Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the Government’s financial statements?

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Treasury this morning released the Crown financial results for the eight months to the end of February. The Government’s accounts continue to track slightly better than expected, with the Government surplus nearly $500 million higher than the Treasury forecast in December. This reflects underlying economic conditions, with surveys of business and consumer confidence pointing to sustainable growth rates of about 3 percent over the next few years for the New Zealand economy.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: What did Treasury say led to the better than expected results?

A strong jobs market this year has meant employment growth has been higher in recent months than Treasury expected, meaning PAYE is above forecast. Greater residential investment and private consumption has boosted GST receipts, while a rise in customs and excise duties has also contributed to core Crown tax revenue coming in $692 million better than expected.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: What other recent economic reports has he seen?

A consumer confidence report out from ANZ-Roy Morgan today shows that consumers are “feeling assured”. The current conditions index and the future conditions index are both considerably higher than they were at the end of 2017. As ANZ chief economist Sharon Zollner said, “Consumer confidence remains high. And why not? Jobs are plentiful, there’s talk of higher wages, and the Auckland housing market has found a floor.” This is also off the back of another improvement in business confidence for their own activity, with both reports pointing to sustainable economic growth rates of about 3 percent a year.

Prime Minister—Confidence in the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media

2. to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in all her Ministers?

Yes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Was the real reason Clare Curran advised Radio New Zealand chair, Mr Griffin, not to appear before the upcoming select committee not to correct the record faster but, in fact, to ensure questions wouldn’t be able to be asked and answered in Parliament about the Carol Hirschfeld meeting?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: If the real reason was to get a letter of correction in as soon as possible, why didn’t Clare Curran advise Mr Griffin to do that and, in the interests of openness and transparency, also appear before the upcoming select committee to answer the questions?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, it will be on record that Radio New Zealand were due to appear on Thursday. When it was drawn to Minister Curran’s attention that they were unable to appear, she passed on advice on the quickest way to correct the record.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: If Clare Curran was so concerned about ensuring the select committee record was corrected, why did she wait over three weeks to tell Richard Griffin to correct the record?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is incorrect. My understanding is that her office advised Radio New Zealand on the day.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Was it wrong, no matter what the reason, for Clare Curran to advise the chair of New Zealand’s independent radio broadcaster, Radio New Zealand, not to appear at the upcoming select committee to answer questions?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I reject the premise of that question. As has been stated, when it was found by the Minister they were unable to appear on Thursday, she left a message with the chair around the possibility of correcting the record in writing—something that the other side of the House has held the Minister to account on; correcting the record as soon as is available. Can I also—while I’m at it—point out that when it comes to written questions, there have been a number of occasions where both sides of the House have had to correct the record. I asked the Parliamentary Library for the number of times it happened for the National Government in Opposition, and the truth is it took them too long to get me an answer.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Oh, you continue with that affirmation and—

💬 SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. It’s really whether the member should be, I’m sure.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Sooner or later, it might stick. The issue here is that some weeks ago, you admonished the Government for constantly taking a flick, in the answers to their questions, at the previous Government. You further, this week, have been quite firm and removed supplementaries from this side of the House for inappropriate comments added to questions to the Government. The Prime Minister’s attempt here, saying “While I’m at it”, simply led into what is, effectively, an unnecessary attack on the previous Government.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Speaking to the point of order, the origin of this issue is the error that the Minister made in not correcting a written answer some months ago. I was simply pointing out that when it comes to the standard the Opposition is lending itself to for the Government, there are so many occasions of corrected written answers that the Parliamentary Library cannot provide me with a number.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: The point, though, Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: Speaking further to the point of order?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I am. The point here is that while the Prime Minister may wish to characterise the questioning from the Leader of the Opposition and other members from this side of the House as being about a simple mistake, the reality is it’s about what was behind that simple mistake.

