Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What role will the Living Standards Framework play in the Government’s economic strategy?

This Government is committed to pursuing productive, sustainable, and inclusive economic growth that improves the well-being and living standards of all New Zealanders. As part of the confidence and supply agreement with the Green Party, we are committed to the creation of sustainable development indicators. The Living Standards Framework will help put the well-being of people and the environment at the centre of our policies, and lead to policies that will allow for an economy where we work smarter, make better use of our resources, and where the benefits of growth are spread across all New Zealanders and, indeed, all regions of New Zealand.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: What difference will this make to how we measure success?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government will measure its success by assessing whether all New Zealanders’ living standards rise together and that they are all sharing in the dividends of growth. As the Prime Minister said last night, the Living Standards Framework will inform the prioritisation of Budget proposals, as well as measure the success of the Government’s programmes. An example of this are the child poverty indicators contained in the Child Poverty Reduction Bill, introduced to Parliament this week, which future Ministers of Finance will report on as part of their obligations under the Public Finance Act.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: What are the next steps in further developing this approach?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’re building towards the Living Standards Framework being a core part of both the preparation and the delivery of Budget 2019. This will be New Zealand’s first true well-being Budget. As part of this, Statistics New Zealand, under Minister James Shaw’s leadership, is working with Treasury to develop the new measurement and success indicators. Further, today I’m pleased to announce that, as part of these efforts, we’ve given the go ahead to Treasury to co-organise an international conference on well-being in September with Victoria University of Wellington and the International Journal of Wellbeing. This conference will draw to New Zealand the leading organisation and thinkers who are working on this topic to share their research. This will put New Zealand at the forefront of making sure that Budgets are truly about well-being and living standards—something the Opposition clearly opposes.

Child Poverty Reduction—Government Measures to Address

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Why is her Government being less ambitious than the previous National Government with her target to reduce material hardship, particularly given her statement on Tuesday that material hardship has been one of the most consistent drivers of poor outcomes for children?

In response, the Government has not reduced its targets. It’s increased its ambition massively under the change of Government, and how can you possibly talk of having a target when, on 22 January this year, the New Zealand Herald was carrying a report that goes to the core of poverty, where the richest 1 percent of Kiwis got 28 percent of all wealth created last year, while the poorest 30 percent of the population—the very people we’re speaking about and addressing in our policies—got just 1 percent of that wealth.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Can she confirm that her Government’s targeted total reduction in the number of children in material hardship over the next 10 years is 70,000, like announced yesterday, and that over the last five years of the National Government, the number of children in material hardship fell by 85,000?

💬 SPEAKER: The member can choose which of the questions he answers.

Well, let’s address the second question, because—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: “Let’s”—the royal “we”.

Pardon?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Your Majesty.

Well, you’re talking about the state of the nation; I’m talking about the state of her leadership.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: He’d know all about that.

All right? And you’d know all about that. First of all, the previous Government’s so-called measurements have been also called into question by improper Treasury measurements, and we’re waiting round to find out what they really meant by that as they relate to our improper advice from them as well, which they’re currently working on. When we know that, we’ll be able to speak with exactitude about what our targets and numbers will be.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: The numbers of 70,000 that the Government has announced that they want to reduce material hardship over the next 10 years, by 70,000; National’s record over the last five years—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! We’ll go right back to the beginning. Two of my very good predecessors indicated that questions start with a question word. So that would be a good way to start. The member hasn’t got close yet.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Sorry, sir. I’m just trying to clarify, because the Minister is mistaken on a question, so I’m just trying to get a clarification here. So in light of the Minister’s answer, can he please explain how the reduction made over the last five years of the National Government of the number of children in material hardship, falling by 85,000, was not a prediction by Treasury, but, actually, it was in the Ministry of Social Development’s household income survey, which has been used? So we’ve seen a reduction of 85,000—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That’s enough.

First of all, I do not believe for a moment what that member is saying—

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

Well I don’t, because there’s great doubt as to the veracity of what she’s saying already.

💬 SPEAKER: No. Order! The member will resume his seat. I was listening, and I did hear the member say that he doubted the member’s veracity, and that is something that has been—

No, what she was saying—not her.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think if he doubted the member’s veracity in the House, it might even be worse. So I will ask the Deputy Prime Minister to withdraw that comment.

