Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What specific examples of capital spending pressures has he been advised of in preparing for budget 2018?

I’ve been advised of significant capital spending pressures across multiple portfolios, including defence, education, and health. For example, district health boards (DHBs) have signalled a required capital spend of $14 billion over the next 10 years, which will require $9 billion of additional Crown funding. This signalled investment requirement is higher than at any time since DHBs were established, reflecting nine long years of under-investment. I have also been advised of $20 billion of potential spending for defence stemming from Defence White Paper 2016, which does not appear in capital spending forecasts.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: Was the funding path for defence capital spending made clear at the time of the announcement of the white paper?

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Yes, it was.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On the contrary. While the then Minister of Defence claimed that there was now “a degree of funding certainty that enables them to plan with confidence out to 2030 and beyond.”, in reality, as one commentator has said, the National Government never accurately costed it and made no provision in any of its long-term forecasts to pay for it. In fact, the previous Minister of Finance has now said that the previous Government had hoped to stretch out the book dates for some capital purchases to be made. This is far from providing certainty.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: How is the Government going to address the issue of defence capital spending?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the coalition agreement indicates, the first step for the Government is to re-examine the defence procurement programme. We believe that we can find better value for money for New Zealanders as we look to fund our future defence needs. This is the responsible thing to do given the mess left by the previous Government.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Is the finance Minister aware that the defence capital plan is for $20 billion of expenditure over 15 years and is able to be funded by a combination of depreciation and the nearly $110 billion of unallocated capital funding over that same period of time, and does he consider that his increasingly frequent attempts to divert attention from his plan to ramp up debt risk looking a little silly?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Minister can answer any one of those three questions.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I will not be lectured by that member, who grew Government net debt by $15 billion on his watch. If there is anyone in this House who needs to take responsibility for debt levels, it’s that member. I would also say that the $110 billion he mentioned is based on some heroic assumptions that he made, is heavily back-loaded, and, in fact, contains only $33 million of forward spending in the next 10 years.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: I seek leave to table the Fiscal Strategy Report from Budget 2017, which clearly lays out—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. I warned Dr Coleman when he tried something similar—

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Gosh, you’ve got a long memory.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member might have a short time in here. I warned Dr Coleman when he attempted to table something that was already in the public arena and, in fact, had already been tabled, that I regarded that as disorderly because it is trifling with the House, and it will not continue.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: In this age of much-vaunted transparency, openness, and budgetary honesty, how was this forward expenditure described in the last document that you received?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As commentators have said, there was no provision in any of the long-term forecasts to pay for this, and it was, as one commentator said, never accurately costed. Those would not be the actions of either a responsible or a transparent Government.

Labour - New Zealand First Coalition—Coalition Documents

2. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her answers to Oral Question No. 1 yesterday; if so, does she also agree with the Deputy Prime Minister’s answers to Oral Question No. 2 yesterday?