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, OK, and that’s not going to be traversed here, is it. No. OK. I feel somewhat responsible myself for the situation that we have got into because the Leader of the Opposition essentially asked a question from which I inferred a breach of privilege on the part of a member. And that is something which I should’ve pulled up at the time and not allowed the question to proceed. Having allowed that to proceed, I decided to, effectively, play the advantage and give the Prime Minister some more latitude because it was a serious and unparliamentary accusation that had been made by Mr Bridges. I should’ve stopped it, and I apologise to the House for doing that now.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What will the Prime Minister do if she finds out that Clare Curran’s voicemail to Mr Griffin does suggest that he does not appear at tomorrow’s select committee?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the Minister has articulated, her recollection of the message she left was simply based on the fact that the chair could not attend as was previously scheduled and that in order to correct the record quickly he could do that in writing in lieu of an appearance. When the chair phoned her back to say, “I’m already scheduled to attend. Let me know if there’s a problem.”, the Minister did not respond.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Having advised Mr Griffin to not appear before the upcoming select committee, hasn’t Clare Curran compromised her right to represent the Government as the Minister for openness and transparency?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I reject the premise of that question.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Prime Minister aware of anyone other than Clare Curran advising Mr Griffin to write a letter of correction rather than appear before the upcoming parliamentary select committee?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As was canvassed in the House yesterday when the Minister couldn’t reach the chair, she did speak to the chief executive of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage about the issue in case he chose to convey that message as well.

Economic Programme—Fuel Tax, Support for Families, and Transport Infrastructure Spending

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

Yes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What is her justification for gutting $5 billion from regional New Zealand in order to make public transport cheaper for some Aucklanders?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m glad—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! No. I’m going to ask the Leader of the Opposition to ask that question again in a parliamentary form.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What is her justification for reducing by $5 billion regional New Zealand funding in roading in order to make public transport cheaper for some Aucklanders?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m glad the member asked that question. We’re not. In fact, what we are doing is, instead of spending money that 4 percent of transport users use, as that Government did, we’re investing in regional and local roads—in fact, doubling the amount of investment in regional and local roading.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is the State highway improvements class reducing by $5 billion over the next 10 years and the various public transport classes increasing by around $5 billion; if so, why is she so afraid of owning that fact?

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: No, the member will resume her seat. That question is ruled out. [Interruption] No, the Prime Minister can’t respond. I let the Deputy Prime Minister last week, and we got into all sorts of trouble.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is the State highway improvements class declining by $5 billion over the next 10 years and the various public transport classes increasing by around $5 billion; and, if so, why doesn’t the Prime Minister state that clearly?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As someone who was intimately involved in transport, that member should know that that class was focused on urban centres, not regional roads. We’re decreasing an area that our regional road users did not benefit from, in order to double the funding that they will benefit from.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Why are people in Northland, the Waikato, and mid-Canterbury having to pay 12c a litre more for their petrol, yet are seeing no benefit at all, as their key projects, which would have supported local jobs and growth, are stalled, cancelled, or postponed for ever?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, we are doubling the investment in regional roading. For people who live in those areas, they will see a benefit. Can I also point out that that last Government increased excise by 17c—17c—and they spent it on urban centres and roads that 4 percent of road users use.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking about investment and the soundness of investment for road users—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Start with a question word!

💬 SPEAKER: That has been my ruling in the past, and, as a result of that, the Opposition have just lost three supplementaries. The Deputy Prime Minister will start his question again, preferably in a question form.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Addressing the issue of financial investment and value for money, is it a fact that of the three toll roads in this country—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. “Addressing” is not starting a question with a question word.

💬 SPEAKER: If the member wants me to be absolute in my tightening up for all members, I’m willing to take that approach.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yesterday, twice, you pulled the Leader of the Opposition up for exactly that. Now, surely, the Deputy Prime Minister, who often touts his vast and significantly more experience than the Leader of the Opposition, should know that.

