Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has Pharmac advised him of relating to rare disorders?

I am pleased to say that on Sunday, the national drug funding agency Pharmac announced they have initiated consultation on the funding of Trikafta for people aged six years and above. Trikafta is a treatment for cystic fibrosis, a health condition affecting the lungs. It’s a condition that typically shortens a sufferer’s life considerably. Trikafta is a breakthrough treatment which radically addresses the condition and extends life expectancy for cystic fibrosis sufferers by 27 years on average. One of the recommendations in the review of Pharmac published earlier this year was that Pharmac should be more proactive in addressing treatments for rare disorders. Consultation over a new treatment is a very important step in Pharmac’s process—it’s how Pharmac checks that people who will get the most benefit from the medicines will be able to get access to them. Since 2017, this Government has increased the medicines budget by 43 percent, letting Pharmac make more than 200 additional medicines available for thousands of people. This means better access to medicines and treatments for New Zealanders, helping more people lead healthier lives.

Tangi Utikere: What other drugs for rare disorders has Pharmac recently announced they will be funding?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: In September this year, Pharmac announced that they are consulting over the spinal muscular atrophy medicine nusinersen, which is marketed as Spinraza, which would be the first medicine to be publicly funded for spinal muscular atrophy. Spinraza will make a substantial difference to the lives of the young people who receive it, and confirms the renewed attention Pharmac is giving to rare disorders.

Tangi Utikere: How do these announcements fit with the Pharmac review?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We committed to an independent review to look at how well Pharmac performs against its objectives and whether those objectives need changing. This Government agrees with the independent review panel that Pharmac must put much more emphasis on equity across communities, including for those who have rare diseases as well as their families. Pharmac’s recent decisions to fund Spinraza and Trikafta—the first medicines to be publicly funded for spinal muscular atrophy and the miracle drug for cystic fibrosis—indicates it’s shown a greater awareness of the need to carefully consider rare disorders.

Tangi Utikere: What other progress has been made on the Pharmac review recommendations?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have now received and accepted Pharmac’s response to the review. In their response, Pharmac has identified five priorities to drive and guide their performance improvement in the years ahead. The priorities are, firstly, enhancing assessment methods; secondly, stronger partnerships and engagement with Māori; thirdly, strengthening their focus on equity; fourth, better incorporating consumer voices; and fifth, sharing more impactful information about what work is being done. We are already seeing changes to how Pharmac is conducting itself with the funding decisions that they’ve recently announced.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and policies?

Yes, particularly the Government’s investments in infrastructure. Around 30,000 rural homes and communities will soon have access to faster, improved connectivity, with an expansion of the Rural Capacity Upgrade programme. Last week, 21 contracts signed by Crown Infrastructure Partners will accelerate upgrades to towers and broadband connections in areas with poor coverage, including the Far North, Gisborne, Manawatū, Whanganui, Taranaki, Southland, and Waikato. This is something our rural communities have called for and it’s something we as a Government have responded to.

David Seymour: How does it feel to be the first Prime Minister in 168 years of Parliament to try and entrench her own policies without even knowing she was doing it?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, the House is well aware that entrenchment provisions will come back before the House today and will be removed. We have acknowledged that a mistake was made and we’re fixing it.

David Seymour: Was it the Government’s policy to entrench that water services entities must own water assets, and, if not, why did she vote for it?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve already said in the public domain on multiple occasions, the entrenchment provision and the fact that it was supported was a mistake and one that we are fixing.

David Seymour: Was it Government policy to entrench clause 116 of the Water Services Entities Bill, and, if not, why did her Minister of Local Government vote for it—or was that just a mistake too?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I refer the member to my two prior answers. In answer to the first question, the member will, of course, be aware that the entrenchment provision was not part of the Government bill. It was a Supplementary Order Paper from another party, and that therefore answers his first question.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister accept that through her recklessness—her Government trying to pass 24 bills in one week under urgency—she created a major constitutional cluster and has shown no contrition for doing so?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member’s claim is incorrect, first of all; and, second of all, the bill has not passed. And, finally, there have been a number of occasions in which Governments have extended sittings in order to debate legislation. That policy is not new.

David Seymour: What does it say that no other Government in 168 years has been arrogant enough to try and entrench their own policies—up with the voting right provisions that protect our most basic democratic rights?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I totally disagree with the member’s characterisation of the issue.

David Seymour: Why has the Government explicitly ruled out the COVID-19 royal commission inquiring into the private sector, saying, in its terms of reference, that the commission must not inquire into “the operation of the private sector, except where the private sector delivers services integral to a pandemic response.”, and who exactly does she think’s going to pay for the $106 billion of extra net core Crown debt that her Government racked up over the last four years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m sure the member would agree that if you’re looking into a Government response, one of the parameters should be looking at the Government response. We wanted to be clear that the inquiry wasn’t about any other private sector’s decision-making or their contribution to the pandemic. It needs to be focused on what we as a Government need to learn from the pandemic response so that we’re best prepared for the future.

