Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her Government’s policy that they will “strengthen New Zealand’s democracy by increasing public participation, openness, and transparency around official information”?

Yes. In fact, later today the Government will be releasing the Cabinet paper on the changed negotiating mandate for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to ensure greater transparency for New Zealanders around that deal—transparency that, I have to say, they didn’t have under the last Government.

💬 Rt Hon Bill English: Has she seen references by the Deputy Prime Minister to a 38- or 33-page document as containing “[directions] to ministers with accountability and media strategies to ensure … the coalition works.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. The coalition document has been released and is publicly available, but, as the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday, when it comes to other ideas that were discussed, if they are found to be workable and are likely to be progressed, then details will of course be released and made public.

💬 Rt Hon Bill English: Is there a document including content she described yesterday in answer to a question about the previously mentioned document: “Every government has a work programme—things … they look in to. [At] The moment … we see some benefit and that it’s something that will progress, that’s the point at which it will be made public.”, and does that mean there is such a document with policies in it that have not yet been made public?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We’ve always been very clear that in the course of a negotiation, a range of documents are exchanged. The question is whether or not all of them will be progressed and whether or not they are official. Nothing has been given to Ministers; nothing has been given to Government departments or officials. Those issues that are progressed and become Government policy will be made public.

💬 Rt Hon Bill English: Is there a 33-page documented draft arrangement between Labour and New Zealand First that you are working from when determining—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I’m not working from any such document. The Leader of the Opposition will try again.

💬 Rt Hon Bill English: Is there a 33-page documented draft arrangement between Labour and New Zealand First that the Government is working from when determining the Government programme?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The coalition agreement that we are working to has been released and is publicly available. Those are the policy and programme items that we are committed to. As for any other documentation through the course of negotiation, we’ve been open that they have existed. That does not mean that those are the firm commitments that we have signed up to, nor that they will ever be progressed. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I just want to ask Dr Smith to, if he is going to interject, interject using the proper form of a member’s name.

💬 Rt Hon Bill English: What, then, does she believe the Deputy Prime Minister was referring to in his description of a 38-page document as “a document of precision on various areas of policy commitment and development”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said, there were other documents exchanged during the course of the negotiation, but the one that we are committed to and working to is in the public domain. As the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday, if any of those other policies or ideas that we discussed are pursued, they will be publicly released and they will be made available.

💬 Rt Hon Bill English: Has she seen the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister that the document includes policy issues such as the measurement of unemployment “[We’re actually] agreed to work on”, and that that might mean policy commitments have been made, similar to those in the public coalition document?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I was actually standing next to him as he said it.

💬 Rt Hon Bill English: So what is the difference between policies agreed on in the already published coalition document and policies referred to by the Deputy Prime Minister that are agreed in this 33-page document?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: You can hardly argue that that particular item was secret given that the Deputy Prime Minister said it out loud yesterday while I was standing next to him. The point is that, as we’ve said, if there are policy items or agenda items that we choose to pursue, we will make them public at that time. The only items that we have officially committed to have become part of our coalition agreement and are made publicly available already.

💬 Rt Hon Bill English: Is it the case that the document that has been referred to doesn’t exist or is it the case that it exists but she is withholding it under the Official Information Act because she believes it not to be official information?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve acknowledged that there are documents that were exchanged during the negotiations, as there will have been by the Opposition. I welcome the Ombudsman looking at this issue. I welcome him making a decision on whether or not we’ve made the right classification of this documentation. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Brownlee, very close.

💬 Rt Hon Bill English: Given her description that documents were exchanged, is it the case that one of those documents was a 33- or 38-page document including directives to Ministers, policy items that were agreed, policy items that would be worked on, but she is withholding it because she does not regard it as official information?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have never denied the existence of these documents. The question is whether or not everything that was enclosed in them were agenda items that we will pursue, and some of them we will not. That does speak to the heart of whether it is an official document. As I say, I welcome the Ombudsman looking at this issue. I welcome him giving his consideration to the question.