💬 SPEAKER: OK, right, I will rule that question out. I’m sure the Deputy Prime Minister will ask it again, in the proper format.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Prime Minister advise as to how the latest expenditure compares with recent roading expenditure in this country?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: When it comes to the regions, as I’ve said, it represents a significant increase. When you compare that to Simon Bridges’ legacy as a transport Minister, he reduced funding to the West Coast by $54 million, Taranaki by $74 million, Southland by $56 million to $39 million, Otago by $110 million, Northland by $125 million, Hawke’s Bay by $88 million, Gisborne by $49 million, and the Bay of Plenty by $179 million.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How does a $70 million increase in the regional improvements category nationwide or $5 million each across the New Zealand Transport Agency’s 14 regions in any way compensate for taking away $5 billion from State highway construction?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I will point out again—State highway construction benefited urban centres and took money out of the regions. And, as I’ve said, we are doubling the funding to the regions and local roads. Our focus is on access for regional New Zealanders, as well, unlike the abysmal track record of that member, who cut funding for the regions. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Come on, we’re not seals.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How will announcing petrol tax increases on Auckland motorists of 25c a litre, in just her first six months as Prime Minister, help families supporting their kids?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because if they’d elected National, they’d be facing up to 20c, based on the last advice.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How many hours will someone on the minimum wage in Auckland have to work in order to come out ahead after they’ve filled up the car for the week?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: A lot less, given we raised the minimum wage to $16.50 on 1 April. We intend to raise it by 2021 to $20, and more than 300,000 families will, on average, get $75 extra a week from this Government, because we are focused on lifting the wages of low- and middle-income earners.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What is she actually doing to help families with their costs of living, given that the Government has already made renting more expensive and made petrol more expensive, and her pre-Christmas Families Package took $1,000 a year in tax cuts away from them?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If he’s referring to the fact that we’re getting rid of letting fees, or the fact that we’ve put $5.5 billion into low- and middle-income earners’ pockets starting from July, or that we’re bringing in the winter energy payment for those who are on low fixed incomes, or the fact that we’ve increased the minimum wage, and we did all of that in 100 days—I think people know where our priorities are, and they’re not with the top 10 percent of income earners.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How does a petrol tax increase square with her Government’s promise to New Zealanders to not increase taxes this term?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Labour’s tax policy stated that alcohol, petrol, and tobacco levies will be adjusted as per normal Government practice, and it’s in writing. What we said on the trail, of course, was—amongst the scaremongering of the National Party, we had to dismiss their claims that we were bringing in new top tax rates, because it was clearly incorrect.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Isn’t this a broken promise on a core election issue—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: —only months since the election?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, and I would also point out again that the last Government, when they left office, were considering a 10 to 20 percent increase in road user charges and excise. I’d say that road users are better off with this Government because we’re spending it more wisely and we’re spending less.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I just want to make it absolutely clear—and it could have been quite a few more—that members on my right must not interject when the Leader of the Opposition or, in fact, any other member is asking a question.

Transport Infrastructure—Auckland, Funding, Local Roads, Spending on, and State Highways

4. to the Minister of Transport: Why is the Government proposing to cut the State highway improvement budget by two-thirds over the next 10 years, from a mid-point of $1.375 billion next year, to just $425 million in 2028?

Spending on new State highways will gradually be reallocated to deliver significantly greater investment in regional roads, in local roads, in the maintenance of State highways and local roads, in public transport, in road policing, in safe walking and cycling infrastructure, and in the rail network. Funding for regional and local roads and road maintenance increases by $1.2 billion over the next three years, far outweighing any reduction in State highway improvements. Instead of spending billions of dollars on a few hand-picked stretches of motorway, we are investing to improve transport right across New Zealand.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Why is he proposing to stall new State highway construction that delivers improved safety and new jobs, and boosts regional economic development?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: This Government’s not stalling anything, but we are going to spend the $5 billion of transport expenditure every year more wisely, for the good of all New Zealanders. For example, for half the cost of the National Party’s proposed solution for the East-West Link, it would be possible to run a median barrier along every single kilometre of State highway in this country.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Is Bernard Hickey wrong when he described yesterday’s announcement as “a surprise tax hike that will make provincial drivers help pay for new rail tracks in Auckland.”?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, Bernard Hickey’s quite wrong in that regard. It’s not a new tax. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, we’ve been funding the transport system since 1927 using petrol taxes. Our proposal to increase the fuel excise duty (FED) and the road-user charges (RUC) is at the lower end of what the National Government did for nine years—six increases in FED and RUC, and 17c on the litre. That party’s in no position to complain about rising fuel taxes.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Will he rule out regional fuel taxes outside of Auckland, or will they too be paying 25c a litre more for their petrol soon?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I am willing to rule out regional fuel taxes anywhere outside of Auckland in this term of Government. I will say this: Aucklanders understand why this Government is willing to allow Auckland Council to levy a regional fuel tax in Auckland, because after nine years of neglect, that city is a transport basket case. We’re losing $1.3 billion a year in lost productivity because of congestion, after a decade of drift and neglect.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Why does he expect New Zealanders to pay up to an additional 25c a litre at the petrol pump, yet get fewer new roads?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: New Zealanders are being asked to consider and give the Government feedback on between 9c and 12c per litre over the next three years. That’s the proposal that we’re consulting on. People around New Zealand will know that in every other aspect of the transport system, other than the so-called “roads of National Party significance”, they are going to be getting a better deal—local road maintenance, local roads, regional roads, State highway maintenance, public transport, road safety, and rail.