Yes, and yes, in the context in which they were given.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does the Prime Minister stand by her answer yesterday in the House in relation to the 33-page coalition document that “nothing has been given to Ministers”; and, if so, how does she reconcile that with her Minister for Children’s comments yesterday that she has a copy?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As was clearly stated in the House yesterday by the Deputy Prime Minister, he acknowledged that before his members became Ministers, they were aware and familiar with negotiation documents.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: So can the Prime Minister confirm no other Ministers currently hold a copy of the 33- or 32-page coalition document?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I said in the House yesterday, as Prime Minister I have not circulated any document to Ministers since they have been sworn in, and, as the Deputy Prime Minister outlined yesterday, his members may have had contact with negotiation documents before they were sworn in.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: How many Ministers have a copy of the document?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve already said, I have not circulated that document, as Prime Minister, to Ministers.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes, I think I can anticipate it. I think I am going to ask the Prime Minister to have another go at answering the question.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I can only answer in reference to my role as Prime Minister, and as Prime Minister I have not circulated any such documents from the coalition negotiations to my Ministers.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That’s not the question I asked. If she doesn’t know how many Ministers have it—I was very clear, very precise, because that’s what you ask of us—I think it’s fair for her to say that.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well, I’m not sure that the Prime Minister has responsibility for documents that were circulated to people who are Ministers, before they were Ministers. I think that’s what the member’s asking, and when I’m contemplating whether or not people kept documents, that is certainly not something for which she has responsibility, or I would expect that she would have knowledge.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Speaker’s ruling 156/4 makes clear that the Prime Minister can be questioned about coalition agreements, and so my submission is she is here, the questions are to be answered, and if they’re able to be answered, well, they should be answered.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and the area that the Prime Minister can be asked about is how they do affect Government policy. She’s indicated, certainly in the House yesterday, that currently they are not. Then, I think, because they are not the formal coalition documents, they’re not the things that have been signed and published, and in fact we’ve had an assurance today that the Prime Minister has not circulated them to Ministers. So I think we‘ve reached a point where people are going to have to be more innovative in their questioning if they’re going to be in order.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Can the Prime Minister confirm that no employee of Ministerial Services currently holds a copy of the long coalition document?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I know that of course some of my staff have been privy to negotiation documents. In fact, some of them were at the negotiating table. But my expectation of my staff now, as Government, is that they work to the confidence and supply agreement, the coalition agreement, and the fiscal plan, because those are the official agreements that we have signed up to.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Have any officials seen the document?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I have previously said, I as Prime Minister have never circulated this document to officials, nor have I circulated it to Ministers. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I don’t know how I could be any clearer. I have not circulated—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to remind both some very loud members on my left and the Prime Minister that when I do stand up, everyone should be quiet. What I was interrupting the Prime Minister to say is that she has completed her answer. There was no need to add any more to it.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: How does she reconcile, then, her answer just now with her statement yesterday, and I quote, “Nothing has been given to Ministers. Nothing has been given to Government departments or officials.”—so have any Government officials seen the document?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, which is what I just said.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: No, it’s not what you said, so it’s great that you finally did.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Ms Bennett, I did not answer the question.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Sorry, I thought it was an inside voice. Does she agree, then, with her Deputy Prime Minister, as she stated yesterday, that work is going on on the GDP per capita and the unemployment measure—both things that you agreed to during the negotiations?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The reference to unemployment measures is in the coalition agreement, which has been circulated publicly and widely, and the reference to GDP measures was in the Speech from the Throne. As I’ve said, where there are areas that we will pursue, we will put them out in the public, which is exactly what we have done.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Then has the finance Minister got a copy of the document, since both of those policy areas are in it, and has he seen it to be working on those measures?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member for Wellington Central was at the negotiating table. He was privy to all of the negotiating documents and discussions because he was there.

Labour - New Zealand First Coalition—Coalition Documents

3. to the Deputy Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his answers to Oral Question No. 2 yesterday; if so, does he also agree with the Prime Minister’s answers to Oral Question No. 1 yesterday?