I withdraw and apologise, and say this: I think there is an enormous—not a grain of salt but a bag of salt that’s got to be laid around the comments by that member. More particularly, I do not think this is the right place to litigate the National Party leadership challenges at this point in time.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Keep deflecting, old man. I raise a point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No, I’m going to deal with it first. What I would like is silence in the House while I indicate that that was very unacceptable. The member knows it, and, as a result of it, four questions will be deducted from the National Party.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I seek leave to actually table the household income survey, which, yes, is publicly available, but I feel that since, actually, my character is being called into question in this House for my lack of honesty—and that is actually why I made that comment—

💬 SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat. I took action to require the withdrawal of the reflection on the member’s character. I dealt with it. The member should have left it at that.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The issue is that directly after the Deputy Prime Minister withdrew the remark, he launched into a political attack on the member around party politics, and that’s what led to this. So I can understand that what then followed wasn’t acceptable, but four supplementary questions, it seems to me, given the behaviour of the Deputy Prime Minister, is a very harsh call.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, it might well be, but it’s been made. Further supplementary—Paula Bennett.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Well, actually, I sought leave, Mr Speaker, to table the household income survey.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, and I’m declining to put that leave.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: OK. Is she committed to reducing the number of children in low-income households by 100,000 in three years, like the National Government committed to, or 100,000 over 10 years, like she announced last night?

First of all, this Government came to power very aware of the problem, and it didn’t take nine years to get around to thinking about it. More particularly, we are setting out to put together a political consensus to reduce poverty in this country as fast as we possibly can. We know it’s not going to be easy. Long-term targets are good, but the difference is that, in the terms of family incomes—and poor incomes, in particular—and the quality of homes in which they—

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: Answer the question.

I am answering the question. I know that the facts are remote from that member. That’s why she’s at the backbench now. My point is we are addressing the incomes and the accommodation levels, and when we put those together you will see sound Treasury measurements that show we’re making great progress. As for Anne Tolley, if I were her I would just keep quiet, because she’s on her way out.

💬 Jo Hayes: Will her Government commit to continuing to spend $130 million on Whānau Ora to help reduce child poverty, particularly in Māori and Pasifika whānau?

Could I just say we will take the best policies—if there are some sound policies from the previous administration—with us. We’re prepared to look with open minds as we always have, given where we stand when it comes to sound thinking and collegiality, and if there are sound policies in Whānau Ora we’ll take them forward. But, you know, you cannot possibly mean to be sincere—how should I say it generically?—on that issue when Māori housing ownership declined by 38 percent under their administration.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Is she planning to do another families incomes package over the next three years, which could lift another 50,000 children out of child poverty, as National plan to do, or has she spent all the money on fees-free tertiary education, which hasn’t seen any increase in tertiary enrolments.

Could I just say that the Government’s working on its current package, and we’re not going to be forecasting the next package until we’ve got this one well under way. That is a possibility, but not at this point in time. However, the turn-around in the economy is such that we could be quite confident of possibly doing what the member says, given that Mr Rutherford, in today’s New Zealand Herald, says that our opponents are concerned that the economy is going so well that they need a turn-around to help themselves in the future.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do just want to confirm—I may have missed it—that those answers were on behalf of the Prime Minister by the Deputy Prime Minister, or is it the case that the Deputy Prime Minister has already assumed the role, in his head, of Prime Minister.

Point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, no. Well, I really don’t think that I need the member—

Well, can I correct that, then. It’s important for the public out there—

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think I can rule on it, and I just want to give a bit of a warning to the National Party shadow Leader of the House that we’ve had one example of quite disorderly behaviour resulting in a loss of questions, and frivolous points of order could well be treated the same way. That was a frivolous point of order.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Look, I appreciate the point the Speaker’s making, but I genuinely do want to understand that the answers are on behalf of the Prime Minister, and I haven’t heard that.

💬 SPEAKER: I will make it clear to the House: at any time the Deputy Prime Minister becomes the Acting Prime Minister, that will be made clear to the House. As the member is aware, that could happen for a substantial period of time later in the year but also when the Prime Minister is overseas on official business. I really think that the member is not very serious in the comments that he makes, and it’s a bit dangerous. I think what he’s going to see is that when he does that, he causes other problems.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I made it very clear in the answer to my primary question that I was speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister. You see, over here we try and make a Prime Minister successful, not try and depose them.

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: Is that not frivolous?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think given the fact that we had two frivolous interjections from my left and one from the right, we’ll just call it all square and we’ll go on to question—

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. So I completely accept that my comments were out of order, and your ruling, sir, of course, as you expect in this House. But as I put something in front of my question and was punished, it seems that it’s quite acceptable for extra bits to be put on unnecessarily that are inciting the politicising of the answers to the questions that we’re getting in this House today, and that’s acceptable, at some level, to you.

💬 SPEAKER: I think the member is absolutely aware—and yes, yes, people are evening it up pretty quickly—that the question she asked, even after the totally unacceptable piece at the beginning was dealt with, was still highly political. The rulings that a number of my predecessors have made are that when people ask those questions in a political way, they should expect a political answer. With straight questions, short questions, I will be more interested in protecting members. We now go on to the Hon Steven Joyce. Do you want to have a go?