💬 Todd Muller: Will he commit to funding for the Tauranga Northern Link, which the New Zealand Transport Agency say can, and I quote, “reduce death and serious injuries by 50 percent” or will he continue with his plan to remove $5 billion from regional roading priorities like this?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, frankly, I’m surprised that that member is willing to be so critical of the former transport Minister, who for nine years did nothing about the number of people being killed on that road. After nine years, they did nothing while they poured hundreds of millions of dollars into a nearby motorway project that nobody drives on. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! Order! I’d just like the temperature to come down a little bit on both sides, please.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps, then, Mr Twyford should, simply, answer the question rather than making his street corner - type political statement.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister recall a massive meeting at the Karekare hall on that very highway, where the member for Tauranga and transport Minister didn’t turn up?

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: No. I’m going to deal with this first. I think all members know that this Minister of Transport has no responsibility for the former Minister of Transport turning up to meetings or not.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Can he confirm that the Cambridge to Piarere State Highway 1 project is one of the seven roads of national significance already under way that will be completed?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The New Zealand Transport Agency decides which transport projects proceed, after an independent analysis of their costs and benefits. The purpose of this system is to ensure that decisions like this are free from political interference and pork barrelling. Instead of scaremongering, I urge that member to lobby her council to ensure that that project gets to the top of the list of the regional land transport programme. That would be a good use of her time, instead of scaremongering.

💬 Hon James Shaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is congestion in Auckland better or worse now than when the roads of national significance programme was initiated?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: On almost every count, congestion in Auckland is worse. It’s been getting worse year on year for the last five years, and a report done by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, commissioned last year, shows that the city is losing $1.3 billion every year in lost productivity because of congestion, after nine years of drift and neglect.

💬 Andrew Falloon: Will extending State Highway 1 between Ashburton and Christchurch to four lanes proceed under the funding parameters contained in the draft Government policy statement (GPS) released yesterday?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: My recommendation to that member is that he lobbies his regional council to ensure that that project gets to the top of the list of project rankings, because under this Government we don’t engage in the kind of—

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

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member Phil Twyford should know that I shouldn’t have to get to my feet to sit him down when there is a point of order.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: We’re operating under a heavy penalty that you put on us today for various behaviours that you consider to be unacceptable, but that question was not even slightly answered. We’ve sat quietly listening to the Minister taking pretty hard shots at the previous Government, none of which can be sustained, quite frankly, but we can’t get the chance to debate that, and here he has a simple, straightforward question. It’s his policy statement that was released yesterday as Minister, on behalf of the Government, and he’s saying that the member should go and lobby his local roading authority. It’s completely—

💬 SPEAKER: Well—[Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. No, I’m not interested in hearing from the member. I am never going to be responsible for the quality of the answers or the content of the answers, as long as the member is addressing the question, and I rule that he was—maybe overenthusiastically, and maybe a bit indirectly, but he was certainly addressing the question.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was: is the Christchurch to Ashburton four-laning going ahead inside the parameters of the GPS announced yesterday? The Minister said his advice to the member would be to go and lobby his local roading committee. That’s not an answer.

