Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement, “We have a high standard of expectation for our ministers”; and does she believe her Government is adhering to these high standards?

Yes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What specific steps has she taken to prevent the Provincial Growth Fund becoming New Zealand First’s $3 billion political slush fund?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have seen the reports from Mark Mitchell regarding a conversation he’s alleged to have happened between himself and a New Zealand First member of Parliament. Given the statements that were made around the implications that Ministers may have been involved, I sought assurances from each New Zealand First Minister that Ms Marcroft had not acted under their instruction. They gave me those clear assurances, and I take them at their word.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Well, in distinction of that, does she stand by her statement to Radio New Zealand this morning that “I find it challenging enough to make sure I keep control and oversight of my party and my own ministers. That’s where my jurisdiction sits.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ll give the context of that comment. The question was whether or not—as I recall, the question was whether or not I would be getting involved with a disciplining of another party’s backbench MP. That would not be appropriate. My jurisdiction does lie over the conduct of Ministers, and that is why I undertook to seek those assurances.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: So she accepts then, does she, that she is the—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order!

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is she—

💬 SPEAKER: Well, start right again, all right?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is she the Prime Minister of the entire Cabinet, not just the Labour Ministers?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. That is why I sought assurances from those Cabinet Ministers who were referenced in some of the statements that were made by an Opposition MP. I am not for a moment stating that I don’t have responsibility for Ministers. I do, which is why I spoke to them directly.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What will happen if those Ministers have not given her the whole truth?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As this House does, I have sought those assurances, I have been given those assurances, and I take my Ministers at their word, as that last member did when he was in Government.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is she aware of the commitment the Minister for Regional Economic Development has reportedly made to co-fund the extension of the Clutha Gold cycle trail; and if so, is she satisfied that the appropriate process has been followed before allocating the funding?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I don’t have the details of that particular project or where it is in the process. We do have a process, and I would point out that there have been a number of grants that have been made already where it’s clear that the process hasn’t been politicised. Anne Tolley supported the investment in Ōpōtiki Harbour. Former National MPs John Carter and Murray McCully supported the investments in the Far North. There are a number of examples where it’s very clear that this has been a process that has been about the economic benefit to the regions rather than who might be supporting the project, and that is as it should be.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is she also aware that until June 2017, the co-chair of the Clutha Gold cycle trail was none other than Shane Jones’ colleague Mark Patterson; and if so, does she believe that that has had any influence on a decision to award funding to this project?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I say—obviously, he was involved in the National Party. But the point I’m making here—the point I’m making is that there is a process that these projects go through. There are a number of examples where support has come from the other side of the House. That has not led to a decision against the project, because, ultimately, it depends very much on whether it has the support of the region, the community, and will produce jobs.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister mean that when Mark Patterson first supported the Clutha cycle way, he was a National Party functionary and member of that party, or have we heard something here by mistake?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! That’s—it’s way, way beyond the Prime Minister’s responsibility. [Interruption] Mr Brownlee, would you like to let your leader speak.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Has she sought an explanation from Clare Curran on what she and Carol Hirschfeld were discussing at their secret meeting; and if so, what was it?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: First, I would clarify the meeting was held in a public place—for those who are familiar with Wellington, it was the Astoria—and so I don’t believe it’s fair to characterise it as a secret meeting. I did speak to Ms Curran on a number of occasions about this particular issue. She’s assured me that the nature of the conversation was high-level and very much about issues that she has canvassed in the public domain, as well.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Well, does she accept that the meeting was clearly more than informal and coincidental?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Minister Curran has never claimed it was coincidental. She’s acknowledged that it was in her diary. She did correct an original written question to make sure that it was correctly documented, and so, from her perspective, that has always been the case: it was always scheduled and therefore not coincidental.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Well, isn’t it more than informal given that it was clearly pre-arranged, was in their diaries, and RNZ and its future was discussed?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: She acknowledged, when asked about the meeting, that it occurred. It was in her diary, and she also acknowledged that not including RNZ in the original written question asked by Ms Lee was a mistake, and that’s why she corrected it.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: As Prime Minister, does she believe it is right for her Ministers to “split hairs” when answering questions to Parliament?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. That is why it is entirely appropriate that she corrected the record and included that meeting in her list of written questions. And I acknowledge that at that time, my understanding is she had roughly 6,000 she was answering, and that was one of them.