Government Financial Position—Business Confidence and Job Ad Numbers

3. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by the accuracy of all his answers to oral questions to date?

Yes, incorporating any clarifications I have made.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: When the latest consumer confidence reports from ANZ-Roy Morgan and Westpac McDermott Miller both show consumer confidence going down in the final quarter of 2017, will he correct his answer from yesterday when he stated consumer confidence is up?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I will check that and if necessary that is what I will do. What I do know is that the McDermott Miller survey does show that employees are feeling optimistic—

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: No, consumer confidence—consumer confidence.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, no, but you quoted the survey, Mr Joyce, so I’m just letting you know that in that survey employees are feeling optimistic about their future.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: When Statistics New Zealand reported economic growth for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 calendar years at 3.6 percent, 3.5 percent, and 4 percent respectively, will he now correct his answer from yesterday when he stated economic growth was going to lift to an average of 3 percent?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That was in relation to forecasts that were made by Treasury—

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Lifting it?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That was in relation to forecasts made by Treasury.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: When the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) quarterly survey of business opinion shows businesses’ outlook for their own activity at exactly the same level in September 2017 as it was in December 2016 but then declined in December 2017, will he now correct, for the second time, his answer yesterday when he stated, and I quote, “I can confirm that business confidence in its own activity has increased in recent surveys. It has gone down over a period of time, beginning, as I said yesterday, a trend that started in December 2016,”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There are two surveys that’ve been the subject of debate in the House here. One of them is the ANZ survey. Businesses’ outlook about their own prospects in the ANZ survey increased between November and December. The other answer I gave was in relation to the downward trend in the NZIER quarterly survey of business opinion own activity measure, where there has been a downward trend from December 2016.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Does the Minister stand by his answer on 15 November last year that he relied on official reports, not bank economists’ reports, to substantiate his comment, and I quote, “it will be possible for us to meet our goals within our Budget responsibility rules,”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, that was the advice from Treasury, and that is the advice that appeared in the Budget Policy Statement (BPS) and the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU).

💬 Tamati Coffey: Does he stand by his answers relating to the health of the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I do, in particular the answers relating to Standard & Poor’s description of the New Zealand economy under this Government being wealthy and resilient. Further evidence of this can be seen in today’s ANZ Job Ads report for January, which sees a 3.1 percent month on month, seasonally adjusted increase—the highest monthly lift in three years. On this side of the House, we are very positive and optimistic about the New Zealand economy.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Given that he stood, in his previous answer to me, by his answer on 15 November 2017, how does he explain the fact that the official reports from Treasury that he cited and provided in an Official Information Act request subsequent to that date were not actually written at the time he answered the question in the House?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That advice was the advice that was coming through. It was formalised in the HYEFU and BPS.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Does he consider, in light of all those answers, that one simple way of boosting consumer and business confidence would be for the finance Minister to answer questions more accurately and reassure New Zealanders he knows what he’s actually talking about?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: All of us in Parliament, as we begin a new term, are learning our jobs. There will be errors and mistakes from time to time. The important thing is making sure that you’re humble about it, that you understand the new role that you’re undertaking, and you don’t attempt to undermine your leader.

💬 Hon James Shaw: Does the Minister stand by his statement that there’s no $11.6 billion hole in the Government’s finances?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Oh, I most definitely do stand by that statement. And, in fact, I understand that there is still now only one living human being who believes that that statement is correct, and he’s on his way out.

💬 Hon James Shaw: Supplementary.

💬 SPEAKER: Before I do, I will indicate to the National Party for planning purposes that they’ve got two of their supplementaries back as a result of an interjection from my right then. Thank you, Mr Mark.

💬 Hon James Shaw: Would the Minister agree that the assertion of an $11.6 billion hole could only come from someone whose talent in economics, if he has any, is with the truth?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe a statement like that would primarily come from his—

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence to that particular statement from the member and ask that he withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon James Shaw: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: I also seek leave to table my academic record, with seven successfully sat economic papers, and invite the member to do the same.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: No, I—the member will resume his seat. That member’s academic record has caused me problems in the past. And my understanding is that it has already been tabled—I might even have done it myself. We will now leave it because it’s already been tabled.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House for there to be a further debate on Mr Joyce’s academic record. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m not going to take the member seriously.

Native Freshwater Fish—Preservation and Protection

4. to the Minister of Conservation: What plans does she have to protect freshwater fisheries and their habitats?

Under this Government, the Department of Conservation (DOC) will be able to do its job and implement its statutory responsibility to protect and preserve indigenous freshwater fish. The Green Party’s confidence and supply agreement includes a commitment to significantly increase DOC’s funding so that it can protect freshwater habitats and the threatened native fish species that rely on them. It’s part of this Government’s effort to tackle the biodiversity crisis.

