Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he seen on the health of the New Zealand economy in the final quarter of 2017?

On Friday, Statistics New Zealand released retail sales data for the December 2017 quarter. It showed retail sales were up 1.7 percent after adjustments for prices and seasonal effects. This was higher than economists’ expectations. The rise was led by more people eating and drinking out away from home, obviously in good spirits as they celebrated the end of 2017 and looked forward to the new year and new beginnings.

💬 Paul Eagle: How did economists react to the larger than expected growth in retail trade?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: ANZ economists revised forecasts for the December quarter up to a rate of 0.7 percent and an annual rate of 3.1 percent following the figures. Meanwhile, Kiwibank economists said the retail sales data looked supportive of respectable GDP growth. However, I would caution people against getting ahead of themselves due to other growth indicators for the December quarter being mixed. For example, dry weather conditions hampered dairy production during the three months, which may have had an impact on primary production output. [Interruption]

💬 Paul Eagle: How will the new Government’s policies—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! A little bit of tolerance for the member today. The member will resume his seat. Ms Bennett, we had, I think, five people interjecting from your side, and two from the other. If we want a strict interpretation, we’d have one, but waving your arms at me is not a way to get it.

💬 Paul Eagle: How will the new Government’s policies help support economic growth?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Treasury forecasts growth in the current year to June 2018 of 2.9 percent, rising to 3.6 percent in 2019 and 3 percent in 2020. Treasury, the Reserve Bank, and other forecasters, including the international credit ratings agencies, all acknowledge that growth over the next four years will be supported by the coalition Government’s domestic policy programme to raise wages, lift activity in our regions, and become a more productive workforce. The Government’s progressive stance on trade will also help drive growth as we continue to seek deals like the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership, which will boost exports and lift incomes.

Provincial Growth Fund—Decision Making and Funding

2. on behalf of the Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s policies and actions?

Can I begin by congratulating the member and wishing him all the best for his new role as leader of the National Party. And, to answer the question, yes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How many of the projects announced on Friday were projects not already under way or planned under existing Government programmes? [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We’ve actually been quite open about the fact that, predominantly, they had been ones that had pitched themselves to the last Government, but, obviously, were not progressed and were not funded. It took this Government to accept that those regions had produced initiatives that were worth progressing, and so we’re making them happen.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Which region received the most cash in the initial round of projects announced on Friday?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think this early on, it would be premature to pick a winner, of course, because it is a $1 billion fund per annum. We have only just started with a little over $60 million worth of investment. We always said that we would highlight, for instance, Northland, the West Coast, areas like the Bay of Plenty—wherever there is a lack of investment, high levels of unemployment, and deprivation. So we’ve started with those areas, and that’s included places like Northland.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! It was quite a specific question and—

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: And I mentioned Northland twice.

💬 SPEAKER: You did mention three regions. I’m going to ask the Prime Minister just to very briefly address the question again.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In this first, initial round, there was a dominant feature for Northland, as there should be.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Why is that?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because that region was totally neglected by the last Government.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How much of the $61.7 million announced last Friday was already appropriated funding from the last Government, and how much of it was new money from this Government?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I said in the first answer, we’ve made no secret of the fact that the last Government ignored the pitches that were made by those regions, which made a strong business case for investment and were ignored. That’s why we decided to progress them. So on the one hand you can’t argue that they were reasonable business cases when, on the other hand, you never funded them.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: So how much of the $61.7 million announced last Friday was already appropriated funding from the last Government, and how much of it was new money from this Government?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is ignoring some of the projects—on the West Coast, for instance. The trails down there were initiatives that were promoted by Damien O’Connor and were progressed by this Government. As I said, we’ve acknowledged that the last Government didn’t progress, predominantly, ideas from Northland, which is one of the many neglected regions, and so a good portion of the $60 million is going to them.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How much of the $61.7 million announced last Friday was already appropriated funding from the last Government, and how much of it was new money from this Government?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The billion-dollar fund that this Government announced on Friday, of which we’ve announced a small portion to kick-start us—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the Hon Amy Adams—I think it might be an idea just to leave the Prime Minister to answer the question, especially—

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If I can finish it.