Deputy Prime Minister—Actions and Statements

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

Yes, I do, in their context.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does he believe his actions and those of other Ministers have met the bar set in 2.57 of the Cabinet Manual, which states: “Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards.”?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to ask the member to rephrase the question to make sure it is entirely within the responsibility of the Deputy Prime Minister. He has no responsibility for any other Ministers.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Thank you, sir. Does he believe his actions have met the bar set in 2.57 of the Cabinet Manual, which states: “Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards.”?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, and compared with that member and her colleagues, my actions are as pure as the driven snow.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: When he said yesterday in his statement as Deputy Prime Minister, “Mr Mitchell may have misunderstood her underlying point.”, what was the underlying point Mr Mitchell misunderstood?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Because this is a very finely tuned matter, I’m going to do what I did with Dr Smith last week and seek an assurance that that statement was made by the Deputy Prime Minister and, in the body of the statement, uses that appellation for the Minister.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I expected your question on that. I have a copy of it that’s clearly under the Deputy Prime Minister, and clearly has it written as his statement. I’m happy to—

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, the member tables it and continues with the question.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Thank you. Would you like to hear the statement again?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, I heard it. We’re not slow learners over here. Can I just say that when I was first made aware of—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Just answer the question.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, if you keep quiet for five seconds, old man, you’ll hear it. [Interruption] Can I just say that when I first heard of a report of this conversation, I knew that someone had got the wrong end of the stick, and so I thought, seeing as my colleague had allowed another parliamentary colleague to get a mistaken impression, that we should correct it as fast as possible. I thought that was the right thing to do. I mean, there’s nothing big about this, but we’re surely not going to have Mr Mitchell trying to make a mountain out of a molehill?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Having listened to the reply and looked at the statement, I accept the member’s word, and it is very clear that it is headed “Deputy Prime Minister”. It is, however, clear to me that there is nothing in the statement that is the responsibility of the Deputy Prime Minister.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In all fairness, the statement that has been put out is clearly “Deputy Prime Minister”. It doesn’t even say “Leader of New Zealand First” on it. I double-checked that. So he has made those comments as the Deputy Prime Minister and, as such, he has responsibility for them as the Deputy Prime Minister and should be answering accordingly.

💬 SPEAKER: I think you have to go quite a lot further than mislabelling a statement—[Interruption]; minus three supplementaries—in order to bring something into ministerial responsibility. He might be responsible for mislabelling a statement, but there are areas which he is not responsible for, and the activities of Ministers, as was made very clear by the Prime Minister, as all senior members of the Opposition will know, is a matter for the Prime Minister and not the Deputy Prime Minister.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the problem with your ruling is that it ignores the fact that the Rt Hon Winston Peters, putting out a release under the banner of the Deputy Prime Minister, has made an accusation against one of our members that he now, apparently, simply cannot be questioned upon. It is not an unreasonable thing to ask him “What did he mean? What was the other side of the story, which my colleague apparently has not understood?” To say that the House can’t question the Deputy Prime Minister about a statement he makes as the Deputy Prime Minister, I think, begins to—frankly, it just shields him from any of the normal scrutiny that would go on someone who makes, from a ministerial position, such an accusation.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: The closest example I can think of where the House has dealt with this matter before was when the then Labour Opposition was trying to question the then Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Key, about statements that he had made in his capacity as the leader of the National Party, but he had made them at his prime ministerial press conference. The Speaker of the House at the time—I can’t actually recall what the exact issue was, but I remember arguing about it—argued that he had made those statements in his capacity as leader of the National Party even if the venue in which he had made them was his prime ministerial press conference. The question is not where a statement is made or how it is cited or the title that is used in citing; it’s whether the Minister has ministerial responsibility for the matters in question. In this case, the Deputy Prime Minister does not have ministerial responsibility for the issues he’s being questioned about.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: I did want to rise to speak because you have taken three Opposition questions as a result of my outburst. I am, frankly, appalled that, in this House, a Minister could put a statement out with the words “Deputy Prime Minister” and then, as Speaker, you could somehow know that he wasn’t acting in his responsibility and he had mislabelled the statement. That’s why you got the outburst. I would ask you to reflect on this. It’s a very serious matter. It’s not possible, in my view, for the Speaker to know what’s inside a Minister’s head. They’ve issued a statement in the capacity as Deputy Prime Minister.