David Seymour: Has the Prime Minister talked to any business people lately, or is she just not aware that the Government’s response had some pretty big effects on the private sector?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Despite the nature of the member’s question, which I have to say is slightly hard, I’m taking question time seriously; it would be good if he did too. In response to his question, economic and monetary policy are absolutely in scope. We absolutely agree that the COVID response had an impact on everyone’s lives and livelihoods, including the operation of business. That is why it is included. I stand by our response, but so much so that I welcome an inquiry into it and a comparison against it, relative to other countries, because I absolutely believe in the outcomes, which are saving people’s lives and our economy. We did an excellent job.

Nicola Willis: How can she possibly claim that the royal commission’s terms of reference include a comprehensive evaluation of the economic response when they are explicitly restricted to examining “settings required to support New Zealand’s immediate economic response to a future pandemic;”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because the terms of reference say, and I quote, “The legislative, regulatory, and operational settings required to support New Zealand’s immediate economic response to a future pandemic relating to fiscal and monetary policy responses, including co-ordination and preparedness to implement large-scale changes quickly and monitor their impacts:”. It is on page 5 of the terms of reference. For the sake of clarity and to give due, the member may have only read the summary of the terms of reference. The full terms of reference state it very clearly.

David Seymour: Does she have confidence in broadcasting Minister, Willie Jackson, after he made repeated suggestions that an interviewer in the chair should be responsible for his company’s commercial and political decisions and vice versa on Q+A on Sunday morning?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I do. Secondly, I also support the legislation’s very clear position on the editorial independence of our public service broadcasters. And, thirdly, Minister Jackson himself has said it wasn’t his best interview.

Question No. 3—Housing

3. to the Minister of Housing: What progress has the Government made in delivering public housing?

We are rebuilding public housing in New Zealand by building more public housing, renewing our existing housing stock faster than any Government since the 1970s. Since we’ve come into Government, we have now added 10,763 public homes and delivered over 4,000 new transitional homes. Kāinga Ora has delivered 9,133 new warm, dry public houses, with 743, or 77 percent, being new builds, and 11.5 percent of the current public housing stock—or over one in nine of our current public homes—has been delivered during our term in Government. But we know we cannot do it alone, and this is why we have also been working closely with community housing providers (CHPs) to deliver public housing places, too.

Angie Warren-Clark: What contribution have community housing providers made to the public housing programme?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There are now 11,785 public housing places provided by our community housing providers. This has more than doubled since 2017, when there were less than 5,000 places provided by community housing providers. Community housing providers bring strong community connections, knowledge, and expertise in delivering housing for vulnerable New Zealanders, but, of course, it requires the Government to partner with them and deliver the funding for income-related rent subsidies.

Angie Warren-Clark: How has the Government supported community housing providers?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Community housing provider stock, as I said, has more than doubled since October 2017 as a result of our Government’s record investment in housing. This has been possible through the Government significantly increasing the funding available to our community housing providers through consistent recommitments in successive Budgets. In the financial year ended June 2017, total funding for CHPs was just $95 million. As of June 2022, the annual figure was $535 million in operational funding for our CHPs—an increase of 463 percent.

Angie Warren-Clark: What notable community housing provider - led public housing projects has the Government supported?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government supported Auckland City Mission to open their HomeGround facility, the largest project that they have ever undertaken. HomeGround is an 80-unit housing and social services facility that incorporates a detox facility, a medical centre, and education services. The whole-of-life funding the Government is putting into HomeGround is expected to total $114 million. CHP housing delivery is not just happening in our city centres. In the past few years, because of changes we have made to operational funding, we are now seeing community houses being delivered outside of our cities.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions?

Yes, particularly this Government’s decision to increase the medicines budget by 43 percent since we took office, enabling Pharmac to make more than 200 medicines available for thousands of people. This funding has enabled Pharmac to reach a provisional agreement with medicines supplier Vertex to fund Trikafta for people with cystic fibrosis who are aged six and over and who meet eligibility criteria. Funding of Trikafta is proposed to start from 1 April next year. It shows what a difference the Government’s budget boost is making. When we came into Government, the medicines budget, like other parts of the health system, had been starved of investment despite record population growth. In 2020, we promised we’d increase Pharmac’s budget by $200 million over four years. We’ve not only kept that promise but put in an additional $71 million more this year with another $120 million boost next year.

Christopher Luxon: Why did she claim that Radio New Zealand would collapse if it’s not merged with TVNZ, when Radio New Zealand is 100 percent funded by taxpayers?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My reference was not only to the funding of TVNZ and RNZ, but the general issue of listenership and viewership. We know that since 2014, for instance, daily audience share for television has dropped from 83 percent to 56 percent. We know for radio it’s dropped from 67 percent to 47 percent. This is a changing environment. Public service broadcasting is important to New Zealanders; no matter what, we need to change the way that we are funding these services because, particularly for TVNZ, their revenue is declining.