💬 SPEAKER: The member will get a chance to finish it, but her interjection has resulted in the Opposition getting an additional supplementary. I’d want to say to Amy Adams: she’s quite a long way away, but her voice is dominating at the moment, and I would prefer to go back to the answer, thank you.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The vast majority were new allocations. Perhaps the member would like to talk to us about the bridges he was meant to have built, as well.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How will the Government’s provincial fund compensate the regions for all the backwards-looking policies being enacted, such as industrial relations, immigration, and red-tape restrictions?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have to correct the member. When it comes to issues like the skills gap for our regions, this is the one party and Government that collectively have said, “We will allow a regional skills migrants list to respond to the fact the last Government didn’t listen to the problems that they had.”

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: In light of the Government’s big spending initiatives in tertiary education and KiwiBuild, with no evaluations, why do we now have $3 billion of spending on regional development that we’ll never know how big a flop it is until 2023, because Labour have made sure there’s no evaluation?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: So on the one hand these were all your ideas; on the other, they’re going to be a flop. The member needs to make up his mind over whether or not the regional growth fund’s a good idea.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Why is the Prime Minister comfortable with the provincial fund advisory panel being headed by a private political donor to Shane Jones and David Parker, the two most important Ministers for this policy?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would make the comment that the only reason the member knows about that is that it was declared, it was transparent, and we’ve made it clear that that donation was made. But I think the member discounts the vast experience of every member of that advisory board, including the referenced person’s background in investment—exactly the kinds of skills we want on that advisory panel.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: So why has the Prime Minister set up a fund that gives the biggest dollop of cash to Winston Peters’ home region of Northland, is advised by a private political donor to Shane Jones and David Parker, has a New Zealand First list candidate on the independent panel—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Question, please.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: —and deliberately has no assessment of its effectiveness until 2023?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course we’ll be monitoring the effectiveness of our own policy, but one comment I would want to make is: is the new leader of the National Party telling Northland that they have no need for investment in infrastructure for their region, because that is a disgraceful claim to make?

Businesses—Foreign Investment

3. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he expect any foreign policy gains to result from the Government’s decision to raise the threshold for Overseas Investment Office approval of sales of New Zealand businesses from $100 million to $200 million?

I want to thank that member for his question. In answer: those same foreign policy gains that were contemplated when the regulations were drafted and consulted on when his party was the Government and did it in 2016.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Has he received any advice from officials on how many more listed or private New Zealand companies will be in play as clean takeover targets for foreign investors as a result of raising the Overseas Investment Office approval from $100 million to $200 million?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I suspect that list was constructed for the previous Government, but it has not been made available to me, because the comment is without merit.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: If the comment was without merit, then why does the Minister, by his own admission, accept that there will be 40 percent of New Zealand’s companies now able to be purchased without any scrutiny whatsoever?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The plain fact is that we inherited a circumstance written into the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which collapsed, but that was something that we had to strive to deal with when we were reorganising this wild animal called the TPP and turning it into a respectable trade deal, which means that now we will gain far greater access and protection for our people in all of those new markets we will be entering.

💬 Hon David Parker: Was the questioner of the last question in error when he implied that businesses could just fly through, when, in fact, because of changes that we have been making, whether they are purchasing rural land or residential land, they will be screened?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has no responsibility for Mr Brownlee.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: When the Minister engages in post - Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership bilateral discussions with other countries, will he highlight the ease with which his Government has enabled foreign investors to be able to secure assets in New Zealand up to $200 million without any scrutiny whatsoever?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In the interests of informing international investors, we will tell them that the screening threshold for significant business assets is just one of the categories of screened investment under the Overseas Investment Act. The others are sensitive land and the fishing quota. To use his phrase, “It pays to sweat the detail in the Cabinet papers.”, because clearly he didn’t.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: As foreign Minister, does he believe that raising the Overseas Investment Office threshold from $100 million to $200 million for the purchase of New Zealand assets will allow this country to become “putty in the hands of big business abroad”?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It will be a matter of great irony to people watching this television show today, from Parliament, that that member is complaining about the very actions he and his thoughtless party took when they were selling our country out.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: What has changed, in his view, in the last six months that makes him now support the National Party view that this is a good deal for New Zealand and that there is much to be gained by raising those thresholds, which he has now done?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Land, investor screening, a change in the fishing quota, and, above all, the restoration of this country’s sovereignty, which were the principal reasons the Americans pulled out in the first place and today are saying they want back in.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Will companies subject to a takeover be required to isolate land assets in the business transaction?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I think that member should consult with his new leader. He’s a lawyer and understands that you cannot divide these assets out unless it is not part of their essential business.