💬 SPEAKER: Can I just make it absolutely clear to Nikki Kaye that I am quite offended by her comments then. I know what the responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister are, and that’s what’s important, and I ruled that way.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: There is no comparison between the example given by the Hon Chris Hipkins and the current situation. For a start, if a person is being interviewed by a group of journalists in a stand-up situation, they may well be asked a range of questions and they may answer them without actually specifying “I am now taking this hat off and putting this hat on.” That was, you will recall, established well by the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt, when he sat in the Chair that you now occupy, some years back. But, in this case, the Deputy Prime Minister, on the Deputy Prime Minister’s letterhead, put out a statement making an accusation against a colleague of mine, suggesting, effectively, that my colleague had got the wrong end of the stick. We’re just now saying, “Well, what was the right end of that stick?” He must know for him to have made that statement. Given that this is not a trivial matter, any suggestion that someone gets in the road of a member of Parliament doing their work—the elected work that they are sent to this place for—is a serious matter. Therefore, for Mr Peters to simply say, “Well, you know, the Hon Mark Mitchell must have got the wrong end of the stick or got the wrong meaning, etc.”, cannot just stand as a statement by the Deputy Prime Minister that says, “Close off; nothing to see here.” Surely, he can be questioned about what he actually meant?

💬 SPEAKER: If, in the body of the statement, which I’m sure the leader of New Zealand First approved, it had said “Deputy Prime Minister”, I would have had more sympathy. But the fact that it has been printed by a press secretary on an inappropriate letterhead does not—[Interruption]; minus another three—bring it within the Deputy Prime Minister’s responsibilities.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does that mean that a Government press secretary should know the difference between a letterhead that says “Leader of New Zealand First” and that of Deputy Prime Minister? You can only assume that it was done through the offices that are located on the ninth floor, which are Government offices—ministerial offices—not party offices.

💬 SPEAKER: In actual fact, I think, as the member is aware, there are a number of people who are employed in those offices who are dually employed, including in his own leader’s office.

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

💬 SPEAKER: A further point of order?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes it is, because that implies that there is some level of bad behaviour going on in the Leader of the Opposition’s office—in other words, using taxpayer funds illegitimately, unreasonably—and that is not the case. But it would be worse if that was somehow to be the reason why there would be an excuse for the Deputy Prime Minister to make an accusation on Government letterhead, using Government resources to make that accusation, but then not come under any scrutiny in the House whatsoever.

💬 SPEAKER: I do want to, if I can, draw this to a close as soon as I can, and I want to be very careful about reflecting on mistakes made by staff members—especially a person who has had quite a history around these buildings, working for a number of parties. But it is clear to me that someone made an error in putting it on this letterhead.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’ve got two points of order. The first is around the process of tabling documents and the supplementary question from the Hon Paula Bennett. You, as Speaker, had then asked for the document, and yet there wasn’t a process of tabling it. So my question is: have you made a ruling, as a result of that action, that you have to sight any documents that are made by members of this House in a supplementary question before you allow them to be raised on the floor?

💬 SPEAKER: The answer to that is no, and I let the member ask her question. Carry on—second point.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Sorry, Mr Speaker, on that first point—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no, the first point’s been dealt with. If the member has a separate point of order, she may raise it, but that point of order has been dealt with. Second point of order?

💬 Hon Louise Upston: The second point of order is the assertion that you’ve made, Mr Speaker, about a staff member making an error. As a member of this House, I’m curious as to what’s led you to that conclusion, given that it is a document that’s on letterhead from the Deputy Prime Minister.

💬 SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat now. If she is curious about my rulings and requires tutelage, I’m happy to explain it to her but not to take up the time of the House. I’ve made an indication to members that if they don’t understand my rulings, if I’ve not been clear enough, then I’m willing to talk to them about it, but points of clarification—or points of curiosity, as this one might be characterised—are not allowed under the Standing Orders. I’m going to warn the member: she’s disputed my ruling once already; if she disputes it again, I will view it very seriously.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In terms of the Speaker’s ruling that you have just used, could you please bring that to the attention of the House? I’ve been listening to the comments around me and I just want to know what that ruling is, please.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think the member’s now trifling with the Chair.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. My point of order is simply that if we are now to move on from this—get it all nicely resolved; everyone is happy to an extent—is it reasonable that we, effectively, lose six supplementaries because of a mistake made by one of Mr Peters’ staff members?

💬 SPEAKER: No. The six supplementaries have been lost because members on my left breached the Standing Orders.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any molehills that have been transformed into mountains of late?

