Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the statement in the Salvation Army’s State of the Nation Report that “it is clear that the benefits of this recent strong economic growth have not been shared across the board, or trickled down, as theory would have it”; if so, why?

Yes, I do; because, despite strong GDP growth over recent years, there has, as the report says, been no discernible change in child poverty rates, the number of young people not in employment, education, or training has increased by tens of thousands, and an OECD report has said that we have the worst homelessness rate in the developed world. Unlike the previous Government, this Government sees economic growth as a means to an end, not an end in itself. For us, that end is that all New Zealanders get a fair share in prosperity.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: What is his response to the statement in the Salvation Army’s report that “the things we bother to count are an indication of what we think is important.”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Salvation Army’s report demonstrates that the real measures of success for an economy have to go beyond traditional measures such as GDP to the overall health and well-being of our people and environment. That is why this Government will use the Living Standards Framework to inform future Budgets and why we are developing a set of sustainable development indicators, including having our first “well-being Budget” in 2019.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: How else will the Government address the issues raised in the Salvation Army’s report?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government’s Families Package will deliver, on average, $75 per week to the most vulnerable families. Our KiwiBuild programme will deliver a hundred thousand affordable homes across the country over 10 years, and our fees-free tertiary education and training policy will improve access to such institutions for tens of thousands of young people not currently in education, employment, or training. We can do this because this Government is united in prioritising spending on things like health and education rather than tax cuts, a position I now see that one aspiring—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Does the Minister also agree with the statement in the Salvation Army report that says, “There is much to celebrate in the progress which the youth of New Zealand have made … These include the continuing declines in youth offending, in teenage pregnancy rates and improving NCEA pass rates—especially for teenagers from less well-off communities.”; if he does, why are they scrapping partnership schools?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I can say is that the report presents a picture of New Zealand as a country over the recent years. Of course there has been some progress, but I think the report gets it right when it says, “If we exclude some, whether by intent or indifference, we are diminished as a nation. We are diminished because we forego the energy and creativity of those we exclude.” On this side of the House, we seek to include all New Zealanders in prosperity.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Does he also agree with the Salvation Army’s State of the Nation Report of 2008, which says, “The social outcomes which we as New Zealanders have achieved over the past five years are somewhat mixed and in some areas quite disappointing. More of our children appear to be at risk of harm, more of our young people are engaged in petty crime, there is more violent crime and more people in our jails. None of these trends can be seen as progress … we are chronically indebted and our homeownership rates have fallen. This is mixed progress at best.”; if so, why?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. Asking a member a question relating to something before 2008 can’t come close to the member having ministerial responsibility for it.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question that was put down on notice as the primary was related to the Salvation Army State of the Nation Report, which monitors trends over 10 years. The report that I referred to is part of that series and, I believe, should be ruled in order.

💬 SPEAKER: The member might well. Does she have a further supplementary?

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

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, can I just make absolutely clear that, having made a ruling on it—and we’ve worked through, I think, pretty carefully with a number of members in the House who have decided to come and talk to me about how these judgments are made—what we have agreed with those members who have been in there is that people will focus on areas that the Ministers have responsibility for. It’s not that hard to get a question that works, but the member didn’t.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister actually has had nothing to do with or no responsibility for this area during the period during which the report was covering, but a previous Minister from his party most definitely had full responsibility for everything that was in the 2008 report. The Government can’t have it two ways. It can’t say, “If it’s a good report, we’ll claim it, no matter who was responsible”—in this case, the National Party—“for those successes, but if we don’t like it, then we’re just not going to answer it, particularly if we’re responsible for it.” That’s what’s happening here.

💬 SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Brownlee.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Not on the same matter I hope, is it?

💬 Hon Louise Upston: No. I seek leave to table a document. It is written by the Salvation Army’s social policy and parliamentary unit—[Interruption]—2008 report, entitled What Does it Profit us?

💬 SPEAKER: Right, before I rule it out, I’m going to ask Grant Robertson to apologise for interjecting during a point of order.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: You can do that as well, thank you. And I’m not going to put that to the House, because that’s a widely circulated document.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’ve referred to Speaker’s rulings 149/2—

💬 SPEAKER: The member is now not going to dispute my ruling, is she?

💬 Hon Louise Upston: I’m just referring to a—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. I want an assurance from the member that she is not going to dispute my ruling.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: I’m bringing a Speaker’s ruling to the Speaker’s attention.

💬 SPEAKER: Relating to the ruling I’ve just made?

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Maybe, maybe not.

💬 SPEAKER: OK, well what we’ll do is if I judge that the member is disputing my ruling when she makes her point of order, her team will lose a significant number of supplementaries. It is the member’s call.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Well, we’ll need to know how many, in advance.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the Hon Mr Bridges wants to know how many. We’ll say five.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Stay seated!

💬 SPEAKER: All right?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given your ruling, which you’re now enforcing, and you’ve said you’ve had discussions with members and other such, can you consider, then, Speaker’s rulings 155/3 and 155/5—not for now, but I think they may need to be adjusted or perhaps replaced to fit in line with what you have today ruled.

💬 SPEAKER: I’ve just looked at 155/3 and that needs no adjustment at all, and nor does 155/5. I think the member might need to get himself an up-to-date set of Speakers’ Rulings—2017 is the required one.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Minister—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have the 2017 Speakers’ Rulings and 155/5 says “Just because a Minister may not have been present at the time does not relieve a Minister of being answerable for what took place.” And it goes into brackets: “(A Minister was asked about a decision that occurred in his portfolio before he became a Minister.)”