Schools—Teacher Supply

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister—[Interruption]

Order! Prime Minister, Mr Brownlee—please let Jan Tinetti ask her question. Start again, please.

4. to the Minister of Education: What reports has he received regarding the underlying cause of teacher shortages?

I’ve received a report from the Ministry of Education showing that the number of people enrolled in teacher training dropped by a massive 40 percent between 2010 and 2016. That’s a drop of around 5,700 teacher trainees per year, meaning thousands fewer early childhood teachers, thousands fewer primary teachers, and thousands fewer secondary school teachers are being trained.

💬 Jan Tinetti: What are the consequences of this decline?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It’s left an immediate shortage of teachers, which we are currently dealing with, but, more worryingly, a ticking time bomb for schools as a significant cohort of baby boomer teachers start to retire over the coming years, and we simply do not have enough teachers being trained to take over from them. It is a shocking failure to plan for the future on the part of the previous Government.

💬 Jan Tinetti: What action has he taken to begin to address these shortages?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One of the first things the new Government did was announce a $9.5 million teacher supply package right before Christmas to deal with some of the most immediate areas of concern. We have also started to deal with teacher workload issues, including by scrapping national standards, which have been a complete waste of time. We’ve moved to give teachers and principals more say over how their profession is governed, and we’ve started the ball rolling on a long-term teacher workforce strategy—something that is long overdue.

💬 David Seymour: How is it that no partnership school ever reported a shortage of teachers, despite having the same funding per student as equivalent State schools?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, it could have something to do with the fact that they didn’t have to report and they didn’t have to employ qualified teachers.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Why did he slash—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Mr Seymour has just lost any further questions he had this week. Of course, he only had one. [Interruption] Because he interjected—that’s why. And the member’s lost one for her party. The Hon Nikki Kaye—starting again.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Why did he slash the voluntary bonding payment for Auckland teachers from $17,500 to $10,500, and what does he think the impact of that will be?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: You cannot slash something that didn’t exist in the first place. I am aware of the campaign election promise made by the National Party, which they had not budgeted any funding to pay for and had not gone through any process to put it in place.

Biosecurity Management—Offshore Inspections and Stink Bugs

5. to the Minister for Biosecurity: Does he stand by all his statements in relation to biosecurity?

Yes, in the context in which they were given.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: How can the Minister stand by his statement in the House, on Tuesday last week, that no vehicles were unloaded off the ships carrying stink bugs from Japan recently when the Courageous Ace vessel unloaded approximately half of its vehicles before loading was halted and those cars, trucks, and buses sat on the wharf for several days prior to being reloaded back on to the vessel?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The information I had was that none had been unloaded. I will follow up on that. The important thing to know here—regardless of the actions that took place—is that we are absolutely committed to keeping out the brown marmorated stink bug, something that that member failed to do because he failed to resource the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and their biosecurity responsibilities properly.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: I seek leave to table an email from a local resident, Mr Stephen Chester, who outlined to me that half of these cars, trucks, and buses were unloaded off the—

💬 SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. The member may table it.

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

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: I seek leave to table an email from Mitsui OSK Lines, who are in charge of the Courageous Ace. It goes on to say that MPI directed us—

💬 SPEAKER: No. Order! Is there any objection to this document being tabled? There appears to be none. It will be tabled.

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

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: How can the Minister say that the biosecurity net is working well, last week, when, in November last year, 15 live stink bugs—nine of them female—went on a 1,000-kilometre road trip to Christchurch having already passed MPI’s inspection in Auckland?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I have to admit that the biosecurity system we took over had huge holes in it. As we have discovered those holes, we have moved immediately to shut them down. Can I say that, of the 1,200 import health standards that govern—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! No. The member will resume his seat. David Bennett will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Can I say that the biosecurity system that we took over from the National Party was full of holes. In fact, of the 1,200 import health standards that the previous Minister was responsible for, very few had been reviewed and upgraded. That’s why we are having to move through every part of the biosecurity system to give security to those New Zealand producers in the country—because we desperately need them.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: How can he reconcile his statement, “We cannot afford to let … in [stink bugs] and we will shut down the pathways [whenever] we find them.” when large construction equipment was left on the wharf for days prior to it being eventually fumigated?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Once again, I can’t explain the protocols and systems left to us by the previous Government. But I can tell you that we’re working through every one of those, and every member of the biosecurity system in this country knows that they’ve got a new Government with a new focus on biosecurity; they don’t have the same lazy old lax one that they had in the past.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: When in this week’s Farmers Weekly he’s quoted as saying, he’s “not able to call the shots.”, has he requested new urgent funding for extra resources in Japan after stating that MPI does not have enough people offshore to inspect every vehicle; if not, why not?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The statement regarding “calling the shots” is that I don’t write the cheques for compensation. In regard to the offshore resources for MPI and the new Biosecurity New Zealand, we don’t have enough people to inspect every single car being loaded on to a ship, but I can tell you that the protocols around that will be upgraded and offer us security that was never there under the hundreds of thousands of cars that that member let into this country.