💬 SPEAKER: And three of the supplementaries have just been given back because the member knew that that was not a proper question.

Question No. 1 to Minister—Amended Answer

I seek leave to correct an answer.

💬 SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that?

I made reference to 6,000 written questions being answered at the time of Clare Curran being questioned in the House. I should be clear that that was the number being managed by the Government at the time, not by any one Minister.

Reserve Bank—Monetary Policy Targets

3. to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has he made regarding the Reserve Bank?

On Monday, I signed a new policy targets agreement with the incoming Reserve Bank Governor, Adrian Orr, which reaffirmed the Reserve Bank’s price stability target and introduced a requirement for employment outcomes to be considered by the Reserve Bank as it makes monetary policy decisions. I also announced Cabinet’s recommendations on phase one of the review of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, which provide a pathway to legislating the new objectives for the bank. It also recommends a committee - decision-making structure for monetary policy, including the involvement of a minority of external members on that committee. These changes will modernise New Zealand’s monetary policy and ensure that it plays its appropriate part in our overall economic strategy.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: How will a change to the objectives affect specific monetary policy decisions?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, specific decisions are for the bank to make, reflecting their operational independence. What these changes do is ensure that the focus of monetary policy continues to be price stability and that, at the same time, there is a focus on the contribution to maximum sustainable employment. Such a mandate is common overseas and better reflects the role of monetary policy in the economy.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: How do the recommendations from phase one of the review change the way monetary policy decisions are made?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Committee decision-making for monetary policy will deliver better quality decisions over time by harnessing a broad range of perspectives. Committee decision-making for central banks is common practice internationally and, in fact, has been the practice of the Reserve Bank for some time. We are codifying that and adding in the appointment of a minority of external members. These outside perspectives will be especially important with the widened objectives for the bank. A non-voting Treasury observer will also be able to attend the meetings, which will help support the coordination of monetary and fiscal policy.

Nurses’ Pay—Minister of Finance’s Statements

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

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

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Does he stand by his statement on Q+A on 11 March when he agreed that nurses’ pay rates are in line for a reasonable bump?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I stand by my full comments there, which were in relation to the fact that working New Zealanders’ share of economic prosperity wasn’t what it should have been over the last nine years.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Does he consider it prudent for a finance Minister to be stoking pay expectations in this way ahead of a significant scheduled pay round?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I was doing nothing of the sort. I reflected the fact, in those answers, that we, as the Government, were in the middle of a negotiation. It would be fair to say that nurses, teachers, and, indeed, other workers in our economy have been looking back over the last nine years at a Government that consistently underfunded health and now are looking at a Government that actually believes in investing in health and education.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: So has he provided district health boards (DHBs) with a funding signal for the upcoming year so they can conduct negotiations knowing the parameters they’re operating within?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe that it’s largely the responsibility of the Minister of Health to provide funding signals to DHBs. What this Government is doing is taking seriously the fact that after nine years and a couple of billion dollars’ worth of underfunding in health, the Government actually needs to step up and do something, and it’s pretty rich for the other side of the House to complain now that we have to clean up their mess.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: So why is he leaving DHBs in the dark on funding ahead of a significant pay round, when his inaction could enhance the chances of a nurses’ strike, leaving New Zealanders missing out on vital surgery that they need?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premise of that question. What lies behind the issues in the health system is the fact that the previous Government failed to fund health properly.

Provincial Growth Fund—Decision Making

5. to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What specific criteria is he using to determine which projects will be funded by the Provincial Growth Fund?

The question leaves the impression that I solely am responsible for criteria. I would tell the House that there are four Ministers responsible for the determination when decisions are made. They are the Ministers of Finance and Transport, and the Minister for the Environment.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is political advantage to the New Zealand First Party another criterion?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I would draw the member’s attention—I won’t spend the House’s time on reading out the criteria—to section 62 in the Cabinet paper, which has been made abundantly available to the media and to the other sides of the House.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: What specifically is he doing to demonstrate the Prime Minister is correct when she says the Provincial Growth Fund is not a political fund?

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Meetings at the surf club?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Taiho, kuikui!

[Patience, old lady!]

I would say that the Prime Minister is absolutely accurate. Not only have I advanced the interests of the provinces, as being a Minister, but I have been scrupulously faithful to the Cabinet Manual and the Cabinet policy process.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he happy with me asking questions on this topic?