Labour - New Zealand First Coalition—Coalition Documents

2. to the Deputy Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

In their context and totality, and with subtlety of meaning, yes.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the 38- or 33-page secret coalition agreement that—and I quote—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! There was unnecessary comment within the question. The member is to keep it absolutely to what the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for as Deputy Prime Minister, and contain no other unnecessary comments.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I’ll start again if that’s all right, Mr Speaker?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the 38- or 33-page coalition agreement document that “Yes, it’s going to be released at some point.”?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Before the Deputy Prime Minister answers the question, I want an assurance that that was a statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister when he was Deputy Prime Minister.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m sure that you will find in the Hansard a reference from the Prime Minister that says the statement was made while Mr Peters was standing next to her. You would assume that when he’s standing next to her, he stands as her deputy.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and the question that I was checking, because obviously one does a little bit of research into this, because we’re trying to differentiate between the role of the leader of New Zealand First and the role of the Deputy Prime Minister—it’s a question of whether that statement was made by the Deputy Prime Minister.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. On that, then, can I get clarification—I would have to check, actually, the timing of it—that we cannot quote back any quotes from during our campaign period, or previously, or at any time, to a Minister on things that they have said. Is that the kind of ruling that you have made?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well, it’s fine if it’s in their portfolio of responsibility area, and the member can link it, but, unfortunately, the Deputy Prime Minister has no responsibility for that.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps I could help the honourable member. I did say when I was the Deputy Prime Minister that it was 38 pages, but, of course, under a different font it got down to 33.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Who has abbreviated that 38-page document down to 33 pages?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: A staff member, aware of modern technology, changed the font.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does the staff member work for Ministerial Services?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just say that the member needs to understand what the Official Information Act is about. It’s not—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think the member can just let the member finish. If he’s not satisfied with the answer at that point, then he might want to raise a point of order, or I might even beat him to it. All right? So, we’ll let the Deputy Prime Minister finish his answer.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: To continue, it is strictly about information that’s official. It’s not about it being pretty legal; it’s got to be either legal or not legal.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am going to ask the deputy leader of the National Party to ask her question again. The question was a pretty specific one around whether the person was a Ministerial Services employee. That should be answered.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer is no. At the time, that person was working for New Zealand First—yet to be in the new coalition Government.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain why he has made comments in recent days that a 38-page document has, within the last two weeks, been abbreviated to 33 pages?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because the second part of the member’s question is a fact. The first part, though, relates to the fact that, as the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, we released an eight-page comprehensive coalition document, on which we are working—

💬 Hon Amy Adams: It’s not the question she asked.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I’ll get to it, but she asked two questions, all right? Amy, if you take it slowly, you might learn it. My real answer is this: just because we’ve got an eight-page document does not mean that we’re not forward-thinking and visionary and have a dynamic plan for the future on which we’re working.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was no answer to my question in that, at all.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I’m absolutely certain there was.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does he believe that this document should be released to the public, when he speaks so often about the importance of transparency and openness in Government?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Transparency and openness is the middle name of this Government. [Interruption] No, no. If this is what a dynamic Opposition looks like, then we’ve got a long way to wait now. Can I just make it very, very clear that we have programmes that we’re working on—two items that I outlined yesterday—that make sense to most fair-thinking New Zealanders. One’s to do with how we measure unemployment; the other is how we measure growth against people’s personal incomes for the per capita for GDP. There’s nothing secret about that—we’re working on it.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Has the Deputy Prime Minister given a copy of the coalition agreement document to any of his ministerial colleagues?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that question is no, because they would have had it before they were even a Minister.

Government Financial Position—Infrastructure Deficit and Capital Spending Pressures

3. to the Minister of Finance: What advice has the Government received on capital spending pressures?