Mental Health Services—Children and Young People in Earthquake-affected Areas

6. to the Minister of Health: How is the Government supporting better mental health for children and young people in earthquake-affected areas?

Last week, the Government announced our plan to deliver dedicated mental health support to years 1 to 8 school students in Canterbury. During the first phase of the roll-out, 15 schools in Hornby and Christchurch East will share six dedicated mental health staff. This is part of a $28 million programme that will be rolled out rapidly over the next three years. The Government will ensure that every primary school - aged child in Canterbury and Kaikōura has access to a mental health worker.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Why has the Government made this one of its top priorities in mental health?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Since 2011, there has been a 93 percent increase in children in Christchurch requiring support for mental health issues. Children across the region have suffered long-term psychological disturbance following the Canterbury and Kaikōura earthquakes. Unlike the previous Government, who took its foot off the accelerator in this area, our Government is committed to addressing mental health, and it starts with children.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: How is the Government’s plan to deliver mental health support—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Well, quite apart from the fact that I take huge exception to the comment made by Dr David Clark on what is an extremely serious issue, and which the Government did take very seriously throughout the six years that I was involved, it is totally extraneous to the question that he was actually asked and a gratuitous statement, which you have been trying to stamp out. I actually watched the last half of question time last Thursday from outside of the House and could see the direction you are taking. That totally contravenes that direction.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, that’s a fair comment. I think I was being too kind to the Minister. We will be tighter in future.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: How is the Government’s plan to deliver mental health support for Canterbury kids going to be funded?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As I’ve said in the House many times, this Government will implement initiatives with a good evidence base, and mental health support in primary and intermediate schools is just such an initiative. This initiative will be funded out of the $100 million contingency set aside over four years by the previous Government in Budget 2017, which was never appropriated for any specific programmes.

💬 Matt Doocey: Given that it’s accepted that the town of Kaiapoi was one of the most hard hit in the earthquakes, why are they receiving no support under this programme?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As I have said, this is a rapid roll-out. We’re starting in Canterbury and in Hornby and in east Christchurch. We believe in starting at the core, where there are schools ready to deliver this programme and where the parents are crying out for it.

Employment, Minister—Regional Meetings and Statements on Work

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

Yes—obviously in the context they’ve been made in, and particularly in the area of the regions.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he told the House on Thursday that “Dignified work is about job security”, was he saying that the thousands of Kiwis who have their own small businesses, who have no security other than their ability to persuade people to buy goods and services day in, day out, are not engaged in dignified work?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the gig economy provide dignified work?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’m very clear about where we stand in terms of the economy. I described dignified work previously as work that is about job security—about knowing you’ve got a job three months down the track, six months down the track. Dignified work is also about investing in employers, investing in communities, and investing in regions, which is what the previous Government failed to do in nine years.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Would he describe his work as dignified, given he clearly has little job security?

💬 SPEAKER: Kiritapu Allan.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: When the Minister said that he was going out into the regions to meet with those communities, what does he expect to achieve?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Kia ora, thank you for the question. This is an opportunity to listen to and discuss with these communities, employers, service providers, sector leaders, and rangatahi about what their hopes and aspirations are and how these form the basis of strong proposals that will attract funding support. I was very pleased to begin the regional engagement with a visit to an initiative in Whangarei last week, where I saw some amazing work going on. The next stage in the process is for communities to submit proposals, which will be assessed by the agencies.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would the Minister regard dignified work as taking a job that’s depended upon an underhand deal with another party member?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the Minister stand by his statement to the Manukau Courier that one of the solutions to the “crisis in New Zealand employment” is to “fund and resource and target some of our community organisations directly—not with crumbs but with real funding and resourcing”; and if so, what extra resources beyond the $50 million allocated in National’s last Budget will he commit to deal with this crisis?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Absolutely I stand by my comments in terms of the Manukau Courier. Of course, there’s a long way to go in terms of the funding, and we have just made a start.