Christopher Luxon: Is she aware that Radio New Zealand’s revenue has nothing to do with how many listeners it has?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: And nor are the reforms solely about revenue source. It’s also about lifting and making sure that listeners are able to access public service broadcasting across multiple platforms. One of the concerns I have in this debate is this is actually one of the first times that the member’s acknowledging that taxpayer money already goes into public service broadcasting. The issue is that without recognising that the environment they’re in is changing, we will keep having to increase the amount that goes in because revenue is declining for TVNZ. Things need to change.

Christopher Luxon: What is her response to Stuff political editor Luke Malpass, who said of the merger, “It has no clear rationale, no clear plan, and no obvious problem it is willing to fix.” And, to be honest, isn’t this merger just an ideological solution in search of a problem?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the business case has demonstrated, which was produced by Deloitte, change is required.

Christopher Luxon: Why did broadcasting Minister, Willie Jackson, criticise a TVNZ journalist, saying “I am very disappointed in you.”, and isn’t she concerned that he made these threatening statements during an interview about editorial independence?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I refer the member to my answers earlier on in question time. The editorial independence is safeguarded in the legislation itself.

Christopher Luxon: Does she have confidence in her Minister of Broadcasting, Willie Jackson, when he has been unable to explain why this merger is happening and clearly has no understanding of the concept of editorial independence?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I do.

Christopher Luxon: Why, as Prime Minister, is she continuing to support a Minister who is so grossly incompetent?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I totally disagree with the member’s assertion.

Christopher Luxon: What does it say about her leadership that she is willing to tolerate this level of incompetence from her Ministers?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I again reject the assertion by the member. The member for broadcasting has direct experience from working in the broadcasting industry. He knows all too well that the environment our broadcasters are operating is declining. The numbers of journalists in this country has halved. New Zealanders say misinformation is one of their biggest concerns; we have just seen, in a pandemic, how important it is that they were able to access information they trust and to access their own stories. The fact is, taxpayers already fund public service broadcasting. We need to make sure that that money is well invested.

Question No. 5—Police

5. to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has he made on supporting small businesses to tackle retail crime?

Last week, the Prime Minister and I announced an extended package of measures to combat retail crime, with new initiatives to partner with small businesses and local councils. While overall youth crime is now much lower than in the past, the risks and harm from ram raids and other retail crime is concerning communities and creating victims. Shop owners and workers feel targeted, and the Government recognises that. The range of initiatives that we announced last week make the most significant direct support crime prevention financial package in recent memory, and it backs up the work that the police have been doing through supporting crime prevention measures and undertaking other measures to help business owners stay safe.

Ginny Andersen: What further details are available on these packages?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The measures that we announced last week include a new fog cannon subsidy scheme where the Government will provide $4,000 to small shops and dairies in New Zealand who want to have a fog cannon installed; a new $4 million fund to support local councils in Auckland, Hamilton, and the Bay of Plenty with crime prevention programmes; and extending the eligibility of the existing retail crime prevention fund.

Ginny Andersen: What changes will be made to the retail crime prevention fund?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The retail crime prevention fund was set up for small shops and dairies earlier on this year as offending shifted to ram raiding. Last week’s announcement has seen the expansion of its eligibility to small businesses who experience an aggravated robbery, including those committed in the past 12 months. Police are already making good progress on the number of stores accessing the fund. More than 100 shops now have installations approved, and there are 431 security measures under way.

Ginny Andersen: What work is the Government doing alongside of local government to help support small-business owners?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As mentioned, the $4 million has been targeted to support local councils with local crime prevention measures. This will be made up of $2 million for the Auckland Council, $1 million for the Hamilton City Council, and $1 million for the councils in the Bay of Plenty, which will be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis by those councils. These partnerships will be focused on crime prevention through environmental design measures in geographic areas where small retailers are commonly targeted, and that can include things like street lighting, CCTV cameras, and planter boxes. Conversations have already taken place between police and Government officials and the Auckland Council, Hamilton City Council, and the Bay of Plenty councils to identify opportunities that can get started soon.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

6. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement about entrenching a provision of the Water Services Entities Bill that “we accept a mistake here has been made”; if so, when did she realise it was a mistake?

Yes, I stand by my statement. In answer to the second part of the member’s question, Cabinet determined it would resolve the issue at the first Cabinet meeting that was held after the committee of the whole House.

Christopher Luxon: When was she first made aware that her Government was supporting a provision to entrench parts of the three waters legislation?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I believe I’ve already referred to in the public domain, I was, obviously, made aware after the vote was taken. What I would also state is that I also stand by, however, our Government’s position that the privatisation of water assets is something that we are strongly opposed to. Regardless of the debate that’s currently being had about our mechanism of entrenchment provisions, I would encourage the member to give due consideration to the letter that we have issued him today seeking for the National Party’s commitment to not privatise these incredibly important assets.