To the first part, the honourable member asked nine questions—or attempted questions—yesterday. I answered the six successful questions, and I stand by all of those answers. To the second part, the Prime Minister was asked nine questions yesterday. I heard them, I read them, I agree with them, and today’s Wednesday.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: You’re amazing.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Thank you, Ms Bennett.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: On what date was the coalition document abbreviated?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have no idea as to the exact date that a smart staff member decided to change the font and take the coalition document down from 38 to 33 pages. We were rather busy at the time, and you’ll understand that that wasn’t our major concern.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: How, then, does the Deputy Prime Minister know that that was done by a staff member under New Zealand First when, in fact, he doesn’t know the date of when the font was changed, and on 25 October he stated that it was 38 pages long, and then, on 26 October, he was sworn in as a Minister? So was one of his secretaries sitting there at midnight on the 25th deciding they would change the font to make it more precise?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, if one wants to behave like a Philadelphia lawyer you might ask a question like that, but the reality is that it was changed and it was changed by a person in our operations and that person has confirmed it with me since then so that I could come here and, with pointed accuracy, answer these questions.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Is that person employed by Ministerial Services?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just make it very clear that until we were sworn in, those people were paid for by Parliamentary Service, and that’s why it’s not caught by the Official Information Act.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was very, very precise in: was that person employed—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes, yes, and what I am yet to see the relevance of is whether a particular Parliamentary Service employee is now employed by Ministerial Services. I’m not sure that it’s a relevant question.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: So, actually, this does go to the heart of whether or not this is an official document, and I believe—and the point that I’m trying to make in here is that if it’s been worked on since he’s been a Minister by a ministerial staffer, then that actually makes it an official document. Now, we can argue whether that’s right or wrong, but that’s my line of questioning, and I would like to pursue it by having my questions answered.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Speaking to the point of order, it would be apparent to the meanest mind that to form a coalition, you have to have an agreement. It is quite possible, therefore, that it’d be inevitable the agreement would be decided upon in writing before the coalition is signed off, not after.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I think this goes to the very basic point we were discussing earlier in the points of order, which is that, in terms of Speaker’s ruling 156/4, coalition agreements can be the subject of questioning, and it’s really about whether it’s Government business. That’s fundamentally the question of whether it’s Parliamentary Service or Ministerial Services. So this has to be, I’d suggest to you, a relevant line of questioning for us to pursue.

💬 Clayton Mitchell: Referring to the point that the member raised with Speaker’s ruling 156/4, it actually specifically talks about the Prime Minister, not the Deputy Prime Minister.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Right, well, I think we’ll leave that point on one side. I think the important question is whether or not someone has been working on something as a Ministerial Services employee. I have heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that the change was made before the change of Government and, therefore, you know, people might have a different angle. There might be a question of further work on the document, and the member might want to pursue that. But at that time of change, I think we’ve had a pretty clear assurance that it couldn’t have been a Ministerial Services employee because the Rt Hon Winston Peters, at the time, was not a Minister.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Well, one of the answers that he’s given this time was that, actually, he wasn’t sure of the date, and I have—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and I, unlike some other members, have been listening, and I have heard him say that it occurred before the change of Government.

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

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If this is going to be pursuing the same matter, Mr Bridges, I don’t want to hear it. If it’s a completely new matter, I will.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: This is in relation to a critical matter for both the Government and the Opposition. That’s why I raise these points of order. The point of order is this: I appreciate the position you’ve outlined in terms of facts. I agree; I was listening to that. But what the member has asked is whether this person is now a Ministerial Services worker. That is—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. If that’s an area of questioning that the members want to pursue, they can. But it will be slightly challenging getting it within order for a new question. It’s not currently relevant.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: When he clearly stated on 25 October that there was a 38-page document, he was then sworn in as a Minister the following day. Is he saying that between him discussing his 38-page document and being sworn in, that the font was changed in that document and it was by a New Zealand First staffer and not by someone ultimately—well, they could have been employed by Ministerial Services?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This might sound like an earth-shattering event, but the reality of it all is that—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: You thought it was pretty important back then.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: And so did you at the time, I recall, and you’ve never recovered. I want to say it very clearly that my memory was of that size, and I was told by the staff member that, actually, we fonted it down to 33 pages. That’s why I corrected it when the members were asking the question, in the interests of accuracy.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: So why doesn’t the Minister just simply release the document that he describes in many different ways, or, as the Herald said today, it is “a fruitcake of disparate ideas and undeveloped policy”.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I regard that as a compliment, coming from that paper—and its declining readership explains why. So I won’t waste my time or Parliament’s or the listeners’ time.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Why have you got it safely locked in a safe in your office, when a secretary has it on a computer and, simply, keeps changing the font?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because—if I could just say it from a chronological point of view—it was fonted down and then went to the safe. Anyone that’s got any sense of logic would have worked it out before making a fool of themselves, but there’s an old English saying: the malady of ignorance is being ignorant without knowing it.