💬 SPEAKER: No.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Did he recently agree in principle to co-fund the extension of the Clutha Gold Trail cycle trail, the same trail his colleague Mark Patterson was the chair of as recently as last year?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I enjoyed my time down that part of the country, and I was hosted by the local mayor—Mayor Cadogan, I think, is his name. I most certainly assured them that they have a champion in the provinces, number one—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I thought you said it wasn’t just you who decided.

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Turituri, e tama!

[Be quiet, young man!]

Not only was I handsomely received, I advised that particular cycleway trust that they would not need to wait for five long years; they should work as soon as possible with the local mayor to bring forward a proposal that will be attended to by my hard-working colleagues and my good self. Nothing less should be expected from the provincial champion.

KiwiBuild—Unitec Development

6. to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What are the main benefits expected from the announcement he made at Unitec earlier this week?

On Sunday, the Prime Minister and I announced the purchase from Unitec Institute of Technology of 29 hectares of land at their Mount Albert campus. It will be the first major development under the Government’s ambitious KiwiBuild programme, and will help restore the dream of homeownership to a generation of Kiwi families. It will be a new, master planned, medium-density community, combining a mix of open market, KiwiBuild, and State houses in the form of terraced housing, apartments, and townhouses with high-quality urban design. We want to create a place for people to put down roots and to live, work, learn, and play for generations to come.

💬 Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Would these benefits have occurred had it not been for the Government’s KiwiBuild programme?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Auckland has a housing deficit of around 45,000 homes that is growing by about 7,000 homes a year. Soon after we came to office, I was advised that Unitec was considering selling this beautiful site to property developers, which would most likely have resulted in rows of high-priced “McMansions” well out of the reach of first-home buyers or, worse, it would’ve fallen prey to speculation at the hands of land bankers. KiwiBuild means the Government can step into the broken housing market in Auckland and by working with iwi, with the private sector, and with Auckland Council deliver quality affordable homes for Kiwi families, a vastly better outcome for Auckland.

💬 Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How has his announcement been received?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, Unitec chair, Dr Lee Mathias, said that the proposed development was fantastic and would open the space up to others who will make it their home, grow businesses, and create a community. The Auckland mayor applauded the vision and ambition of the project. The New Zealand Herald this morning called it a “good use of a large, underused area of the city that has been ripe for a plan such as this.” Some others have criticised the provision of affordable housing and State houses on the Unitec—primarily, those also responsible for the national housing crisis in the first place.

Defence, Minister—Travel and Statements about Mark Mitchell

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

on behalf of the Minister of Defence: On behalf of my colleague, the hard-working Minister of Defence, most certainly, when they’re in their context.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: When the Minister said on RadioLive Drive, “I will deal with Mr Mitchell.”, what did he mean by this statement?

I think he meant that Mr Mitchell is one of those people that says, “Do as I say, not as I do.” For example, on 9 June 2017, he took an NH90, which is not positioned in Auckland, from—guess where—Whenuapai to that extensively long place away, Papakura, so he could make a dinner. Now, there are other examples, if that member wants to hear them.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During my time as Minister of Defence, I never rode in an NH90. [Interruption] Supplementary?

💬 SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Hon Mark Mitchell.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Following the two dinners the Minister had with Tracey Martin, when she requested a C-130 aircraft, has the Minister discussed with her how he would “deal with Mr Mitchell”?

First of all, the Minister in question did not have any evidence regarding a C-130—

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

—and that’s a fact. No, no—bull dust doesn’t work around here. You know, we tell the facts.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I know that, as has been said in the past, the winds of time are changing, but I don’t think we’ve got quite to that point. I think the Deputy Prime Minister will be a little more restrained in his language. [Interruption] No.

Can I just say, Mr Speaker, that the allegation made by Mr Mitchell is not correct, both as to the dinner and as to demanding a certain aircraft. The reality is, of course, we were going, with a number of National Party MPs as well, to the Chatham Islands to open a wharf. We are for celebrating regional achievements, not petty picking like that member there.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d like the Deputy Prime Minister just to clarify to me—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. You can ask another supplementary. That’s how you get someone to clarify something.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Did the Minister discuss with any of his Government ministerial colleagues his plans on how to “deal with Mr Mitchell”?

I think it would have been very strange if a Minister or an MP, being the subject of false allegations, was not to discuss it with some colleagues, I suspect, but I am not one of them, other than to say this: what he did discuss with me, of course, was on 5 May Mr Mitchell took a jaunt around Auckland on a Seasprite for a media photo op to get stock footage of him playing Top Gun.