Christopher Luxon: Why, as the Prime Minister and chair of Cabinet, was the embedding of an entrenchment clause in a deeply unpopular piece of legislation “Not something I would necessarily be aware of.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member needs to put the context around that quote—I was asked whether or not I had seen the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). I would ask the member whether or not every single amendment to every single bill that is put up by the Opposition or the Greens or by ACT is something that is routinely examined. I did not see the SOP, but nor would I expect to.

Christopher Luxon: Is it acceptable that neither Minister Mahuta nor any other Minister failed to tell her about the entrenchment provision before her Government passed it?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I refer to every public statement that I’ve made on this matter regarding the consideration of entrenchment, and then I come back to, ultimately, the House coming back today to consider the issue. We agree it is a mistake and it will be removed.

Christopher Luxon: Does she think it’s appropriate to force through both a major confiscation of local water assets and significant changes to our constitutional conventions under urgency?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I totally disagree with the characterisation of that question. It is utterly factually wrong.

Christopher Luxon: Was her Government’s attempt to entrench part of her unpopular three waters reforms a sign of incompetence or arrogance, or both?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I also disagree with the characterisation; the entrenchment provision related only to the privatisation of assets. On the principle of the privatisation of assets, we are totally opposed. My question is: is the National Party?

David Seymour: How can the Prime Minister demand the Opposition rule out privatisation, when her own Government is taking the assets off democratically elected councils who had ratepayers pay for them, and putting them into new entities that will not be fully democratically run?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The new entities are public shareholdings of council representatives. It is being held by local communities. We have an illustration of the issue with this entire debate: the member’s mischaracterisation of what is ultimately a bill to ensure public ownership and management of water entities. The member needs to be honest. The way that he is portraying this bill is wrong, dishonest, and factually incorrect.

David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, as you well know and the Prime Minister well knows, to call another member dishonest is unparliamentary. She knew the rules, she did it, and she should be asked to withdraw and apologise. And it includes calling another member’s actions in the House dishonest.

Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order. Firstly, the Prime Minister said that making a statement like that would be dishonest. It wasn’t a direct comment on a member, to take on Mr Seymour’s point of order. My second point is that almost all—I think I’ll be correct—of the Opposition’s supplementary questions today have contained assertions, some of which arguably are outside of the Standing Orders in terms of the words that we use, let alone being outside of the Standing Orders around oral questions, in terms of the content of them—Standing Orders 395, 396, 397. So, unfortunately, we are in a position where there’s been, in my opinion, a response when the Prime Minister has got up today several times to say that she disagrees with the contents of a question because those questions have contained assertions. That seems to be how it goes, which way it will go both ways.

SPEAKER: Thank you to the Deputy Prime Minister. That is correct. I counted three assertions in that supplementary. I listened—I’ve been listening very carefully to all the answers, as I thought to myself, sooner or later someone’s going to complain. And today is that day. The fact of the matter is, I’m quite happy—as I have stated in this debating chamber at question time before—to rule questions that are significantly out of order to be out of order. That one was; I could have easily ruled it out. I allowed it to be asked on the basis that the member knew and understood the likely response. Are there any further supplementaries on this?

Question No. 7—Forestry

7. to the Minister of Forestry: What announcements has he made on transforming the forestry sector?

Last week at the Forestry Hub at national Fieldays, I launched the Forestry and Wood Processing Industry Transformation Plan, which provides a detailed road map to increase wood processing in New Zealand and grow a low-carbon, high-value industry. The Government has worked closely with the industry to develop the industry transformation plan that will both boost the value of our forestry sector and futureproof it to provide greater economic security for all New Zealanders through good times and bad.

Jo Luxton: How will increasing onshore processing boost New Zealand’s economy?

Hon STUART NASH: New Zealand is currently the world’s largest softwood log exporter. Today, roughly 60 percent of our harvest is exported as logs to a small number of markets. We want to create a future for the forestry industry that doesn’t just rely on exporting logs but one that opens up domestic opportunities. More processing in New Zealand will create jobs, drive growth, and provide more wood residues to support the growing bioeconomy.

Jo Luxton: How will this transformation plan help drive down emissions?

Hon STUART NASH: The first goal of the industry transformation plan is to reduce carbon emissions by 6.9 million tonnes by 2030 and by 54 million tonnes by 2050. This will be achieved through, for example, using wood fibre to help decarbonise transport and process heat and using wood products to replace high-emissions materials in construction.

Jo Luxton: What other investment has the Government made to support the forestry sector?

Hon STUART NASH: The Government supported the forestry sector with $385 million in Budget 2022 to help transform the sector. This includes support to increase woody biomass supplies, to replace coal, to develop long-term carbon sinks, and to create a resilient and diverse sector.

Question No. 8—Finance

8. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank that “worker shortages are holding the economy back and increasing inflation”, and what steps, if any, will the Government now take to lessen the risk of economic recession next year, as outlined in the Reserve Bank’s November Monetary Policy Statement?