Treasury has advised that, ahead of the 2015 Budget, the capital allowance was oversubscribed by 313 percent. At the equivalent point ahead of Budget 2017, this over-subscription rate had grown to 448 percent. This unmet capital spending represents the state of disrepair in our hospitals and schools, and the failure to invest in our regions. It is an infrastructure deficit that is the legacy of the previous Government. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Right. That’s two questions that the Opposition has lost, Mr Brownlee and Mr Bridges.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: What is the dollar figure impact of this—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the issue is—it’s very difficult to calibrate because you’ve taken, in my view, a very lenient position in relation to the Government on that issue. There’s been a number of times where they’ve interjected while there’ve been questions on this side, and now, suddenly, we’ve lost two. I think there’s a need for some evenness in relation to that.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Thank you for your advice.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: What is the dollar figure impact of this infrastructure deficit?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In dollar terms, ahead of the 2017 Budget, the value of unfunded bids was $10.4 billion. This is almost twice the available future new capital spending allowance for the entire forecast period. This new Government is committed to meeting the infrastructure needs of future generations, unlike the previous Government.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: How does this Government plan to reduce this infrastructure deficit?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has adopted a long-term view, and by cancelling the previous Government’s tax cuts and adopting a slightly slower debt repayment track, we have given ourselves the room for a significantly higher future capital spending plan, including investing in our regions. In addition, the Government is committed to investigating further ways of responsibly financing infrastructure with measures such as infrastructure bonds and other innovative financing mechanisms. We will not leave such a big capital expenditure hole.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Hasn’t the Government simply caused its own capital pressures by ruling out funding via public-private partnerships, which were provided for by the previous Government, which would have funded additional infrastructure across the education, transport, and health portfolios, for example?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House, we are committed to services such as Dunedin Hospital being funded from the public purse because we think public hospitals are part of the responsibilities of a Government. What we won’t do is leave a $10 billion capital hole, as that member did.

Government Financial Position—Cost of New Government Policies

4. to the Minister of Finance: What are the estimates of the operating expenditure impacts on the Government, by year over the next four years, of implementing the policies contained in the coalition agreement between the Labour Party and New Zealand First?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Again, I’m just going to remind members to try to read it as on the question sheet.

I just said “party” for Labour, yeah.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes, that’s right.

The operating expenditure impacts are currently being worked through as part of the Budget process. I can assure the member that they will be met within the Budget responsibility rules as outlined in the Speech from the Throne.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a question on notice. Surely the finance Minister must have some idea of those costings, and he must have had them, actually, before he signed up to them. It really is stretching credibility to not be able to come down to the House and provide that information.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have had some experience in these areas, as the Minister has, and know that they’re often a bit of a moving feast until final decisions are made.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Is the finance Minister telling the House that he had no work done, and had officials do no work, on the costs of the various coalition agreement proposals before the Government signed up to them?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I’ll let the member have another crack without ruling that one out, but I think he’s got to focus on things that are the responsibility of the Minister of Finance, and, by definition, Mr Robertson wasn’t at that time.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Is the finance Minister concerned that it’s possible that the then finance spokesperson of the Labour Party had no work done, and had the officials do no work, on the costs of the coalition agreements before that said finance spokesperson signed up to them?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: So how does the finance Minister explain that Treasury responded to an Official Information Act request on 20 November, saying that—and I quote—“the Treasury can confirm that its staff worked on costing policies for the Labour Party during the recent Government formation negotiations”; and given that he is the finance Minister in charge of Treasury, perhaps he could enlighten us on the content of that work?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I and the Prime Minister said to media on 30 October, we did access Treasury for a handful of specific policy ideas.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: If the costings prepared by Treasury were good enough to choose a Government for New Zealand for the next three years, then why isn’t it good enough for the finance Minister, who is in charge of Treasury, to release that information and provide it to the Parliament and to the people of New Zealand?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The release of that information will be handled by the relevant agency, which I think is the State Services Commission, in accordance with the Official Information Act.

Foreign Affairs, Minister—Manus Island Refugees and Russia Free-trade Agreement

5. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What reports has he received on the effects on New Zealand of Australia’s major political, economic, and strategic relationships?