Oil and Gas Industry—Gas Exports and Petroleum Exploration

8. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Is she committed to playing a part in reducing global carbon emissions?

Yes.

💬 Jonathan Young: Will she support the exporting of lower-carbon New Zealand gas to nations currently depending on higher-carbon coal for electricity generation, considering that China is currently burning 50 percent of the world’s coal and over 70 percent of India’s electricity comes from—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member finished his question in the first phrase.

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. New Zealand currently does not export any of the gas it produces. In fact, to make it transportable in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG) would require significant infrastructural investment. I point the member to the recent investment in Western Australia by Chevron Oil of $45 billion on the Wheatstone LNG plant in order to produce LNG.

💬 Jonathan Young: Is the Minister aware that 48 percent of New Zealand’s gas is exported as methanol to South-east Asia currently?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: It is not exported as LNG. It has gone through an industrial process that uses gas at the Methanex plants. It is not exported as a gas. The member asks whether we would support it. What this Government has been consistently clear on is that we have a very long-term opportunity here. We have a range of 20- and 30-year horizons for us to do the kind of long-term planning that New Zealanders expect of a responsible Government.

💬 Jonathan Young: After she told the New Zealand Petroleum Conference that existing permits are protected, can she give assurance to those who currently hold exploration permits but not mining permits that should they apply for a petroleum mining permit following successful exploration, this pathway will remain open?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Both the Prime Minister and I have been crystal clear on that point. We have said that existing permits, both mining and exploration, will be honoured. Of course, anyone with an exploration permit will have to go through the appropriate application processes.

America’s Cup 2021—Venue

9. to the Minister for Economic Development: What announcements has the Government made regarding the hosting of the 36th America’s Cup?

Yesterday, the Government signed an agreement with Auckland Council and Emirates Team New Zealand to host the 36th America’s Cup in Auckland in 2021. This plan will deliver a world-class venue for the event and economic benefits to Auckland and the country. It is a fantastic achievement by the officials involved and testament to the effort this coalition Government has made to reach the best possible outcome.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: What benefits does this venue design provide over other plans?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The objective of the Prime Minister, Mayor Goff, and I was always to minimise the intrusion into the harbour while delivering a top-class venue at the lowest possible cost. This outcome saves tax- and ratepayers more than $50 million compared with other options. It entails the 6,600 square metre intrusion into the harbour, which is 16,000 square metres less than previously proposed. That 16,000 square metre reduction is equivalent to 40 waterfront sections of 400 square metres each. Property valued, this represents an environmental saving of an additional $50 million, meaning our interventions have helped save $100 million in financial and environmental costs.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: What reports has he received about the America’s Cup venue?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I have received reports congratulating the Government for utilising land on Wynyard Point, which results in a better outcome, including the legacy of clearing off Stolthaven’s southern tank farm. This is in contrast to another report claiming the new Government was wasting time pushing for Wynyard Point, preferring that we roll over and accept the plan initially presented to us. If we’d listened to that unsolicited advice in December, it would have cost $50 million more and caused significant loss of harbour space and sight lines. Luckily, Simon Bridges could not act on his own advice.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Ministers have been reminded on a number of occasions not to use patsy questions from the Government in order to attack the Opposition. As a result of that breach, there will be the return of the three remaining questions to the National Party. Can I ask both sides just to have cognisance of the rules.

KiwiBuild—Unitec Development

10. to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: When he stated yesterday, regarding the proposed residential development at Unitec, “The reason we have government is to take some of the risk, to share some of the risk to make it easy for the private sector to come in and develop”, what risk was he referring to?

Developments of this scale and complexity carry sufficient risk that, sometimes, the private sector won’t take them on or is unable to deliver the outcomes—affordable housing and good urban design, for example—that the public should expect. The risks I’m talking about include uncertain access to finance, the cost of infrastructure, and the need to build affordable housing. In a broken housing market, we believe that it’s the appropriate role of the Government to de-risk a project like this so that the private sector can come in and do what it does well, and that is design and build great places for people to live, work, and play.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: How will the Crown be sharing the risk with private developers for the construction of the proposed residential development at Unitec?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The primary way that the Crown will share the risk is by undertaking a master planning role that sets the standards, the overall concept for the design; ensures the delivery of network and social infrastructure, and provides opportunities for private developers to then come in and design and build aspects of the overall development, precisely as has been the case at Hobsonville.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Who will be standing behind the warranty for the houses constructed by private developers on the land at Unitec?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, there is currently no requirement for mandatory home warranties for new residential construction, although it’s not a bad idea.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Will the provision for any ongoing liability arising from the Unitec development under the Building Act come out of the $2 billion KiwiBuild envelope?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The houses that will be built in the Unitec development will be developed and built and sold by private sector developers, exactly as has been the case at Hobsonville.