💬 SPEAKER: And that’s right, and that refers, as I’m absolutely certain the member is aware of, to actions of the Government where there is a change of Minister in a portfolio. It does not allow people to go back three Governments.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Two.

💬 SPEAKER: No, well, actually, if we think of—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, I see, right, yes.

💬 SPEAKER: All right? OK?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister of Finance this: if the much loved trickle-down theory works, how was it that last year 1 percent of the population got 28 percent of the wealth growth and the bottom 32 percent got 1 percent of the wealth growth?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is exactly the point that the Salvation Army is making and, indeed, this Government is making. If we want to do something about addressing inequality, we need to take up excellent ideas like the one that Judith Collins had, which is to say no to tax cuts and yes to funding for health and education. Go, Judith, go!

Government Policy—Statements

My question is to the Prime Minister: does she stand by all her Government’s—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Sorry, I am going to ask the member to repeat it. I won’t take supplementaries off people, because it would have been both sides. Paula Bennett.

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Most definitely, yes.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Which one of these two statements by her Minister of Finance articulates current Government policy, “future generations of New Zealanders are again being saddled by a National Government with huge levels of debt”, or “When you look at the fundamentals of global economic growth, and indeed of the New Zealand economy, I’m reasonably reassured … Essentially the low level of public debt is a really important part of it”?

💬 SPEAKER: Before the Prime Minister answers, can I just seek an assurance from the member that both were made by the Minister of Finance, and not by someone before they were a Minister?

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Oh, I’m fairly sure that they were by the Minister of Finance. Sorry, I’d have to go back and double-check my—

💬 SPEAKER: I think we’ve run into trouble with one of those quotes in the past.

I can answer it.

💬 SPEAKER: So what we have is me giving leave to have it, but I think I will ask members to check pretty carefully before they suggest that quotes are made by Ministers, when I think I might have been present when that comment was made, and I wouldn’t have been if it was by a Minister.

The answer is both statements, because the first one relates to, and is best evidenced by, Mr English on Morning Report two mornings ago saying that he had left, in effect, this Government with no money at all. It’s in his transcript. And in the second one, there’s—

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: But you can make those statements—that’s fine.

Well, I’ll table the transcript, if you like. Right, I’ll bring it down in the next hour. But if you want to get like this here, why not enter the contest and show that you are serious about politics? The second matter, I want to say very clearly, it’s our Government debt target set for 2022.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Which of the following policy positions is current Government policy: her Minister of Education’s comments that all current partnership schools will be terminated by mutual agreement or by forced termination, or the reported comments by her Associate Minister of Education on Radio New Zealand that the Māori partnership schools will be allowed to remain open?

The answer’s really rather crudely put in question No. 11 today, which says, “the existing partnership schools will continue so long as they have registered teachers, teach the New Zealand curriculum, and have the same level of funding as State schools”. Now, it is possible that a school that was on one day under a certain designation is the next day under a different designation. It is quite possible that school’s still open.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Which one of the following policy positions by her Minister of Police is current Government policy: all 1,800 new police will be sworn; some of the 1,800 new police will be sworn; some of the 1,800 new police will be from the former Government’s 880 new police; or we’re not really going to have 1,800 but are striving towards 1,800?

Some of those statements are correct and the others have been made up, no doubt by the member. The last one is a make-up—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! No, the member will withdraw that. It is improper to suggest that members make things up and say them in the House.

Dear me. I withdraw and apologise. Things have got supersensitive around here, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I ask both members to behave themselves.

Yes, never mind. Things must be tough in the National Party when she’s offering me something. Can I just say that those statements disguise the serious intention of this Government to find the requisite number of police to ensure there is law and order on our streets, in our hamlets, and around our country. Most particularly, the figure that we inherited, 800, was way, way short of what’s required.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: So which one of the following policy positions is current Government policy: we are going to plant 1 billion trees over the next 10 years, or 500 million, or 250 million—or would you like to catch up with Shane Jones now and should we just go for 100?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Before the member answers—

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Oh, come on! He’s had digs all the way through.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m trying to keep some order in here, and the member has been around quite a long time and she knows she does not ask me questions, as she did. Mr Peters, take the question, it is to you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don’t mind these attacks, but the reality is that the New Zealand diaspora is going to grow 1 billion trees over the next 10 years, and that is so critical for the development of our regions, the change in our approach with respect to climate change and our responsibilities, but, above all, to give the neglected provinces real hope into the future.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Which one of these positions articulates current Government policy: the comment by the Deputy Prime Minister that every child who is caught by the police should be arrested, charged, and convicted, or the comment by her Minister of Police that pre-charge warnings are part of the hard work the police do with our communities to ensure that youth are given opportunities away from crime?

The answers—in order—yes, and the second one is no, because she didn’t say that.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Which one of these positions articulates current Government policy: the closure of partnership schools will cost the taxpayers nothing, or the comment by the Secretary for Education that the closure of partnership schools will cost the taxpayers up to $15 million?

If one is dealing in hypotheticals, and if they were all—as the Opposition claims—going to close, then the second statement might have a remote proximity, but I think it’s grammatically wrong. But the reality is they won’t be closing, because in consultation with my colleagues and the education Minister, there will be a continuance but under a different framework that we believe in, and not an unbridled capitalistic answer that costs the taxpayer so much money.