As the member might understand, you would expect the Foreign Minister to receive a variety of reports of official nature from countries all around the world and weekly, and that’s exactly what I’ve got.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister concur with the view of the Australian Government that its relationship with New Zealand is its most comprehensive and that deepening bilateral links will help support regional security in a time of change?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I most certainly agree that when the Australians apprised themselves of the shape and the character of the new Government, they came to that conclusion.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Has he seen any reporting suggesting that the New Zealand Government is causing strain in the relationship with Australia over the Manus Island refugee issue?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, all I can say is that when I met the Foreign Minister for Australia, she seemed delighted to meet me and to talk to me, and she seemed terribly relaxed about cancelling the order for the sedan chair. But on the matter of Manus Island, I can say that she did not raise with me the National Party commitment of 2013.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t ask about the way Mr Peters was received in Australia, or whether he was treated to a sedan chair or whether or not the Australians were happy with the National Government policy. I asked him about whether or not he had received reports about whether or not the Manus Island refugee position and public statements made by the New Zealand Government were causing strain in the relationship with Australia.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: We’ll have another crack. Ask it again. I think the Minister came quite close at the end, but it might have been lost in translation.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Has he seen any reporting suggesting that the New Zealand Government is causing strain in the relationship with Australia over the Manus Island refugee issue?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If by “reports” the questioner means media reports, yes, I’ve seen a variety of misinterpretations. But I can say, having met the Foreign Minister for Australia, and, indeed, at his behest, the Prime Minister of Australia, that was not raised with me.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can he assure the House that New Zealand will be joining Australia in working with partners to resist Russia’s conduct when it is inimical to global security when it engages in destabilising activities?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, this is a wide-ranging trip around the world, but let me say that it was the previous Government that was engrossed in negotiations with the Russians on the question of a clean free-trade deal that would be with respect to the customs union. Some of us perceived the wisdom of that, while bearing in mind the view of the European Union and others about recent Russian international activity.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can he confirm that as Foreign Minister he agrees with the Prime Minister that a free-trade agreement with the European Union is a higher priority than a free-trade agreement with Russia? [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No. I’m going to deal with it. It doesn’t actually come close to the original question of the original answer. [Interruption] Order! Who said that?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: We got one back.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yeah, we will give one back, because we are partway through a point of order. But it’s not helpful, especially from a whip.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The issue of a free-trade agreement was not raised by me; it was raised by Mr Peters in his answer to my previous question, and I think that it’s quite reasonable, then, that I ask for further clarification on that.

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With regard to Mr Gerry Brownlee talking about his previous question—where you also, sir, were very lenient—but that also was very far from the primary, because it was referring to Russia.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I haven’t been here for some time—for the necessity of travelling overseas—but I want to make it very clear that from my point of view, I seriously welcome any challenge from Mr Brownlee, or the rest of them. And I’d like for you to be a bit more open in giving them a chance to show their performance here, because I like a good joke and I like a good story.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Has the member got the question written down? Maybe he could remind us all what it is, given the willingness.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can he confirm that as Foreign Minister he agrees with the Prime Minister that a free-trade agreement with the European Union is a much higher priority than a free-trade agreement with Russia?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The free-trade agreement aspirations we have with the European Union are to be aligned with a much bigger set of economies—in fact, the biggest economy in the world, if you see it that way. In that sense, I agree with the Prime Minister. But, of course, we are not only aspirational but visionary, and we want to have free-trade agreements wherever we can get them, and as quickly as possible, that are fair to New Zealanders and where we see every boat rise as a consequence.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: If that is the case, then why has he instructed his ministry not to give him any information or advice that puts a free-trade agreement with the European Union ahead of, or as a priority over, a free-trade agreement with Russia?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am going to give the member another chance to reword it in a way that is consistent with the Standing Orders because I can see the eagerness of the Minister of Foreign Affairs—you can’t make the assumption is what I’m saying. “Has he given advice?”—the member might want to ask it that way.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I asked if he could confirm.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If you do that—yes.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: So can he confirm that he has required of his department, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, that they do not give him any information or advice that suggests the EU is a priority for a free-trade agreement over Russia?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: First of all, I am not the Minister for trade, and, second, I have given no such idiotic instruction—that was the behaviour of the former Government.

Metro Sports Facility—Overspend, Progress, and Consultation

6. to the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration: When was she first informed about a $75 million budget blow-out on the proposed Metro Sports Facility, and what steps is she taking to get this project back on track?