Environmental Protection Authority—Associate Minister for the Environment’s Involvement

11. to the Associate Minister for the Environment: Does she accept that a Minister should not interfere in the independence of the Environmental Protection Authority, particularly in its employment of its Chief Scientist; if so, why did she instruct her office on 15 December to email a copy of a highly critical article about the Chief Scientist to the Chief Executive with the subject “Great article”?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, I simply forwarded an article to my private secretary to pass on to the chief executive for their information. To be clear, I did not write the subject line of that email; it was written by a member of the public who sent the article to me.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: What was the date of the meeting where matters relating to the employment of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) chief scientist were discussed between the Minister and the EPA chief executive that she referred to in answer to oral question No. 7 on 22 March, where she said, “I was told the matter was in hand.”?

💬 Hon EUGENIE SAGE: It was a status meeting, my first meeting with the EPA, and I think it was on 29 November, and there was no substantive discussion of the work of Dr Rowarth.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Why did the Minister feel it necessary to involve herself in a series of emails and meetings both seeking and approving a “course of action” around the EPA’s chief scientist, in the emails dated 28 November?

💬 Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The email dated 28 November was from the Secretary for the Environment, setting out a course of action. I simply said that I approved the course of action. There was no substantive discussion. If the member would be aware of the Crown Entities Act, that gives the Minister, in relation to Crown entities, a responsibility to manage the risks on behalf of the Crown. If I may quote from the guidance to Ministers, “Along with being answerable to the House of Representatives, you are also answerable to the public for problems or controversies arising in connection with the entity by responding to questions and participating in debates and reviews.” As I have said repeatedly, the public needs to have confidence in the independence of the EPA; therefore it should be of interest to the chief executive—matters in the media questioning that independence.

💬 Hon James Shaw: What has Dr Rowarth herself said about why she left her post at the Environmental Protection Authority?

💬 Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Dr Rowarth has said publicly that she was not pushed out of her role and that she continues to do contract work for the EPA.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: So does the Minister stand by her answer to my oral question last week on 22 March that it would be entirely inappropriate for her to be involved in an employment matter?

💬 Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Yes.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Isn’t the only obvious conclusion from the emails exchanged on “a course of action” and the discussions and meetings held by the Minister with the EPA chief executive that she wanted the chief scientist gone and that the chief executive then initiated an employment conversation with the chief scientist that led to her going?

💬 Hon EUGENIE SAGE: No.

Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Commentary and Effect

12. to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree with the statement by Rt Hon Winston Peters on electoral law regarding MPs joining other parties, when he stated, “Members of Parliament have to be free to follow their conscience. They were elected to represent their constituents, not swear an oath of blind allegiance to a political party. If an MP feels that membership in another elected party better serves his or her constituents then that can be put to the test at election time”?

Twenty-two years after the Rt Hon Winston Peters made that statement, yes. The Deputy Prime Minister and I are in agreement that the protection of the proportionality of parliamentary representation is paramount in the MMP system. The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill will achieve that.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement of the Attorney-General, David Parker, that his electoral bill will have “a chilling effect on an MP’s freedom to express themselves inside and outside the House”?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not familiar with Mr Parker’s electoral bill.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister say he’s not familiar with the statement from the eternal general, when it is in the Bill of Rights—

💬 Hon Members: Eternal general!

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: —from the Attorney-General, when it’s in the—[Interruption]

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

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. Order! Both members will resume their seats. I’m going to anticipate the point of order. I think many members have misspoken in this House and I’ll ask Dr Nick Smith to start that question again.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister of Justice say he’s not familiar with the statement from the Attorney-General when that is in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report on the bill for which he is responsible?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That member’s previous question referred to Mr Parker’s bill. There is no bill in Mr Parker’s name relating to electoral reform.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The words used by my colleague were “in his bill”, referring to the Minister’s bill. For the Minister to try and twist it around any other way—I’m sure the Hansard record would show us—is a complete nonsense.