Provincial Growth Fund—Announcements

8. to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What announcements has he made recently pertaining to the Provincial Growth Fund?

This will take so long to answer.

💬 SPEAKER: No, it won’t.

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Sir, in the interests of serving the public interest, I have to be expansive. Ah, yes; well, $61.7 million was announced as an investment in the regions. It covers the packages for Northland, Gisborne, Hawke’s Bay, Manawatū, and Whanganui. These are initiatives that the regions have brought forward. They lay neglected under the old regime, and they’ve felt the love from my good self.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: What has the reception to the Provincial Growth Fund been like?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Rapturous. Starting with a Mayor Cole on behalf of the entirety of the local government fraternity, amplified by a certain Mr John Carter, and, also, I received a personal congratulations from the new director of Far North Holdings, Mr McCully.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: What can we expect in the coming weeks and months?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I’m expecting that work will take place very soon in terms of the Wairoa-Napier rail upgrade, which will take trucks off the road, which will give a shot of fiscal adrenaline into the neglected KiwiRail business. I’m also expecting to name the members of the working group who will lead the work in terms of the upper North Island supply chain study, with a particular focus on Whangarei. I will be visiting other priority regions, and I’m overwhelmed by the number of Opposition members who have encouraged me to go to their provinces.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Can the Minister please confirm that the largest project announced last week is a roundabout not far from his home in Northland?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I can confirm that the $9 million roundabout in the north is taking place, in contrast to the 10 bridges.

Public Media Advisory Group—Appointments, Funding, and Redacted Information

9. to the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media: Were there any aspects of the process and then announcement of the public media advisory group that could reduce confidence in its outcome?

No. The final outcomes on the Public Media Funding Commission are yet to be determined, and I anticipate that they will be presented to Cabinet later this year.

💬 Melissa Lee: Is she disappointed with the way she handled the appointment process of William Earl, whose name she included in the Cabinet paper even though he declined her offer of the role?

💬 Hon CLARE CURRAN: No. Mr Earl made it clear that he didn’t want to be part of the advisory group for personal reasons, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.

💬 Melissa Lee: Does she think $1.4 million for an advisory group taking 18 months to advise her on whether to set up another advisory group represents value for money?

💬 Hon CLARE CURRAN: Yes, absolutely. This Government is committed to investing in public media—something that the previous Government had no intention of doing. It froze funding for nearly 10 years for public media. There is a lot of work to do in this area, and this advisory group will do its job.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: So why did she appoint the ministerial advisory group?

💬 Hon CLARE CURRAN: Good question. This Government recognises that a well-resourced public media is necessary to tell our stories and inform our democracy, unlike that previous Government, which froze public funding for nearly a decade. Our commitment to public media was made clear during the election. It should come as no surprise that we’re looking to reverse the damage done by the previous Government. This advisory group marks the first step in progressing this work.

💬 Melissa Lee: When wearing her Minister for broadcasting hat, does she agree that when choosing between the competing demands of open government and ICT security, she made the right call to proactively release her Cabinet paper in its entirety, with the redactions visible to all, thus providing the ultimate example of open Government?

💬 Hon CLARE CURRAN: Yes. I’m deeply disappointed that the paper was released in a way that meant the redactions were reversible—absolutely committed to the proactive release of Cabinet documents.

💬 Melissa Lee: What would she rate her announcement out of 10 given she proposed the appointment of someone who had already declined her offer, she released a redacted document with all of the text clearly visible, and she released budget-sensitive information?

💬 Hon CLARE CURRAN: Mr Earl made it clear he didn’t want to be part of the advisory group for personal reasons, after the Cabinet paper went through. It would not be appropriate to comment further at this time.

Families Package—Effect on Senior Citizens

10. to the Minister for Social Development: Will the Families Package benefit seniors; if so, how?