In answer to the first part of the question, with more New Zealanders in work now than ever before and the highest participation rate on record, I do agree that global worker shortages are contributing to worker shortages here as businesses look to hire more employees due to strong profits and the resilient economy. That’s why, under the immigration rebalance, Immigration New Zealand has given approval for 90,000 positions under the accredited employer work visa as well as more than 39,000 working holidaymakers. In answer to the second part of the question, I’m sure the member will be aware that immigration on its own is not the only answer to growing the economy. The Government continues to take steps to invest in our infrastructure, provide targeted support to New Zealanders on low and middle incomes, and continue to invest in quality public services.

Nicola Willis: Does he agree with economist Brad Olsen that the Reserve Bank is “quite clearly saying … that the Government is contributing to inflation, or certainly not helping the case to get it under control”, and does he take any responsibility for the worsening cost of living crisis?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, when the Reserve Bank spoke last week at the release of their Monetary Policy Statement, they, among other things, indicated, as I have in this House before, that the overall direction of Government spending continues to track down and, in fact, the fiscal impulse is contractionary over the forecast period.

Nicola Willis: Does he stand by his commitment to starting a more comprehensive evaluation of the economic response to COVID-19, and how will the royal commission do that when its terms of reference do not include any assessment of the impact economic decision-making has had on today’s cost of living crisis?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m not 100 percent sure how that relates to the primary question, but, in answer to that, the member has already heard from the Prime Minister, quoting the part of the terms of reference that includes fiscal and monetary policy responses and the overall economic policy response. The purpose is to learn the lessons of this pandemic and be able to apply them to any future one; that absolutely includes fiscal and monetary policy responses.

Nicola Willis: Why was he unable to name a single example of where he has reined in Government spending, on Newshub Nation last weekend, despite being asked multiple times, and would he like to use this opportunity to give one specific example?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s interesting because the question actually related to whether or not I agreed with all of the knee-jerk responses that the National Party had put in place. Because if, as a Government, we were being irresponsible and we hadn’t planned for the fact that there would be a global economic slowdown, the member might have a point. I invite the member to think about what would have happened to the New Zealand economy had we taken her advice and her leader’s advice and done tax cuts in the May Budget. If we’d done that, the New Zealand economy would be in a far, far worse position than it is now.

Nicola Willis: How can New Zealanders have any hope for the future when his Government has totally failed to get the cost of living crisis under control and they are now staring down a recession next year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve got enormous hope for the future of New Zealand, because I see New Zealanders every single day working hard, lifting their skills, innovating, exporting. The member really just does need to look at how hard New Zealanders have worked, have a bit of faith in them. On this side of the House, we do and we know New Zealanders know they’ve got a Government that backs them.

Question No. 9—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

9. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent reports has he seen regarding competition for residential building supplies?

Today, the Minister for Building and Construction, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, and I were delighted to receive the Commerce Commission’s final report on the building supplies market study. The commission’s report found two key factors negatively impact competition in this crucial sector: incentives that favour familiar building products in the building regulatory system, and quantity-forcing rebates. These things mean it’s harder for alternative products that offer consumers a keener price or more choice to get into, or expand in, the market. We welcome these findings, and we’ll consider the recommendations to understand what changes are necessary to help increase competition and, ultimately, bring down costs to consumers.

Jamie Strange: How will the recommendations make a difference for everyday Kiwis?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We know that market studies improve competition, and competition improves prices. Low levels of competition hurt everyday New Zealanders across the board—at the pump and at the checkout. With building supplies, we pay higher prices because of a lack of competition. The commission has suggested changes, including to the current regulatory settings, to improve competition among building suppliers. These changes are expected to support better prices, quality, range, and innovation for New Zealanders over time.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Name just one.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Take a question, Mr Brownlee—take a question.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Responding to an interjection.

SPEAKER: Don’t.

Jamie Strange: What other initiatives did the Commerce Commission highlight as a way to improve competition for building supplies?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’m pleased to see the Commerce Commission noted the actions taken by the Government to alleviate the plasterboard shortage earlier this year. This includes the ministerial plasterboard taskforce, set up by the building and construction Minister, Dr Megan Woods, and guidance to the sector on how to substitute plasterboard. Taken together, these actions resulted in more plasterboard being in the market. The commission’s view is that the measures could be considered for a wider range of key building supplies to better support competition.

Jamie Strange: What reaction has he seen in response to the report?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: More good news: I’m pleased to see there’s already been some preliminary moves to improve competition by dominant players in the building-supplies market. Winstone Wallboards announced just this morning that it will discontinue the use of quantity-forcing rebates. It’s hard not to see this as a response to a key recommendation in the Commerce Commission’s report. I think the House can see there is real merit in putting the spotlight on a sector through a market study process. While the Government immediately starts work to explore the recommendations, there’s nothing stopping market players from making moves, right now, that will improve competition in the market.