💬 SPEAKER: Again, we’re going to get into a debate on the quality of an answer, but if the Minister’s saying that whether or not it’s in the parameters depends on the priority it’s given by the local regional council, well, that is an answer.

💬 Hon James Shaw: Is the $1.3 billion in lost productivity that the Minister refers to better or worse today than when the roads of national significance programme was initiated?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The level of productivity loss in Auckland because of congestion now is far worse than it was nine years ago. Just the other week, I met a trucking contractor in Kūmeu, in the Helensville electorate. He told me that he can only do two deliveries of concrete across Auckland per day—five years ago he was able to do four deliveries across the city—because the congestion is far worse. The cost of delivering concrete is twice as expensive now for that contractor.

Regional Economic Development—Business Investment and Investment in Regional Roading

5. to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he think there will be a greater or lesser level of investment in New Zealand’s regions in the next few years when he takes into account investment by the Provincial Growth Fund, other Government investments such as road transport funding, and private sector investment, both domestic and foreign?

on behalf of the Minister for Regional Economic Development: There will be a much greater level of investment in the regions.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why does he think an increase to the regional roading improvements funding class of around $35 million a year more than National proposed makes up for a $5 billion withdrawal of investment from the State highway network, the lifeblood of the regions?

The member just admitted that it was double what they were giving it, for a start, and then, if you look at the level of added investment arising from the regional fund and put in by private business, it’ll be much better than it is right now.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think provincial drivers paying higher petrol taxes, in part to fund trams in Auckland, will regard him as the region’s champion?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! No responsibility. Further question? [Interruption]

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Isn’t it true that when it comes to defending the regions from big business—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! No, sorry. I am going to interrupt. I’m sure that the Hon Gerry Brownlee is not really inviting me to take the ultimate sanction with him, but his repeated interjections have caused his party now the loss of four supplementary questions. My suggestion is that he listen to his colleague’s question, and, being an experienced member who’s had experience in Opposition before—and I say, from being on the receiving end, has done it very well—gives some advice to his colleagues about how to ask questions that are in order. A starting point is that the question has to address something for which the Minister has parliamentary responsibility.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would simply point out that the Hon Shane Jones has repeatedly stood up in question time and day after day described himself as the provincial champion. To simply ask him: “Does he think that still stands?” seems perfectly in line with all the questioning that has been allowed in the House so far.

💬 SPEAKER: No. There’s a difference between a question and an answer, and the member is aware of that. Is there a further supplementary question?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the issue we have is—a very serious point of order—that you are taking a finely tuned, very minute approach to questions, and you’re effectively saying in relation to the answers that you don’t have responsibility for them. That makes it incredibly difficult and, frankly, unequal for the Opposition.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I suggest the member go back and listen to the tape.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Isn’t it true that when it comes to defending the regions from big business, he is a tiger, but when it comes to defending the regions from his own Government, he’s a pussycat?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m assuming that we’re going to have a repeat of the right honourable gentleman asking leave to answer an out-of-order question. If it is—[Interruption]. No, no; I’m ruling it out of order.

Can I seek the House’s indulgence and leave to answer that question?

💬 SPEAKER: Leave has been requested to answer an out-of-order question. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much. Can I just say, here are the facts: in the next three years while State highway funding reduces by $500 million or 11 percent, funding for regional or local roads improvements and maintenance increases by $1.2 billion or 26 percent, far outweighing—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m of course listening very carefully to the answer being given on Mr Jones’ behalf by the Deputy Prime Minister, but it might help him if the question—although it be out of order—was asked again, because that answer bears no resemblance to anything that could be considered addressing the question.

