Oral Questions

12. to the Minister for the Environment: What steps is he taking through the Resource Management Act 1991 process to support cycleways and to facilitate their design and construction as quickly and economically as possible?

Today I have approved the New Zealand Transport Agency’s application for requiring authority status under the Resource Management Act for cycleways. This puts the agency on the same status for cycleways as for motorways, for railways, for telecommunications, and for other facilities, and that requiring authority enables it to gain access to and acquire the land necessary for cycleway construction around New Zealand. This decision will better enable the Government to deliver on its ambitious plans for safer and more convenient urban and rural cycleways.

💬 Joanne Hayes: What specific initiatives will be assisted by this decision, and when will they take place?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In June the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport announced 18 urban cycleways and additional funding of $100 million. This is on top of the $50 million that was committed by the Prime Minister to the network of rural cycleways. This requiring authority status will help the delivery of all of those across the country. The new impact will come into effect on 17 December and enable the New Zealand Transport Agency to have access to these new, streamlined processes.

💬 Joanne Hayes: How will the approval benefit cycleway initiatives across the country, and which particular cycleways will be helped by this decision?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The requiring authority status is particularly helpful in urban areas—

💬 Andrew Little: How much is it going to cut the unemployed numbers by? Oh, no, you don’t care about that.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —where it cuts across a large number of urban authorities. I hear Mr Little does not particularly support this initiative; I think New Zealanders do. They will be particularly pleased that it will enable the advancement of cycleways and the SeaPath project on the North Shore, which I know my colleague Maggie Barry has strongly advocated for. It will improve safety on Tāmaki Drive and access to that cycleway, and, of course, in the capital it will enable them to get on with the Hutt Valley to Wellington cycleway—projects that I think all members of this House support.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister please explain to rural New Zealand why cycleways are a bigger priority for National than 31,000 kilometres of unsealed roads, over 3,000 of them being in the electorate of Northland, along with 778 single-lane bridges? [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Hon—[Interruption] Order! So that we can hear the answer.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would be happy for my colleague the Minister of Transport to provide a long list of rural projects in constituencies like mine, on the West Coast, in Marlborough, in Bay of Plenty, and in Northland that are being constructed. But I would also say to the member that there is very strong support in rural and provincial New Zealand for the Prime Minister’s national network of cycleways.

Questions to Members

Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill—Purpose

1. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Member in charge of the Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill: Why did she draft the Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill?

I drafted this bill because I belong to a political party, Labour, that believes in creating viable pathways for New Zealanders off benefits and into work. This bill strikes at the heart of what Labour stands for, and that is jobs, that is jobs, that is jobs.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: What evidence has she seen that her bill is necessary?

The major evidence can be seen in the Government’s employment programmes that are failing. The number of people participating in the Ministry of Social Development’s employment programmes has dropped by 60 percent since 2011-12. The number of people returning to a main benefit 8 weeks after the end of employment contracts has increased from 15 to 23 percent. For the year ending September 2015, less than half of job seeker benefits were cancelled for the reason being obtained work—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Answers to these questions are to be brief.

OK, I will just wrap it up.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, no, the member has had her opportunity to wrap it up.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I went back—because I suspected this issue might well come up—and I timed the average length of a ministerial answer to a—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not interested at all in this point of order. When we have questions to members, there are quite different standards for those compared with questions to Ministers. This is not a chance for a party political broadcast. I listened to the answer for quite long enough. The answer has been addressed. That is the end of the matter.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is the member—

💬 Chris Hipkins: It is a fresh point of order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: A fresh point of order. I am delighted to hear it.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I wonder whether you could point out which of the Standing Orders you are referring to in making that ruling.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I cannot, but I will come to the member. [Interruption] Order! When I am on my feet, the member is to be silent. I will come back and refer him to Speakers’ rulings that will help. I will come back to the member with that.

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Can I just, again, clarify: is this a—

💬 Hon David Parker: I am trying to assist—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need assistance. I need to know whether—[Interruption] Order! The member will also resume his seat. If the member attempts to relitigate what we have just covered, I will be asking the member to leave the Chamber for the rest of the afternoon. If he wants to raise a fresh point of order, I am only too happy to hear it.

💬 Hon David Parker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Perhaps you could provide clarification as to whether there is a difference between members when there is a question to members asking a question about a bill that is before the House, which I would have thought is an issue on which this House would want substantive answers, and other procedural matters. These are questions that go—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now relitigating exactly where we have been, and that explanation has already—the member might find it amusing; I do not think it is. I have already taken time. If the member goes back and has a look at previous comments I have made, I see quite a substantial difference between questions to Ministers and questions such as this, which are to members who have legislation about to come to the floor of this House. I accept that they are allowed under the Standing Orders. I have said in this House before that I think the value of that exercise is questionable. Question No. 2, Sue—

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Can I, again, just clarify. It is—

💬 Chris Hipkins: It is just to do with the very last part of your ruling, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, that is relitigating. If the member wants to relitigate it, I will be asking him to leave the Chamber. But if he wants to—

💬 Chris Hipkins: Well, you apply the Standing Orders as they exist now.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have made a decision. If the member wants to relitigate it, he can certainly do so, but I will be asking him to leave the Chamber. I have made a decision; the member does not have to agree with my decision, but he must accept it. Does the member wish to raise a point of order?

💬 Chris Hipkins: No point.

Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill—Support

My question, for what it is worth, is to the member in charge of the Social Security Pathway—[Interruption]

Order! The member will resume her seat. The question has been accepted as in order. The question can be asked; it does not need comment from my right-hand side. Would the member start asking the question, which is in order.

2. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Member in charge of the Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill: What indications of support has she received for the Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill?

I have had numerous encounters with New Zealanders, ordinary New Zealanders, who come and tell me and my staff that the current abatement rates are prohibitive to their moving off benefits and into work. I have spoken to social service agencies, budget advisers, beneficiary advocates, and, importantly, employers, and they have all told me the same thing: this bill will make a huge difference to helping people to get off benefits, out of poverty, and into work.

💬 Sue Moroney: What reasons have supporters of the bill given to her as to why they are supporting it?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Briefly, Carmel Sepuloni.

These Kiwis want to get off benefit and into employment, but the current system creates a barrier for them being able to do so. Employers have told me that the bill creates incentives for beneficiaries to remain in employment and not to go back on the benefit. Social service agencies have told me that the bill removes a structural barrier to getting people off benefit and into work—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I advised the member at the start of her answer that it was to be brief.