💬 SPEAKER: The thing that I can’t be an arbiter of is matters like that which go back to previous questions.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I shall repeat the question.

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

💬 SPEAKER: I have a request from Dr Nick Smith and will get a response from Grant Robertson.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. Order! The member will resume his seat.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s not actually relevant to that, no. It’s a matter that occurred, but you make us raise them as soon as they occur. Is it still out of order in this House to ask a member to tell the truth?

💬 SPEAKER: It does depend very much on context and I do need to hear it.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Well, during the answer from the Minister of Justice, David Bennett interjected and asked him to tell the truth. Is that out of order?

💬 SPEAKER: Did Mr Bennett do that? [Interruption] He will withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: No, the member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: Thank you. Now I am now going to allow Dr Nick Smith to ask that question again, without penalty.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the Attorney-General David Parker’s statement that his electoral bill will have, quote, “a chilling effect on an MP’s freedom to express themselves inside and outside the House.”?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Assuming that his reference to “his bill” is the bill in my name, the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, I refer that member to the statement by the Attorney-General under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that declares that there is no inconsistency between that bill and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I’ll ask again. Does he agree with the statement made by the Attorney-General, David Parker, on his electoral bill, that it will have “a chilling effect on an MP’s freedom to express themselves inside and outside the House”?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Members of this House are free to express any view, but this House, when it is considering legislation, has to be guided by those with a statutory authority to deal with the constitutional judgments that have to be made, and under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act the Attorney-General is required to provide a certificate as to whether or not a bill is consistent or inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. A certificate has been provided in relation to the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill and it declares that there is no inconsistency.

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

💬 SPEAKER: Mr Bishop will now stand and apologise, and he is very lucky that he hasn’t cut supplementaries from Dr Nick Smith. Dr Nick Smith was on a point of order and Mr Bishop interrupted.

💬 Chris Bishop: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: My point of order is that three times I have asked the Minister a very important question about freedom of speech of members of Parliament, and on three occasions the Minister has not addressed the question.

💬 SPEAKER: In my view, on the two second occasions he did.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement by the late Rod Donald in respect of the 2001 Act that this is, and I quote, “the most draconian, obnoxious, anti-democratic, insulting piece of legislation ever inflicted on this Parliament.”?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No, I don’t, and I refer to the Supreme Court’s decision in Prebble v Huata that upheld that legislation and its principles. I refer that member once again to the underlying principle of MMP, and that is that the party vote is the vote that counts, and the proportionality of party representation in Parliament is absolutely fundamental to our electoral system and is enshrined in the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer, one of the lead advocates of MMP, who opposed this legislation previously in saying, and I quote, “MPs should make honourable undertakings not legal undertakings. They may be coerced by argument, by public opinion, but not by stand-over tactics in closed rooms by party leaders.”

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That question is premised on the erroneous view that that member has continued to hold, and that is that party leaders under the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill can remove members of Parliament. That is incorrect. It is not what the bill says and that member, who is a longstanding member of this Parliament and has been a Minister, actually ought to do a lot better.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Supplementary, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: No, the member’s used his supplementaries.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether or not this statement, “If an MP feels that membership in another elected party better serves his or her constituents, then that can be put to the test at election time or at a by-election”, which was the case behind the political history of the person who made that quote?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes, I do agree with that statement—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! We’ll have one Minister answering.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The first part of that statement is a direct quote from, indeed, the honourable member himself who just asked the question, and it is absolutely correct that those who wish to chop and change all over the place can go to their electorate, put themselves to the test of the people, and get a mandate. Some members in the history of this Parliament have done that and others haven’t.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I want to seek leave to table a document, and I seek some indulgence to explain the extent which I had to go to get access to the document. It does not exist anywhere on the net. It does not exist in any—

💬 SPEAKER: That’s all right. Just name the document.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the press release by the Hon Winston Peters on 6 March 1996 that took the Parliamentary Library more than two weeks to locate.

💬 SPEAKER: I think we should frame it as well! Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The document will be tabled.

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

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: I seek leave to table a copy of an email released under the Official Information Act, dated 15 December, from the Associate Minister for the Environment to the chief executive of the Environmental Protection Authority including the subject heading “Great article”.

💬 SPEAKER: I’ll just—as I generally do—seek an assurance that it was something that went to the member or his team, not a proactive release, as it is becoming the practice. It is. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none.

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