💬 SPEAKER: No, the question’s not going to be asked again. We’re not going to compound it. But one of the things that—[Interruption] No—can the member let me finish? One of the things that members have to learn is that when things are so badly out of order, there will be quite liberal interpretations of the answer and a bit of time given to the member to actually get to an answer. But I suggest that he could get to it pretty soon.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just ask you, Mr Speaker—we’ve had “tiger”, “pussycat”, and I think the word you ruled out for me was “gutting”. I think these are words commonly used—there is commonly colour in questions; there has been for decades in Parliament. I just do want to understand, so we do get it right, what this position that you’re staking out today is so we can understand.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m going to make it very clear to the member that all of those expressions are quite acceptable in debate and have been in the Parliament for a long time—[Interruption] Order! I will stand up, just to make absolutely clear the seriousness with which I’m taking this. Debate is different from questions. During debate, there are lots of words and lots of approaches, and irony is allowed. During questions, they are not. The tightest part of the parliamentary rule book about what members are allowed to say is in questions. Probably the next is in answers, and then debate is quite a lot broader. That’s always been the case. Therefore, I do ask, especially front-bench members on both sides, and I will say that the Deputy Prime Minister, as well as Mr Goldsmith, have been developing—in the Deputy Prime Minister’s case, over 30 years—a habit of being out of order in their questions, and I am beginning to believe that they know they do. If they are, that is very disorderly and will have serious consequences.

Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Right—finishing the answer.

For the benefit of the National Party David Attenborough: a tiger.

Transport Infrastructure—Draft Policy Statement on Land Transport and Fuel Excise Duty

6. to the Minister of Transport: Why does the Government’s draft policy statement on land transport contain increases in investment in safety and local and regional roads?

So far this year, more than 100 people have died on our roads. The new draft Government policy statement rebalances spending away from massive expenditure on a few low-value, hand-picked expressways, and towards reducing the increasing number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. Regional and local roads are in desperate need of increased spending, after years of neglect and vast amounts of money being spent on expressways.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Will fuel excise duty be increased?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Rebalancing the Government policy statement on land transport towards safety and value for money means we will no longer need the 20c-a-litre fuel excise duty increase considered by the previous Government—

💬 Hon Members: And rejected.

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —considered and left open under active consideration—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. It’s a very simple question, and the member will address it directly. I mean, I can’t insist on yes or no, but that was a yes or no question.

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Fuel excise duty will be increased, because spending more money on making our roads safer and investing in local and regional roads where most people drive and where most people die on the roads is a sensible and prudent approach to saving lives.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: What reaction has there been to the draft policy statement?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: One highly respected business editor today praised the Government’s transformative land transport package and its long-overdue focus on safety. She said that through the package, the Government is in the driver’s seat when it comes to delivering on its election promises. Another commentator said, and I quote, “One big change is that the Land Transport Fund will now cover spending across all land transport modes [meaning] the new … strategy [can] fully integrate planning for roads and rail, public transport … existing bus and rail services and the proposed new [urban] rapid transit network.”

Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media, Minister—Contact with the Chair of Radio New Zealand and Meeting with Carol Hirschfeld

7. to the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Yes, in the context they were made and taken.

💬 Melissa Lee: When she was first made aware, on 1 March, of Radio New Zealand (RNZ) inadvertently misleading the parliamentary select committee, why didn’t she notify the clerk or the chair of the select committee?

💬 Hon CLARE CURRAN: My office rang Radio New Zealand to advise of the discrepancy. I stand by the fact that that was the appropriate action at the time.

💬 Melissa Lee: If she was so concerned about ensuring the select committee record was corrected regarding her meeting with Carol Hirschfeld, why did she wait more than three weeks to tell the RNZ chairman, Richard Griffin, to correct the record?

💬 Hon CLARE CURRAN: My office rang Radio New Zealand twice during that time; so there wasn’t a gap of three weeks.

💬 Melissa Lee: At the Astoria meeting in December, was she offered any documents or did she receive any documents from Carol Hirschfeld?

💬 Hon CLARE CURRAN: No.

Health Services—Conflicts of Interest and National Oracle Solution

8. to the Minister of Health: What steps has he taken to ensure Deloitte, as independent reviewer of the $90 million National Oracle Solution Programme, is independent of the companies under review?