Housing Market—Financial Stability Report

4. to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What reports has he received about the impact of the Government’s housing policy?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Before the member starts, I am going to indicate that the National Party has two further supplementaries.

I have received the Reserve Bank’s Financial Stability Report, which announces an easing of loan-to-value (LVR) mortgage restrictions. The Reserve Bank says that this move is possible, in part, due to Government housing policies that are, and I quote, “expected to have a dampening effect on the housing market.” Members on this side of the House have long highlighted the way that LVRs lock first-home buyers out of the market, and we welcome this decision.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What else does the Reserve Bank’s Financial Stability Report say about the Government’s housing policies?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The Reserve Bank says, and I quote, “the Government has announced a number of policies that are likely to reduce housing demand and increase housing supply”, ”they are likely to reduce house price inflation expectations and weaken demand for housing, particularly from investors seeking capital gains”, “this is likely to see the gradual reduction in housing market risks”, “If sustained, slower house price growth should lead to a continued moderation in household credit growth and reduce the potential for a significant house price correction.”

💬 Marja Lubeck: What did the Reserve Bank have to say about housing under the previous policies?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I thank the member for that question. This time last year, the Financial Stability Report said, and I quote, “Vulnerabilities in the housing market—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am going to interrupt the member. The member has responsibility for neither the time period nor the organisation.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has the Minister seen a report that, despite the Minister saying that Treasury advice to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand to inform its Monetary Policy Statement was incorrect and that he’d called them into his office, the Reserve Bank had not received any other advice and are standing beside their working assumptions?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We respectfully disagree with the commentary that the Reserve Bank made about the suggestion of a private sector offset for KiwiBuild policies. We have had discussions about that and about the full impact of the KiwiBuild policy. I’m confident that we’re proceeding on the same page.

Labour - New Zealand First Coalition—Treasury Costings

5. to the Minister of Finance: What specific policies did the Treasury cost as a consequence of the recent Government formation?

Treasury advise me that as a consequence of the Government formation, they have been involved in the costings and the policies within the Government’s 100-day plan. As a matter of course, they are now working with departments on the costings of all policies that will be in Budget 2018, which are clearly too numerous to detail to the House in question time.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This particular question was one that was debated quite a bit with the Clerk’s Office to get it within the Standing Orders. It makes a request about specific policies that Treasury costed. With the greatest respect to the Minister, I don’t think he’s answered the question about that at all.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Speaking to the point of order, the questioner asked me what Treasury has done as a consequence of the recent Government formation. Consequences are things that happen after an event. I have described the things that happened after the Government formation.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The problem I have, Mr Robertson, is it does start off with “What specific policies”. I’m absolutely certain that in the end, when the Minister said that they were too numerous to quantify all of them and to be specific about, I think he could have been more helpful, and I advise him next time to tell us three or four. I will give him another chance.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my primary answer, Treasury has been looking into the costings of the 100-day plan. This includes the Tax Working Group, the Families Package, costs around the Overseas Investment Act changes, social housing, and the restarting of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund contribution.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Has Treasury conducted costings on the regional provincial growth fund, and has an assessment been made at this stage of the split between capital and operating and also the split between new and recycled money; and, if so, what is the approximate nature of those splits.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: And I think there were actually—I mean, I know the Minister is not experienced in this area, but I think there were five supplementaries there.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: No, there were three.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Three with either/ors, but yes.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Treasury has been involved in early discussions about the shape and the criteria of the provincial growth fund, but those are at very early stages.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: What specific policies did Treasury cost for the Labour Party during the recent Government formation negotiations?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That’s not a matter for which the Minister has any ministerial responsibility.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that when this was discussed with the Clerk, the reliance was on Speaker’s ruling 159/3, and that makes it quite clear that, as you say, the current Government is not responsible for the last Government’s actions. I think the issue here, though, is what you’ve got is a situation where it’s about an entity—in this case, Treasury—that spans the Governments and that is providing advice specifically for the new, incoming Government. So my submission to you is it’s clearly within the Standing Orders. It’s clearly relevant to what this Government is doing, and you should allow it.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well—