Charter Schools—Māori Education

3. to the Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education): What discussions and visits has he had with schools to discuss Māori education and any opportunities for improved achievement?

I’ve visited schools and have had many discussions as both Associate Minister of Education and as the local MP for Te Tai Tokerau. We are working on ways to improve achievement, including removing national standards and increasing the supply of Māori and Te Reo teachers.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Has he made any undertakings to a partnership school helping young Māori that he would ensure that their school would be approved as a special character school?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: When he said in relation to a discussion about Māori education, “I’ve been working closely with He Puna Marama Trust, and the CEO and the senior management there and we’re very confident that together we’ll make sure this transition happens very easily with very little fuss.”, was he speaking to this partnership school in his capacity as a Minister?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No. And when I was speaking to them, I talked them through the information that the Minister has made publicly available to allay the fears of the scaremongering and misinformation that the Opposition has been bandying around.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: When he said yesterday in Parliament in relation to Māori education, “I’ve had communications with some current charter schools.”, has he had any communications with partnership schools that are not in his electorate; if so, which ones?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Can he confirm that when he said yesterday that he’d had discussions with charter schools in his electorate that he has given preferential treatment to some partnership schools in his electorate but the cold shoulder to others?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The premise is just wrong.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Isn’t it true that he made himself available to discuss education impacting young Māori with He Puna Mārama, but when Villa Education Trust, in his electorate, sent him 50 pieces of correspondence, the only thing they got back was being asked to be taken off their mailing list?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I have absolutely no idea what the member is talking about.

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: Can the Minister confirm, or is he aware of, other Associate Ministers of Education who have had interaction with the sponsors of Villa schools or conversations with chief executives of charter schools such as Vanguard—among the other Associate Ministers of Education?

💬 SPEAKER: No, that’s actually not a matter that is the Minister’s responsibility.

Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership—Differences with the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

4. to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding trade and export growth?

Last month, our negotiators finalised the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (CPTPPA) in Tokyo. The 11 nations plan to sign the agreement in Chile on 8 March. Securing this agreement ensures a level playing field for our meat exporters to the world’s third-largest economy, Japan. Without the CPTPPA, our meat exporters face far higher tariffs than their Australian and European counterparts, rendering them uncompetitive. This coalition Government made it clear that it would seek a fairer deal for New Zealanders than the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA), and thanks to the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister we’ve negotiated changes to the agreement that address the concerns that New Zealanders raised.

💬 Darroch Ball: How has the Government improved the CPTPP in comparison with the TPP?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The new agreement retains the market access improvements from the TPP agreement that will benefit New Zealand firms, large and small. The jobs of 620,000 New Zealanders depend on exports, and this agreement will sustain and grow those jobs and income, not least across our regions. We’ve done away with the TPP agreement’s 20-year extension to the copyright term, put an end to the imposition of additional costs on Pharmac, and removed limitations on our intellectual property rights. We’ve narrowed the scope of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses. Additionally, through a side letter with Australia, 80 percent of foreign investment from TPP or CPTPP countries is exempt from the ISDS clauses. We also hope to announce a number of side letters that will further limit the use of ISDS clauses. In short, the CPTPP is a fairer and better deal for New Zealand than the former TPP.

💬 Darroch Ball: How is this Government ensuring New Zealanders’ rights are protected under the CPTPP?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Before the CPTPP comes into effect, we will ensure that only those who have the right to live here long term have the right to buy a home here. The past Government said this was impossible and could not be done without breaching many free-trade agreements and losing thousands of jobs. They were wrong. We don’t have to choose between improving exports and controlling who owns our land; this coalition Government is doing both.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Will the Minister give an assurance to the thousands of New Zealanders he joined in protest just one short year ago against the TPP agreement that the New Zealand Government cannot be sued under the new ISDS provisions contained in the revised TPP agreement?

💬 SPEAKER: Before the member answers, I’m going to ask the member to re-state his question. I will let him have another go at it without the extraneous material—only what’s necessary for the question.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you direct me as to which part was unnecessary—

💬 SPEAKER: I think, for the sense of the question there was one very obvious part that was unnecessary. If the member can’t work it out, we’ll move on to someone else.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Can the Minister give an assurance to the thousands of New Zealanders who protested against ISDS clauses in the original TPP agreement just one year ago that the New Zealand Government cannot be sued under the revised ISDS provisions in the new agreement?

💬 SPEAKER: That was closer, and so I’ll let the member have a go.

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I can assure the member of that, but for the changes that we’ve made in respect of land, if we as a Government had chosen to do that later we would have been at risk of being sued under the old TPP agreement. I can also say that, whilst the ISDS provisions have been narrowed, they have not been completely eliminated as we would’ve liked. We’ve narrowed them as to scope: you can’t be sued on a contract with the Government now. We’ve narrowed them as to the number of countries who can, in effect, use them, but, sadly, we couldn’t get rid of them completely because the prior Government hadn’t even tried to start that process. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Before we move on, I’m having a little bit of trouble focusing on what are very important answers, mainly because the nearly father of the House and the person with the most experience are having an interchange across the House—I think, mainly the responsibility of Dr Nick Smith. I will ask him, if he can, to restrain himself.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It would help if the member answered the question.

💬 SPEAKER: Oh, for goodness’ sake!