I was first informed about arising issues with this project during my initial briefings with officials. It was disappointing to hear about a $75 million budget blowout during my first week. However, following this, I took immediate steps to get this project back on track. Ōtākaro Ltd has now cancelled the Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) process and is working to complete the design of the project along the existing timeline. Parallel to this process, I have directed officials to investigate alternative options for Christchurch, such as combining the Metro Sports Facility with the multi-use arena.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Why is it important to the Minister to consider alternative options?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Because we can’t keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome. I am keen to ensure that we get the best facilities for Christchurch while also protecting the interests of taxpayers and ratepayers. This work has been progressed with urgency, because this is also about speeding things up. The reality is that we’ve seen far too many delays to date. People need certainty, and this is a Government demonstrating that we have a plan to deliver that.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What engagement has the Minister had with people in Canterbury about her announcement?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’ve engaged with various organisations and people in Canterbury about this announcement, such as the interested sporting codes, who’ve expressed gratitude for being consulted for the first time. The Mayor of Christchurch and I have had a conversation, and she has welcomed the decision. And I also engaged in a panel discussion on Friday where another participant said, “I think she’s done the right thing.” That participant was the Hon Nicky Wagner from the National Party.

Paid Parental Leave—Flexibility

7. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does he stand by all his statements on paid parental leave?

I sure do, and, in particular, I stand by my statement that it’s exciting for parents and babies that they’re finally going to get 26 weeks’ paid parental leave.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: How can he stand by his statement from last night that he hadn’t yet seen my bill, given that his office was notified at 2.30 p.m. yesterday how to access the bill and that it is the same in substance as my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), which he’s had for two weeks?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Because when I made that statement, I was responding to the member’s press release, which came out before she tabled the bill.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Check your email.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I’ll invite the member to ask her question, but this member was watching his email on that subject yesterday.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Isn’t his stated proposal to restrict the amount of time parents could share their paid parental leave to just the first four weeks just a continuation of his Government knows best, nanny State attempts to control parents’ right to choose what best suits their circumstances?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I’m going to let the member get away with it this time, but I gave Paula Bennett some advice about shortening questions to take out unnecessary—I’m not even going to say facts—comments.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I obviously totally accept that ruling, but I think the issue is—I mean, if you take the Rt Hon Winston Peters earlier, his answers were long digressions that weren’t remotely addressing the question, and you let them go. So, again, I think we need to see equality between question and answer.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: And again, I thank the member for his advice.

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The member is inaccurate. No decision has been made about exactly what form of sharing will be proposed. All options are still on the table.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Can the Minister confirm that by vetoing my member’s bill going to first reading, the Government has just guaranteed that parents will not have the flexibility to share their parental leave by the time the planned extension to paid parental leave comes into force on 1 July next year?

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Government did not veto a member’s bill; the House vetoed it.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I just felt like I’ve been stopping people too often for making mistakes. The Parliament did—but as long as the member can adjust his answer to that correction.

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: If the member was so concerned about parents having to wait for more flexibility with paid parental leave, why didn’t she raise this matter in her nine years in Government?

💬 Marja Lubeck: Why did the Government decide to adopt the member for Invercargill’s Supplementary Order Paper to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Before the member answers, we will be adding another question back on to the Opposition for the interjection that happened during that question. Even interjections that are meant to be supportive are not allowed.

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The Government decided to adopt Sarah Dowie’s amendment because it was a good idea that supported the purpose of the bill, and that member worked constructively with the Government to ensure that her SOP was properly drafted. I would suggest to Amy Adams that she could take a leaf out of Sarah Dowie’s book.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Which of the following three statements the Minister has so far given is the real reason for today having this Parliament block parents’ right to choose: that the primary caregiver must have the full period to bond with their baby, as he said two weeks ago; that it’s a good idea but too hard to implement, as he said yesterday; or because he now wishes that he had come up with the idea and will do his own bill once he gets around to it?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I’ve never made a statement that I wished it was my own idea.

Health Services—Mental Health Services and National Bowel Screening Programme

8. to the Minister of Health: What measureable outcomes, if any, will his policies deliver?

Improved health for New Zealanders.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: What did he mean when he said that his promised $8 billion for health had been “pretty much spent”; and how, then, is he planning to deliver on his Government’s additional new-funding promises, including extra pharmaceutical spending, more affordable dental care, and the Prime Minister’s promise of more funding for palliative care?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I meant exactly what I said.