Question No. 6 to Minister

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d like to raise a matter at the first possible instance. On question No. 6, the finance Minister took a point of order and stated that the Prime Minister had not directly accused me of dishonesty, but only proposed a hypothetical circumstance where I might be. Since then, I’ve had the video transcript sent through to me, and it says that she said, “The way he is portraying this bill is wrong, dishonest, and factually incorrect.”, after saying, “The member needs to be honest.” The Prime Minister did accuse me of dishonesty. That is unparliamentary, and I would put it that the finance Minister misled the House when he said that she didn’t.

I have made a ruling. The way to question the Speaker’s ruling is not to take another point of order like you have just done, so that is out of order. Now—

David Seymour: No, it’s not.

SPEAKER: It is. I made a ruling based on what I heard, without the benefit of going back and having a look at a Hansard—in real time—and I made my ruling accordingly. Now, there are a number of ways you can question the Speaker’s ruling. Bringing it up now is not the way to do it. There is a correct procedure to do it.

Well, a fresh point of order, Mr Speaker. I was not questioning your ruling. I was raising a fresh point of order in relation to the finance Minister and his claim, which is now demonstrably untrue. That’s the point of order I am raising now. It in no way questions your ruling. However, I would ask you to use Speaker Wall’s ruling at 45/2, which says, “The offence of calling another member a liar, or implying that another member of the House is a liar,” is an injustice to the whole House. It’s a very serious matter that can’t be brushed off by saying it was provoked.

And, again, this is not the correct way of addressing it. You can address it by making, in writing, a matter of privilege. That is the correct way.

Question No. 10—Immigration

10. to the Minister of Immigration: Does he consider that current immigration policies are fair and equitable towards migrant families?

Yes, I do, and, in particular, I’m pleased recently with the progress that we have made on 2021 Resident Visa which, according to the most recent information, has provided 121,392 people with residency in New Zealand; providing much-needed certainty for those people and their families who are contributing to our country. I’m also very pleased that the first draw under the parent category occurred on 14 November, and that will potentially provide a pathway for up to 600 parents to be reunited with their families through that pathway here in New Zealand.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What feedback has he received from stakeholders regarding the planned removal of automatic working rights from most partners of temporary visa holders, as mentioned in his press release yesterday?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The proposed changes that I put a press release out about yesterday relate to the work rights for partners—it is important to clarify that the Government has, at all points, proposed to retain working rights for partners, but potentially to change them from being open work rights to work rights that are obtained through the Accredited Employer Work Visa scheme. That has been an important change that was put in place in order to ensure that partners had the protection of working for an accredited employer; that we reduced instances of exploitation; and that we ensure that those people would be paid a fair rate, which is something that we can ensure through the Accredited Employer Work Visa scheme. Some of the concerns and feedback that we received related to whether that had got the balance right in terms of ensuring that partners would have the ability to independently and easily seek work on their own terms—that is the feedback that I have taken on board, and that’s why we’re just taking a little bit more time to streamline and make sure we get that policy right.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he agree with Dhilum Nightingale—a community lawyer who works with migrant survivors of domestic violence—who called these changes patriarchal and said at a seminar that “This new policy is not supportive, in my view, of the realities, and once again allows an abuser to control a victim’s immigration status”; if not, why not?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No, I don’t agree with that statement—in the first instance, I note that in a relatively broad-brush way, it assumes who is the primary visa holder and who is the partner, and that can’t always be assumed. Secondly, what I would note is that in taking a bit more time to work through this change, we are going to make sure that we do address any concerns of that nature.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How many, if any, front-line organisations working with migrant survivors of family violence were consulted prior to the decision to remove the automatic working rights of most partners of temporary work visa holders?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: If I can just re-affirm that the Government at no point has proposed to take away work rights for partners. There has been a proposal to change them to an Accredited Employer Work Visa pathway, which will ensure in some respects greater protections for those people. What I can confirm to the member is that I do consult widely—and discuss widely with a range of groups—immigration policy as it is being developed. This is a topic which has been raised with me by a number of those groups in recent weeks. For example, I’ve met with the immigration reference group which has a wide variety of stakeholders—including those who work with these groups and communities, and Community Law Centres Aotearoa, and I’ll continue to work with those groups as I refine this policy and other settings within the immigration system.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How many organisations working with migrant survivors of family violence were consulted when the immigration rebalance was being produced?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: That’s a very, very specific question which the member would need to provide to me and I would be able to—through checking through the records—give a more accurate answer, but what I can confirm to him is that I regularly meet with immigration sector stakeholders, including those groups who work with vulnerable migrant communities, and I’ve done so as I’ve been considering this issue. And one of the things—if the Opposition will just pause for a moment—that I would like to reiterate is that one of the ways in which we do take forward immigration policy is to listen, and what we’ve done this week has been to listen to some of those views that have come forward; and we’ve said we’ll spend a few more months taking that on board to make sure that the policy is right. I recognise that the National Party, in their supreme arrogance, can’t understand that, but that’s the way that we develop policy on this side of the House.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Will he commit to extensively seeking and considering feedback from front-line advocates working with migrant survivors of family violence and unions before taking any decision to go ahead with the changes to the rights of partners of temporary visa holders; if not, why not?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As per answers to previous questions, what I announced yesterday is that we have been listening to groups within the sector, and that is why in fact we have said we’ll take a few more months to refine and streamline this policy, to make sure that those concerns are taken into account.