The winter energy payment is a significant part of the Families Package and will help 710,000 superannuitants to afford the heating they need to keep themselves warm and healthy. It is one of the most ambitious policy moves to address rising costs of living, with a particular emphasis on some of our most vulnerable. When fully implemented, the annual payment for every person over 65 will be $450 for single people and $700 for couples.

💬 Priyanca Radhakrishnan: So why is the winter energy payment such an important part of the Families Package and supporting seniors?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Too many of our seniors are hospitalised every year due to respiratory documents. I’ve been told of seniors staying in bed all day in an effort to keep warm because they simply can’t afford the heating costs. That’s not right, and we can do better by our elderly. The winter energy payment is a simple but important way of supporting our seniors to keep warm and stay healthy.

💬 Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Are there any other measures in the Families Package that will benefit seniors?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Absolutely. The changes to the accommodation supplement outlined in the Families Package will also benefit eligible seniors. Around 14,000 seniors will see an average gain in income of $30 a week. These changes also support the Government’s broader housing agenda, helping our most vulnerable to meet rising housing costs.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Of the seniors that will receive the winter energy payment, how many are earning over $50,000 a year?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: All those who receive superannuation and the winter energy payment have the option of opting out of the winter energy payment. If that member is concerned about targeting, can I remind her that her Government was going to put $400 million worth of tax cuts into the pockets of the 10 percent highest-income earners in this country.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: How does providing an extra $700 a year to someone who already earns superannuation plus getting $50,000 a year deliver more money to families with children and reduce child poverty, which is the Government’s initiative?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We’re doing all we can to help New Zealanders, especially low to middle income New Zealanders. We don’t think there is anything wrong with putting a little bit of extra money into the pockets of superannuitants over the cold winter months when they are most at risk of being admitted into hospital for respiratory ailments.

💬 Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm that the winter energy payment for over-65s is going to the exact same people who already receive universal superannuation, something, presumably, the National Party now no longer supports?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Admittedly, it was a weak question, but to try and strengthen it up by making an accusation like that is completely unparliamentary and totally unacceptable. It is not the National Party policy to in any way attack national super, but it has been the current Government’s policy not to increase it by virtue of their overturning the tax package.

💬 SPEAKER: The problem I have is that I did listen to the Hon Louise Upston’s question, which certainly implied a questioning around the universality of such payments—

💬 Hon Louise Upston: The winter energy payment.

💬 SPEAKER: —of such payments—and I therefore think it was not unreasonable for the Prime Minister to make the same interpretation.

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes, we do support the winter energy payment and we do support superannuation as a universal entitlement.

Question No. 11 to Minister

I seek leave to hold this question over until Nanaia Mahuta comes out of witness protection.

I’m going to ask the member to put the leave properly. I’m going to give an expected response to him for the way he asked the question, and I’m going to ask him to consider carefully the leadership that he shows from the chief whip’s seat in the future. Right, ask for leave properly.

💬 JAMI-LEE ROSS: I seek leave for this question to be held over until Nanaia Mahuta is available in the House to answer it.

Do we want to make it clear? Does the member want it held over as an extra question or just one of the National Party questions next time?

💬 JAMI-LEE ROSS: An extra question.

An extra question. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be objection. Right. The member declines to ask the question.

Māori Development—Government Initiatives and Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill

12. to the Minister for Māori Development: What specific legislation has she introduced to advance Māori in the first hundred days of this Government?

on behalf of the Minister for Māori Development: The Minister has not introduced specific legislation, but this Government has put into legislation the Families Package, which introduces the winter fuel payment, Best Start, and increases paid parental leave. This package alone will help thousands upon thousands of Māori families across New Zealand.

💬 Nuk Korako: Why has the Minister removed specific Māori legislation that would have enabled a greater utilisation of Māori-owned land?

For multiple reasons. Māori don’t want it. It was bad legislation. We can do better. And, if I recall the consultation hui that I attended last year, there was almost rioting in the streets because of how terrible the legislation was.

💬 Nuk Korako: Does the Minister accept the statement in the briefing to incoming Ministers from Te Puni Kōkiri, who advised that that Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill increases the ability of Māori land owners to use their land by empowering them to make decisions by and for themselves—so why has the Minister disregarded the advice from Te Puni Kōkiri?

For the very same multiple reasons: that Māori don’t want it, it’s bad legislation, and we can do it. Good luck to that member for, as we say in Māori, “E hiahia ana ia te whakaaraara taua tūpāpaku.”