💬 Matt Doocey: How will the Government’s mental health inquiry actually improve the mental health of individual New Zealanders and their families?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I thank the member for that question. I invite him and others to participate in the inquiry; it looks to get to the bottom of that very question.

💬 Matt Doocey: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister, “How will the Government’s mental health inquiry actually improve the mental health outcomes of New Zealanders?”

💬 Mr SPEAKER: And I think it was—yeah, have another go, Dr Clark.

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The inquiry will report back with suggestions for improving our mental health response and will look at a wide range of concerns, and I invite the member and others and members of the public to submit to it.

💬 Matt Doocey: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I specifically asked how it will improve mental health, not how it will report back.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I think the second answer was certainly adequate.

💬 Matt Doocey: Why does he not agree with the country’s expert independent Mental Health Commissioner, Kevin Allan, that there is no need for a mental health inquiry?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We have campaigned on having a mental health inquiry. All parties in the Government sought to have a mental health inquiry, because it is the view of many New Zealanders that our system is not responding adequately. After nine years of that Government, the number of people seeking mental health support had risen significantly and the responses had not changed, and there are many statistics that, unfortunately, reflect badly on our country. We must do better, and we think this is one way of getting to the bottom of that problem.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: Which district health boards (DHBs), if any, has the Minister visited since he because Minister of Health to discuss the Government’s agenda in health?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’m committed to visiting as many DHBs as I can ahead of Christmas, and I am delighted to advise the member that I have already visited seven DHBs. To date, I have visited Canterbury, Hutt Valley, Southern, Wairarapa, MidCentral, Whanganui, and Auckland in my capacity as the Minister of Health. I value relationships with the health sector.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yeah, and I am going to warn the Minister that he’s going to have to stick a bit more closely in his answers to things that are relevant to the original question. While the Minister might enjoy visiting DHBs, I think he’d be hard pushed to say that that helps the healthcare at those DHBs.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: What exactly is the impediment to delivery of the national bowel-screening programme that he was referring to when he told the House on Thursday, 16 November that “… the programme as laid out by the previous Government is unlikely to be able to be delivered.”?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have had concerns raised with me by clinicians, and I am seeking further advice before I make any more announcements on this programme.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: How will he deliver gains in health when he’s not setting outcome goals, when he’s ignoring expert advice, and when he promises more than his budget will allow?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I refute the premise of that member’s question.

Children in State Care—Report on Harm in 2015-16

9. to the Minister for Children: What reports has she received on the safety of children in care?

Today, Oranga Tamariki released a research report on the harm experienced by children and young people in care in the 2015-16 year. The report took a much wider view of harm than has previously been reported—something that was asked for by the expert panel behind the establishment of the ministry—so, not surprisingly, it showed a higher number of incidents of harm. Out of a total sample of 698 children, 85 had experienced some sort of harm. Clearly, that number is too high, but it is important that we have a clearer picture of what is happening so that improvements can be made. This Government is committed to building on the system changes that were introduced by the Hon Anne Tolley earlier this year and improving the outcomes for all our children.

💬 Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What actions have been taken to deal with the issues identified in the report?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: This was also the first question I asked. The ministry did check on all of the children who experienced an incident of harm, to ensure that they are now safe. However, there have also been a number of important system changes made since these incidents occurred in 2015 and 2016. Oranga Tamariki was established in April this year to ensure that we do better for our children, and a number of steps have already been taken to improve the protections for children. For example, the criteria for assessing whānau caregivers are stronger, and these now match the same standard for non-whānau caregivers. There is improved checking and assessment of regular visitors to caregivers’ households, and the ministry has started a dedicated caregiver helpline. The new practice framework for social workers will also introduce new, formal processes for documenting and following up on any report of concern, and focuses on social workers spending more time with tamariki. That is what the children have told us, and that means there is a greater chance to catch any sign of things going wrong, earlier.

Housing Affordability and Availability—Supply and KiwiBuild

10. to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he agree that the best measure of the success of the Labour-led Government in increasing housing supply is to ensure that more houses are built on their watch than would otherwise have been built; if not, what is the best measure?