Question No. 11—Broadcasting and Media

11. to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: Does he stand by all the Government’s views and actions regarding Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media?

Absolutely. In particular, I would point the member to the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday that the reforms are about valuing and protecting public media in New Zealand, giving it the best possible chance of thriving, and ensuring that all New Zealanders—young and old—can continue to access trusted news and information.

Melissa Lee: How does the Minister expect New Zealanders to have confidence he will not interfere in the editorial independence of Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media (ANZPM) when, according to Thomas Coughlan, “Jackson’s repeated bizarre insinuations about editorial independence left viewers none the wiser on this point and raised serious questions about whether he had the capability to be the Minister of the entity he is so keen on creating.”?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I can’t make this any clearer: editorial independence is so vital. It’s protected specifically in the legislation—clause 15(3). The Government’s intent is that ANZPM should have extremely strong protections in relation to its editorial independence. If that member understands the importance of editorial independence, she will understand that it’s all about context sometimes—and I’ve already said that it was a misstep in the interview, and I stand by that. Everyone makes mistakes, even Mr Luxon.

Melissa Lee: Has the Minister breached section 28(1)(c) of the Television New Zealand Act of 2003 that states, “No shareholding Minister … may give a direction to TVNZ … or [any] employee of TVNZ … in respect of the gathering or presentation of news or the preparation or presentation of any current affairs programme or content.” in respect of his TVNZ Q+A interview criticisms on 4 December 2022; and, regardless, how did the Minister’s comment improve trust in ANZPM?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No.

Melissa Lee: Who is correct: the Prime Minister, who just told the House that TVNZ revenue is falling, or public records, which shows the TVNZ revenue has increased by “record” levels this year despite COVID restrictions?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The Prime Minister is 100 percent correct. For the sake of the member opposite, can I refer her to Television New Zealand’s own statement of intent, where in their own words, they acknowledge declining revenue as a major risk. The undeniable fact is that linear advertising revenue has been declining globally for the last 10 years. Over the last decade, TVNZ’s operating revenue has steadily declined. In 2008, they made over $390 million; in 2020, it was $310 million. That makes the Prime Minister, for the member, 100 percent correct.

Melissa Lee: What, if anything, does the Minister take from the fact that only 22 percent of New Zealanders are in favour of his ANZPM plans and that “New Zealanders are overwhelmingly opposed to the Government’s plan to merge TVNZ and RNZ.”?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That was a Taxpayers’ Union poll. I take comfort in the fact that there were 900 submitters and 60 to 70 percent of them support the merger.

Melissa Lee: Point of order. I seek leave to table a series of minutes of the Strong Public Media establishment board for the new public media entity ANZPM, released to my office under the Official Information Act.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none; it can be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Question No. 12—Local Government

12. to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by her statement on entrenching a provision of the Water Services Entities Bill, “We know that while this particular SOP may not pass the constitutional threshold, there is a moral obligation of people who believe that privatisation should not occur to support that particular SOP”, and does she stand by all her statements on entrenchment provisions?

Yes. Ensuring continued public ownership of New Zealand’s water services infrastructure has been a bottom line for this Government in the development of the new water services delivery system. Let me be clear: it was a mistake to use entrenchment for that purpose, and we’ll fix it.

Simon Watts: Did she inform the Prime Minister about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 285, in the name of the Hon Eugenie Sage, before it was voted on; if so, when?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The member knows that the SOP was tabled in the House during the committee of the whole House debate, so we were made aware of the details of the SOP at the same time he was.

Chris Bishop: Point of order. That was not the question, and the answer went no way to addressing the question. The question was: did she inform the Prime Minister, in words to that effect, and, if so, when?

SPEAKER: I’ll ask the member to—in my mind, it was very, very close to being addressed, but I’ll get the member to ask it again, and I’ll listen to the answer again.

Simon Watts: Did she inform the Prime Minister about Supplementary Order Paper 285, in the name of the Hon Eugenie Sage, before it was voted on; if so, when?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The member knows that the SOP was tabled in the House during the committee of the whole House debate. We were made aware of the details of the SOP at the same time as he was.

Chris Bishop: Point of order. It’s the same point. It’s a really, really clear, specific, and, I would say, actually important question, and the Minister is not addressing it—she’s not answering it and not addressing it.

SPEAKER: Well, you can’t expect to have an explicit answer to any question. Still, in my mind, it is addressed. The member has other supplementaries that he can further ask. I mean, the answer is that it was available to all members at the same time. That is addressing the question.

