronger focus on wellbeing, identity, language, and culture, or does he now agree that the number one priority must be teaching the basics of maths, reading, and writing? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Unlike that member, I don't think those two things are incompatible. I think if you create an environment where students want to be, where their wellbeing is well catered for, then they'll do better in those core areas of the curriculum. There is an abundance of evidence that will suggest that. Christopher Luxon: How do you spend $5 billion more and hire 1,400 more staff and not improve the outcomes for reading, writing, or maths? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I note that a significant proportion of that money has gone on salaries of teachers. I note that the Opposition seems to be saying we should be paying teachers more. Christopher Luxon: Does he agree it takes a very, very special skill to spend more, to hire more, and yet deliver worse education outcomes? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I completely reject the premise of the member's question. This Government is spending more; we are paying our teachers better—unlike the salary freeze that they experienced under the time of the last National Government. We are increasing the support that we've got in specialist learning areas, where we know that young people are being left behind. I make no apology for putting more increases into learning support in the five years we've been in Government than the last Government did in the nine years that they were in Government. Some of our most vulnerable kids—that they chose to ignore—deserve the support that they've been getting under our Government. I also make no apology for the significant investment that we have made in cleaning up the infrastructure deficit in our education system that we inherited from his Government. SPEAKER: Question No. 2. Oh, sorry, supplementary—David Seymour. David Seymour: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Prime Minister stand by his earlier statement that his Government's policy is to raise pensions, main benefits, student allowances, and the minimum wage by the rate of inflation this April Fools' Day, and if so, why? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I do. I'm not sure whether April Fools' Day comes into it. Hon Kelvin Davis: He's exhibit A. David Seymour: Later. Is there an equivalent policy that will raise the incomes of roughly 2.8 million New Zealanders whose after-tax income is falling behind inflation because they get their money from an old-fashioned thing called working, or are they the real April fools? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member might want to look at the statistics around wage growth which shows that New Zealanders' wages continue to grow and, in fact, they've grown more quickly in the last couple of years than they have prior to that. We've got work to do to ensure that we're making work pay. I note that the measures that this Government has put in place to increase workers' wages have all been opposed by that member and his party. David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware, then, in light of what he just said, that taxes paid by working people have risen faster than inflation and their after-tax income has fallen behind inflation in the last year? And if he doesn't know, why not? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated, workers' incomes have been growing under this Government. That is something that we are very proud of. And I note that the measures that we put in place that have helped that, such as increasing the minimum wage, such as improving the ability of workers to bargain to get better pay, and the measures that we've taken to increase the pay of some of our most essential workers—like our teachers, our nurses, our doctors, our police, our firefighters—have all been opposed by that member and his party. David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister not understand that if people's after-tax incomes are growing slower than inflation, then none of those policies have worked? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do accept that the inflationary environment that we are in at the moment is putting households under pressure. That's one of the reasons that I've made cost of living one of the central focuses of the work of this Government. We want to get inflation back down again. And one of the things—the only solution the Opposition parties, National and ACT, seem to be able to come up with has the potential to stoke inflation higher. David Seymour: What does it say that this Government's tax and benefit policies have made sure that working for a living is less rewarding, while getting money transferred from other taxpayers via his Government has become more rewarding? In other words, does he know why his party's called Labour? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I completely reject the premise of the member's question. On this side of the House, we are focused on making sure that people who work hard can get ahead. Christopher Luxon: If national standards are to blame, why did the former Minister of Education, Chris Hipkins, say in this House—and does he stand by his statement still today—"I don't think national standards are to blame for it. I don't think they fixed it, but I don't think they are to blame for it." Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I say the member should read the whole quote. Question No. 2—Social Development and Employment 2. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What progress has been made to pass on child support to sole parent beneficiaries? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): In Budget 2022, we announced we would pass on child support to parents receiving a sole parent rate of benefit. It has been an incredibly complicated process to progress this policy, but I'm pleased to inform the House that we are ready to bring forward the legislation, and it will be in place in time for 1 July. Currently, the Government retains child support payments for sole parents who get a benefit from the Ministry of Social Development, up to the rate of their benefit, rather than being passed on to support their children. However, this is not the case for other beneficiaries. The bill, which will be read in the House this week, will end this injustice, and child support payments will be passed on to the sole parents, who need it the most. Angie Warren-Clark: Why are we making this change? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The current way we deal with child support for beneficiaries is discriminatory. Money that should be treated as income and used by parents to help provide for their children is being taken by the State. This differs from parents who have found a new partner and are receiving a couples-rated benefit. These beneficiaries get to keep their child support, and this is what causes the discrimination. This anomaly in the system dates back to 1936, and change is long overdue. Through this legislation, this Government is delivering on its commitment to put dignity back in the welfare system and make it fairer. Equitable treatment of sole parent whānau will also mean a fairer deal for women, who make up 88 percent of all sole parent benefit clients. Angie Warren-Clark: What impact will the changes make? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Amending the rules will provide better support to parents and lift up to 14,000 children out of poverty. The changes build on the progress we have been making to improve people's lives through our Families Package and welfare reforms. It is estimated that 41,550 sole parent families will be better off, with a median gain of $20 per week. This means more cash in hand to support whānau coping with the increasing costs of living. This proposal also has the potential to strengthen the child support scheme. If parents know that the child support they pay will get to their own children, it will encourage more parents to pay. There is also evidence that, if child support is passed on, it increases engagement by the parent paying child support with their child. This is much better for families in general. Angie Warren-Clark: How will the bill be implemented? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Under this bill, when a sole parent receives child support, the normal monthly payment they receive will be spread equally and charged across four or five weeks against their benefits. The Ministry of Social Development will then treat this child support as income for their assistance, using automated systems. This approach will reduce the likelihood of debt accumulation and demands on the time of these families. Due to the complexity of the changes required to the welfare system to facilitate this, our Government is taking a phased approach to implementation. Phase one of the bill will deliver most of the changes, resulting in extra cash in hand for the vast majority of whānau on a sole parent benefit, from July. Phase two will tackle the policy features that apply to more complex payment cases. We'll provide more detail on this as we work through the changes. By phasing the roll-out, we can achieve the full benefit of the changes straight away for the vast majority of eligible parents. Question No. 3—Finance 3. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement from May 2022 that "Even if the inflation spike is expected to be temporary, this doesn't take away from the significant impact it is having", and, given inflation has now persisted outside the Reserve Bank target range for 21 months, does he now regret his decision to increase new Government operating spending by $38.7 billion in the 2022 Budget? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I stand by my statement in its full context. In answer to the second part of the question, the member is well aware that rising inflation has been a global issue. The Government needs to maintain that balanced approach to be fiscally sustainable whilst also supporting New Zealanders. I can say to the member that I most certainly do not regret putting in $11.1 billion of funding for a new, multi-year funding framework for a nationwide health system after years of neglect of funding, I do not regret putting in place $2.85 billion of operating and capital funding for education to make sure that our students, our teachers, and their wider whānau have resources and schools that they can be proud of, I do not regret putting in place $2.9 billion for mitigating and adapting to climate change and reducing emissions after years of cheap talk rather than action in that area, and I do not regret putting in place $1 billion of cost of living initiatives so that low and middle income New Zealanders can be helped through a difficult period of time. Nicola Willis: Does he stand by his decision to embark on a Government "spend-athon" in Budget 2022, and can he seriously claim that New Zealand taxpayers have got value from every dollar he added to the inflation fire? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It's interesting to note, and I'll take the member back to April and May of 2022, where her leader—and, indeed, her—committed to spending the same amount of money that the Government was spending. But—but—in the middle of doing that, they committed to $11 billion worth of tax cuts that would target the wealthiest New Zealanders, the most inflationary thing they could possibly think of. Nicola Willis: Why has inflation in the United States, Canada, and Singapore fallen heavily from their peaks last year, but inflation in New Zealand has barely budged? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Currently, on the latest numbers, which are consistent at the end of the December quarter, New Zealand has the 10th-lowest inflation rate out of the 38-odd OECD countries. This is a global issue. As the member noted in the quote that she helpfully put in the question, whatever debate we might have about comparisons, I accept that for New Zealanders right now, the cost of living is tough. That's why this Government has prioritised it, that's why we've got increases in place right across the board for low and middle income New Zealanders, and, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, those increases and that support to actually help people with the cost of living has been opposed by the National Party. Nicola Willis: Does he think the Prime Minister agrees with his characterisation of Budget 2022 in answer to his first question that every dollar was well spent, and if that is the case, why has he wound back on so many of the extravagant spending promises that that Minister committed to? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: If the member listened carefully to the answer I gave, the examples I used, for example, in health spending are ones where I know the Prime Minister is extremely proud of the investments we've made. He's already indicated in his answers today how proud he is of the fact that when we came in, we inherited a massive deficit in our education infrastructure, but we actually invested in repairing that. So I know that this Government had to come in and had to spend to make up for what National did for nine years, to deal with the COVID pandemic. But I come back: if the member wants to go back to May 2022, she was committing to spending the same amount of money with a worse inflationary impact. Nicola Willis: Is he aware that the official measure of mortgage arrears has hit its highest level since the 2020 lockdown, and how many more New Zealanders does he expect to go under as they switch to vastly higher interest rates this year? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I have indicated, the pressure of the cost of living on New Zealand households is something that we are acutely aware of. That's why we are prioritised to act to support New Zealand households through this period of time. The member knows that inflation is a global problem, and in this country, we are managing it to support New Zealanders through this difficult time. Nicola Willis: Why does he continue to defend his big-spending economic management approach when it has led to prices growing faster than wages and growing faster than exports, employment, and GDP, and why should New Zealanders trust a Government that has only taken them backwards? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The reason that I believe in what we're doing is because it's contributed to making sure that New Zealand is in one of the strongest positions of any economy in the world to deal with the challenges of 2023. We have unemployment at historic lows, we have one of the lowest levels of public debt, we have an economy that's 6 percent larger than it was before COVID, that many other countries can't do. I thank the member for her belief in my great powers to control all matters to do with inflation, but I would point her to her mentor in 2016—Bill English—who, when asked similar types of questions to this, made the point that it's actually the Reserve Bank's job to keep inflation between 1 and 3 percent. Perhaps the member might like to listen to her former boss. Question No. 4—Child Poverty Reduction 4. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: Why did she say that this year's child poverty figures are "encouraging", and has she seen reports that one in 10 children and one in five tamariki Māori experience material hardship, meaning that their whānau can't afford essentials like regular healthy food, doctors' visits, or to pay their power bills?' Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Child Poverty Reduction): To the first part of the question, my comment was in relation to the fact that despite the most challenging economic conditions in a generation or more, actions taken by this Government have ensured New Zealand children have not fallen backwards, as was originally predicted. The fact that eight out nine child poverty measures have seen a statistically significant decrease since 2018 shows the effectiveness of the measures we have put in place to support families over several years. However, as in previous years, disparities continue to be evident for Māori and Pacific children and children impacted by disability compared to New Zealand children overall. To the second part of the question: yes, I have seen those figures, and while there are children living in poverty, we know there is more work to do, and this Government is absolutely committed to doing so. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is her response to the fact to the fact that the reality is likely even worse than the figures reflect, given that the whānau struggling the most—such as those who are homeless, living in cars, garages, and motels—were not even surveyed in this data? Hon JAN TINETTI: The household economic survey collects data from resident individuals of private dwellings. This means that there are some families and individuals who live in long-term and non-private dwellings like emergency housing—but also camping grounds, hostels, and aged care facilities—who are not within the survey population. However, Stats New Zealand advises me that including these children with the reported rates would not change the outcomes reported in the data. Stats New Zealand also tells me it is continually reviewing the approach taken to reduce child poverty statistics to ensure that they are reflective of the experiences of New Zealand households. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Isn't it also true that material hardship will be much worse right now, as the survey included data ended June 2022, and food prices have gone up 12 percent in the last year; the biggest annual increase since 1989? Hon JAN TINETTI: What I can say is that material hardship would be a lot worse if we had sat and done nothing. This is why this Government has acted, because we know that reducing child poverty is paramount. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does she agree that the answers lie in agencies working more closely for whānau, hapū, iwi, and community leaders, as argued by many experts, including the Children's Commissioner, who said: "These groups are trusted by Māori and Pasifika communities that simply do not trust Government agencies, and as a result either don't reach out for help or aren't comfortable sharing full details of their true situation", if not, why not? Hon JAN TINETTI: I have been in consultation and communication with many of those particular agencies and groups. I know that they are most trusted groups and they are important partners in this drive to ensure that we reduce child poverty. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: To the Minister: is it true to say that the most recent child poverty statistics don't include the full impact of the more recent increase to benefits, child support pass-on, and the bigger roll-out of the Food In Schools programme? Hon JAN TINETTI: Yes, that is absolutely correct. What this Government is doing is continually looking at measures of how we can reduce child poverty. This is a continuing main part of our work programme, and we will continue to look at any way we can to make sure that child poverty is reducing. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What specific tangata whenua and community policies or initiatives can she guarantee Government will support and resource in response to the latest child poverty statistics? Hon JAN TINETTI: What I can say is that everything is still on the table in terms of what we are looking at to reduce child poverty. We absolutely will make sure that we are keeping our tamariki Māori at the centre of what we are doing and making certain that we are reducing child poverty for all. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. I don't think the Minister actually answered or replied to the actual question, which was: "What specific tangata whenua and community policies or initiatives"? SPEAKER: I'll get you to ask it again; I'm not sure. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What specific tangata whenua and community policies or initiatives can she guarantee Government will support and resource in response to the latest child poverty statistics? Hon JAN TINETTI: While I won't go into specifics, what I can say is that we are working on that right at this point in time, and what I did say was that everything is still on the table. Question No. 5—Housing 5. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister of Housing: What impact has the recent severe weather had on Kāinga Ora's work programme? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Kāinga Ora estimates that at this stage, approximately 850 new public homes that were expected to be delivered by June 2023 are now subject to an up-to-eight - week delay in their construction programme. Prior to the recent weather events, Kāinga Ora was on track in January to meet the Government's ambitious public housing plan of delivering 3,400 homes by June 2023. The delays have been caused by direct damage to our sites, lost construction time in preparation and clean-up after the events, as well as indirect consequential impacts on the supply chain, and issues such as delays in inspections, consentings, and approvals. I'll continue to work with Kāinga Ora to actively manage delays and mitigate the impacts of Auckland's floods and Cyclone Gabrielle. Rachel Boyack: What construction sites were affected by the cyclone and flooding? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The weather events had a number of impacts on all construction sites, including Kāinga Ora's. This included direct impacts on earthworks, foundations, materials, water ingress, and flooding. Work was paused across multiple sites during the cyclone, with further time required afterwards to clean up the sites, dry them out, make them safe, and remobilise before any work could be restarted. For example, at the Greys Avenue sites—which will deliver approximately 200 units in Auckland—there was flooding in the basement and lift pits, and damage to joinery stored in the basement. Given the joiners' factory was also flooded by the same weather event, this has presented challenges with producing the replacement joinery. In Napier, for example, a construction site was directly impacted by limited road access and supply of materials to site, causing disruptions. Rachel Boyack: What indirect impacts were felt by the cyclone and flooding? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There have been indirect impacts on build partners and supply chains. For example, labour and machinery were diverted to assist with emergency responses. Councils reprioritised staff and other regulatory building services to undertake emergency building assessments, which had knock-on effects of delaying consenting, inspections, and approvals. Examples include Gisborne, where eight projects were impacted by delays as contractors were unavailable to work on Kāinga Ora sites due to assisting with the emergency response. There were also shortages of water, fuel, and materials such as plasterboard and concrete. Rachel Boyack: Have the weather events impacted other parts of the country? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Other areas of New Zealand also experienced the diversion of materials and labour. For example, some territorial authorities have diverted building inspection staff to affected areas, including Wellington council staff sent to assist with Auckland. Major infrastructure providers also focused staff and machinery in priority areas. Civil contractors, engineers, machinery, and materials have been mobilised from outside affected areas, restricting resources in the rest of the country. Question No. 6—Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence and asks: when did she say that "I am a prevention violence Minister, and I know who causes violence in this world and it's white cis men"? Why—sorry. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence): Mr Speaker, is that different from the primary question that was listed? Hon Louise Upston: Why. SPEAKER: Yeah, it's meant to be "Why" at the beginning, not "When". Hon Louise Upston: Sorry, do you want me to ask it again? Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence): Please—thanks. 6. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence: Why did she say that "I am a prevention violence Minister, and I know who causes violence in this world and it's white cis men"? Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence): I know that to transform generations of hurt and trauma and to stop violence from happening in the first place, as a country we must have the hard and uncomfortable conversations. We need to talk about the power imbalances and gender narratives that underpin much of the violence that occurs in our country. As the Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence and Sexual Violence, I will continue to have those conversations. I acknowledge that I could have been clearer in my remarks on Saturday. What I was doing was pushing back on the harmful and false narrative that trans people are one of the biggest risks to women. This is simply not true. Violence happens in every community; any person can be a victim of violence, but we cannot get away from the fact that the perpetrators of sexual violence or family violence are mostly men. So now that I have clarified what I intended to say, let's have a conversation about what to do next to build an Aotearoa New Zealand— SPEAKER: Order! Order! You well and truly answered; you're now going into a speech on the matter. Hon Louise Upston: Was she asked by the Prime Minister to apologise to the public, and, if so, when will she do that? Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: It was really important to me that I clarify what I intended to say, and so in a public statement I have appealed directly to the community, to the field experts, and to victim survivors and clarified what I intended to say and affirmed and acknowledged victims and survivors who may not have seen themselves in my comments. SPEAKER: That's definitely not an answer to the question that was made. The member can have two additional supplementaries. Hon Louise Upston: Was she asked by the Prime Minister to apologise to the public, and, if so, when will she do that? Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: No. Hon Louise Upston: Does she agree that the statement was factually incorrect? Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: What I have done is clarified what I intended to say. What I need to be really clear about is that violence is enabled by socially accepted hierarchies of power that include sexism, racism towards minority communities, colonisation, ableism, ageism, homophobia, transphobia, and classism. I am really clear about those drivers of violence and that we must change those structures of inequality and power. Karen Chhour: Does she accept that her words "I know who causes violence in the world, and it's cis men." were offensive and highly inappropriate to victims of family and sexual violence, and will she apologise today to them for making a mockery of such a serious issue? Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: What I have done is clarified what I intended to say directly in a public statement and made it really clear that I was wanting to push back hard on the untruth and harm about trans people being the biggest threat to women—and this is simply not true—and that my intention was to highlight the structures of power that are behind the drivers of violence. I will continue to make that point. Hon Louise Upston: Does she stand by her statement in Te Aorerekura, which is the action plan for the National Strategy to Eliminate Family Violence and Sexual Violence, which quotes her words "to enable safe communities where all people are respected", and why does she not accept that her words did not respect cis white men? Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: I absolutely stand by every single word in Te Aorerekura, that was created by and with the community, with victims, with survivors, with sector experts, with tangata whenua and diverse communities, and again state that this is why it was important to me to clarify what I intended to say. Karen Chhour: If she can apologise to the Prime Minister for saying, "I know who causes violence in the world, and it's white cis men.", why can't she apologise to the victims of family and sexual violence for belittling their trauma for political gain? Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: What I have said to the Prime Minister is that I clarified that those are not the words that I normally use. Hon Louise Upston: Why will she then not apologise to New Zealanders for the offensive words that she has used? Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: It is important to me to clarify, especially directly to victims and survivors who may not have seen themselves in the words that I used, and this is why I have made it clear what I intended to say. Question No. 7—Transport 7. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has the Government made about electric vehicle charging? Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Last week, I launched public consultation on Charging Our Future, Aotearoa New Zealand's first electric vehicle (EV) charging strategy. The strategy, which the Minister of Energy and Resources Megan Woods and I have developed over recent months with the sector, sets out a vision and plan to develop a First World EV charging infrastructure that is accessible, affordable, and reliable. Emissions from our light vehicle fleet are the single-largest source of transport emissions in New Zealand, partially due to having some of the most fuel-inefficient and emissions-intensive vehicles in the OECD. We know that increasing zero-emission vehicles to 30 percent of the light vehicle fleet by 2035 requires tens of thousands of public and private chargers to be rolled out around the country. The strategy proposes that we work alongside the private sector and local government to facilitate infrastructure that supports the different trips and journeys that EV drivers make and ensures that rural and provincial New Zealand locations are accessible for residents and visitors with EVs. Shanan Halbert: What targets does the EV charging strategy set out? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government recently completed its work to deliver EV chargers every 75 kilometres along 97 percent of the State highway network. The strategy proposes a new set of targets that will support the national roll-out of chargers in the coming years. These include large-journey charging hubs every 150 to 200 kilometres at key locations on our State highways to help manage range anxiety and support tourism, chargers for every 20 to 40 EVs in highly developed urban areas to support EV uptake in those places, and public charging at community facilities for all towns and cities with 2,000 or more people to ensure that the distribution of chargers is equitable in all parts of New Zealand. Shanan Halbert: What responses has he seen to the launch of the EV charging strategy? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I've seen a range of responses to the launch, and I've been encouraged to see ChargeNet, the AA, and JOLT all come out in support of the strategy. Those organisations are all positive about the role of the Government in setting out the strategy and to work alongside private sector charging providers to support investment in infrastructure ahead of the roll-out of EV chargers across the network. We're working alongside the sector through the clean car leadership group as we've developed the draft strategy, and we'll continue to work closely with industry and local government as we finalise the strategy. Right across New Zealand, Kiwis are getting in behind cleaner vehicles; that's something that we understand on this side of the House, even if the other side is still knocks it. Shanan Halbert: What other work is the Government doing to support the uptake of low- and zero-emission vehicles? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The EV charging strategy will complement the Government's work to support the uptake of low- and zero-emission vehicles through the highly successful Clean Car Discount and Clean Car Standard. We're seeing massive progress, with more than 70,000 EVs now on our roads—70 percent more than at the end of 2021. In December 2022, 30 percent of all new passenger car sales were electric, making us one of the world's leading markets for EVs, and, as recent Drive Electric analysis showed, that has the potential to remove 2 million tonnes of carbon from our carbon emissions by the 2030s. Our Government is serious about tackling climate change, and these policies are making a real difference. Question No. 8—Transport 8. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his comment that when it comes to decarbonising transport, "the longer that action is delayed, the more difficult it gets"? Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Yes, that's why, as Minister, I prioritised a range of policies that are helping to drive down the transport sector's emissions, including the Clean Car Discount and Clean Car Standard, rolling out EV chargers, a massive investment to rebuild a resilient and reliable rail network, and supporting the uptake of public transport, walking, and cycling through projects and programmes like Transport Choices, the Eastern Busway, Christchurch PT Futures, and Te Ara Tupua, the visionary shared path around the Wellington Harbour. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that recent Government decisions make it much harder to meet its 2025 transport emissions targets, and what new actions, if any, will the Government take to reach that target? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The member, in her question, is probably referring primarily to the Government's recent reprioritisation decision around the sustainable biofuels mandate, a decision which I do note that the member supported. As she pointed out at that time, we do now need to do the work to make sure that we have the suite of other transport policies to make up for that emissions shortfall. But I can confirm that the Government remains resolutely committed to the carbon budgets that we committed to through the emissions reduction plan, and we are continuing to work on policies across improvements to the vehicle fleet—and I've just answered a question around our EV charging strategy—and we'll do further work in terms of how we can support more Kiwis to have real transport choices so they're better able to use low-carbon options like public transport and safe walking and cycling. Hon Julie Anne Genter: So is the Government on track to meet its 2025 transport emissions target, and if not, what will his Government do to reach the target? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, as I covered in my previous question, the major change that we've had in recent months has been the decision around the sustainable biofuels mandate. That does leave an additional emissions abatement that we have to reach, and that's why we are developing policies at the moment to make sure that we do reach that budget. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is the ongoing fuel and excise duty (FED) and road user charges (RUC) discount during a climate emergency short-sighted considering it increases carbon emissions by 35,000 to 83,000 tonnes at a cost of at least $1.3 billion to date; if not, why not? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government's policy of FED and RUC reductions have been an important part of our response to the cost of living pressures that New Zealanders have been experiencing. It means that the average New Zealander filling up their car saves $17 per tank, but it's also coupled with the half-price public transport policy, which will save an average public transport user, who's using a bus two times a day, around about $25 per week. Set in the context of our broader transport emission reductions policies, the additional emissions as a result of that policy are very small indeed, and I'm confident that with further work we will reach those targets that we've set. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he think it's fair that the hugely expensive discounts for FED and RUC give three times the support to the highest income earners as to the lowest income earners? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: What I know is that for all Kiwis, including low-income earners, the reductions that we have brought in place through the reductions to FED and RUC and half-price public transport are making a real difference in terms of those household budgets. We know that it is challenging for many New Zealanders as they deal with the cost of living, and this is one of the more practical and quick stand-up things that we have been able to do to support those people. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is he aware that the commuter trains from Palmerston North and the Wairarapa are unlikely to pass safety tests when they are renewed for service in 2027, and if so, will he commit to meeting the regional councils and Waka Kotahi halfway with funding for hybrid electric trains to replace them? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government remains in very positive dialogue with Greater Wellington Regional Council about the proposals that they have presented to the Government in terms of the replacement of rolling stock and increase in services along those lines. I do note that the proposals that they have put to the Government ask the Government to go much more than halfway in terms of the funding requirement, but it is a positive discussion that we are having with them. Chlöe Swarbrick: Has the Minister had any advice on the impacts the proposed Auckland Council budget cuts that would permanently slash 1,000-plus buses a day in our largest city in which transport is the largest emissions profile? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I continue to engage with my officials about the decisions that Auckland Council and other local authorities are making about the future of public transport services. And what I can confirm is that our Government will continue to provide the support that we need to give Kiwis those real transport choices. That's why that half-price public transport until the middle of this year is important. That's why the $50 million in the Budget last year to bring up bus driver pay and conditions is important, so that we can continue to roll out those services. That's why the $800 million that we're investing in the Eastern Busway in Auckland is important. That's why the $70 million that we've committed to Christchurch PT Futures is important, and that's why the Transport Choices programme that's going to roll out 100 kilometres of bus lanes all around the country is important. Our Government's backing public transport, and we'll work with local authorities to deliver better services. Question No. 9—Police 9. NICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, "My single focus will be improving community safety"; if so, why did she not attend the Esk Valley meeting for residents to address their concerns about levels of crime in the region following Cyclone Gabrielle? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Yes; by backing our police, by reducing retail and organised crime, and responding to youth offending and the underlying drivers of crime, I am absolutely committed to improving community safety. To the second part of that member's question, I was, and still am, scheduled to travel to the region to hear from locals and to meet with local police later in the week. I also note that the local MP attended the meeting. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Order! Supplementaries are heard in silence. Nicole McKee: What message does it send to the residents of Esk Valley that neither the police Minister nor any police attended the community meeting over the weekend to hear the residents' concerns about ongoing crime? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: First of all, I wish to acknowledge the devastating impacts of Cyclone Gabrielle on the community of the Esk Valley and the surrounding region. It is in that context why there was increased police presence and response to that community, and that is why I am taking the action to go up to that community to check in with community members and front-line police on Friday this week. Nicole McKee: Does she agree with Stuart Nash's concession at that meeting regarding the Cyclone response that police, "didn't quite get it right" and, if so, what does she think that he was referring to? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: It is my expectation as Minister of Police that police not only respond to criminal activity but also provide reassurance to the community as well. That is why police are maintaining very high visibility through the community. That is why there are still extra staff in the district who have carried out thousands of reassurance patrols, and that is why there are three police bases that are encouraging people who may feel unsafe to call the priority 105 line that has been set up specifically for people in the cyclone-affected communities. In addition to that, eastern district police are working with the council that will be attending a range of community meetings next week to support those severely impacted by Cyclone Gabrielle. Nicole McKee: Point of order. When I refer to my second supplementary question, I don't believe that the Minister actually addressed it. SPEAKER: Yeah, and I actually thought about ruling it out of order, based on the Minister doesn't actually have that responsibility, but I allowed the question to be asked. Have you got further questions? David Seymour: Point of order. To be clear, the question was about the Minister's opinion on a statement not taking responsibility for the statement. Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order, many times in this House we've had rulings that that particular point of order that the member's just raised is in fact not a point of order, because the first matter is the matter of responsibility, and that is what you've ruled. Nicole McKee: What does she say to the mother from Esk Valley who told us that there are still strangers shining torches into her children's bedrooms at night, and does she agree with her colleague Stuart Nash, who characterised this as just a "perceived risk"? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I understand that the community in the Esk Valley are going through an incredibly tough time right now, and that is exactly why I am visiting Esk Valley this Friday, and that is why police continue to monitor the situation. Should the community require additional support from police, they are there to help. Question No. 10—Regional Development 10. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister for Regional Development: How is the Government supporting coastal shipping between Gisborne and Napier? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister for Regional Development): Earlier this month, the Prime Minister and I were in Gisborne to announce that the Government is delivering a coastal shipping lifeline for businesses, residents, and the primary sector in the cyclone-stricken regions of the Hawke's Bay and Te Tai Rāwhiti. The Government is providing grant funding and an underwrite to Eastland Port for the charter of the Rangitata cargo vessel for an emergency coastal shipping route between Gisborne and Napier, including infrastructural upgrades at the Gisborne port. Our regions are the backbone of this country, and this investment will ensure our hardest-hit regions can get back on their feet quicker. Anna Lorck: Why was this investment necessary? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Cyclone Gabrielle has significantly damaged key roads and rail routes, with the transportation of products between Gisborne and Napier currently taking more than nine hours by truck. Agriculture and horticulture is vital to the East Coast economy, and this lifeline can get products, vegetables, meat, wool, timber, and wine out of Gisborne and into the global market. This investment in the "blue highway" will also speed up recovery efforts, allowing for the swifter delivery of construction and rebuild materials into the East Coast. Anna Lorck: What other Government investment made this lifeline possible? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: In 2022, Coastal Bulk, the owner of the Rangitata, was one recipient of the Government's $30 million coastal shipping fund, which co-invested with four coastal shipping companies to improve domestic shipping services and efficiency, transport reliance, reduce emissions, and upgrade maritime infrastructure. Without Government support, this coastal shipping capability between regional ports would not have been available to New Zealand, and this decision would not have been possible. Anna Lorck: What activity has there been on the shipping route to date? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Plenty. Already the Rangitata has moved 66 40-foot containers of cargo, which has included export of squash and meat products. The ship has made five journeys between the two ports, with two voyages a week into Gisborne and two to Napier planned over the coming months, with around 15 containers on each voyage. I'd like to put on record my thanks to the Eastland Group, both the Gisborne and Napier ports and all their workers, as well as the many businesses that are involved, for their brilliant and rapid work to date. Question No. 11—Education 11. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement that "year 8 progress has remained constant" since 2017, and why hasn't there been any improvement since 2017? Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Yes, there is no evidence of significant change in year 8 e-asTTle results since 2012. So therefore, it has remained constant since 2017. There are a variety of reasons why this hasn't increased or improved since 2017. Some of those reasons include the fact that, yes, we had different cohorts each year; that we went through a global pandemic for two years where there was a lot of disruption to learning to due lockdowns, students and teachers being sick, and wider pressures on family life. The Government has invested into additional tutoring programmes to help students most affected by that lost learning—with great results. Other reasons include the widely acknowledged view that the curriculum has been too vague, which is why the Government has invested in an evidence-based refresh of the curriculum so it is very clear what learning progressions must take place each year-level, with literacy and numeracy as the priority subjects for implementation this year. Erica Stanford: Which is correct: her press release, which states that, "Forcing children to do an hour of reading, writing, and maths every day isn't going to make them enjoy or learn better,"; or her comments on ZB that, "Those things are already happening in schools and I know they are, and I can hand-on-heart tell you that was what was happening in my school."? Hon JAN TINETTI: Both are correct. The reason I say that is that is if you start with teaching an hour a day without doing the pedagogical work that sits underneath it, then that is an absolute waste of time. What we want to focus on, as a Government, is actually making certain that teachers know what to teach and when to teach it—which is why we have the "Understand, Know, Do" model in the curriculum, and it is already making a difference. When we get to that point, then we can look at such things as time spent during the day. But no, we're going to get the pedagogical side of it right first. Erica Stanford: Who should we believe: the Minister of Education on ZB last week, when she stated that an hour a day of maths is already happening; or her literacy and numeracy action plan that states a rather different position: "Current evidence shows wide variation in maths learning time"? Hon JAN TINETTI: Actually, that's what teachers will tell us is happening already in most schools. But let's be clear here: not all schools. That is why we are focusing on making certain that the pedagogical approaches are right first. Erica Stanford: Why did she issue a press release in response to the National Party's education policy, stating that, "Forcing children to do an hour of maths every day isn't going to make them learn better," when expert advice provided in the Royal Society maths report commissioned by her Government recommended exactly that? Hon JAN TINETTI: They also recommended that in conjunction with everything else as their recommendations. As I said, it is with the pedagogical approach. Cherry-picking off bits and pieces of that will not make a difference to young people's learning. Erica Stanford: Can she explain how it is fair for one child in one school to get an hour of maths a day as recommended by the Royal Society experts, while a child in another school the same age gets far less? Hon JAN TINETTI: Oh yes, absolutely I can. Some people and some teachers will have a pedagogical approach that will mean that they don't need to do that. It would be inappropriate, as I also said on ZB, that a five-year-old would spend straight core subjects. In fact, research—and research that I've read over the weekend—states that for five-year-olds, that would be too much to have for their cognitive learning ability. Question No. 12—Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 12. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: What recent events has he attended for Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki Nui-a-Rua? Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): On Saturday, I delivered the Crown apology to Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki Nui-a-Rua—which I'll further refer to as Ngāti Kahungunu, from hereon in—for the Crown's historic breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, in Masterton. The Crown apology acknowledges the acts and emissions which breached the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its treatment of Ngāti Kahungunu. This includes the forced cession of tens of thousands of acres of land at Maungaroa in 1845, as well as the failure to act in good faith during rapid and extensive land purchases throughout the 1850s and in later public works takings. It was a momentous day for Ngāti Kahungunu on Saturday and their settlement journey, which has not been without its challenges. It marked the first of many steps in a renewed partnership between Ngāti Kahungunu and the Crown. Tāmati Coffey: What else did the Crown apology include? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The deed of settlement contains acknowledgments that historical Crown actions or omissions caused prejudice to Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki Nui-a-Rua or breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. The apology to Ngāti Kahungunu acknowledged that the Crown did not honour its obligations to respect te tino rangatiratanga o Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki Nui-a-Rua through repeated breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles, and for the damage caused to Ngāti Kahungunu. The apology recognises the loss of land at the hands of the Crown; Crown threats to end Pākehā settlement in Wairarapa and Tāmaki Nui-a-Rua, thus depriving Māori land owners of income from leases; the failure to protect Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki Nui-a-Rua from becoming virtually landless; not upholding the spirit of the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki Nui-a-Rua tuku rangatira of Wairarapa Moana in 1896; and the failure to actively protect te reo Māori. Tāmati Coffey: What cultural redress was included in the settlement? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Cultural redress is intended to recognise the cultural, historical, and traditional associations of Ngāti Kahungunu within their area of interest. Twenty-seven sites were vested back to Ngāti Kahungunu, including the Castle Point Scenic Reserve, which Ngāti Kahungunu has gifted back to the Crown. It also included 30 geographic place name changes and an agreed summary of the historical account of the relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Kahungunu. Tāmati Coffey: What financial and commercial redress was included in the settlement? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: This redress recognises the losses suffered by Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki Nui-a-Rua arising from breaches by the Crown of its Treaty obligations. The financial and commercial redress is aimed at providing Ngāti Kahungunu with resources to assist them to redevelop their economic and social wellbeing. Ngāti Kahungunu receive the right to purchase two properties, including 70 percent of the Ngāumu Forest Crown Forest licensed land, two Landcorp Farming Ltd farms—Wairio and Rangedale—and 28 specific commercial sites from the Treaty Settlements Landbank and the Ministry of Education for up to two years after settlement date. The total value of financial and commercial redress is $115 million. Question No. 13—Education 13. PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement on Newshub Nation that Te Pūkenga is developing an operating model "as we're going along", and can she describe what "developing that as we're going along" actually means? Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Yes. The operating model comprises of a number of components rather than a single document, that I expect to evolve over time as the organisation matures. The components of the operating model include the national qualifications and standards developed by workforce development councils; the organisational structure, which combines 24 entities; programme unification to ensure we have consistent high-quality programmes for learners, regardless of where in the country they are based; the combination of on campus, online, and on-the-job training; as well as the financial sustainability plan and governance measures. Penny Simmonds: Does this year's 10 percent decline in student enrolments at Te Pūkenga change the Minister's position that she is "very, very confident" regarding Te Pūkenga, when officials said in June 2022 that Te Pūkenga's financial stability was strongly reliant on enrolment growth? Hon JAN TINETTI: No. Penny Simmonds: Does the Minister consider that Te Pūkenga is meeting its commitment to provide exceptional learning experiences and equitable outcomes for Māori and Pasifika, when Māori and Pasifika completion and pass rates were so far below target in 2022 that Te Pūkenga's response was to reduce targets for 2023? Hon JAN TINETTI: Te Pūkenga are moving towards making a model that will be responsive and will be good for Māori and Pacific learners. They set their performance measures through a statement of performance expectations. Many of these are the kinds of things that we would expect from a tertiary provider: course completion, learner satisfaction, number of learners, and employers. I will be monitoring these closely. Penny Simmonds: What does it say about Labour's ability to deliver in vocational education that Te Pūkenga is three years old now, has cost over $200 million, now needs another $330 million, and is still developing an operating model "as we are going along"? Hon JAN TINETTI: We inherited a big mess in this area, and as I've heard that member say herself, there is no doubt that what we started with when we came to Government was, quite frankly, a mess both in terms of financial stability but also educational outcomes for students. My focus is on ensuring we have sound governance structure, a plan towards financial sustainability, and quality education and training for all students.