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Can the Minister confirm that under the revised TPP agreement, the New Zealand Government and New Zealand can be sued under the ISDS provisions, for fracking, over environmental policy and water policy in New Zealand?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The national interest analysis, which will soon be released publicly as well as be presented to the select committee, answers that very question and says that in the view of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which I share, there is no prospect of New Zealand ever being successfully sued in respect of those measures.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Successfully sued?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: That’s correct. The member is correct, as I have already adverted to, that there is no absolute prohibition on ISDS cases being started. We have narrowed that. We have narrowed it substantially. We’ve reduced the number of countries that would do that in respect of their foreign direct investment (FDI), in respect of over 80 percent of that FDI, but in respect of less than 20 percent remaining foreign direct investment they could bring a case but they would not succeed.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was some noise and I just didn’t hear a part of the answer. Could the Minister just clarify. Did he say “couldn’t be sued” or “couldn’t be successfully sued.”? I didn’t hear that bit.

💬 SPEAKER: The latter.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have just ruled that the previous questioner had introduced what I think you described as extraneous material into the question. I would like you to have a look at today’s Hansard particularly with regard to answers in the House today from at least three other members on the front bench, and indeed Mr Parker himself, and consider how much extraneous material was in their replies. Perhaps early next week I could come and discuss those with you.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m happy to discuss it with the member. I think at least two of the front-bench members’ answers have been curtailed today because they were going too far. I think I’m possibly equally unpopular.

Housing—Ownership Rates, Policies, and Supply

5. to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Other than those already signalled by the Minister, what new policies does he intend to pursue in response to the findings of the Stocktake of New Zealand’s Housing Report released this week?

One aspect of the national housing crisis that the report reveals, which has been ignored in the past, is the problem of hidden homelessness—those who feel they cannot seek Government support for their families. The extent of hidden homelessness has never been adequately assessed, so I’ve asked officials to look into how best to count the number of homeless, to provide a more accurate picture of the national housing crisis and the real demand for transitional and emergency housing. New policy may well result, once the true extent of the failure of the past Government is uncovered. However, the main solution is obviously to build more houses.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: If the housing problem is deeper and more entrenched, as the Minister said this week, and his officials are advising that KiwiBuild will deliver only 13 percent of the expected 30,000 extra dwellings in this term of Parliament, why is his talk on the issue not backed up by more action?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It is.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Does he agree with the repeated statements made by the MP for Te Atatū, that special housing areas are, and I quote, “a spectacular flop”; and, if so, why does he intend to use special housing areas to prop up his KiwiBuild programme?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I generally agree with the member for Te Atatū. He has some excellent things to say on the state of the housing crisis. I agree with that member when he says that the former National Government’s policy of special housing areas, which promised 39,000 houses in Auckland in the last parliamentary term and delivered about a thousand, and couldn’t, up until the date of the last election, tell the public how many affordable houses were built by that policy over three years.

💬 Harete Hipango: Does the Minister accept the findings that, despite the apparent availability of land owned by Māori, there are inherent challenges and complexities associated with the opportunities to build on multiple-owned land, and that being so, in your capacity as Minister, concerned about housing and as it impacts on Māori, why has the new Government overturned and rejected Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, designed in part to unlock Māori land potential, but also housing development potential?

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. There were about three ways that could have been ruled out, and I think there’s general acceptance of that. I will give the member a crack at rephrasing the question in a short form that goes right to that Minister’s responsibility, not to the Minister of Māori affairs or whoever else is responsible.

💬 Harete Hipango: Minister, in your capacity as the housing Minister—bearing in mind what the report notes, as has been stated, and the impact that it has on Māori housing development potential—why has the new Government overturned Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill?

💬 SPEAKER: Right, no, it didn’t get there. Sorry.

💬 Hon Alfred Ngaro: What specific conversations has the Minister had with the Minister for Pacific Peoples to identify strategies to increase the low Pasifika homeownership rate identified in the report?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’ve had a number of conversations and commenced a number of streams of work that are designed to address the plummeting rate of homeownership among Pasifika and Māori families, which is such a stain on our country’s housing record. What I won’t be doing as housing Minister—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member’s answered the question.

💬 Paul Eagle: What policies has the Minister already signalled?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We’ve signalled a number of policies that relate directly to the findings of the housing stocktake report. We’re going to build 100,000 affordable homes for young Kiwi families. We’re reviewing the rental laws to make renting work better for the half of the population who rent. We stopped that party’s mass sell-off of State housing, and we’re going to build thousands more. We’re improving the financing of infrastructure—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I do want to remind Government backbenchers that they are not to ask questions that are patsies that are designed to attack the previous Government. I want to remind Ministers that there is a lot of precedent around being able to be political in response to political questions from the Opposition, but not to do so off the back of patsies.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does the Minister appreciate that it is impossible to talk houses into existence, and apart from pinching existing developments off the private sector, does he not need to do a great deal more action rather than talking?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I think it’s a bit rich coming from a Government who for nine years talked and talked about the housing problems, refused to admit there was a crisis, and built virtually no affordable houses.

Government Tree-planting Programme—Statements

6. to the Minister of Forestry: How much land has been secured for the Speech from the Throne initiative of a “new planting programme planting 100 million trees a year to reach a billion more trees in ten years”?