Simon Watts: Does she stand by the statement, given in her name by a spokesperson, that the entrenchment Supplementary Order Paper was discussed at Labour’s caucus, and, if so, how does she reconcile that statement with the Prime Minister, who said it was “Not something I’d necessarily be aware of”.

SPEAKER: The Minister doesn’t have ministerial responsibilities for discussions at their caucus. I’m going to give the member an opportunity to reword the question to get it in order.

Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question is not about what was discussed in the caucus meeting; the question is about the statement of the Minister, in her ministerial capacity, about the Water Services Entities Bill, and the reconciliation of that statement by the Minister, in that capacity, with statements by the Prime Minister in that capacity. Surely it is in order that ministerial comments from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Local Government are in order.

SPEAKER: Again, the Minister doesn’t have any ministerial responsibility. I’m going to ask the member to reword the question to get it in order.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order.

SPEAKER: A new point of order or are you just relitigating this one?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Yes, it is. The question has to be asked in respect of this: would Ms Mahuta have been asked that question had she not been the Minister of Local Government, and the answer is emphatically not. That would have been a question—

SPEAKER: That is not a new point of order. You are just relitigating what I ruled. Now, the member has an opportunity whether to use it or not to use it, but he can have the question again to reword it, to get it in order.

Simon Watts: Is she aware of statements given in her name by a spokesperson that the entrenchment Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) was discussed at Labour’s caucus and, if so, how does she reconcile that statement with the Prime Minister, who said, “It was not something I’d necessarily be aware of.”

SPEAKER: In so far as the Minister has responsibility.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: While I won’t disclose the specific discussions at caucus, there has been confirmed comments by the Prime Minister and myself that the matter of entrenchment was discussed more broadly. But let me be specific. I first raised the matter of entrenchment with my Cabinet colleagues in April 2022. Cabinet noted that I had written to all political parties seeking their support for entrenchment of provisions that protect against privatisation of water services infrastructure, but that Standing Order 270 will require entrenchment to be carried by a 75 percent majority when the bill reaches the committee of the whole House. This was the result of the recommendation of the Working Group on Representation, Governance and Accountability. I raised it again on 30 May 2022, prior to the introduction of the Water Services Entities Bill, when I noted that cross-party support for entrenchment of these provisions had not emerged and that the Government would not entrench privatisation provisions of that nature in the bill.

Simon Watts: Did Cabinet authorise her to make a decision on any entrenchment amendment tabled on the Water Services Entity Bill; if so, when?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: If that member is speaking in relation to the SOP that the Green Party—

Chris Bishop: No, no, any entrenchment.

Hon Member: The question is: any entrenchment.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Can I be clear on the question that’s being asked of me? There’s two members yelling out across the House.

SPEAKER: We’ll have the question again.

Simon Watts: Did Cabinet authorise her to make a decision on any entrenchment amendments tabled on the Water Services Entities Bill; if so, when?

Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. A Minister is not responsible for Supplementary Order Papers tabled by other parties. Parties vote on Supplementary Order Papers.

Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order. The question is really specifically worded, which is whether Cabinet authorised her as the responsible Minister to make a decision about support, or otherwise, for Supplementary Order Papers. That’s well within Cabinet’s remit. It may or may not have happened in this case. That’s what the question is; we want to know the answer to it.

SPEAKER: It can be answered.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The SOP that was tabled by the Greens on the day was made aware to us on the day that it was tabled.

Chris Bishop: Point of order. With respect, that, again, is miles away from addressing the very specific question which relates to Cabinet authorisation for her as Minister of Local Government to support a particular amendment or SOP.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. Speaking to that point of order, the Cabinet cannot authorise a Minister in terms of how a party votes in Parliament.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, come on. That’s ridiculous.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! The question is in order. The member is simply asking whether or not Cabinet gave blanket authorisation to the Minister to agree or disagree to such an amendment. But there are a number of ways a Minister could answer it.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The Cabinet papers that I referred to in the previous question in relation to reports in April 2022 and 30 May 2022, and the context of the entrenchment conversations that we had, have been publicly released.

Questions to Members

Question No. 1—Economic Development, Science and Innovation

1. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Chairperson of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee: Is the report date for the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill currently before the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee still 26 January 2023?

The answer is yes; the full six-month period for submissions, as instructed to the committee by this House.

Melissa Lee: How many times will the chair call the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee to meet to consider the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill during the summer recess before the report-back date of 26 January 2023?

JAMIE STRANGE: That is a matter for the committee.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Without disputing the chair’s answer, actually that’s not a matter for the committee. Only the chair can call a meeting.

Dr Duncan Webb: Speaking to the point of order: in fact, the committee may call meetings at its meeting for the next meeting and chairs can only call meetings if the committee doesn’t itself call a meeting.

SPEAKER: Both members are correct. The committee or the chair can call a meeting.