Yes, that is an important measure. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) projections show that without KiwiBuild, the number of houses built would start falling, but with KiwiBuild it will keep on increasing.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is a fair three-year target for the Government 118,000 residential dwellings, given his commitment to 16,000 KiwiBuild dwellings over the next three years and MBIE’s reported 102,000 dwellings already forecast?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Our plan is to build 100,000 affordable homes over 10 years, over and above what the private market is producing. I would point out that the past Government planned to build only 4,555. The KiwiBuild houses will be built alongside thousands of extra State houses and many open market houses, many of them built in large-scale urban development projects. I expect that will deliver much more than the 100,000 in additional supply over 10 years.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a long and interesting answer, but it did not address the question, and that was simply this: does he agree that an appropriate target would be 118,000 extra dwellings from now, given his answer to the primary question?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister did, in a long way and in a slightly circular way, address the question.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is KiwiBuild actually “KiwiBuy”, given he has admitted that he is going to purchase already consented dwellings off the plans in special housing areas and sell them to KiwiBuild customers?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There are currently dozens of projects around the country that could deliver affordable housing, but they’re in limbo right now due to uncertain access to capital. Building companies and developers are excited that KiwiBuild buying off the plan will get affordable homes built that otherwise would not be.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the advice he’s getting from the same source as Shane Jones received advice from, given the house target and the tree target that they committed to are now half what they were?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I reject the premise of the question.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: Has he seen any reports claiming there is no housing crisis, and that “If a house is purchased, it’s certainly affordable for someone.”?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I did hear someone on television yesterday making those statements, but I wouldn’t regard them as a credible source.

Tertiary Education—Fees-free Policy

11. to the Minister of Education: How can he stand by his statement, “We will make sure they [tertiary providers] will get the information they need in a timely way” when, five weeks before his free fees policy takes effect, those providers still have no idea of the mechanism for how it works?

I reject the assertion in the last part of the member’s question. Our commitment to introducing free post-school education and training is the biggest increase in student financial support in a generation. We are working hard with the providers to make sure that it is going to be delivered on time on 1 January.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a question on notice, and the opening statement was “when”.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If the member had tried listening, he would have heard that the substantive part of the question was rejected—the assertion at the end was rejected—by the Minister.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the point that’s being made here is that this is on notice; therefore, you can have two parts to a question, and they do need to be answered. The first part—the most important part—wasn’t.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, no. If the member looks at it really carefully, it’s: how can he stand by something, given something else. If the “given something else” is rejected, then the “how can he stand by” is clearly unreasonable.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There’s no “given” in this answer. There’s no “given”, at all. It’s a statement by the Minister, and then the question goes on to follow it.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: OK, let’s take it really slow: “how can he stand by something, when something else” at the end of it. When the “when something else” is rejected, clearly the first part doesn’t have to be answered.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I’m not having this one again. I might have explanation skills, and I’m happy to talk—[Interruption] No, I’m happy to talk about it to members in my office later. I’m wording this really carefully, given my history. I’m happy to talk about it to members later, but not to go over it for a fourth time. Now, Mr Goldsmith, do you want another supplementary?

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can he be confident he has thought through all the potential consequences of the many detailed decisions he has to make about eligibility for free fees, when he has allowed no time for any meaningful consultation with the sector and Parliament?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject the assertion in the last part of the question.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does that mean that the Minister rejects the assertion that there are any detailed questions to be made about eligibility for the free fees?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I couldn’t hear the question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Sorry, there was a bit of on-and-off with the speakers. Could the member have another go, and if he points his head a little bit more towards me he’ll catch the speaker.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does that mean he rejects the idea that there are many detailed decisions to be made about eligibility for free fees?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Sorry, just for clarity, I’m going to ask the member to ask that question again and have the answer again, because I think we’ve just had two inconsistent answers.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he thereby saying that he disagrees with the notion that there are many detailed decisions that have yet to be made about the eligibility for free fees?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. The question the member asked me before had two parts. One was about the detailed consideration, and the second was about the consultation. I answered the second part of his question.