💬 Gareth Hughes: What actions are needed to protect the 72 percent of our native fish that are at risk or threatened with extinction?

💬 Hon EUGENIE SAGE: DOC needs to be involved in much more local restoration work, especially in relation to fish spawning sites, ensuring culverts and river works don’t obstruct fish passage and migration. It needs to protect and restore wetlands, and ensure river flows are adequate for fish to thrive. We’ve inherited a regime from the previous Government where there is no explicit Government funding that focuses on protecting freshwater biodiversity. That needs to change, because our native fish are in crisis.

💬 Gareth Hughes: What role will the Department of Conservation take in Resource Management Act advocacy for freshwater fish protection?

💬 Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I’ve asked the Department of Conservation to ramp up its work to implement its statutory function to advocate for conservation, and in fresh water, that means getting more involved with council planning and resource consent processes, because councils need DOC’s science and technical expertise on native fish if they are to make good decisions so that our native fish thrive.

Youth Justice—Pre-charge Warnings

5. to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all of his Government’s Justice policies?

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Yes.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Does he continue to stand by his Government’s policy that detention only should be used for young people as a last resort?

Yes.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Does he also stand by the Prime Minister’s statement that every child who is caught by police should be arrested, charged, and convicted?

That is a misrepresentation of what was said.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Well, how does he reconcile the Prime Minister’s statement, which would see the end of pre-charge warnings for young first-time offenders, with his answers to the previous questions and his stated desire to reduce the prison population by 30 percent?

The answers were given in the context of questions about why the Government was reviewing the Better Public Services (BPS) targets for reoffending and reducing crime, and, of course, we’re reviewing those Public Service targets and the Government’s failure to meet them. For example, National’s target was to reduce violent crime by 20 percent between 2012 and 2018. Instead, it went up by 3 percent—a complete failure.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did listen very carefully to that question, and I can’t see how the wider context that the question might’ve touched on answers, in any way, the question I have put, which puts a very direct statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday and asks the Minister how it’s reconciled. He went off on a completely different tangent about BPS targets that I didn’t go anywhere near.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, and one of the problems with how it can be reconciled is that people can have very wide opinions about reconciliation. I think, probably, in the first few words of the answer, the Minister did address the question, although I do accept that it didn’t help us much.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Was the Prime Minister wrong, then, to describe in the House yesterday that the policy of this Government is that every young person apprehended by police should be arrested, charged, and convicted.

That, again, is a misrepresentation of the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments on behalf of the Prime Minister—

💬 Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It wasn’t the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments. The Deputy Prime Minister was answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. That makes them the Prime Minister’s comments under Speaker’s ruling 175/7.

💬 SPEAKER: And that’s exactly what the Minister acting for the Minister of Justice just said. He said, “The Deputy Prime Minister … on behalf of the Prime Minister.”—that’s exactly what he said. The member should listen for a little bit longer before she stands up. Any further supplementaries?

Mr Speaker, I hadn’t finished my answer before the point of order was taken. The reason these misrepresentations are important is that the effect of failing to meet these targets that the prior Government set for themselves means that they left a Budget hole of a billion dollars in the corrections portfolio because they predicted low prison numbers growth, when, in actual fact, they have grown hugely and the cost of those additional prison beds has not been funded by the previous Government’s Budget.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Listening to the answer from the Minister, I’m just wondering whether the ruling that you made late last year about critiquing the previous Government in an answer to a question—does that still stand or not? Because at that time you were very clear that we couldn’t refer back to the previous Government. The Minister was responsible from the time only that they’d taken up the warrant and could comment only from the time they’d taken up the warrant. We had quite a discussion about it, you’ll recall, and I’m just wondering whether that’s now changed. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: No, I’m happy to deal with it and say that this whole series of questions, as it started yesterday from the Leader of the Opposition, went to the question of the previous Government’s targets and whether they should be kept to. It was the responses to that that were the basis of the member’s questions. I think it is fair to take it in the whole context.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—a fresh point of order, then, if I could. I’ve looked at the primary of this particular question, and it makes no reference to the previous Government’s Better Public Services statements, and it actually talks about the Government’s justice policies in relation to—

💬 SPEAKER: And if that was the case, especially when the member asking supplementaries quoted yesterday’s statement by the Deputy Prime Minister acting for the Prime Minister, then it must take it back to yesterday’s question. What is relevant is not only what’s in the primary, but it can be widened out by the supplementary, and the Hon Amy Adams certainly did. [Interruption] No. The point of order has been dealt with. If there’s a fresh point of order, Amy Adams, you may have one.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t mean to trifle with you but I am struggling to understand, because I want to get this right. I understand entirely your ruling that the supplementary question can widen the scope of the primary, and yet I was very careful in my supplementary to only refer to a very specific comment where the view was expressed by the Prime Minister that young people should be treated in a very specific way. It wasn’t in relation to BPS targets; it wasn’t even about targets. So I just want you to clarify that ruling, and that while the supplementary extended it when it only talked about a very specific comment that was made, how that brought into play everything else that had been discussed as part of a different question.

