WEDNESDAY, 5 APRIL 2023 [Volume 767] The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS Hon JACQUI DEAN (Assistant Speaker): 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, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen. AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS Question No. 3 to Minister, 4 April Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to correct an answer to a supplementary question to oral question No. 3 yesterday. SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Hon DAVID PARKER: Yesterday, in response to a question from the Hon Eugenie Sage, I said that the member, when she was Minister of Conservation, "approved of the Sea Change proposals which did have the continuation of trawl corridors". Although the member in her former role as Minister of Conservation was involved in the development of the Government's response to Sea Change, she was not the Minister at the time that the response was approved by Cabinet. I apologise to the member in the House for that error. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No papers have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the Severe Weather Emergency Recovery Legislation Bill report of the Health Committee on the petitions of Blair Vining report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Wendy Baker. SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. No bills have been introduced. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Social Development and Employment 1. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she seen on material wellbeing? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Today, Growing Up in New Zealand released the first two reports of their "Now We Are Twelve" research studies. The report shows that 90 percent of young people in the study are living in material wellbeing. This shows that this Government's commitment to prioritising our tamariki and rangatahi and investing in our whānau and communities is starting to have an impact. The findings from this study align with figures released from Statistics New Zealand last month, which uses different data and a different methodology and shows that we have lifted 28,700 children out of hardship since coming into Government. Growing Up in New Zealand is Aotearoa's largest and most diverse longitudinal study, following the lives of more than 6,000 young people and their families. Angie Warren-Clark: What does the report say about the wellbeing of 12-year-olds? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The report says that most 12-year-olds were living in homes where their family and whānau had access to essential resources, and only rarely were these households having to cut back or delay the purchase of everyday essentials. The findings in the study suggest that most of the cohort have what they need in terms of basic living standards and, most importantly, provide us with new insights into how families are faring two years into the COVID pandemic. This builds on findings from other data, which shows that 77,000 fewer children are in poverty on the after housing costs (AHC) measure since Labour took office; 109,000 families with children are better off by an average of $181 per week when compared to 2017; and there has been a drop in children in food-insecure households from 24.1 percent in 2012-13 to 12.5 percent in 2021-22. Angie Warren-Clark: What has the Government done to address the number of people living in material hardship? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Growing Up in New Zealand's data shows that, compared to 90 percent of young people considered to be living in no or little material hardship, 9.6 percent were living in material hardship, with less than 1 percent scoring at the extreme tail end. Since this data was collected in 2021-22, we have continued to make changes that will improve the lives of these children and hundreds of thousands of others. Despite the most challenging economic conditions in a generation or more, we are continuing to make changes that will benefit families, including successive increases to main benefits, Working for Families improvements, increases to accessibility of childcare assistance, and consistent rises in the minimum wage. While the data shows that most children in the study at 12 years old are not in hardship, we certainly know there is more work to do. Angie Warren-Clark: What is the Government doing this year to improve material wellbeing in light of the report? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Our 1 April changes aim to improve material wellbeing even further by putting more money into the pockets of New Zealanders; 1 April saw further cost of living support rolled out to 1.4 million New Zealanders, including families, seniors, caregivers, students, workers, and those on main benefits. For example, from 1 April, 345,000 families, including 646,000 children, will be better off through increases to Working for Families tax credits, and more than half of New Zealand families with kids, including around 10,000 more children, may be eligible for subsidised childcare assistance through our expansion of the income thresholds. While these increases won't solve everything, they will help to ease some of the pressure, and right now every bit counts when making ends meet. Question No. 2—Prime Minister 2. 