In response to the question, nigh on 12,500 hectares has been secured to proceed with the planting programme this year.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he stand by his statement on The AM Show on 19 January that “Fifty-five million trees will be planted this year.”, which is no more than the restocking of existing areas being harvested, and is he aware that this is actually a reduction on the 62 million trees that were reported by his ministry as planted last year?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: There will be, likely, 10.5 million trees planted in the upcoming season. He has, obviously, misconstrued what I said on The AM Show.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he stand by his statement in the same interview that undeveloped Māori land is going to be very difficult to access for forestry planting, because of the bureaucracy of Māori land law, and hasn’t the Government shot itself in the foot by cancelling National’s reforms that address these very problems?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I am a victim of my own success after that interview. The Crown is now engaging with Māori land owners and other categories of landowners, and the size of the land package, reflective of that engagement, is now up to 30,000 hectares. When one adds the nigh on 12,000 hectares that we have already secured, and in the event that the 30,000 is successful, I am but a small step away from 50,000 hectares.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: What does his statement, and I quote, “Officials realise they have to find surplus land to avoid becoming redundant.” mean for the Director-General of Conservation, who told the Environment Committee this morning that they had very little suitable Department of Conservation (DOC) land for his billion-tree planting programme?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I have never once spoken to that individual running DOC. Talk to another Minister about his fortunes.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the Green Party conservation Minister that only native trees will be allowed to be planted on conservation land?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: If one goes back to the Prime Minister’s speech, it is quite clear that the planting programme will comprise native trees as well as exotic. The percentage and the mix of trees that might be grown on the DOC estate has yet to be settled.

State Services—Oversight of Pay for Chief Executives

7. to the Minister of State Services: What is the Government doing to bolster the public’s trust and confidence in Crown entities?

Today, Parliament will debate the new bill that I’ve introduced to provide stronger oversight of pay for chief executives. Boards of statutory Crown entities will, under the law change proposed, need to obtain the State Services Commissioner’s written consent to the terms and conditions of employment for a chief executive. This change responds to the Government’s concern that pay increases at the top of the Public Service are out of step with public expectations.

💬 Virginia Andersen: Why was this change needed?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In some cases, Crown entity boards have not met either the State Services Commissioner’s or the Minister’s guidance. This bill will address those cases, in particular, by giving the remuneration system more teeth. There are good reasons why State services pay is lower than in the private sector equivalents, and there should be some consistency within and across the wider public sector.

Road Safety—Priorities and Roadside Saliva Testing

8. to the Associate Minister of Transport: Does she stand by all her statements?

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Yes, I do.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why does she stand by her statement on Radio New Zealand National this morning that “I have some concerns [about] … roadside saliva testing”, when the New Zealand Transport Agency’s official advice to her says drug-driving is a significant problem and recommends the Government introduce roadside testing?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Can I start my answer by saying that there’s no question that if someone is impaired, whether that’s because of alcohol, prescription medication, or recreational drugs, they should not be behind the wheel of a vehicle. I’ve asked the Ministry of Transport—it’s not the New Zealand Transport Agency but the Ministry of Transport who’s given me advice—to develop a whole new road safety strategy that will look at the most effective way of dealing with a range of issues that make our roads unsafe, including impaired driving. The advice I’ve received so far does indicate that there are issues with roadside saliva testing.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why does she stand by her statement on Radio New Zealand National this morning that “I have some concerns [about] … roadside saliva testing”, when a ministerial colleague, Stuart Nash, has said, “We should be looking at it” and “I think it has got to be rushed out”?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: In fact, those statements are not mutually exclusive. I have concerns about it, and we are looking into it. We need more evidence if we’re going to be sure that we are spending money in the most effective way to deal with the problems that are caused by impairment.

💬 Alastair Scott: Why does she stand by her statement that “We already have an extremely effective impairment test”, when official advice to her from the New Zealand Transport Agency says, “The threshold to warrant a drug test is high.” and “This approach”—the current approach—“delivers far too few tests to be effective in deterring drug-impaired driving.”?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I think that the members might be confused about what evidence they’re referring to or the advice that’s been given to me by the New Zealand Transport Agency, because I haven’t received any evidence or advice from the New Zealand Transport Agency on this issue. What I can say is that there are issues with roadside saliva testing, and yet currently the police have an impairment test that is over 90 percent effective.

💬 Gareth Hughes: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by her statement that road safety will be her number one priority in the transport portfolio?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do indeed stand by that statement that road safety is a major priority, and we have a very large work programme. We will be assembling all of the evidence. We’ll be speaking to all of the stakeholders, including the police, the Minister of Police, and the other parties in the coalition Government, but our decisions about improving road safety are going to be driven by evidence about the most effective use of police resources to address the risks on the road.

💬 Alastair Scott: Given the comments that have been made by the New Zealand Police, will she support my Land Transport (Random Oral Fluid Testing) Amendment Bill, at least to a first reading, so that this important issue can be discussed and debated at select committee?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We’ll be making our decision based on evidence, and we’ll be looking into it.

💬 Gareth Hughes: Supplementary.

💬 SPEAKER: No, we’ll keep going with Alastair Scott until he’s finished.

💬 Alastair Scott: I seek leave to introduce the Land Transport (Random Oral Fluid Testing) Amendment Bill, a member’s bill in my name, and for the bill to be set down as members’ order of the day No. 1.

💬 SPEAKER: Is there any objection? Yes, there is. It will not be—[Interruption] Order!

