1. Question No. 1—Prime MinisterDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime MinisterORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Prime Minister1. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and policies?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes particularly the policies announced this week to break the cycle of offending back the police to fight crime and increase the accountability of offenders. These changes include a new aggravating factor to crack down on adults who commission or reward young people to commit crime an aggravating factor to better hold to account people who post their crimes online changes to the Family Court that will allow the Family Court to require young offenders to participate in community service programmes the building of two new youth justice facilities for up to 30 high-needs youth and changes to improve family group conferences—among other changes. This Government is very much focused on the three pillars of prevention protection and responsibility.David Seymour: Does he then stand by his statement that Using a child to commit a crime is cowardly exploitative and destroys it lives so the consequences must be serious"; and if so does the Government have any policy to make using a child to commit a crime a new offence in itself?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated yesterday what we're doing is adding an aggravating factor to an existing offence that already exists. That effectively allows for the pass-through of that offence to the person who commissioned the crime. For example if an adult used a young person to commit an aggravated burglary which has a maximum sentence of 14 years the adult who commissioned that could be liable to that sentence themselves.David Seymour: What does he say to someone like Bhavana Patel of Jyotis Dairy in the Mt Roskill electorate who was bashed with a hammer while trying to make an honest living when the Prime Minister of the country doesn't even know the difference between a crime in the Crimes Act and an aggravating factor in the Sentencing Act? What does he say to her?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I say to her that I'd never use a tragic incident like that which is utterly unacceptable for political purposes.David Seymour: Can he understand why victims like Mrs Patel who I spoke to just last week might be angry that someone who's overseen a 122 percent increase in serious assaults causing injury over five years decides to introduce tougher penalties only 88 days from an election but still can't get the most basic details right; who is cynical about crime and politics now?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I would say that the victims of those crimes have a right to feel angry about them. They have a right to feel aggrieved about them. And the Government is absolutely committed to addressing those issues. I would also point out that the increase in violent crimes that the member has referred to includes an increase in the reporting of family violence something that the members on this side of the House have encouraged and in fact we have introduced new offences in that area which have also contributed to that increase in the overall reporting of violent crime.David Seymour: Has he read the recently released Treasury advice about the school lunch programme saying "have found no impact on attendance and ākonga Māori who make up around 48 percent of students receiving the programme have not benefited on most metrics such as school functioning (e.g. paying attention in class) health and mental wellbeing (with mental wellbeing worse off for those in the programme)."?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm aware of the Treasury report. I'm also aware of countless reports from school teachers and principals who disagree with it.David Seymour: Does he stand by his answer to my question on 9 May: "Well I'll give the member one policy initiative: there are 220000 children who go to school every day and receive a free and healthy lunch because of the policies introduced by this Government."?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes.David Seymour: Does he recall that that answer was to the question "can he give a measurable example of any Government service that is 34 percent better today than it was five years ago?"; and if he can remember that why did he use an example that Treasury shows has not resulted in measurable improvements and in some cases made the outcomes worse?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because that programme is 100 percent better than it was five years ago when it didn't even exist.David Seymour: Does he stand by his statement "It's not right for households to be tightening their belts if the Government isn't also being seen to be doing the same" and can he think seriously that the average household is sitting there saying "Yes I'm spending 30 percent more money but getting no measurable improvement in outcomes" and that it's OK to make churlish and snide answers like the one he just gave?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well if I wanted lessons in "churlish and snide" I'd only need to look at the member for an example on that. But the member's use of the figures that he does fails to account for where that money has gone which includes pay increases for our nurses our doctors our teachers; more police on the beat; an increase in the population; more older people requiring more healthcare—the list could go on—more people eligible for New Zealand superannuation. I know the member wants to cut all of those things.David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister just give us one example of an improved outcome—a result for New Zealanders—that has come from his Government spending 34 percent more money adjusted for inflation in the time it's been in office?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Thousands of people are getting better access to healthcare under this Government. There are kids going to school now who are getting access to learning support who didn't get access to learning support under the previous Government. The Government has significantly increased our investment in infrastructure so that we can do things like repair potholes which were run down under the last Government.Hon Marama Davidson: Is he aware that evaluations of Ka Ora Ka Ako to date have found strong outcomes for improving nutrient intake particularly for those 7.3 percent of ākonga with less access to sufficient food at home and does he agree that improved nutrient intake is a better measure for a lunch programme than improved school attendance?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I believe it's a good measure. It's not the only measure; there are a number of measures. But I've spoken to school teachers for example who have indicated that kids' concentration is better in the afternoon because they have had a lunch to eat during the day. I've spoken to school principals who have said that some of the kids who were difficult to get to go to school previously have been attending school more regularly as a result of the free and healthy lunches programme. And yes the nutritional intake is better because we've put a lot of time and energy into looking at the sorts of foods that are being served in schools to make sure that we're improving the health outcomes for those kids as well as the educational outcomes."