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I don’t think I need the member, because, clearly, when there is a question that’s been contentious or there’s been contention around it, I am briefed. However, I would prefer that discussions that are held outside the House with officials aren’t—the details of them are not brought in here, because in the end, the shape of the question is my responsibility, with the member who’s asked it. I think it is quite clear that there is not ministerial responsibility for costings, just as there is no responsibility on the part of Mr Robertson for the costings for any other negotiations that happened at that time.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Bearing in mind your previous ruling then, when the Minister has made reference to costings of some type already in question time, is it within the Standing Orders to ask a follow-up question in that regard?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister has referred to Treasury costings done before the formation of the Government and has relied on those in the House, then at that stage he can be questioned on them.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: What are the specific policy ideas he had in mind when he replied yesterday in question time, to a question regarding fiscal costings, “We did access Treasury for a handful of specific policy ideas.”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can say that that was in the area of existing liability for pay claims facing the Government.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: If that’s all that the finance Minister costed with the specific policy costings at that time, then how can he have confidence that the coalition agreement that he’s now responsible for executing as finance Minister can be achieved within his fiscal parameters he holds so dear?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The responsibility for costings during a coalition period lies with the State Services Commission and involves a range of agencies who would be providing information; Treasury is just one of those.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Can the Minister confirm whether there is anything further in the either 32- or 33-page secret coalition addendum that would add to the fiscal costs of this coalition Government?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The costs in the formal coalition agreement, the confidence and supply agreement, are being worked on fully, and I am absolutely confident that they can be met within the Budget 2018 guidelines. Those are the guiding documents of this coalition; no other document that the member might be referring to.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very specific question around the document that’s being debated—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I should have ruled the member out at the time. I apologise for being too kind to him.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether or not, even as a matter of personal opinion formed after some time in this House, he thinks these questions are in danger of putting Mogadon out of business?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, not a chance.

Partnership Schools—Potential Closures

6. to the Minister of Education: Can he still say with some confidence that the four partnership schools contracted to open in 2019 will not go ahead; if not, what reassurances has he given the sponsors of those contracts that their contracts will be honoured?

Officials are currently in discussions with some partnership school sponsors and will soon be in discussions will all of the others. I don’t believe it’s in the public interest to release further information, legal or otherwise, on the implications that the removal of the charter school model could have for those schools while those discussions are taking place.

💬 David Seymour: Is it not in the interests of the parents and children considering those schools and other partnership schools to know at least what sort of time line the Minister might have for a decision?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, that is a reasonable thing for them to ask, and I have been very clear that we won’t be rushing that discussion process. We won’t be pre-empting it, either. And we will certainly give plenty of notice before any change is made or implemented.

💬 David Seymour: Why did the Speech from the Throne say that all pre-committed irrigation projects would go ahead while partnership schools face such uncertainty; to wit, does this Government put culverts ahead of kids?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t have any ministerial responsibility for irrigation projects.

💬 David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was asking about partnership schools simply with reference to another policy—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member tried a relatively smart approach and got a relatively smart answer. It’s more or less what would be expected.

💬 David Seymour: Thank you. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wonder if the Leader of the House might be generous enough to give ACT another supplementary so that I might continue this rout of the Minister of Education.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Go on then.

💬 David Seymour: Will the Minister visit any partnership schools before he closes them?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t want to pre-empt the discussions that we might have with them, as the member did in the final part of his question.

Tertiary Education—Living Costs

7. to the Minister of Education: How many students will receive additional assistance with living costs in 2018?

Good news: more than 130,000 students will be $50 a week better off from 1 January as a result of this Government’s commitment to increase student allowance base rates and the amount that students can borrow for living costs. This Government understands the pressure that students and their families are under as they seek to gain the skills and qualifications they need to get ahead in life, and we will back them.