💬 SPEAKER: Sure. And, very briefly, it was the context in which the comments that the member quoted was made. The comments were made in relation to BPS targets, and that was the point that members were making, and debates around that. I think it’s not unreasonable when someone quotes specific wording from a ministerial answer that the context of that answer be allowed to be referred to by the person who has to respond to the quote that the member used.

Businesses, Retail—Crime Deterrent Subsidy

6. to the Minister of Police: What is he doing to support crime prevention for high-risk retail businesses?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Government has removed some of the barriers in accessing the $1.8 million fund for crime prevention measures by increasing the subsidy for at-risk retail businesses. Police were allocated $1.8 million by the previous Government to put towards high-tech crime deterrence, such as fog cannons, for identified at-risk premises. However, only one business accepted the co-funded option. Two businesses were fully funded as part of the pilot programme. Due to almost zero uptake, it was clear that this fund was not being utilised in the way in which it was intended.

💬 Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How many more businesses have taken up this subsidy since the Minister has reviewed the subsidy?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Since the available subsidy was increased under this Government in November last year, we now have 17 more businesses who have accessed this fund and a further eight are awaiting fit-out. This is a clear improvement on the one business under the previous Government. One of the main reasons for the change is that myself, the Minister of Justice, and a number of Labour South and West Auckland MPs met with and listened to a delegation of dairy owners, got a feel for the issues and, as a result of the feedback, I adjusted the scheme accordingly.

💬 Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What are the Government’s longer-term plans to reduce crime and improve public safety?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: As clearly signalled, this Government is striving towards an extra 1,800 police into our community and to fight organised crime. We’re going to ensure that the police have the manpower and womanpower and the resources to ensure New Zealanders feel safe in their houses in their communities. By targeting at-risk youth and providing them with options and opportunities away from crime, we remove the need to catch them at a later stage. We believe that investing in our youth—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! That’s more than enough for something that is, sort of, marginally relevant.

💬 Chris Bishop: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he agree with the policy announced yesterday by the Prime Minister in question time to cease the policy of providing pre-charge warnings to young first-time youth offenders?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t see how that question has any relevance to preventing crime in high-risk retail businesses.

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

💬 SPEAKER: No, I have ruled the question in by not ruling it out. The member will answer it.

💬 Hon STUART NASH: As far as I’m concerned, the Prime Minister announced no such policy at all yesterday.

💬 Chris Bishop: Does the Minister agree with the statement of the Prime Minister in the House yesterday, then, that “This Government does not believe in fictitious policies such as telling the police that when they catch someone offending, warn them and don’t charge them?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: What I do believe is that the police work incredibly hard with our communities to ensure that youth are given opportunities away from crime, because what we do know is that spending $100,000 a year to keep someone in prison is not a good investment in our youth.

💬 David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that $1.8 million is 0.1 percent of the $1.8 billion in tobacco excise tax, the collection of which is what endangers small-business people in the first place?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: No, I cannot confirm that.

Health Services—Funding and National Bowel Screening Programme

7. to the Minister of Health: What are his priorities in the Health portfolio?

Better healthcare for New Zealanders.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Why is the further roll-out of the National Bowel Screening Programme being delayed by a year, meaning that thousands of New Zealanders will not have their potentially treatable bowel cancers detected and people may die as a result?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Delays are another example of the previous Minister’s refusal to listen to officials and the sector about the bowel screening programme. Had he been listening, he would have heard that there was a lack of capacity in some district health boards (DHBs) for colonoscopies. Had he been listening, he would have heard that the IT system critical to success was missing key milestones. Had he been listening, he would have heard that workforce planning wasn’t in place. This is a Government that listens and delivers.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: How does that explanation square with the Taranaki Daily News of 18 January reporting him as saying that the National Bowel Screening Programme would be “delayed for a year due to insufficient funds to run the programme.”, and why is he telling different stories to different people in different places?

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

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: No, I think the member will have a better go.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: The member’s not going to dispute my ruling, is he?

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: I just want to go back to the Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders about there being two parts to a question, in which a member can answer either part. One of the parts of Mr Coleman’s question asked whether he was telling different stories to different people, and the Minister rejected that part of that question. There were two parts to it.

💬 SPEAKER: I could well have made a wrong ruling, and I almost certainly did. But the member will still answer.

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I reject the member’s statement in the second part of his question.

💬 Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What health priorities is the Minister aware of that have not been adequately funded, or funded at all?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Oh, where do I begin. Primary healthcare has been woefully underfunded for a very long time, as have DHBs, which now have a combined projected deficit of $178 million.