💬 Jan Tinetti: Has the Government’s plan to bring in a year of fees-free tertiary education and training been well received?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. Generally, it’s been very well received by prospective students and by trainees, who are overjoyed with this. However, I have heard concerns that people who currently feel locked out of post-school education and training because of the costs might be encouraged to take it up, and they might gain some valuable education and skills that might improve their employment prospects. This Government is going to back them to do just that, and I’m sure that one day the National Party will rediscover their aspiration.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he reconcile his statement to the House on Thursday, 9 November, that Australians will have to meet a three-year residence requirement to access free tertiary fees, with his statement to the House the following week that he will not unilaterally change the trans-Tasman arrangements currently in place that treat Australians as domestic students for the purposes of fees from the time they arrive?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the second part of the question: because I absolutely agree with that. I don’t intend to unilaterally change the relationship.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister said, “In answer to the second part of the question”—it was properly understood as only one. It was: how does he reconcile his two statements? He needs to give a clear answer to that.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I’ll ask Mr Goldsmith to ask the question again and Mr Hipkins to have another go.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he reconcile his statement to the House on Thursday, 9 November, that Australians will have to meet a three-year residence requirement to access free tertiary fees, with his statement to the House the following week that he will not unilaterally change the trans-Tasman arrangements currently in place that treat Australians as domestic students for the purposes of fees from the time they arrive?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because in order to do the first, you don’t have to do the second.

Climate Change Policy—Carbon-neutral Goal

12. to the Minister for Climate Change: Why did he announce that New Zealand would aim to be carbon-neutral by 2050 at the recent United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bonn?

Climate change is the greatest challenge of our time. As a Pacific Island nation, whose closest neighbours are, of course, at the forefront of the risks of climate change, New Zealand has a responsibility to do what we can to help. The Paris Agreement, which was signed up to by the previous Government, says that all countries—all countries—must achieve carbon-neutrality this century but that developed countries have a responsibility to take the lead. The Vivid Economics report that was commissioned by the cross-Parliament, all-party group GLOBE-NZ indicated that New Zealand could achieve carbon-neutrality by 2050. My belief is that because we can, we should, and if we do, we will be able to reap the benefits of the greatest economic opportunity in at least a generation.

💬 Gareth Hughes: What advantages are there to becoming carbon-neutral sooner than most countries? [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: And that’s another supplementary to the Opposition.

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: The evidence is clear that the sooner we take action to protect our environment and our natural resources from the impacts of the changing climate, the easier and more cost-effective it will be. Pure Advantage’s 2012 report Green growth: opportunities for New Zealand highlighted that the sooner we move, the greater the economic opportunities, and, I quote, “a huge opportunity for New Zealand to improve our international competitive position.” New technology and intellectual property will need to be developed in order to solve our own challenges, and if we do so, those can be exported to the rest of the world too.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Can coalmining on the West Coast of the South Island be consistent with being carbon-neutral by 2050?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: Ultimately, the coal industry is phasing out. While I was at the Climate Change Conference in Bonn, I signed us up to the Powering Past Coal Alliance, which is a UK-Canadian group with 20 other countries that are committed to phasing out coal from electricity generation by the year 2030.

💬 Gareth Hughes: What’s the plan to help lead the transition to a carbon-neutral economy?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: New Zealand’s challenge, and our opportunity, is to transform our economy in partnership with industry so that it works with the planet, not against it, and lifts our living standards at the same time. We are intending to introduce a zero-carbon Act and set up an independent climate commission, and we’re currently working through that with officials and we’ll have some announcements coming soon. We will establish a green investment fund to direct investment towards low-emission industries. We’ll work alongside communities and working people for a just transition from carbon-intensive industries to clean, sustainable jobs. We aim to achieve 100 percent renewable electricity by 2035 and for the Government’s own car fleet to become electric by 2025. We aim to plant—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: A billion trees!

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: —in the next 10 years, and we will continue to invest in research and technology that can continue to reduce our agricultural emissions while increasing productivity.

💬 Gareth Hughes: What actions has the Minister taken, to date, consistent with the carbon-neutral goal?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: In addition to the initiative that I described before, the Powering Past Coal Alliance, I also made another commitment to the Climate & Clean Air Coalition, which is committed to improving air quality and protecting the climate through actions to reduce short-lived climate pollutants.