Thursday, 11 May 2023 [Volume 767] The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS GREG O'CONNOR (Deputy 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. BUSINESS STATEMENT Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Thursday, 18 May is Budget day. As Minister of Finance, I will present the Wellbeing Budget 2023 to the House on that day. On Tuesday, the annual review debate will conclude with the appearance of the Minister of Agriculture, and the Appropriation (2021/22 Confirmation and Validation) Bill will complete its remaining stages. Other legislation to be considered will include the second readings of the Business Payment Practices Bill, the Charities Amendment Bill, and the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill; the committee stages of the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill, the Grocery Industry Competition Bill, and the Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill; and the third reading of the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. A couple of matters. Firstly, in respect of the annual review debate, which we are coming to the end of and which both the education select committee and the Minister of Education have been before the committee of the whole, I note with some disquiet that the annual report of Te Pūkenga, a $1.2 billion part of Vote Education, has still not been published. We will be encouraging the education select committee to, effectively, reopen the batting at the end of that annual review debate, but it is very difficult for this House to scrutinise annual reviews if they haven't been tabled. Secondly, it is Budget day—seven more sleeps for the Minister—next week. And so I trust that the Leader of the House will give the Business Committee next week at least some indication, for planning purposes, of the extent of urgency. And noting that Budget urgency where bills are not referred to select committees carries with it some risk that those bills that are not time-sensitive will be sent to select committees for their consideration. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): With respect to the first matter the member raises, he's answered his own question about what he intends to do about that. With respect to the second matter, I thank the member for his advice. Obviously, we are a busy Government with an ambitious programme of work, and we will refer back to the member, as he suggests, in good time before Budget day. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Anthony Gore requesting that the House increase benefits by 20 or 30 percent. SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. A paper has been delivered for presentation. CLERK: 2021/22 Annual Report of Waitematā District Health Board (DHB). SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the 2021/22 Annual Review of Research and Education Advanced Network New Zealand Limited Reports of the Health Committee on the 2021/22 Annual Reviews of the Capital and Coast DHB, Health and Disability Commissioner, MidCentral DHB, New Zealand Blood Service, Tairāwhiti DHB, the Waikato DHB, and the West Coast DHB, and on the petition of Amy Skipper. SPEAKER: The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill. CLERK: Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill introduction. SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading. The House comes to oral questions. Members, please note that we will have a New Zealand Sign Language interpreter with us in the Chamber to interpret responses in New Zealand Sign Language for question No. 12. ORAL QUESTIONS SPEAKER: Members, please note that we will have a New Zealand Sign Language interpreter with us in the Chamber to interpret responses in New Zealand Sign Language for question No. 12. QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Prime Minister 1. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, particularly the excellent work of the notoriously modest Minister of Finance to obtain $4 billion in savings and reprioritisations to support our response to Cyclone Gabrielle and meet the ongoing cost pressures in our public services. Hon Dr David Clark: Tell us more. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Thank you. We owe it to New Zealanders as they are carefully considering their spending and making trade-offs in their lives that we will do the same. Budget 2023 strikes a careful balance between supporting New Zealanders with the costs of today while charting a course for a more productive and resilient economy. Nicola Willis: What did he mean when he said there would be no major tax changes in the Budget, and is he intentionally leaving the door open to modest tax changes? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I meant what I said in my pre-Budget speech in the last week of April. Nicola Willis: How does he define "major"? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, as I said in my pre-Budget speech at the end of April, there will be no capital gains tax, there will be no wealth tax, and there will be no major changes to the tax system. I can assure the member, for example, that we won't increase GST, having said that we wouldn't beforehand. Nicola Willis: Can he confirm that there will be tax reductions in the Budget; he's just hoping an element of surprise will make up for their small size? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member—on behalf of the Prime Minister, I've got to be really careful about this. Is it worth it, Mr Speaker? No. What I can say to the member is that as the shadow Leader of the House indicated, it's seven more sleeps, perhaps not counting some of the daytime naps that the National Party take. Nicola Willis: Who is correct: Deputy Prime Minister Carmel Sepuloni, who, in Parliament on 2 May, described the clean-car changes for utes as a tax, or his finance Minister, Grant Robertson, who, two days later, argued black and blue that they were not a tax? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think both members will be correct in the context in which they gave their answers, because they are loyal members of my Government—on behalf of the Prime Minister. It is fair to say that the provisions around high-emitting vehicles did change as part of recalibrating that system. On this side of the House, we know that we actually have to take actions if we want to reduce emissions, as opposed to words that we might hear from the Opposition. Nicola Willis: Does it meet his standards for a senior Minister to delay important education data for 10 weeks to coincide with a political announcement, and would it be reasonable to expect that the Minister of Education would know whose authority her staff were acting under when they deliberately delayed the release of that data? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I have absolute confidence in the actions of the Minister of Education. Question No. 2—Housing 2. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister of Housing: How is the Government working with the community housing sector to increase the supply of public homes? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): This Government is committed to working with the community housing providers—or CHPs, as they are known—to ensure there is a sustained provision of affordable and decent housing. The delivery of CHPs complements Kāinga Ora's strong delivery of public housing. Our commitment to CHPs' role in the crucial provision of public and transitional housing is demonstrated by the numbers. Funding for the community housing providers increased from $95 million in 2016-17 to $535 million in 2021-22. This has meant an increase in CHP places from fewer than 5,000 public houses in October 2017 to 12,175 places as of March 2023. That's an increase of over 7,000 places since we came into Government. Rachel Boyack: What progress have we seen with community housing provider public homes in Northland? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In October 2017, there was one public housing place run by community housing providers in Northland, but our Government has had a strong delivery pipeline for this region, and I'm pleased to report that CHPs in Northland are now running 160 public housing places because of the actions of our Government. Rachel Boyack: What about community housing provider places on the East Coast? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: On the East Coast of the North Island, there were fewer than 40 community housing provider public housing places in October 2017. Increased rental support through income-related rent subsidy funding in successive Budgets under this Government have meant that CHPs have been able to increase the number of places by over 120 on the East Coast. Hon Dr Megan Woods: What progress has been made with community housing provider places in Canterbury? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I'm pleased you asked about Canterbury. In Canterbury, there were 569 CHP public housing places in October 2017. Under this Government, we've seen an increase to 1,702 public housing places—that's a 263 percent increase. Question No. 3—Finance 3. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Is he confident that every dollar appropriated in the 2023 Budget will be spent better by the Government than it could have been spent by hard-working New Zealanders enduring a cost of living crisis? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I will give the member the charity of not interpreting her question literally, which I think means that she's shutting up the shop on Government entirely and putting all money into the hands of "hard-working New Zealanders". I will respond to what I think she meant by the question and say that I'm confident that this Government has prioritised the needs of hard-working New Zealanders during a period of elevated inflation and the need to respond to the adverse weather events, all by keeping a lid on debt. I'm also confident that as of 1 April, the rate of NZ super for a couple will have increased by $326.68 since 2017. I'm confident that over 860,000 or 99.6 percent of children aged less than 14 years old are enrolled at a general practice that provides free visits during the day. I'm confident that 54 percent of all New Zealand families with children will be eligible for subsidised childcare assistance. These are only a few examples. Budget 2023 will strike a careful balance between supporting New Zealanders with the costs of today or charting a course for a more productive and resilient economy. Nicola Willis: In light of the inflation adjustments he has managed to fund for a range of Government beneficiaries, including Government departments, will he provide inflation adjustments for working New Zealanders in his Budget? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The inflation adjustments that we've provided, such as those for people on benefits and those on superannuation, are important ones for people who are particularly feeling the pressure of the cost of living. All New Zealanders are feeling that pressure. What a Government has to do is balance what we can do for them directly and the provision of core services. Health, education, housing—all of these things have been affected by inflation in a negative way. We have to make sure that we have the resources to spend to support those and create a balance with also supporting New Zealanders with the cost of living pressure. Nicola Willis: Is it his position that a billion dollars' worth of savings is responsible but $1 more would amount to austerity, and how is that logically consistent? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Clearly, that is not the position that I'm taking. What I am saying is many, many more dollars more would not support the New Zealand economy or society in the situation that we're now in. It is important to get a balance in these situations. If we did go down the path that the member appears to be suggesting, that would require significant cuts to public services. Now, that may well be the member's position, but she needs to make sure that New Zealanders understand that and explain how she'll pay for it. Nicola Willis: How is spending $1.7 billion on consultants and $97 million on Government advertising the right use of funds for "the society we are now in"? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Much of the spending on consultants in recent times has, for example, been in response to COVID; been in response to issues that emerge that the Government needs to move quickly on. We have given a signal that we want to see the reduction in the spending on consultants and contractors, but the member needs to explain, if she thinks that every single dollar of that is going to be available to her in the future if she were to become the Minister of Finance, how roads will be built in New Zealand, because that is where a lot of contractor and consulting spending goes. Nicola Willis: How much of the less than 1 percent of the Government's Budget he has identified for savings will be prioritised for tax relief? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we've noted before, not too many sleeps for the Budget, but the Government has indicated that our priority in this particular Budget is to make sure we actually fund the public services that New Zealanders rely on properly, that we actually invest in the resilience of our future infrastructure. I know the member wants and is obsessed by giving tax cuts in this Budget. I simply believe it's not the right time. But regardless of that, the member has to be able to explain how she will be able to pay for that. And it's no good doing it just a month before the election. Question No. 4—Education 4. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of Education: How is the Government supporting teachers to prioritise maths and literacy teaching? Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): This Government has an ambitious plan to turn around maths and literacy attainment in this country. To help teachers prepare for the changes coming in, we have listened to the advice from the professional advisory group and deferred the mandatory implementation of the other subjects by a year. Schools that are ready to implement these subjects on the current time line still can, but the new maths and literacy curriculum will be available to teach from term 3 this year. For secondary students from next year, all school leavers sitting NCEA will be required to demonstrate a minimum maths and literacy base-knowledge to gain their qualification. Three years of COVID-19 disruptions have left teachers and students exhausted, so we want to make sure that we are easing that workload and are focusing on what matters to families the most. Angela Roberts: What are the objectives of the new NCEA maths and literacy assessment? Hon JAN TINETTI: The Government has prioritised maths and literacy as urgent foundational learning that needs a dedicated focus. Currently, students can gain their required literacy and numeracy credits from over 500 literacy-rich standards and over 100 numeracy-rich standards. Most of the available standards do not directly assess literacy and numeracy skills nor have a strong conceptual link to those skills, which impacts the credibility of the qualification. That is why from next year there will be a mandatory assessment that students must pass to gain their NCEA qualification, to endorse their knowledge of foundational maths and literacy skills. Angela Roberts: Will students be ready for this new NCEA maths and literacy assessment? Hon JAN TINETTI: Students will be well supported to prepare for this assessment, with the new maths and literacy curriculum being taught from the middle of May this year to improve the quality of learning, combined with the provision of free tutoring classes for students who need additional support and the investment we have made into more teachers in the classroom. I do acknowledge that this is quite a significant uplift in the assessment requirements for students, but students will have until their final year of high school to sit the assessment. They should only be sitting the assessment when their teaching professional considers them ready to do so. This Government is prioritising the teaching and learning of maths and literacy for all our young people. Angela Roberts: What feedback has she had from the education sector on these changes? Hon JAN TINETTI: Well, these changes were based on advice from the professional advisory group to NCEA and were made with deep consultation with the sector. The sector is supportive of the Government's changes but have sent a clear message that they didn't have the capacity to cope with the scale and pace of all the changes in light of the disruption experienced in the schooling sector from COVID-19 and other weather events. I'd like to highlight comments from the president of the Secondary Principals Association: "With this adjusted timeline, schools will have more time to build their capacity and adequately prepare for the changes, ensuring that the new standards can be more successfully integrated into teaching practice." Question No. 5—Statistics 5. DAMIEN SMITH (ACT) to the Minister of Statistics: What was the total cost, if any, of the One NZ Warriors census promotion, including free tickets, $25 food vouchers for the game, and a draw for a holiday to Australia as an incentive for completing the New Zealand census, and how many entered the draw? Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Minister of Statistics): We need to do everything we can, in the final stages of collections, to help reach all communities which might not otherwise participate in the Census. The value of the data far exceeds the amount that is spent on arrangements like this. A maximum of $150,000 was budgeted for the Warriors promotion, and as of today the total cost is sitting at $126,694. In terms of how many people have entered the draw, we do not know that yet, as the promotion is still open until 13 May 2023. Damien Smith: Does the Minister believe that it's fair that people who completed their Census on time got no rewards while those who didn't complete their Census on time received rewards for doing so? Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: The great majority of New Zealanders have completed the Census, as required by law, and in fact the return rate is tracking along reasonably well. However, at this end of the Census, we are getting to the stage where we need those last few responses in order to get a viable and robust response. That is why we are taking whatever steps necessary to ensure that people do the Census, and if that takes promotions and the like, then that is what we will do in order to get the Census completed. Damien Smith: Does the Minister consider an 86 percent completion rate for the Census acceptable? Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: As of today, the completion rate for the Census of raw numbers of forms returned is sitting at around about 87 percent, and it is continuing to go up day by day. The acceptable result is one that gives us a robust dataset going forward into the future, for decisions to be made for our communities. Stats NZ is confident that, together with the raw forms returned and the subsequent addition of administrative data, we will have an excellent completion rate. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Did she consider freezing benefits for those who did not complete the Census, as advocated by the ACT Party? Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: There are accepted— SPEAKER: Hang on. The Minister doesn't have responsibility for that. Damien Smith: Does the Minister believe that spending more than $300 million on the Census for only an 87 percent response rate is a success or a failure, and who is responsible for that? Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: What matters, in terms of the Census, is the extent to which we can gather a robust dataset. That is done with a combination of Census returns—the raw data returned to us—and the administrative data that is filled in subsequently. The cost of the Census comprehends both those sets of values, and in terms of the costing that is done for it, we know that the return from completing the Census, from getting this work done, is a return of roughly 4:1 in terms of the capacity that people have to make decisions going forward based on an excellent dataset. Damien Smith: Does the Minister intend to provide future incentives and freebies for people who do not bother to complete their Census, in the next Census? Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: There are standard processes for encouraging people to complete the Census. At this stage, it is a matter of people doing their civic duty and incentives. Going forward, we will be looking at prosecutions, but that is an operational matter for Stats NZ to pursue. In terms of what we do with the next Census, that will depend on the evaluation of this Census, and that won't be completed for a long time yet. Question No. 6—Education 6. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Education: Whose authority were her staff acting on when they sent an email on 9 February 2023 to the Ministry of Education stating that "FYI, the Minister's office are looking to potentially release the Term 3 attendance data early next week", when the Ministry of Education had scheduled the data to be released on 22 December 2022, and does she still believe that the ministry's plan to release that data before Christmas would have been cynical? Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): To the first part of the question, staff in my office have some general authority to act on my behalf to engage with the ministry and make suggestions on the timing of announcements. In this instance, the correspondence to the ministry went too far in presenting this as an instruction to the ministry rather than a suggestion. I have spoken to my staff and been clear that those emails sent to the ministry do not meet my expectations. As I have always said, attendance data is the responsibility of the Ministry of Education. I did not instruct that email to be sent. To further increase the transparency around attendance data, I have asked the ministry to consider publicly publishing when future attendance data will be released. To the second part of the question, yes. Erica Stanford: Can she explain how the public can have confidence in her management of an $18 billion education budget, when she has no idea that her closest staff are taking actions on her behalf to deny schools access to data that they needed to inform their annual plans? Hon JAN TINETTI: I believe the member is conflating two different issues there, and coming to a conclusion that I believe is wrong. Erica Stanford: When did she first become aware that her office did have a say over the release of the term 3 attendance data which was released later than the Ministry of Education's scheduled date of 22 December? Hon JAN TINETTI: I was made aware of the email that was sent, as I've said in this House previously, when I came back from question time on 22 February. Erica Stanford: If she knew on 22 February that her office did have a say over the term 3 data publication date, why didn't she realise she had misled the House when she said, "I have no say over that.", and immediately correct her answer? Hon JAN TINETTI: As I have said in this House in the past, at the time I still felt that my answers reflected what I was intending him to mean at the time of delivery, because the Ministry of Education has the responsibility of the data. I have accepted that this is an incorrect judgment to make, and I have since remedied that by correcting my statement in the House. Erica Stanford: Does she regret that the term 3 attendance data was not released on 22 December as the ministry intended, when principals have told me they were working up until Christmas and in January and needed that data to better inform their annual plans? Hon JAN TINETTI: No. Hon Andrew Little: And then that member would have accused her of fudging it; you can't have it both ways. SPEAKER: Order! Erica Stanford: Why did her staff engage in delaying the term 3 attendance data to coincide with her policy announcement on 22 February? Hon JAN TINETTI: That member has just made an assertion about my staff delaying that data. I believe that assertion is wrong. The email is something that I was unaware of. I have instructed my staff about the intent behind that email, and it did not meet my expectations. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Mr Speaker, we have some difficulty with that answer, because the Minister has earlier in this question time confirmed the assertion in Mrs Stanford's question that she now denies. SPEAKER: Yeah, but the assertion made the assumption about why her staff had done it. That's the assertion that I believe the Minister was addressing. Hon Michael Woodhouse: My point is that the wide question was not addressed; rather, the Minister has challenged the subsequent statement, which is "Why did something happen?", and the Minister has said, "That's not what happened." Indeed, the question does have an assertion, but it's an assertion that's backed up by an answer the Minister has given to an earlier supplementary question. So the why has not been answered. SPEAKER: I will go back and read carefully the Hansard. But from what I heard, the assumption was made within the assertion that they did that for a particular reason. Now, if I am correct, then the Minister has addressed the question. Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment 7. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Has she seen the New Zealand Food Network's statement, "We're seeing people having to cut their food budgets in order to pay for housing and rental hikes, increasing fuel costs and power bills"; if so, what actions will her Government take in response, if any? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: I am aware of recent reports around the New Zealand Food Network survey findings, and I am proud that we as a Government have invested around $56 million in food infrastructure so that our community food providers can better coordinate and support their communities. We are aware that Kiwis are doing it tough, and that's why in response to cost of living pressures, this Government has already increased main benefits, increased Working for Families for over 300,000 families, rolled out the winter energy payment for over 1 million New Zealanders, and expanded Ka Ora, Ka Ako so that it's benefiting 220,000 learners. As a result of these actions, 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, an increase in after-housing incomes for those on benefits by on average 43 percent in real terms since 2018, and we have 77,000 fewer children in poverty using the after-housing cost measure. There is more to do and this Government remains committed to continuing our positive track record. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she accept that food banks are a symptom of inequality and deprivation, rather than a solution to these issues? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: As I have previously said as well, I do firstly acknowledge that it is tough and I also do acknowledge that ensuring that people have an adequate income is the primary means of ensuring food security—and that is exactly what we are doing. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she accept that a 165 percent increase in food bank use across the country over the last three years demonstrates that main benefits need to be increased beyond the planned indexation adjustment for inflation in this year's Budget? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I have acknowledged that the way that we ensure that people can have food security is to ensure adequate income. We've done that in many different ways, including, as I've mentioned, the Families Package; the various payments, the winter energy payment, for example; and increases to main benefits consistently. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she think that depriving someone's income via benefit sanctions, some which the Minister has been on the record to not even agreeing to, is driving more people to use food banks as a means to survive? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: What we are trying to do on this side of the House is to strike a balance between ensuring that sanctions aren't overly punitive but also encourage people off benefits and into work; at the same time encouraging incomes to lift through various different measures, and I've outlined those already. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she think it's a good use of Ministry of Social Development staff time to investigate whether someone on a benefit—and I'm quoting from the Work and Income website—is "having sexual relationships" for the purpose of determining whether someone can access income support, when so many people are struggling to put food on the table, and, if not, when will she individualise benefit entitlements? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Our current system is based around the household as a unit of entitlements that reflects financial interdependencies and scales of economy for many families. However, I do recognise that further work needs to be done so that the welfare system reflects the modern family structures. That's why, as part of the welfare overhaul, I have committed to exploring relationship definitions and unit of entitlements starting next year; that this will have a specific focus on sole parents and cohorts who are unable to work, for example, consideration of individualising the supported living payment. Question No. 8—Justice 8. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Justice: What announcements has she made about trading hours for licensed premises during the men's Rugby World Cup? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Yesterday, I announced that the Government would amend the law to ensure licensed premises can stay open during the men's Rugby World Cup matches later this year, ensuring a much-needed boost for the hospitality sector. The men's Rugby World Cup is one of the most significant events on the rugby calendar for fans, and coming together with family, friends, and the community to watch matches live is a special part of being a New Zealander. A bill will be soon introduced to Parliament, which will be progressed in time for the commencement of the tournament in September 2023. Tangi Utikere: Why were these changes necessary? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The men's Rugby World Cup 2023 is being hosted in France, and the time zone variation means that many of the games will be broadcast live, outside of the usual trading hours for licensed premises in New Zealand. Similar to the changes made in 2015 and 2019, the amendments will allow eligible licensed premises to open over the course of the tournament for the purpose of televising live games. The amendments will provide the flexibility and certainty the hospitality sector needs to plan for this busy period of time. Tangi Utikere: What safeguards will be included in these changes? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The extended trading hours will be treated as the usual permitted trading hours under the Act, and licence holders will be required to comply with existing controls in the regulatory regime. Based on experience and feedback from Police and other stakeholders, this year's amendments will also include additional provisions to enhance Police's ability to allocate resources. Licensed premises will be required to notify Police and local councils of their intention to televise matches outside of normal trading hours and provide details of a noise-management plan. Tangi Utikere: What matches affected by these amendments is the Minister most looking forward to? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: A wide range of matches. Firstly, the opening match of the tournament at 7.15 a.m. on Saturday, 9 September New Zealand time, between the All Blacks and in France at the Stade de France in Paris. It will be an absolute cracker. And of course, the quarter final—four, at 8 a.m. on Monday, 16 October, in which the nation can collectively back the boys in black as winners of Pool A, while continuing their celebrations of the return of the sixth Labour Government in the general election held two days previously. Up the All Blacks. Question No. 9—Transport 9. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Transport: What is the total amount of unspent revenue collected from the Auckland regional fuel tax, and how much revenue has been collected from the Auckland regional fuel tax to date? Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): To the second part of the member's question, I'm advised that as at 31 March this year, approximately $728,461,000 has been collected through the regional fuel tax. That has been applied to projects currently under construction, such as the Eastern Busway through the Pakuranga and Botany areas and the Matakana link road, which Mr Penk will be very well familiar with. However, as the member knows, while Waka Kotahi collects this money on behalf of Auckland Council, it is Auckland Council and Auckland Transport who are responsible for how it is spent. Therefore, the member will need to direct that part of the question to them. Simeon Brown: Point of order. I put the same question to the Minister as a written question and received an answer on 4 April which actually included both answers to both parts of that question, so I'm not sure why the Minister can't respond here in the House to a question on notice to the same. Hon Michael Wood: Speaking to the point of order— SPEAKER: Oh, go on then. Hon Michael Wood: Ha, ha! Mr Speaker, thank you for indulging me. Obviously, my office received this question this morning. We engage with the agencies that I have responsibility for who hold information. They do not hold this information. The information is held by a local government agency that I am unable, in the course of responding to this question, to receive the information from. Simeon Brown: Speaking to that, I mean, it appears that, whilst the Minister might be saying that, he has provided the information to me before in a written question, so he clearly does have access, because his office would engage with the same agencies to get the answers to the written question as a question on notice. SPEAKER: Well, the Minister clearly is saying that he doesn't know, which is an answer. I will give the member an extra question so he can examine it further. Simeon Brown: Thank you. So with $327 million of the Auckland regional fuel tax revenue remaining unspent according to the New Zealand Herald, does he agree that the Auckland regional fuel tax has just simply become another example of this Government's ability to raise taxes but not deliver? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Responding to the member's question, the information which he identified, as I understand, has come through the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. I would reject the assertion in the member's question. The Auckland regional fuel tax is being spent on important projects like the Eastern Busway, which the member says that he supports, and the Matakana link road. It has delivered important projects like the city centre bus infrastructure improvements, electric trains and stabling for the Auckland rail network, the downtown ferry terminal, and park and ride facilities across the city. When our Government came into office, we inherited a $6 billion hole in the Auckland Transport Alignment Project. We've been getting on with the job of properly funding transport in Auckland to deal with this longstanding under-investment. Simeon Brown: Does he agree with former transport Minister Hon Phil Twyford, who said in 2019, "Take this regional fuel tax away and Auckland would be back in the position of having empty promises of projects."; and, if so, what does he say to Aucklanders, who have seen $85.8 million spent on the empty promise of Mill Road, which was meant to be built with revenue from this tax? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I say to Aucklanders, including the member himself, that projects such as the Eastern Busway, which have long been demanded by the people of East Auckland, would not be getting delivered were it not for the regional fuel tax. For the member to stand there and pretend to support projects like that but then to oppose the very mechanisms which fund them leads me to a word that I'm not able to use in this House. Simeon Brown: Does Auckland Transport have funding to deliver the Eastern Busway all the way to Botany, including the Botany station, as promised would be delivered under the regional fuel tax? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Auckland Transport is currently delivering the Eastern Busway and it is delivering the Eastern Busway from Pakuranga through to Botany—that is stage three of the Eastern Busway. Stage four, which would include a station at Botany, is planned for future investment. Simeon Brown: So the Minister's telling the House that despite the 2018 regional fuel tax, which said that the Botany station would be completed using the regional fuel tax, that that now is no longer funded? Another empty promise. Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No, that is not what I am saying. The Auckland regional fuel tax is a flow of revenue which lasts for some time for Auckland Council. At this time, the Eastern Busway, which, as I have noted before, the member has stood and celebrated and said that he supports but is being delivered by a mechanism that he opposes, is being delivered through to Botany for stage three. That does not preclude future investments being made. Simeon Brown: Does he agree with Michael Wood, who said in 2018 that the Auckland regional fuel tax provided a "vision for a congestion-free city"; and, if so, what does he say to Auckland motorists who have been paying this tax for five years, while congestion only continues to get worse, and only about half of it has been spent? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: What I would say in response to that member's question is that congestion in Auckland would be considerably worse had we not made investments through the regional fuel tax in city centre bus improvements, in stage two of the Eastern Busway, in the downtown ferry terminal, and other projects, including electric train stabling, that have helped more people to get on to public transport. Decades of neglect of investment in high-quality transport in Auckland have led us to the point of having congestion and high levels of carbon emissions. Our Government is getting on with the job of making the investments to futureproof the network in Auckland, in contrast to the Opposition's relentless negativity and lack of any ideas as to how to actually solve any of these problems. Question No. 10—Public Service 10. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East) to the Minister for the Public Service: What updates has he received on the progress of pay equity settlements? Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for the Public Service): Since the 2020 amendment to the Equal Pay Act 1972, which created a practical and accessible process for making a pay equity claim, 39 claims have been raised and 10 claims have been settled. These claims have come from a range of sectors, including health, education, corrections, the funded sector, local government, and the private sector. The 10 settled claims have corrected the pay of over 110,000 employees, with the average pay correction being 32.4 percent. I meet quarterly with the pay equity task force and unions to monitor the progress of the pay equity claims, and at our last meeting on 4 May this year, there were 29 active pay equity claims at different stages of completion. Jamie Strange: What pay equity claims are currently in progress for the public sector? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Currently, there are 20 active pay equity claims in progress across the public sector. These claims include, but aren't limited to, Te Whatu Ora nurses, teachers, Public Service—administration and clerical—midwives, and education therapists. The majority of the active pay equity claims in the public sector are on track. Since the gender pay gap action plan was launched in 2018 and the Equal Pay Act was amended, the gender pay gap in the Public Service has fallen from 12.2 percent in 2018 to 7.7 percent in 2022, and since Kia Toipoto was launched in 2021, the Māori pay gap has fallen from 8.3 percent in 2021 to 6.5 percent in 2022, demonstrating the effect of taking positive action to reduce pay gaps, including through pay equity. Jamie Strange: What pay equity claims are currently in progress for the funded sector? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: In 2020, the Government approved a framework for the oversight and support of funded sector pay equity claims. The funded sector framework supports employers and claimants in the funded sector to get advice and support in working their way through a pay equity claim while preserving the rights and responsibilities of their employer and employee relationship. Currently, there are nine active pay equity claims in progress across the funded sector. These include NGO social service workers, general practice education programme or general practitioner trainees, kindergarten administration, kindergarten teacher-aides, kindergarten cooks, Kōhanga Reo, care and support workers in the health and disability sector, care and support front-line managers, and community midwives. Jamie Strange: What are the next steps in the pay equity claims space? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The pay equity task force will continue to support the efficient and effective resolution of pay equity claims across the system. The team will continue to work with unions and stakeholders to build capability in the pay equity process, deliver education and resources, and look at sustainable and effective ways to review and maintain the pay equity process. Achieving pay equity will allow women to better support themselves and their whānau and save for their retirements. It will give families more choice to participate in paid work and balancing family roles. This Government is committed to paying employees what they are worth and fully utilising their skills, and the work being done in the pay equity space recognises that. Question No. 11—Police 11. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, "It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer"; if so, why? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): I stand by my full statement: "It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra police." As police Minister, I remain committed to making New Zealanders feel safe through the actions this Government is taking, including the delivery of 1,800 additional police officers. The alternative is a drop in police numbers like we saw under National. Hon Mark Mitchell: Can she confirm that 55 percent of police stations around New Zealand have either lost or not had an increase in constabulary staff since 2017? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No. In fact, all police districts right across New Zealand have seen an increase in police officers, and I'm happy to give that member those numbers. If I read through the police districts, Northland has had 73 more police officers; Waikato, 114; Bay of Plenty, 129; Central, 91; Eastern, 99; Wellington, 89; Tasman, 49; Canterbury, 126; Southern, 56; and also in Tāmaki Makaurau, 388 additional police officers. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if you would agree with me that the Minister answering a question about stations with data about districts does not address the question. SPEAKER: Yeah, I have to agree with you. I'll give the member an extra question. Hon Mark Mitchell: Can the Minister confirm that 55 percent of police stations around New Zealand have either lost or not had an increase in constabulary staff since 2017? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The information that I have is by district. What the member may be getting confused with, with some of the data he's received, is that the additional police that have gone into areas such as Wellington and Auckland have been the increase in those working on organised crime. This includes a mix of investigators, specialist authorised officers handling areas like cyber-crime, financial forensic investigators, and asset recovery. Hon Mark Mitchell: Mr Speaker, I'm seeking leave to table a Police Official Information Act request which shows that 311 police stations around New Zealand have either lost staff or not gained any between October 2017 and November 2022. SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It may be tabled. Document not tabled. Hon Mark Mitchell: Why does she keep saying that the Government's response to record violent crime is 1,800 new police when over half of all police stations have received no extra staff? Hon Andrew Little: What a stupid question. [Interruption] Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Mr Speaker— SPEAKER: Yes, well, you might want to ask your colleague to be quiet. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I'd like to give the example of Auckland. So Police has centralised a number of functions in Tāmaki Makaurau, meaning a large number of police formerly within districts are now counted in a centralised group. This central group includes the dog section, the Eagle, much of the road-policing staffing, and the deployment workforce managements. This kind of work should be centralised because it improves efficiency for the front line. When you add all the police working in Tāmaki Makaurau, there has been an increase of 388 additional staff since 2017. I'm aware that that member has not been on the front line for some time. If he would like a briefing from police to understand how police structures work, I'm more than happy to provide that. SPEAKER: That was a pretty straight-up question, you know. It didn't really need the personal attack at the end. I'll give the member another supplementary. Hon Stuart Nash: Supplementary. SPEAKER: No, I'm going to the Hon Mark Mitchell. Hon Mark Mitchell: Have front-line police officers expressed to the police Minister that they don't feel like they're receiving reinforcements on the front line? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No. Hon Stuart Nash: Is it true that the new policing model actually means that there are more police out in our communities, solving crime and preventing crime, as opposed to sitting in police stations filling in paper? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: That's exactly right. And I'd also like to point out that with additional staff, we're able to support the front line. Under National, we had a sinking lid on non-sworn as well as sworn, which meant that you had sworn officers doing the work of answering emails. I consider that to be not a good use of Police resource. Hon Mark Mitchell: Why is the police Minister not aware of the fact that police officers in stations in rural and provincial locations are losing or haven't gained any additional police officers at a time when they need them most? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I've provided the information that each police district in New Zealand has received additional police officers. In addition to that, Auckland has received more for an Auckland hub to be created for coordinating responses, and we have more in Wellington on top of that to make sure that police recruits—the new, 1,800 by the end of next month—are trained and deployed. Hon Mark Mitchell: Has the police Minister, having talked to the front line and been engaged with them, worked out that with a 33 percent increase in violent crime, with a 41 percent increase in victimisations, and over a 500 percent increase in ram raids, and a 60 percent increase in mental health call-outs, 1,800 police is going nowhere near to meeting the demand that they're currently having to deal with? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I engage regularly with the front line, and I've visited districts right across New Zealand. It's been interesting to learn that increases in acts to intend to cause injury is strongly influenced by an increase in reporting assaults by victims of family harm. The increase in reporting of assaults at family-harm events follows the introduction of two new offences: assault on a person in a family relationship, and impedes breathing, which is strangulation or suffocation. Those were introduced under this Government in 2018 as a way of addressing family harm. These two offences now represent 70 percent of all acts-intended-to-cause-injury offences reported to police. Many of these offences were previously not reported. I stand by and am proud of a Government that wants family harm to be reported and addressed within our community. Question No. 12—Disability Issues SPEAKER: Members, we now come to question No. 12, and I'll invite our New Zealand Sign Language interpreter to come to the Table. 12. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister for Disability Issues: What recent announcements has she made about New Zealand Sign Language? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for Disability Issues): [Signs answer in New Zealand Sign Language] [Interpretation from New Zealand Sign Language] Thank you, Mr Speaker. On Monday, I launched New Zealand Sign Language Week. The theme of that week is "Together we can make New Zealand Sign Language thrive." I also announced that the Government had agreed to make improvements and amendments to the New Zealand Sign Language Act to protect an official language of New Zealand Aotearoa. Thank you. Angie Warren-Clark: How were Deaf New Zealanders involved in the consultation for the changes to the New Zealand Sign Language Act? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: The consultation was done through a New Zealand Sign Language - first approach, allowing the Deaf community to participate in a process led in their language. We heard how important it was to strengthen the role of Deaf leadership, to hold Government agencies to account for action, and recognise the identity and culture of Turi Māori, or Māori Deaf, and these are the changes we intend to make to the Act. Angie Warren-Clark: What other support does the Government give to New Zealand Sign Language? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: The Government continually supports community-led initiatives like the New Zealand Sign Language Week, the New Zealand Sign Language Dictionary, and New Zealand Sign Language youth events that promote and maintain New Zealand Sign Language in New Zealand. These initiatives take place across the country throughout the year and are successful existing examples of promotion of the language. Angie Warren-Clark: How can Kiwis get involved in New Zealand Sign Language Week? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: New Zealand Sign Language is for everyone. Starting is as simple as learning to fingerspell your name or introduce yourself. This week is the perfect opportunity to learn your first signs, and for members across this House, Deaf Aotearoa have a leaders' challenge that I encourage all to participate in. Thank you.