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

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: In mental health, the previous—

💬 SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Point of order.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I don’t have it before me, but Speakers’ rulings are very clear that a Minister cannot attack the Opposition through a question from his own side like this by referring back—very clear. I can find it.

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. I think it’s fair to say that the Minister is running through issues that he is currently dealing with.

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Primary healthcare has been woefully underfunded, as have DHBs, which now have a combined projected deficit of $178 million. In mental health, funding has failed to meet need over the past decade. Less than 5 percent of the $14 billion in anticipated capital expenditure projects over the next decade have been appropriated for. This Government is committed to ensuring New Zealanders have affordable access to quality care, and funding health better is an absolute priority.

💬 Matt Doocey: Well, in light of that answer, is he aware both the finance Minister and Treasury have confirmed there is $100 million in a contingency fund set aside to fund additional mental health services?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am intrigued that the member wishes to revisit the “Bungle of All Budgets”, where $38 million was misallocated. DHBs didn’t know two weeks before their financial—

💬 Matt Doocey: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —plans were due how much money they were getting, and the money—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! A point of order, Matt Doocey.

💬 Matt Doocey: The question was, “Is he aware …”.

💬 SPEAKER: Righto. Well, the problem I’ve got now is that I’m assuming that the Minister was building up to—I mean, he was certainly addressing it, but building up to an answer. What I’m going to do is I’m now going to ask the Minister to give a very direct answer to the question.

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes, I am aware that a contingency had been set aside of funding that had not been appropriated, because that Government had not funded a single initiative in that contingency package. They hadn’t even begun to do the policy work on it. It’s a complete—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —embarrassment for them. It will not take this Government nine years to make—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! A point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: This place must not be allowed to lose its character, and—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Hang on. Order! This is a point of order and it will be heard in silence.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: —one of those features is a preparedness to hear and listen to answers that we hope are generally being put to questions in this House. What we had here was a Minister getting up to define the difference between contingency and actual appropriation, and a barrage of jeers coming from over there because they don’t want to hear the truth.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I think the point here is the Minister answered it very succinctly, and then he went on to a whole lot of crazy extraneous stuff that brought the House into disorder.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, can I say to both the senior members that they were going very well—and probably also to the Minister—early in their interventions and three of them lost quite a lot of sympathy by the way they continued.

💬 Matt Doocey: Can he confirm that this money will be used for mental health over the coming months while the mental health inquiry is proceeding?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: There was no money allocated, so of course I can’t confirm it’s going to be used for anything. Nothing cannot be used for anything.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: How can he justify delaying bowel screening and delaying new mental health programmes, just because he’s made so many big health promises that he’s now short of $200 million and he can’t afford to spend money on these vital services?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I reject the assertion in the member’s question.

Transport—Funding and National Land Transport Fund

To the Minister of Transport—[Interruption]

Order! Order! I think Nick Smith and Megan Woods might have—

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: It was actually me.

Was it you? I apologise. I just—

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I apologise, sir.

I think I get acclimatised to Dr Smith and think it’s him. Can the pair of you be quiet. We’ll call that even, and we’ll go to the Hon Judith Collins without interruption from either side of the House.

8. to the Minister of Transport: From what source, and in what proportions, is the National Land Transport Fund funded?

The current Government policy statement (GPS) on land transport, revised in February 2017 by the past Government, requires revenue raised from the land transport system to be used for land transport purposes. All revenue from fuel excise duty, road-user charges, motor vehicle registration and licensing fees, revenue from Crown appropriations, management of Crown land interests, and tolling are accounted for in the National Land Transport Fund. The fund’s revenue for 2016-17 was comprised of 52 percent fuel excise duty, 40 percent road-user charges, and 8 percent motor vehicle registration and other revenue.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Why did he tell the New Zealand public that the national land transport funding for roads would not be redirected to rail when he had already written to some stakeholders saying that the Government is “exploring how rail investment is incorporated within the Government policy statement and the National Land Transport Fund.”?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: To clarify for the member, what I said was that funding for a particular project or funding band for different transport modes in the National Land Transport Programme cannot be changed by the Government of the day. Those decisions are made at arm’s length by the New Zealand Transport Agency board. However, a new Government, with a new enlightened transport policy, can set new priorities and change the funding bands in the land transport programme, and that is exactly what we’re going to do.

💬 Jamie Strange: Supplementary? [Interruption]

💬 Hon Judith Collins: The Lord loves a trier, doesn’t He? If, as the Minister of Transport states, 100 percent—pretty much—of the National Land Transport Fund is paid for by car and truck owners, should they expect this money to be spent on roads?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Roads, like all other transport—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Roads, like all other transport modes, are funded from a variety of sources. Local ratepayers, for example, contribute $1.7 billion in the current three-year period. And yet, some people seem to believe that road taxes should be spent only on roads. The member’s argument is totally illogical.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very clearly about the funding that comes into and from the National Land Transport Fund, not local roads that are paid for, primarily, by ratepayers. Can the Minister please address the question correctly.