💬 Jamie Strange: Will this support go only to university students or will other tertiary students benefit as well?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m advised that more than half of student allowance recipients, and more than a third of students who borrow for living costs, come from outside the university sector, including polytechnics and other tertiary education providers. This is a broad-based change that benefits a wide range of students studying in all kinds of occupations.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can he tell the House why, if the student allowance remains targeted to those most in need, his free-fees policy is not?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government’s made a very clear commitment to progressively remove the financial barriers to participation in education, and we will continue year after year, Budget after Budget to make more steps towards that. The introduction of a first year of free post-school education and training next year is the first step of what, I’m sure, will be many over a very long period of time that this Government is in office.

Provincial Growth Fund—Funding Sources and Decision Making

8. to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he stand by all his statements in relation to his $1 billion-a-year Regional Development (Provincial Growth) Fund?

on behalf of the Minister for Regional Economic Development: In the context in which they were given, yes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he agree with his statement last week on the fund, that his expectation is that it will be fresh capital?

Could he repeat that?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes, the member’s being really good; he’s talking to me, but he’s not quite getting the mike.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he agree with his statement last week on the fund, that his expectation is that it will be fresh capital?

For the most part.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Well, is the reason he’s being somewhat equivocal that he has been promised new money, but behind the scenes Grant Robertson is desperately trying to unwind that agreement?

No.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How does he reconcile his statement that the fund process will be rigorous and independent with a statement to the Otago Daily Times that advocates for the regeneration of Dunedin’s waterfront “would be pushing on an open door with me as minister”, because “Anything to do with harboursides … is likely to get a tick from me.”?

In the words of the Minister: easily.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Will his $1 billion fund support regional water storage and irrigation projects that can grow jobs and exports, plus enhance the environment?

The final criteria for this fund have yet to be determined and have yet to go before Cabinet.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Why won’t his $1 billion fund support water storage projects that can indeed support Northland, where a recent report concludes that 92,000 hectares could be under irrigation and employ 3,400 jobs?

When did that member first discover Northland, for goodness’ sake! As we have said and made very clear, the criteria for all projects, including water storage, have yet to be determined and have yet to go in front of Cabinet.

Schools—New Entrant Age

9. to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement in relation to changing the age at which children can start school that it is “not unusual for a Minister or Government to state its intention” on an issue before going through the Cabinet process; if so, why?

Yes, because, among other reasons, I am aware of a Minister announcing $37.5 million of teacher supply initiatives without taking it to Cabinet or without appropriating any money to meet the costs of doing that. That was the previous Minister, who is now questioning me on the matter.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: In light of his answer, did he consult or advise the Prime Minister, the Green Party, or the New Zealand First Party before or after he told the media on 21 November of his intention to change the age at which a child can start school?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I didn’t need to consult any of them, because that was the policy platform that all three of those parties campaigned on at the last election.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: In light of his answer, is he aware of section 5.12 of the Cabinet Manual that states that Ministers must submit to Cabinet proposals for new legislation, and the provisions in the manual on requirements to consult with other parties; does he believe that he has breached the Cabinet Manual?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the last part of the question, no. In answer to the first part of the question, it was contained in the policy platform that all three of the parties that form the Government campaigned on.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What reports has he seen on the merits of the policy of allowing children to start school before their fifth birthday?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have seen a report raising concern “that the introduction of cohort entry policies are being driven by administrative convenience rather than the needs of the child.” That was the clearly stated minority view in the select committee report on this legislation, which was supported by Labour, New Zealand First, and the Green Party. As a member of that select committee, I heard many submissions opposed to this particular provision, and not one submitter spoke in favour of it.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he believe that he may have misled schools and parents, given that it is reported that he asked the Ministry of Education to draft an amendment to the law and that it would be part of an education amendment bill, which is contrary to him saying it was just his intention?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In order for Cabinet and Cabinet committees to discuss potential legislative amendments, somebody first needs to put something on paper.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: If the school starting age is changed to five, what is the general estimate of the percentage of children that may now have to—or, in the future, when the law is changed—wait to start school beyond their fifth birthday in a school that has adopted cohort entry?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That cuts both ways of course, because, at the moment, under the current policy, there are a number of children who have to wait well beyond their fifth birthday to start school under the nanny State policy introduced by the last Government.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question, whereby I asked, “What is the general estimate of the percent of children?” I was very specific about that. I didn’t say “how many”; I said “general percentage”. He did not answer the question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will ask the Minister to have another go.

