7. Question No. 7—Prevention of Family and Sexual ViolenceHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual ViolenceQuestion No. 7—Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence7.Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence: Does she stand by her statement regarding the development of a family violence reduction target I didn't feel it was appropriate to have a target in this space"; if so is the reason she did not feel it was appropriate because justice sector Ministers were advised that family violence victimisations are unlikely to change over a 3- to 6-month period?Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence): In answer to the first part of the question yes I stand by my statement. In answer to the second part of the question no because family and sexual violence is a focus for this Government. That is why the justice sector Minister has agreed that family and sexual violence is measured under the target to reduce violent crime by having 20000 fewer people as victims of assaults robberies and sexual assaults by 2029. If you listen to the people who work in this space like I do they say it wouldn't be appropriate for example to have a target like the number of reported rapes or sexual assaults because actually we know this is an under-reported issue. An increase in reporting would be a good thing because that means more feel confident in coming forward in knowing that the support services they need will be available for them which is what my focus is.Hon Ginny Andersen: On what date was she advised than an incident-based family violence target can be reliably measured through the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey?Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Sorry can you just repeat that?Hon Ginny Andersen: On what date was she advised that an incident-based family violence target can be reliably measured through the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey?Hon KAREN CHHOUR: If you would like a specific date you can put that question in writing and I can get that to you.Hon Ginny Andersen: Can she confirm that she received advice from Te Puna Aonui that stated "Family violence victimisation—SPEAKER: Sorry wait on—just wait. Now you can ask the question because people are listening.Hon Ginny Andersen: Can she confirm that she received advice from Te Puna Aonui that stated "Family violence victimisation can in fact be reliably measured through the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey. However it was not possible to develop a Government target due to public sector Budget cuts possibly shifting the survey from yearly to every second year."?Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I can't remember all the advice that was in there but I can speak to the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey which is an excellent survey because it takes on board people who come forward and share their experiences with how the system has wrapped around them and what supports they have been able to get. This is something that will be very crucial when it comes to looking at how we are achieving in this space in the future.Hon Ginny Andersen: How does she explain to the victims of family and sexual violence that it was not possible for her Government to measure progress for family violence because of their own Budget cuts?Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I would actually disagree with that statement. It is possible to measure that through the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey. We are focused on having 20000 fewer people as victims of assaults robberies and serious sexual assaults by 2029 and that is a commitment we intend to keep.Hon Ginny Andersen: How does she expect to "break the cycle of violence for the safety and wellbeing of all New Zealanders" when her Government was not able to set a family violence target due to Budget cuts provided zero additional funding for family violence in the Budget and agreed for police to step back from family violence 111 calls without any additional support services being in place?Hon KAREN CHHOUR: We did set a target—it was under the justice sector Ministers—which was to reduce by 20000 fewer people to be victims of assault robberies and sexual assaults. I disagree there wasn't a target.Hon David Seymour: Point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to draw to your attention Standing Order 396—I believe—which says that a question should not contain imputations arguments or information beyond that that is necessary to make the question intelligible. Now in that question and an earlier one from Willow-Jean Prime we've had four and then three assertions made within the question. Now if you want questions to be a way of making arguments that's one thing but it's not consistent with the Standing Orders and it's now a pattern.SPEAKER: You are absolutely right if the letter of the Standing Order was followed—there's no question about that. But then again those Standing Orders that deal with questions also equally deal with answers and so there is a little bit of give and take. I personally thought that the Minister was answering the questions about an assertion quite strongly so I didn't feel there was a need to interfere with the flow of the House."