💬 Gareth Hughes: How many other jurisdictions conduct roadside saliva testing?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Only two jurisdictions currently conduct roadside saliva testing, and what we know about roadside saliva testing is that it’s unable to test for a wide variety of substances that may cause impairment. Also, it costs significantly more than alcohol testing does—$30 to $40 per test, as opposed to several cents per alcohol screening. So there are issues around it. It may not be the most effective use of money. I know that the Opposition was never in favour of using policies that were the most effective use of money, but that’s what this Government’s going to do.

America’s Cup—Base Options

9. to the Minister for Economic Development: What discussions has he had with Team New Zealand since yesterday’s announcement of the Government and Auckland City Council’s preferred option for an America’s Cup base?

Since November, Auckland Council, Team New Zealand, and the Government have been working together with the ambition of hosting the America’s Cup in Auckland. The Government and Auckland Council jointly announced our preferred option at 1 p.m. yesterday. Team New Zealand have long been aware of this Government and Auckland Council’s preference to minimise incursions into the harbour and save costs, while providing a world-class venue for the cup. I’ve not had further discussions with Team New Zealand in the past 24 hours, but negotiations will continue.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: So what was the feedback that Team New Zealand gave him, because presumably he would have spoken to them before the public announcement on his new so-called Wynyard hybrid option for the base yesterday?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m aware that Team New Zealand prefer the option that is already in for consent, which is more expensive by tens of millions of dollars, excluding the value of the environmental impact, which is worse under that option than the one that we have put forward. This option wasn’t properly considered because there was no prospect at the time of the Stolthaven Terminals company moving off the southern part of their tank farm. We’ve negotiated that to occur, and therefore this better option becomes possible.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Why did he publicly announce the further option for the location of the America’s Cup base—in fact, his preferred option—without seeking the agreement of Team New Zealand before he did so?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: We chose to make that announcement yesterday because the Mayor of Auckland city was obliged to tell his council of the revised plans, and it seemed appropriate that we answer the questions from the media, because there’s a public interest in the outcome.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: When does he expect negotiations to secure New Zealand’s hosting of the America’s Cup to be settled—or is he going to take this right to the end of the August deadline, playing a very high-stakes game that could see the event moved to Italy?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: We’ve been working with Team New Zealand and Auckland Council throughout this. We have a responsibility to take care of the Government’s money. The cost of this at the moment is looking like about $180 million, excluding the hosting fee. Team New Zealand tell us that they’re not yet in a position to complete negotiation of the hosting fee.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked him specifically: when does he expect negotiations to be completed?

💬 SPEAKER: I think it’s worth the Minister addressing that part of the question.

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: A negotiation may or may not be completed. We are hopeful that it will be. Until it is completed across the agreement that’s necessary between Auckland city and Team New Zealand, we won’t commit finally to the deal, and neither will Emirates Team New Zealand.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Does he realise that his failure to engage properly with a clearly pretty irritated Team New Zealand puts the whole hosting of the America’s Cup at risk, potentially losing a billion-dollar pay day for the New Zealand economy?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The cost-benefit analysis certainly shows that it’s not a billion-dollar pay day. That said, New Zealanders are proud of the success of the America’s Cup. We do want it to be hosted here if that can be arranged on reasonable terms. We believe—and this is the advice I’ve had from officials—that the design that we have put forward, which is a hybrid proposal that Auckland Council also backs, is a better one.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Does he want to be the Minister who lost the hosting rights to the America’s Cup because of his dogmatic approach, his refusal to work with others, and his failure to bring Team New Zealand in on his pet project’s plans?

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: He doesn’t want to be the leader.

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I don’t want to be leader. I’m confident that the Government is handling this responsibly.

Tax System—Brightline Test Extension

10. to the Minister of Revenue: What measure has he recently announced to address property speculation?

Today, I tabled a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2017-18, Employment and Investment Income, and Remedial Matters) Bill to extend the brightline test on residential property sales from two years to five years. The extension means that profits from non - owner-occupied residential property investments that are bought and sold within five years will generally be taxable. The same exemptions that apply for the two-year test will remain unchanged. This SOP gives effect to the changes that were clearly signalled before and after the election.

💬 Raymond Huo: Why does the Government believe the extension of the brightline test will address property speculation?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: The proposal will ensure that residential property speculators pay income tax on their gains and makes property speculation less attractive.

💬 Raymond Huo: How will extending the brightline help to bring fairness back into the tax system?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: These changes will go some way towards rebalancing the tax system so that speculators who profit from the sale of property have the same tax responsibility as other types of investment and income.

Charter Schools—Applications to Become a Designated Character School

11. to the Minister of Education: Can he guarantee that the existing partnership schools will continue so long as they have registered teachers, teach the New Zealand curriculum, and have the same level of funding as state schools?

The Government’s position on charter schools is well set out in the Cabinet paper that I released last week. Under section 156 of the Education Act 1989, it is my duty as Minister of Education to consider any application from a charter school seeking to become a designated character school. I am required by law to consider applications on a case by case basis, taking into account all of the criteria set out under the Act. It is important that I do not pre-empt the outcome of any potential application and that I make these decisions according to the requirements in the law.

💬 David Seymour: Supplementary.

💬 SPEAKER: No, the member has no further supplementaries this week. That was made very clear yesterday.

💬 David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I received communication from you stating that not only did I not have the supplementaries normally allocated to ACT but was ineligible to receive supplementaries given to me by other parties. Are you now saying—

💬 SPEAKER: No, the member will resume his seat—[Interruption] The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] The member will resume his seat. I just want to make it clear to David Seymour that his disorderly behaviour yesterday resulted in a punishment that he would not have further supplementaries this week, and that is absolutely clear. The idea that another party can give him supplementaries in order to avoid that punishment is something that I’m not going to contemplate. Supplementaries are entirely at my discretion, and he lost them.