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t have that information in front of me.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: In light of the fact that some schools have notified families of the start dates for children for next year, which would need to change if he changed the law, will he rule out that there will be any law change until 2019 at the earliest; if not, why not?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That would be a matter for the House to decide, because the House would vote on a commencement provision on any such legislative change.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, this is a very specific question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, no, that was a very specific question, and it was answered in a very specific way. I think that if members do understand the difference between introducing a bill and passing it, it would be useful.

Schools—Truancy

10. to the Associate Minister of Education: What reports has she received regarding truancy rates in New Zealand?

In Parliament yesterday the Ministry of Education’s annual report for 2017 was tabled, and I was concerned to see that the number of students regularly attending school fell from nearly 70 percent in 2015 to 67 percent last year. In term 2 last year, the report tells us, only 57 percent of Pasifika students were attending school regularly, and that figure for Māori students was only 55 percent. As acknowledged in my public statements around this issue, there are nuances inside these numbers that need to be addressed, but this level of regular attendance cannot be ignored.

💬 Darroch Ball: What is behind this rise in truancy?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: That’s something I’ll be seeking more information on. I am meeting with the chief executive from the Ministry of Education this afternoon, and will be asking if the ministry has more nuanced data to flesh out our understanding of these numbers. I will specifically be asking questions around the changes made to the truancy service by the previous Government in 2012, and how they impacted on truancy levels, particularly in rural and semi-rural schools.

💬 Darroch Ball: Does the Associate Minister have any other concerns around young people and their participation in school?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I do. As part of our work looking into these numbers I will be seeking a strong focus on the group of 12,600 children aged eight to 14 who have unexplained absences of more than 20 days per year, or who have enrolled in more than three schools in the last four years. While the gender balance of these young people is evenly split, we already know that 6,300 are of Māori descent, 2,050 are of Pasifika descent, and 3,100 are of European descent. To ensure that we provide these young people with the best possible tools for their future, we need to have a more in-depth understanding of the reasons for their non-attendance.

Social Services—Data Collection and Sharing

11. to the Minister for Social Development: Does she support social investment?

on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: Yes, I support the concept of investing in people to support them to live the best possible lives in the future. What I do not support is the direction the previous Government were taking the concept, which viewed people as liabilities on a balance sheet instead of as human beings.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Supplementary—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member just lost a supplementary then.

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I had indicated to Dr Reti that he should take it, and Paula Bennett continued to interject.

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Not on this matter?

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: Well, it’s related to this, but I think it is a very serious point of order, sir.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well, if it’s a new point of order and new information, I’ll be interested, but if it’s just trying to make me change my mind, I won’t be.

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: My question is simply how a member could possibly see someone behind them when no spoken invitation to ask a question had been given.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: There was a long gap and plenty of time for Ms Bennett to be quiet.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What role does the Minister have in assuring the New Zealand public that Government-held data is being used wisely and well?

The Minister was very clear that the collection of individual client-level data being forced contractually from NGOs will end. The Social Investment Agency’s data exchange project is under way, and will attempt to ensure that privacy concerns are met.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: In light of that reply, why is the Minister refusing to answer written question No. 8753, which asks exactly the same question, seeking assurances for New Zealanders, because the time required to answer the question “cannot be justified”?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Before the member answers, I’m just going to indicate to Mr Bridges that I am being very generous to him.