💬 SPEAKER: I thought he addressed it. He mightn’t have answered it, but he addressed it.

💬 Jamie Strange: Supplementary, Mr Speaker?

💬 SPEAKER: Jamie Strange—and he won’t be stared down.

💬 Jamie Strange: I’ve had the look, Mr Speaker. Does the Government intend changing the past Government’s requirement that funds in the National Land Transport Fund be spent for land transport purposes?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you. The new Government policy statement on land transport for 2018 is being worked on. We aim to have the draft GPS out for consultation in March. However, the current requirement that revenue raised from the transport system be spent on land transport aligns perfectly with this Government’s ambition for funding a badly needed rapid transit system for Auckland that will make a serious dent in traffic gridlock, unlocking massive productivity gains, and so that requirement is very unlikely to change.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Why should road users nationwide, who contribute $3 billion a year specifically for roading, watch this Labour - New Zealand First Government spend it on an Auckland tram up Dominion Road?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I would have thought that the member would know that rail delivers $1.3 billion a year in reduced road congestion. It saves $63 million a year in road maintenance. The Northern Busway, built by the former Labour-led Government, has taken four lanes of traffic off the harbour bridge every morning. Surely she can see that that’s good for motorists.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Is the Minister prepared to confirm that the independent New Zealand Transport Agency, which oversees how the $3 billion paid for by New Zealand - wide road users, will still be able to operate independently from the Government, when the Prime Minister’s mentor, the Hon Dame Annette King, is appointed to the chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency board?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: All I can say is that that member is sadly misinformed.

Children in State Care—Historical Abuse, Royal Commission

9. to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What were her key considerations when establishing the inquiry into historical abuse in State care?

The key consideration was to establish an independent process to listen to those affected and allow the truth to be heard. We want those New Zealanders to know that their Government cares about what happened to them. We want to learn from what happened to them. I hope we can ultimately provide some closure. That means making sure that the truth comes out and that everyone—those involved and the public—feels confident that it has. As the Children’s Commissioner, Judge Andrew Becroft, has rightly said today, survivors of abuse in State care will have the deep hurt they experienced investigated and acknowledged by this new inquiry.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: What will the process for the inquiry be from here?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The inquiry was formally established today. The first phase will include a period of consultation on the draft terms of reference, led by the Rt Hon Sir Anand Satyanand. The inquiry will be supported by an independent secretariat, which Sir Anand will establish soon. As the Minister of Internal Affairs, I will report back in late April on the final terms of reference, additional inquiry members, the budget for the inquiry, and details of the survivor advisory panel. The inquiry is then expected to begin to consider the evidence.

💬 Clayton Mitchell: Why did the Government choose a royal commission of inquiry?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Royal commissions are reserved for the most serious matters of public importance. Cabinet agreed to establish a royal commission to acknowledge the seriousness of this issue and to signal that this Government is committed to investigating at the highest level. This also provides the best assurance to survivors and their families—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the Minister to sit down. I can understand why members got agitated by the interjection. This is a very serious matter and I understand why members were offended. But I think it is also important that the Minister is given a chance to outline the process for persons outside the House who aren’t as familiar with it as some members.

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Kia ora, Mr Speaker. So Cabinet agreed to establish a royal commission to acknowledge the seriousness of this issue and to signal that this Government is committed to investigating at the highest level. This also provides the best assurance to survivors and their families of the independence of the inquiry process.

Water Supplies—Storage Projects

10. to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he stand by all his statements?

Yes, in the context in which they were given.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: What is his Government’s policy on supporting water storage and irrigation projects given that seven regions have been declared in a drought this summer?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: This Government supports water storage. We also support farmers when they need it, and I was very happy to declare a drought three times, in three regions that need it. On the basis of my success—and that rain followed—I have to say it’s probably cheaper to fly me round the country than it is to build big storage schemes to get water on the ground.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Given that there are two coalition agreements—one with New Zealand First that states “honouring existing agreements” and one with the Greens that talks about winding down Government support for irrigation—and then Shane Jones, who’s publicly stating he will support localised water storage and irrigation schemes, is he not surprised that officials that were in front of the Primary Production Committee are hearing from stakeholders and themselves that they are confused and that there’s a huge amount of anxiety because the Government won’t step forward and say publicly which projects they support and whether the funding will be allocated, or robbed for stupid things like student—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m faced with a bit of a problem because the member did have a question that went well beyond a question, but there were also, I think, three interjections from my right during the question. So I think what we’ll do is we’ll add another supplementary for the National Party on an on-balance basis, but I’m going to ask the Hon Nathan Guy, if he does get a further supplementary question, to make it one that is a question and not a rambling statement.