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, particularly the Government's actions in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions fell to the lowest levels in eight years during the September 2022 quarter. We've made a lot of progress, but there's more work to do to ensure our emissions continue this downward trend. Christopher Luxon: When does he expect inflation to return below 3 percent? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That's ultimately a matter for the Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank's mandate is to bring inflation back down to within the target range, so that is a matter for them. Christopher Luxon: Why do forecasts show inflation will stay higher for longer in New Zealand than in the US, the UK, Canada, and Australia? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I note that yesterday when the member was comparing inflation rates of countries, he was often comparing different time periods, so I think he needs to take care in those international comparisons. New Zealand's economy is not identical to the economies of other countries around the world. Christopher Luxon: How can he justify increasing spending by an extra $1 billion every week when Treasury advised his Government last year that more spending would fuel inflation? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think the member should level with New Zealanders. If he believes the way to get inflation down is to cut Government spending, then he should be a bit more up front about what Government spending he's going to cut, because the sorts of levels of reduction in Government spending required to make a meaningful impact on the rate of inflation we have would have catastrophic consequences to the public services New Zealanders rely on. Christopher Luxon: Does he agree with the IMF that high Government spending means interest rates just have to go even higher to fight inflation? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are a number of things that contribute to inflation, including the tax cuts that the member himself has been proposing. Christopher Luxon: Isn't it the case that this Government's broken immigration settings have stoked labour shortages and fuelled inflation? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member is arguing that we should open up the border in order to repress wages, which was the strategy of the last Government, then he can mount that argument at the next election. Christopher Luxon: Hasn't his Government's failure to control inflation driven up mortgage interest rates, meaning that a family with a $400,000 mortgage is now paying an extra $300 a week in interest? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. Christopher Luxon: How on earth is that family supposed to find an extra $300 a week extra for their mortgage, when real wages have fallen every quarter for 2½ years? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do want to note, as I've indicated before, that this is a difficult economic period for New Zealand households. But if I look at wage growth, the claim the member just made is incorrect. According to the quarterly employment survey, average ordinary time hourly earnings rose 7.2 percent in the year to December, which coincidentally was the same rate as the rise in the Consumers Price Index. Question No. 3—Finance 3. RACHEL BROOKING (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government's books are in solid shape in what is a challenging economic environment. For the eight months to the end of January, the operating balance excluding gains and losses recorded a deficit of $3.2 billion—above that forecast at the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update but $5.1 billion lower than for the same period a year ago. Core Crown tax revenue is $1 billion below forecast, but this has been partially offset by core Crown expenses being below forecast by $800 million. We are continuing to take a balanced and responsible approach to the Government's finances as we traverse a pathway through cost of living pressures, the impact of the flooding and cyclone events, and a volatile global environment. Rachel Brooking: What did the report say about the Government's debt position and its impact on the economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The net debt stood at 18.9 percent of GDP, which was below the forecast of 20 percent of GDP, mainly due to favourable market conditions affecting the financial portfolio of entities, such as the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. Our debt levels as a country are among the lowest in the OECD, and well below the Government's debt ceiling of 30 percent, ensuring that we are well positioned to handle the impacts of the likes of Cyclone Gabrielle and other future economic shocks. Rachel Brooking: What reports has he seen on sentiment about the economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research's Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion was released yesterday, and it showed that business confidence in firms' own trading activity had improved somewhat. Nevertheless, sentiment does remain subdued amid challenging conditions for businesses. Rachel Brooking: What other reports has he seen on the economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We have seen a number of reports from the trading banks via research offices in the last couple of days. All of them have pointed to the fact that inflationary pressures are, to quote the BNZ, "Clearly moving in the 'right' direction." This has been emphasised by others who also say that they can see inflation moving to a lower on a sustained basis, and the Monetary Policy