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

💬 SPEAKER: If the member’s going to dispute my ruling, he is running the risk of a significant problem going forward.

💬 David Seymour: Should other members—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Now, if the member has a point of order that is a proper point of order and it is not disputing my ruling, and my ruling is—and it’s a very longstanding ruling—that any supplementary questions are at the Speaker’s discretion. If he wants to dispute that, he will run into problems going forward. And I just want to say to Dr Nick Smith that when I’m trying to hear one point of order, to have someone else yelling in my ear, on his feet in an inappropriate way, is something that he should know better than to do.

💬 David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’ll preface this by saying that I’m in no way disputing your ruling, but there is something that has become quite unclear. I understood that you might take questions away from a party in order to try and incentivise them to be more orderly, but it seems that what you have done in this instance is remove the right of a member or a party to ask questions at all. Now, that seems quite different from what we’re used to.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I haven’t removed the right at all; it’s just for today, although I’m tempted.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Am I to take from your Speaker’s ruling that you view that in this House that you have absolute discretion on whether there are supplementary questions, that if each Tuesday you woke up and you said, “We aren’t having supplementary questions in this Parliament any more.”, that would be completely within your prerogative? In my view, if that is where you think your authority as Speaker sits, you are mistaken.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think the member should look at Standing Order 387(1). If that was the case, I would have the right to do that. I would tend to suggest that if I did do that, I wouldn’t be Speaker for long.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think—not disputing the point that you make that it’s been a long time accepted, and part of the Standing Orders, that the Speaker has full discretion over the granting of supplementary questions—that process, though, has evolved over time. I think it was Speaker Hunt who went from a situation where the Speaker would allow one or two questions to having supplementaries on them, perhaps, up to five, and started the allocation process based on the fact that we’re an MMP Parliament, etc. However, I think it’s a new thing for the Speaker to start using the supplementary question opportunity in the sort of manner that we’ve seen today. I think that if you’ve got absolute discretion, then there’s no need to threaten to remove or otherwise; you simply exercise that discretion, given the circumstances.

I think it is a little unfortunate to have suggested earlier today—and we sat quietly through it—that if there was a pursuit of a point of order that you didn’t particularly find favourable, that would have a penalty of five put on it. There should be no impediment to members standing in this House and saying what they wish, within the Standing Orders—that’s what they’re elected to do. I hesitate to use the word intimidation, but standing over their decision-making process, I think, is quite wrong. Similarly, with your decision about Mr Seymour, it could have been just that you did not take supplementaries from him, and he would soon work out why. I think it’s unfortunate if it looks like this is a pernicious environment where the accepted behaviour is actually punished or is compromised by what the Speaker sees as appropriate for people.

💬 SPEAKER: Sure, and, to a large extent, the member is right. What I am attempting to do is have a lower level of punishment than asking members to leave the Chamber, which, in my belief, is what would’ve happened yesterday and again today with David Seymour’s behaviour under some Speakers in the past. So we’ve got a lower-level punishment, which is the reduction in the number of supplementaries. The number of supplementaries is a guideline, and I use that. I think it’s fair to say that roughly the same numbers have been lost or gained from either side. The feedback that I have had, both from members in the House and from people outside, has been that it has been easier to hear supplementary questions—in particular, for people to understand what’s going on—and so far I’ve been able to do it without requiring members to leave the House, which, in my personal experience, was a pretty ineffectual approach.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think the point you make is right—that if you simply, at the time, say, “Right, well, look, one more over here, one off over here.”—we seem to hear, over here, a lot more “one off over here” than we do any other, but that will always be the case. [Interruption] Oh, that should take one off.

I think my point was that that’s because you make a decision based on what happens, not an indication to a member who’s exercising a right to speak in this House of what might happen if they persist with that particular line. I think that’s the danger area. But it’s something new we’re working through.

💬 SPEAKER: Sure, and, as the member knows well, challenging my rulings, as Louise Upston was contemplating doing, can’t be done on a point of order. It’s got to be done through a motion, and she clearly, by not pursuing it, accepted the fact that what she was doing was inappropriate. Now, is there a further point of order?

💬 David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your ruling or answer on my earlier point of order as to whether the punishment was to remove specific question entitlements or to actually ban a member or party from asking questions for a period of time. You’ve now explained that it’s only for one week, and that sounds like a good thing. But I still don’t quite understand, if this is a totally new type of punishment, where, rather than simply removing particular questions, you ban a member or even a whole party from asking questions at all.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think the member is aware he gets two in a week, generally. I wasn’t sure yesterday as to how many he had left, but I assumed that it was one or two, and he lost them because of his ongoing bad behaviour. The member has to realise that when he doesn’t act within the Standing Orders there will be consequences. And he suffers from the, you know, disadvantage of not getting enough votes to have other members here in order to have more supplementaries.

💬 David Seymour: Oh, that’s just nasty. Could I ask, then, for the leave of the House for the National Party to give me a supplementary question, given you’ve just said that all I’ve really lost are those particular two I had?