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The Government does support water storage. We have said quite clearly, however, that we will wind down Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd because we believe that the money that the National Government gave to schemes was unnecessary. We believe there will be water storage projects in the future, but farmers and industry are going to have to work through the best ways of developing those. The coalition agreement between our coalition partners is quite clear. The member quoted them himself, and we stand by those.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Is he aware that five localised projects are construction-ready in 2018—two in April, two in June, one in August—totalling 45,000 hectares—

💬 SPEAKER: OK, that’s enough—that’s enough. The member’s asked a question.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yes, I did ask a question, but I was just concluding my sentence with another very important point in terms of context. I would have appreciated you allowing me to finish my question.

💬 SPEAKER: I can appreciate that the member might have appreciated that, but what I’m trying to do to members of the House—and as far as written questions, people have done it very well today—is encourage members, when they have asked a question, not to add material that is unnecessary to that question being answered.

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I am aware of five projects, and probably more, that farmers around the country would like to have. Those five projects are at different stages of development. They are not ready, as that member states, and can I say that Ministers are working through this extensive decision-making process, and the member’s just going to have to wait for the decisions to be made. We’ve been very clear and up-front with Crown Irrigation Investments; I think they are comfortable with our position.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Is he aware that if these five projects aren’t funded, as the commitment has been made by Crown Irrigation and the Ministry for Primary Industries this year, the Crown—the Government—will be exposed legally and morally?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I’m aware of different stages of development for all those projects. I don’t accept the position put forward by the member over there. We will work through this very carefully, mindful of the legal obligations to the Crown.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: While the Minister publicly stated, “I think [the Waimea Dam] is necessary” in September last year, will he support other irrigation projects or continue to be no friend of the farmer, as he’s already publicly stated since he became Minister?

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. I mean, first and last calls: it’s both out.

Local Government, Minister—Written Questions Responses

11. to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by all her answers to written questions?

on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: Yes.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Does she stand by her answer to written question 15168, where she said she’d received no correspondence from the Whangarei District Council between 26 October and 28 November 2017?

Yes.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: How then can it be that her office replied to correspondence from the Whangarei District Council from 7 November 2017 when the council asked to meet with the Minister?

If the member can’t understand the difference between an invitation and a piece of correspondence, he might want to ponder that a little bit further.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Does the Minister still stand by all of her answers given yesterday, where she said she’d received no correspondence from the Whakatāne District Council, when clearly she had replied to it, as demonstrated yesterday?

If the member is referring to the document that he tabled in the House yesterday, which he described as “correspondence from the Whakatāne District Council” and then sought leave to table and was given leave to table, he was, in fact, referring to an invitation the Minister had received from the chair of Local Government New Zealand’s zone 2.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Is the Minister telling the House that correspondence received from the office of the Mayor of the Whakatāne District Council isn’t from the Whakatāne District Council?

Not if he’s acting in a different role.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: When can councils and the public have any confidence that this Minister will start taking her job seriously?

The Minister does take her job very seriously, and she’s not spending her time obsessing about the difference between correspondence and invitations, as the member seems to be.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: I seek leave to table a letter to the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, the Minister of Local Government, from the Whangarei District Council on 7 November 2017.

💬 SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none.

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

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Is there a group? If so—

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: This is the last one. There’ll be more next week. I seek leave to table a letter from the office of Nanaia Mahuta to the Mayor of Whangarei dated 27 November 2017.

💬 SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none.

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

Customs Service—Role in Harm Reduction

12. to the Minister of Customs: What advice has she received regarding the role Customs plays in reducing harm to New Zealand families, whānau, and communities?

I have been advised that each year the use of illicit drugs costs this country $1.8 billion in social harm and Government interventions. The social cost of amphetamines alone is close to $350 million. Every year, each frequent user imposes $15,000 on their whānau and friends. The cost on families and communities is astronomical, and this Government is absolutely committed to bucking this trend and reducing harm. Customs’ role in this is vital, through their focus on stopping the illicit importation of methamphetamine and disrupting the ability of organised crime groups to influence the market and profit from this smuggling activity—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. She’s well and truly answered the question.

💬 Louisa Wall: What advice has the Minister received regarding the role customs plays in reducing harm to New Zealand families, whānau, and communities?

💬 Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: We believe seizures made offshore last year, before they reached New Zealand, prevented $57 million in potential social harm. In 2015-16, 34,000 New Zealanders reported using meth—1.1 percent of the adult population—but the disturbing thing is waste water results indicate actual use is much higher. Māori are three to four times more likely to use amphetamines than non-Māori in 2015-16. Declaring a war on P is a priority for customs.