[“He wants to rouse that deceased.”]

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What is the highest legislative priority for the Minister?

Dropping the previous Government’s changes to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. We all know that it was a poorly-thought-out process, handled badly. The Minister is focused on delivering practical benefits for Māori land owners, whānau, hapū, iwi, and Māori collectives.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: And how will the Minister ensure there is a strong emphasis on improving outcomes for Māori?

This Government is committed to improving the lives of our Māori whānau, through the creation of the Crown/Māori Relations portfolio; through regional development that has a focus on local partnerships, which would include iwi and Māori collectives; and through improving the outcomes for Māori in housing. We’ve been in Government for only just over 100 days, but we have delivered more for Māori during that time than the member [Points at Nuk Korako] did in the previous nine years.

💬 Nuk Korako: How does her decision to discharge Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill advance Māori interests in developing over 20 percent of Māori land that remains landlocked?

As I’ve said, we can do a lot better. The big thing about Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill is that it actually caused the demise of the Māori Party, because it was such bad legislation that Māori, collectively, said they did not want it, but the previous Government would not listen.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether the Government’s view was in part formed by the fact that not one Māori Land Court judge supported that legislation?

The member is correct. In fact, Māori Land Court judges were very dismissive of the proposed legislation from the previous Government.

Question No. 11 to Minister

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s to do with the question that was not asked by the National Party today. I think, over the years, if you go through Speakers’ rulings, there’s been a number of rulings about members being away, etc. A lot of those rulings were based on the fact that, sometimes, members couldn’t get to the House, and the most recent stuff in there is, of course, from 2011 and 2014, when the Standing Orders Committee considered how best to deal with those particular matters. So what I’m suggesting is that where there is—could you have a think, on behalf of the House, about how reasonable it is for a side of the House to determine whether or not a member who is a Minister should be able to have the time granted to them to be here to answer questions about comments and other statements that they have made.

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

No, I don’t require any support from the Leader of the House. This matter was considered by the Standing Orders Committee, certainly in 2017. A lot of members of the committee were supportive of putting into the Standing Orders a requirement for the Government to indicate which Ministers would be available on the morning, possibly at 9 o’clock, before questions were to be lodged. The member was the person who led the opposition to it. Now, I hope—I hope—[Interruption] Order! I hope that, at some stage, notwithstanding the previous Government’s opposition to it, we can get to the point of the Government implementing that, which does not require a change to the Standing Orders. But I just want to say to the Hon Gerry Brownlee that I think he’s pretty cheeky bringing it up.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s clear that there’ll be a number in this House who have full recollection of that discussion. You’ll also, I’m sure, recollect that my concern was that it would be a forward notice of who was going to be there at any particular time. The reality is that, on a daily basis, that’s not a bad practice, but it was in the context of something that, I would have to say, was completely new to the House in my time: an initiative, from me, to give the House a week’s notice of the business—full business—that was likely to be transacted. So I think your characterisation of me being cheeky in raising this is completely unreasonable and a misrepresentation of a select committee discussion of which, I imagine, there is some record.

Well, I certainly—and I can see from the faces of other members present—have a different recollection, and I don’t like it being characterised as a misrepresentation. We certainly have a different recollection of what occurred there, and I might say it was an issue on which a couple of members, including myself, were, I think, more heavily focused than the member might have been at the time.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that’s a bit of an unreasonable statement from the Chair, actually—to suggest that any member was not focused while they were at a hearing of a select committee, let alone the Standing Orders Committee. But it’s become quite a practice, I think, in recent weeks, for the Speaker to make these strong statements, which, personally, I would caution against. Might I also say that it’s not unusual for people to change their mind on these things, much as we’ve seen the Deputy Prime Minister change his mind on the “CPPPT”—whatever it’s called nowadays.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want you to reconsider whether there should be not further consideration of a “not as I do but as I say” rule, otherwise Mr Brownlee will have no chance of protesting in this House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the risk of prolonging this discussion, I want you to reflect on the comment that you made in your answer where you said that the previous Government had opposed those moves, and just to remind you that the members of that committee—of which I was one—are representatives of this House and not of the Government.

Yes, and the point that I will reiterate is that members, I think, from all three parties currently in Government supported that change, but because of the way that the committee works and the fact that we do seek at least a substantial majority at the committee, it was a suggestion that was blocked by the National Party.