💬 SPEAKER: No.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a new issue. You made a reference to my colleague the Hon Louise Upston. You claimed that because she didn’t do something by raising a point of order—

💬 SPEAKER: I accept I shouldn’t have said that. I apologise to Louise Upston. That was going too far.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Thank you very much.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When you’re considering this matter with respect to, for example, Mr Seymour, we’re a pretty compassionate Government, and I know it must be desperate and lonely to be all by yourself, and I’d hope you’d take a different view to him than the rest of the Parliament.

💬 SPEAKER: Mr Peters, I have shown him more flexibility than I have to the vast majority of members, and I will say that both he and Dr Smith, because of their experience, have also had more flexibility than most members.

💬 Jan Tinetti: Does the Minister accept that only charter schools are capable of meeting the needs of Māori students from disadvantaged backgrounds?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, I do not. There are around 190,000 Māori students in New Zealand schools. Around 700-odd of them attend partnership schools. Unlike the members opposite, we’re not giving up on all of the rest of them.

💬 Jan Tinetti: Has he been fair and consistent with existing charter schools?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I absolutely have been. The Government’s position was set out very clearly when we became the Government, it was set out very clearly by the parties that make up the Government before the election, and it has not changed.

Employment, Minister—Statements and Targets for Young People Not in Employment, Education, or Training

12. to the Minister of Employment: Does he still stand by all of his statements?

Yes, Mr Speaker, absolutely, in the context that they’ve been made.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Regarding his statement to the House on Tuesday, “I’m a person who’s been intimately involved in charter schools, and I’ve seen the strengths, and sadly, there’s a few weaknesses that we have to address.”, does he think the charter schools he’s been intimately involved with have done a better job than equivalent mainstream schools at reducing the number of their students not being in education, employment, or training, after school?

💬 SPEAKER: I was going to rule the question out, other than for the fact that there was an interjection from the Government bench, and therefore I’ll allow the member to rephrase it, going to the responsibilities of the Minister of Employment. If he makes statements outside his areas of responsibility, that’s not a matter for a question.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, the end of the question was about “neets”, which is very much his area of involvement.

💬 SPEAKER: I think the member will get to the Minister’s responsibility early in the question rather than just putting a phrase on the end in an attempt to get there.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, regarding his statement to the House on Tuesday that “I’m a person who’s been intimately involved in charter schools, and I’ve seen the strengths, and sadly there’s a few weaknesses that we have to address.”, does he think that the number of students becoming students not in education, employment, or training, after school, has been reduced by the efforts of the charter schools that he has been intimately involved with?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he told a press conference on Tuesday, regarding charter schools, “All the Māori side of things and perspectives can be accommodated under the new model.”, is that his primary consideration as Minister of Employment?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well trained. Regarding his statement this week, “I will be an employment Minister who is intent on coming up with an employment strategy for all New Zealanders”, 3½ months into the role, when does he plan to come up with that strategy?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We’re at the moment rolling out the strategy, and I’m really pleased with the response from unions—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Table it.

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, well, we’ll be tabling it shortly, but we have just got our first tranche of funding, $13 million from Cabinet, where we’ll be supporting young people in the regions, and we’re going to start an employment strategy, which the Opposition forgot all about.

💬 Tamati Coffey: Does the Minister stand by his statements about why rangatahi continue to be at the forefront of his employment strategy?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Kia ora. Yes, definitely. Rangatahi are the future of our economy, and it’s vital that we invest in their skills development now so that in the future the economy also works for them. To that end, I’ll be starting next week with a series of hui and meetings in the regions that will be the commencement of a very proactive Labour Party and Government employment strategy. All the regions—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How many are you going to?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: You can’t come because you’ll be fighting for your life. Good luck to you, though, Simon. Good luck to you—we need a Māori there.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Having said that the unemployment rate is not the real indicator of success in helping New Zealanders into work, how exactly will he measure success: is it the number of hui that he is attending?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We’ll be measuring success by reducing the inequity for so many groups who’ve been forgotten about by the previous Government: Māori, whose unemployment rates are, sadly, at 9 percent, and underutilisation at 21 percent; women who are lagging behind; Pacific Islanders, who are dragging in employment. This Government is very proud to see the unemployment figures at 4.5 percent, but there’s always a story within a story, and that’s the story that the previous Government forgot all about.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: What does he think is a reasonable target to reduce the number of young Kiwis not in education, employment, and training by the next December quarter?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, we’ve got over 80,000 young people not in education, employment, or training out there, and so we’ll be working hard to reduce that. This is a compassionate Government, and I totally support our Prime Minister, who has made that clear—made it clear at Waitangi. It’s a Government that’s working away at things. We’re hoping to get to a couple of thousand with our first tranche of funding. We’ve been very clear about that, and we’ll be reducing things as we go along. Can I just take the opportunity again to wish Simon Bridges all the very best from Ngāti Maniapoto—kia ora, Simon—even though they disowned you.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked what he was going to reduce it by, and the answer was “as we go along”. I didn’t think that was a response to the question.

💬 SPEAKER: I think it’s fair to say that it might have been slightly circular, but the member did address the question.

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that the Minister indicated in one of his answers to my colleague’s questions that the Government is currently rolling out his employment strategy, could I ask that he table it now?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the member can ask, but I’m not going to put it to the House because clearly the member wasn’t quoting from a document.

Question No. 2 to Minister

Earlier today in question No. 2 in the House, I was challenged by the Opposition as to a transcript’s veracity of 13 February. I have it here now and I wish to table it because of the challenge that happened in this House.

The Deputy Prime Minister seeks leave to table a document. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

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