Committee of the Reserve Bank have also said today that they expect to see a continued moderation in core inflation and inflation expectations. Rachel Brooking: Which regions are buying our exports and supporting the growth in the economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Sales to Asia rose 30 percent for the February year, led by gains in China, Japan, and Singapore, while exports to the US increased 26 percent to Australia by 17 percent, and Europe up by 13.5 percent. Demand among our major export partners has remained resilient, despite the challenging global environment. Global shipping costs have also generally eased, with the container cost rate coming down. Overall, New Zealand finds itself in a good position to face the challenges ahead, with an economy 6.7 percent bigger than before COVID, near record-low unemployment, growing exports, and a resilient set of Government books. Question No. 4—Finance 4. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement, "The year 2023 is a tough time for many New Zealand families", and what impact is the rising cost of living having on them? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I stand by my statement in its entirety, which was "The year 2023 is a tough time for many New Zealand families, but all of these are meaningful improvements which will help them, … all of which the Opposition voted against." To the second part of the member's question, I reiterate what I said yesterday, that impacts will differ from person to person and family to family, but we do understand that this is a tough time for many people, and that is why the Government is continuing to take substantial actions to support New Zealanders through this time. Nicola Willis: Does he understand that his band-aid policies mean very little to a family who will be searching for more than $300 more every week when their mortgage refixes from around 3 percent to more than 6 percent? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I find it interesting that the member thinks that lifting the incomes of the lowest-earning New Zealanders is a band-aid solution. On this side of the House, we think lifting the family tax credit, increasing benefits, better supporting superannuitants, and better supporting students is actually the kind of thing a responsible Government does to help look after people. It is not a band-aid solution. Nicola Willis: How many families will be forced to sell their homes because of the 50-point hike in interest rates today? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to that part of the member's question, I would note that almost all banks have priced in the official cash rate going to 5.25 percent, and, indeed, the Reserve Bank, in its statements today, talks about the importance of maintaining current lending rates. Nicola Willis: How many New Zealand families will suffer from significant financial stress as they struggle to service their mortgage? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Many New Zealand families will, depending on their circumstances, have to find more money to meet their mortgage. The way in which a Government can support them through that is to support them just as we have done, by supporting particularly those on low and middle incomes to be able to actually make ends meet. What would make things really bad for them would be massive cuts in public services, which is what the Opposition will need to do. Nicola Willis: When is the Minister going to stop talking about his plans to spend yet more taxpayers' money and instead focus on the substantive work needed to reduce pressure on inflation and interest rates? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the Prime Minister has already indicated, the Opposition need to front up about what it is they would cut in order to have a major effect on inflation, because let's be very, very clear: the scale of cuts to Government spending that would materially reduce inflation would mean things like abandoning the State housing programme. Now, they did try to do that before, and if that is their policy, they should front up about it. Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Government instead consider taxing excess profits or the approximate $1 trillion in wealth transfer through COVID to the wealthiest New Zealanders as a more equitable deflationary measure? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has been said before many times, any discussions about tax policy for the next election will take place at the appropriate time. The Government has already announced its tax policy for this term. Nicola Willis: Does he stand by his commitment to return spending to normal levels following the COVID emergency response, and, if so, why is he planning to spend $9 billion more next year than he did last year? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes. Nicola Willis: Is he seriously trying to say to New Zealanders suffering from the 11th interest rate rise in a row that he and the Ministers sitting next to him have done all they can to eliminate ill-disciplined, wasteful spending from their Government? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the Prime Minister has indicated, we will continue to look for places to reprioritise and make savings, and we have done a significant amount of that. But inherent in the member's question is the connection that I raise again with her: if she thinks that reducing spending can have the meaningful impact on inflation that she is saying, she needs to come forward with the significant cuts that would be—is that no more State housing? Is it no more public health system? Is it no more public education system? Because that's the level of spending that the member would need to cut if she were to have the effect on inflation she thinks that she can have. Question No. 5—Health 5. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Health: Is the Government's approach to drugs evidence-based, and does it ensure the best possible health and wellbeing outcomes for New Zealanders? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Yes, the Government takes a harm reduction approach to drugs, providing services to support people to better manage or stop their substance use and seek recovery. I'm proud of this Government's approach to evidence-based drug policy, like our work to make drug checking services more accessible to young people over summer; deliver drug checking services and harm reduction advice; passing permanent legislation so drug checking providers could be licenced and expand their services; and the roll-out of the free methamphetamine harm reduction programme, Te Ara Oranga. Chlöe Swarbrick: How is it in the interests of public health to drop the work programme on alcohol harm minimisation while continuing to employ an evidentially harmful, criminally punitive approach to cannabis, and will the Government do anything to address either, per the recommendations from their own inquiries? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I do not believe that the alcohol work programme has been dropped. It has been deferred, and I continue to actively engage with the Minister of Justice over it. Chlöe Swarbrick: Is she aware that kids in this country, on average, are exposed to alcohol advertising 4.5 times per day, with most of that attributed to sports advertising and sponsorship; if so, will her Government adopt my alcohol harm minimisation bill? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: As I mentioned in my previous response, I continue to work with the Minister of Justice over avenues for addressing a better alcohol policy, including issues around the minimisation of young people's exposure to alcohol advertising. Chlöe Swarbrick: How is it in the interest of public health that the Police continued glyphosate spraying of small-time cannabis crops in the Bay of Plenty and central regions of the North Island throughout Cyclone Gabrielle, as revealed in my parliamentary written questions? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I believe that is a matter for the Minister of Police. Chlöe Swarbrick: Sorry, point of order, Mr Speaker. What we're talking about here is the Misuse of Drugs Act, as administered jointly by the Ministers of Justice and Health, and when I questioned the Minister of Justice about this last year, she said that that was within the delegation of the health Minister. Joint responsibility must mean both, not neither. SPEAKER: Well, my hearing of the question is that the Minister has addressed it. I suggest asking a better question. Chlöe Swarbrick: How is it effective, fair, or in the interests of public health to, last year, have prosecuted over 1,000 New Zealanders for cannabis as their highest offence, when approximately 635,000 New Zealanders used cannabis last year? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: In my capacity as the Minister of Health, I am pleased that this Government has given the Police the discretion over how they prosecute on cannabis, and I continue to work to make sure that there are high quality addiction services available. Question No. 6—Education 6. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with the Ministry of Education's Literacy and Communication and Maths Strategy that "A critical maths pedagogical approach uses maths to develop critical awareness about wider social, environmental, political, ideological, and economic issues. Critical maths recognises the importance of understanding, interpreting, and addressing issues of power, social justice and equity in the community and the wider world. Ākonga are encouraged to interrogate dominant discourses and assumptions, including that maths is benign, neutral, and culture-free"? Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Yes, in the context of the document from which the quote was taken. Chris Baillie: Can she explain to parents who might be watching this what "teaching maths for social justice" is and why teaching maths for social justice is important for New Zealand children? Hon JAN TINETTI: The quote the member referred to in his primary question is taken from a draft of the Common Practice Model that is currently out with the sector for early socialisation and was informed by an expert contributors group. It is a draft and out for feedback from the sector. I haven't signed it off for the final Common Practice Model. I do think that this particular paragraph is worded in an overly complicated way to explain that maths teaching should be used in teaching of critical thinking. Chris Baillie: How many parents have asked her to make social justice a goal of teaching maths in New Zealand schools? Hon JAN TINETTI: It's important that we do teach maths in authentic contexts. Research does show that teaching maths is effective when it is put into the context of the learner. Hon Kelvin Davis: Does the Minister agree that the development of the annual Budget is an example, a real world example, of critical maths and it provides many opportunities for authentic teaching and learning in maths? Hon JAN TINETTI: Absolutely that is an absolute authentic context, and I would think that many parents would actually support the teaching of maths in that particular way. Chris Baillie: So, when did teaching maths become more about, "addressing issues of power and social justice" than teaching kids to add and subtract? Hon JAN TINETTI: It hasn't. Chris Baillie: At a time when 100,000 students aren't showing up to school regularly, let alone achieving in maths, why is the Ministry of Education smuggling left-wing nonsense into schools and trying to politicise the Curriculum? Hon JAN TINETTI: I reject the premise of that question. Question No. 7—Immigration 7. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister of Immigration: What recent announcements has he made regarding the migrant workforce? Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): Yesterday, I announced two significant changes to the working holiday scheme, which could mean thousands more workers available for Kiwi businesses. Firstly, we're extending by six months the visas of working holidaymakers currently in New Zealand with visas due to expire between 4 April and 30 September, and granting them open work rights so they can work for the same employer for longer than three months. Secondly, the Spanish Working Holiday Scheme will be significantly expanded, with the amount of places increasing from 200 to 2,000 under an agreement that was negotiated by the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. These changes will come into effect when the scheme opens on 13 April. We know how many industries, such as tourism, hospo, agriculture, and horticulture, do rely on working holidaymakers, and it's great to be able to give these sectors a boost as they deal with historically low unemployment in New Zealand. Ibrahim Omer: How many working holiday visa holders will be eligible for the six month extension? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I'm advised that around 7,500 working holiday visa holders will be eligible for the six month extension. They must also have been onshore on 4 April to be eligible. They will continue to either be able to work in their current casual jobs or to travel and find other work, depending on their individual circumstances. Ibrahim Omer: How many working holiday visas have been approved since the border opened last year? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Immigration New Zealand has approved over 52,000 working holiday visas since the border reopened last year, with around about 36,500 people subsequently entering New Zealand after having a visa approved. These are strong numbers given both the high demand for migrant labour internationally and the disruption caused by COVID-19 and the border closure, and we are constantly reviewing our settings, as per this week's announcements, to ensure that we're doing all that we can to make New Zealand an attractive place for people to travel and work. Ibrahim Omer: What other recent announcements has the Minister made regarding migrant workforce? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Earlier this week, I announced, alongside the Minister of Finance, the Government's interim response to the Productivity Commission's report into how immigration policy settings can best support economic growth and community wellbeing. The Government's interim response noted that work would be undertaken on a Government policy statement on immigration, which will give both employers and migrant groups a greater understanding of the Government's priorities and decision-making processes regarding immigration policy settings. It will also complement our efforts to ensure that we have the right mix of skills amongst migrant workers to boost productivity and growth, and to ensure that migrant workers are treated well. I look forward to engaging with sector groups and others with an interest in this work as we take it forwards in the coming months. Question No. 8—Child Poverty Reduction 8. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: Does she agree with Child Poverty Action Group that the latest child poverty statistics are "a sad indictment on the country with no real improvement in policy that could turn things around", and why was the reduction in the number of children living in material hardship over the last five years less than half the reduction from 2013 to 2017? Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Child Poverty Reduction): In answer to the first part of the question, no. In answer to the second part of the question, the period selected by the member encompasses the period following the GFC—a global financial crisis where child poverty rates rose sharply. Comparing that period to the last five years, where we have seen some of the most challenging economic conditions in a generation is not a fair comparison. Measures taken by the Government during the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting economic shock have avoided more children falling into poverty, and eight of the nine measures of child poverty are statistically significantly lower than 2018. There is still much more to do, and the Government won't let up on our goals of reducing child poverty. Hon Louise Upston: Why has the number of children living in benefit-dependent homes increased by 35,000 under this Government? Hon JAN TINETTI: What really matters here is that we are lifting children in all households out of poverty. There are more people in need of support due to COVID, which is why one of the first actions we took in 2020 was to lift benefits, and we have further lifted benefits in line with recommendations from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group. Unlike the previous Government, we are investing in supporting people into work, and we are starting to see the results. Hon Louise Upston: Point of order. That didn't address the question; it was kind of interesting, but it didn't actually address the question I asked. Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order, I'm not actually surprised that the member couldn't hear, because of the noise that was taking place from her side of the House. But, actually, the Minister did directly address the question when she stated that, because of COVID-19, more people were in need of Government support, which was the question that the member asked. It was directly addressed. SPEAKER: And, from what I heard, the Minister did address it. If members—and I've ruled on this before: if the House is telling me that it doesn't want to hear the answer, then it's already addressed. Hon Louise Upston: Does she accept that, with the rate of child poverty reduction more than halving over the last five years, this Government's strategy of relying solely on benefit increases, instead of reducing the number of people on benefit and benefit dependency, has backfired? Hon JAN TINETTI: No. Hon Louise Upston: What actions, if any, has this Government taken to actually reduce the number of children living in benefit-dependent homes, given benefit-dependency is a driver of child poverty? Hon JAN TINETTI: We have had a number of initiatives that are helping reduce those numbers, including the $5.5 billion Families Package, successive main benefit increases, minimum wage increases, Working for Families increases, healthy school lunch programmes, and our extensive COVID-19 supports—have all had a profound and positive effect. Hon Louise Upston: Is there any greater symbol of her Government's complete and utter failure over the last five years than the rate of child poverty reduction more than halving despite promising to make it a priority? Hon JAN TINETTI: When we came into Government, we had to follow nine years of a Government that had seen child poverty numbers increase over the global financial crisis. This Government is working incredibly hard. I've already listed some of the package that we have put in place. I am proud to stand on that record. Question No. 9—Tourism 9. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister of Tourism: What recent announcement has he made on the Tourism Infrastructure Fund? Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Tourism): I am proud to announce today that round seven of the Tourism Infrastructure Fund will open next week, on 11 April. The process this year will prioritise applications where tourism infrastructure has sustained damage during the extreme weather over the last year and where upgrades will improve resilience, particularly in regions with a low ratepayer base and high visitor numbers. This is just over $14 million available in this round, and I'm proud to announce that. Tāmati Coffey: What projects are eligible for the Tourism Infrastructure Fund? Hon PEENI HENARE: The Tourism Infrastructure Fund is open to all local councils and not-for-profit community organisations that can demonstrate support from their local council. Otherwise known as the TIF, the Tourism Infrastructure Fund supports the development of public infrastructure used by visitors such as car parks, safety upgrades in public spaces such as footpaths, freedom camping facilities, and, in some cases, water treatment and wastewater. Tāmati Coffey: What's unique about this current round of the Tourism Infrastructure Fund? Hon PEENI HENARE: For this round it was important to focus priority on those regions where there has been significant damage from the extreme weather events. The return of visitors to those regions will aid the recovery of the local economies, and the repair and replacement of damaged visitor facilities is vital to be in place as soon as possible. Prior to the round opening, a number of councils were canvassed to get a sense of their needs which informed the priority statement for this round. It is always a challenge for small communities to afford the infrastructure required for large numbers of visitors, and the extreme weather has further exacerbated this. Tāmati Coffey: How has the Tourism Infrastructure Fund supported our regions previously? Hon PEENI HENARE: Since 2017, this Government has funded more than 200 TIF projects as part of our plan to promote tourism as we progressively open our borders, support domestic tourism opportunities, and maintain New Zealand's presence internationally. Kaitiakitanga is a responsibility that we all have, whether you are manuhiri or a local. This fund has seen much-needed upgrades to infrastructure across the country and I'm proud that we are also seeing more innovation and sustainable applications coming through. Just recently, the Far North District Council has installed some solar-powered trash-compactor bins around Paihia, Russell, Kawakawa, Ōpōnoni and Pukenui Wharf. These bins use sensors to detect rubbish levels and alert contractors when they need to be emptied. It is also solar powered to take up to five times more rubbish to help eliminate overflow problems. These infrastructure are needed in areas like this and this fund is available to them. Question No. 10—Education 10. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Education: How many decile 1 students passed the writing assessment for the second 2022 literacy and numeracy pilot released last week, and what advice, if any, has she received on the number of students next year that will leave school with no qualifications? Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): The number of decile 1 students who achieved the writing assessment for the overall 2022 pilot was 33, which is 11.7 percent of decile 1 students who attempted the trial assessment. To the second part of the question, the maths and literacy co-requisite is intended to sit along the NCEA qualification as an endorsement of foundational knowledge. We have been piloting the draft assessment in around 200 schools, kura, and tertiary providers to determine the settings for the assessment material and conditions. Advice has been given that if it is implemented as currently planned, the assessment could disadvantage some students, particularly those already faced with inequity, which is why we have put in place a $24 million tutoring programme to help the students whose learning was most disrupted by COVID-19, and it is why I am investigating transitional options that balance the need for a fair and equitable implementation, but without reducing the credibility of the qualification. Erica Stanford: Before implementing the numeracy and literacy pilots, did she expect that 90 percent of decile 1 students would fail a basic writing assessment? Hon JAN TINETTI: The bottom line here is that 10 years ago, we weren't testing or investigating literacy or numeracy in this particular way, because we didn't have this ability. It would be probable that we would have got exactly the same results 10 years ago. It would be hard to know where those young people would be actually achieving in those assessments, because we did not have visibility of it. Erica Stanford: In light of the answer she just gave that she wasn't expecting that level of failure, why didn't she in the last six years implement some form of assessment— Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Make things up. SPEAKER: Hon Carmel Sepuloni, stand, withdraw, and apologise. You can't say that. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I withdraw and apologise. Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept, obviously, your ruling on Minister Sepuloni. But this is, as we discussed earlier in the week, another example of an assertion in a question, which I know what you want is for us to say nothing until the Minister gets up. But when virtually every question other than the primary coming from the Opposition contains assertions, it is extremely difficult for order to be maintained in the House. SPEAKER: Well, further to the ruling that I made last week, which was that at least one part of the question needed to be in order, I'm going to leave it to the Ministers. If it's your feeling that it's out of order to the extent that you don't wish to—I mean, I'm happy to intervene, but I don't want to intervene until the question has been asked. I think we all know when there are far too many assertions—we've already had at least two today. One of them had four assertions. I would have been quite—I would have accepted it if the Minister just remained seated and did not want to answer it, and I would rule it out of order. I can do that, but it's really up to the House. As I have said before, if the House wants to tolerate out-of-order questions and address them, it can, but if it doesn't—because we have had a situation where I think they should be ruled out of order. So, in that respect, I agree with the Hon Grant Robertson. But, as I have said before, this House has told me that it wants more robust question time—OK. That's entirely up to this House. Erica Stanford: Why is it, then, that over the last six years she didn't put in place measures to allow students to master the basics in literacy and numeracy before they were required to sit this high-stakes national standard in numeracy and literacy, to ensure they had a better chance of success? Hon JAN TINETTI: That's exactly what we are doing. This is a package. This is not cherry-picking off one part or another. This is a whole package that we are doing to make sure that we are lifting literacy and mathematics achievement in this country. Erica Stanford: What things has the Minister put in place in the last six years specifically to allow students to master the basics before they had to sit this exam? Hon JAN TINETTI: We have put more teachers into the classroom. We have put in the Better Start Literacy Approach. We are putting more professional learning and development into the classroom. We have a strategy that's coordinated across. We are working with the sector; the sector are on board with us with that. We are absolutely laser-focused on lifting literacy and numeracy. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. I apologise for taking a little time to find the relevant Speaker's ruling, but I think I heard you say that it would be over to the Minister to decide whether the question was in order and not answer it, which seems to be at odds with the rulings of Speakers Gray and Mallard, 175/7. I would be the last one to advocate for a change in the approach that you are taking to things like assertions and so on, but I don't think it would be in order for the Minister to determine and therefore decline to answer, which has been the rulings of previous Speakers. SPEAKER: The alternative would be for me to intervene on every question that's out of order. If that's what the House is telling me, then I will do it. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point, that's not what I'm suggesting. It's not a binary choice, I would suggest. You have done a very good job of allowing the flow of questions, and it would be a shame if an answer would be denied by the Minister simply because he or she, in their own mind, felt that it was out of order. SPEAKER: Can members consider, then—perhaps at the next Business Committee. Can members consider and come back to me about at what point, how many assertions rules out a question. We've had one today—I mean, I counted three, and when you consider that one is out of order, at what point does this House want me to rule those sorts of questions out of order? Bring that back to me. I also point to Speaker's ruling 186/4 as well: the Speaker cannot force the Minister to answer. Have you got further supplementaries? Erica Stanford: Only if you'd like to give me one. SPEAKER: Pardon? Erica Stanford: Only if you'd like to give me an extra one. SPEAKER: I don't want to do that. Hon Members: Ha, ha! Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs 11. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What reports has he seen about how competing businesses can cooperate to respond to natural disasters? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): The Commerce Commission last week issued their report Business collaboration in response to an emergency to help businesses understand how and when they can collaborate after an emergency. Cyclone Gabrielle provided a clear example of where businesses that are normally expected to compete had important reasons to collaborate in the immediate aftermath of an emergency so that access to critical supplies, such as groceries and banking services, could be quickly reinstated. The commission wants to ensure businesses have simple and clear information about how they can work together to maintain the supply of goods and services during an emergency situation. Glen Bennett: Why is this guidance necessary? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The Commerce Commission is aware that concerns and uncertainty over competition law enforcement has the potential to impede necessary cooperation in an emergency situation. The guidance is needed because it gives it clarity to the situations in which the Commerce Commission is likely to take enforcement action and where it is not, providing businesses with the certainty to do what's needed when it's needed most. Glen Bennett: How will the Commerce Commission consider matters of competition in a crisis setting? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The first question will be whether an emergency exists. That will be the case where a state of emergency is declared or other circumstances, such as a major health crisis, or an international incident occurs. The guidance makes clear that the collaboration should be directed at achieving an outcome that benefits consumers or is otherwise in the public interest—for example, by ensuring consumers have continued access to goods or services by avoiding a shortage, ensuring security of supply, or promoting a fair distribution to consumers. Glen Bennett: What safeguards are in place for consumers that such collaborations do not harm competition unnecessarily? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The commission has made it clear that it will not tolerate collaborations that have the purpose of profiteering or otherwise taking advantage of an emergency for commercial gain. After Cyclone Gabrielle, many businesses worked well together to ensure essential goods and services reached consumers at a fair price. This guidance builds on that to ensure that the same can happen should another emergency occur. Question No. 12—Education 12. PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Education: Does she believe the results of the Te Pūkenga network employee survey, which notes one-third of Te Pūkenga staff see no future for themselves in Te Pūkenga, is a positive or a negative representation of Te Pūkenga's performance over the last three years? Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): I have been made aware that staff morale in the organisation has been low, and, as with any organisation going through a significant change and restructure, it creates uncertainty. Therefore, staff dissatisfaction is not necessarily a measurement of performance but a product of the scale of change being undertaken with these reforms. Penny Simmonds: Why is it that over 80 percent of the mega-merged polytechnic and industry training organisation staff do not recommend working at Te Pūkenga? Hon JAN TINETTI: I will also note that—from the same survey—it reflects that 44 percent of the staff strongly agreed with the changes taking place that are necessary. Only 14 percent strongly disagreed, and the rest were ambivalent. As I said, change does create uncertainty, and that is the reason why we will be seeing such low morale numbers. Penny Simmonds: Does the Minister think that Te Pūkenga carrying out a witch hunt auditing outbound emails from staff to try and find who leaked the survey results to the media will improve or make worse the staff culture at Te Pūkenga? Hon JAN TINETTI: I actually reject the premise of that question. The staff morale survey was leaked. However, it does send a signal of the work that needs to be done, and the chief executive is working through that right now.