I answered the question to give him a general idea of the Government’s approach. The specific matters no doubt would take a very long time to pull together.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: I seek leave to table the reply to written question No. 8753, which seeks assurances for New Zealanders—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is that something that is currently available, or is it in the three-day period where it’s not yet published?

💬 Dr Shane Reti: The Table Office informed me it’s under the three working day rule, and won’t be available for several days.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The question is that leave be agreed to. Is there any objection? There is no objection; it may be tabled.

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

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What Government data will the Minister use to identify the most vulnerable?

I do not have that information in front of me. What the Government is committed to is an approach to social investment that actually treats people as human beings, rather than seeing them as liabilities on a balance sheet.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 12.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I had called the next question. I apologise to my right honourable friend, but I can’t go backwards.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I seek leave to ask this question?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well, the member can seek leave to ask a further supplementary. Is there any objection to that? Yes, there is.

State Services (Open Government), Minister—Official Information Act Requests and Priorities

My question is to the Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government) and asks: what are her priorities for the portfolio?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I think—if the member would have another crack at just straight reading, all right? Try the yellow sheet, which is the official one.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just seek clarification on that, because her full title, certainly on all the Government websites, is Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government).

💬 Mr SPEAKER: And what has been accepted by me is on this sheet, and that’s what will be used.

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

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Every day there are amendments to questions that are lodged—sometimes to the substance, sometimes to the Minister. In the past, the whole Minister changed because the Government decided to transfer it. In the end, we have to rely on the official sheet, and we don’t want that relitigated at the time we come to the House.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I totally understand that point. Don’t they, though, have to be correct titles? Isn’t that incredibly important for the future?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is something that I am happy to have a look at and will have a look at, but it’s something that should be taken up not at the time the question is being asked. Brett Hudson.

12. to the Associate Minister of State Services: What are her priorities for the portfolio?

My priority is that this will be the most open, most transparent—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I’m just going to indicate to the Minister that when she has the mike, people can hear her even if there is loud noise from the other side. My recommendation is that, notwithstanding the cheers and support from my left, she just keep going.

💬 Hon CLARE CURRAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My priority is that this will be the most open, most transparent Government that New Zealand has ever had. We will do this in several ways, including requiring proactive disclosure of some official information, as I said at NetHui recently in Auckland; improving Government capability and performance in relation to the Official Information Act; and deepening the Government’s commitment to the Open Government Partnership.

💬 Brett Hudson: Will she be backing Otago University lecturer Bryce Edwards, who has said, and I quote: “It’s time for everyone who believes in reforming the OIA processes to join together and campaign to make that actually happen.”?

💬 Hon CLARE CURRAN: Yes.

💬 Brett Hudson: Does she agree with Dr Edwards’ characterisation of her role as the Minister with responsibility for open government: “She has already committed her government to doing much better than the last government in terms of releasing information.”?

💬 Hon CLARE CURRAN: Yes.

💬 Brett Hudson: How, as the Minister responsible for open government, can she, in all good conscience, address a written question from a member about events in respect of a single day by saying that providing an answer “would take substantial research and collation, which I do not think is in the public interest”?

💬 Hon CLARE CURRAN: I will defend the right of the Opposition to ask written questions, but the Opposition is abusing that right. I happen to agree with Ben Thomas, the former National press secretary, who called it “6000 stupid questions: National’s [denial-of-service] attack on the Government”.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Supplementary?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary—sorry, no, there’s none left. That concludes oral—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: You gave us one back. [Interruption] You gave us two back.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: And then took one back again.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: But we’ve been doing our own count here.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well, I’m relying on my—[Interruption] Well, there is an obvious question about relying on the member for counting, and I won’t get into that, because that would be seen to be partisan.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, how unusual.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Brownlee. I am relying on my assistant for keeping the count. I think we’ve established that on one particular occasion he was too generous to the National Party, because we do check, but I’m going to go with him rather than the member’s count.