As I indicated to the member yesterday, I am advised that the potential, possible, and actual conflicts of interest were considered as part of the consultancy services order. Previous work done by Deloitte on the National Oracle Solution programme was listed in the conflict of interest declaration within the consultancy services order. This includes services provided by Deloitte subsidiary Asparona. I’ve been assured that no individual who had anything to do with Asparona’s involvement in the National Oracle Solution project has any involvement in the Deloitte review.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Will he release Deloitte’s conflict of interest declaration referred to in oral question No. 9 yesterday; and if not, why not?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’ll take advice on whether that’s the normal course of action. The ministry advises me that, at all points through the process, the ministry and Deloitte fully complied with the guidelines of the all-of-Government procurement processes and conflict management procedures, which are the same processes used by the previous Government.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: When he said in oral question No. 9 yesterday, “The conflicts of interest, perceived or actual, were declared before the review was commenced.”, does he believe a conflict of interest disappears because it has been declared?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No. The important thing with any conflict of interest is that it’s managed appropriately.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: When he said in oral question No. 9 yesterday, “Yes” to the question of whether Deloitte or Deloitte-related entities had received funding for the $90 million programme, will he then release how much Deloitte have received over the life of the programme; and if not, why not?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I would expect that that would be part of the normal annual review process. That’s where the Opposition gets to scrutinise the spending of the Government. This followed a normal process in terms of using the all-of-Government panel that that previous Government used. This one is no different.

Schools—Tomorrow’s Schools Review

9. to the Minister of Education: What progress has been made in setting up a review of the Tomorrow’s Schools model?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The terms of reference have been released, and this morning I announced the membership of the Tomorrow’s Schools review independent task force that will be charged with leading the biggest review of the way our schools are governed, managed, and administered in 30 years. The task force will be chaired by Bali Haque and will include Dr Cathy Wylie, Mere Berryman, Professor John O’Neill, and Barbara Ala’alatoa, a very distinguished group of people who have a wide variety of views on how our schools should be administered.

💬 Jamie Strange: How will he ensure that the expertise of the teaching profession and others within the school sector is incorporated into the review?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’ve already discovered, as Minister of Education, that when it comes to schooling, almost everybody in the country has a view on how it should be done, and it’s important that everybody with that view has the opportunity to contribute to this review process. So I’ve set up, in addition to the task force, a cross-sector advisory group that will sit alongside the task force to ensure that all of those groups who represent and advocate for different people and different players in the education field have the opportunity to participate. That group will include, for example, school trustees, unions, principals, teachers, and many, many others with a view on education.

Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Effect

Does he stand by his statement that his Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill does not allow party members to remove members of Parliament, when section 55A states that the seat of a member of Parliament becomes vacant when the party leader delivers the appropriate written notice to the Speaker?

💬 Hon Andrew Little: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I may have misheard the asking of the question, but the question as lodged referred to the bill not allowing “party leaders”, as opposed to “party members”, but the member will have to clarify whether or not he did ask the correct question.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I’m happy to repeat the question.

10. to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement that his Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill does not allow party leaders to remove members of Parliament, when section 55A states that the seat of a member of Parliament becomes vacant when the party leader delivers the appropriate written notice to the Speaker?

Yes. The member overlooks the fact that the leader’s notice under section 55A must also comply with section 55C, which states that it must be accompanied by a statement that in turn complies with section 55D. Section 55D requires the statement outline that certain conditions have been met when the notice is delivered to the Speaker, and, most importantly, that two-thirds of the parliamentary members of that party agree with the notice being served. Furthermore, section 55D requires that any requirements of the rules of the particular political party must also have been complied with, and so it is not the decision of the leader alone, as the member suggests.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister claim that a two-thirds caucus vote is a substantive check on a leader’s power to dismiss an MP, when, in practice, any such caucus votes effectively amount to a confidence vote in the leader, and in any of the practical cases in recent history, whether it be Jim Anderton, Marilyn Waring, Derek Quigley, Tariana Turia, the leaders would easily have secured those numbers?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I can’t account for the conduct that happens inside the National Party caucus except to say that it is not always the leader’s recommendation about what happens to a recalcitrant member.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is his bill consistent and compatible with the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes, the bill has been vetted for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and, as I understand it, is fully compliant with the Parliamentary Privilege Act.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was whether it was consistent with the Parliamentary Privilege Act—

💬 SPEAKER: Well, if the member listened to the end of the answer, he would have heard the answer. Is there a further supplementary?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister name one independent constitutional law expert who agrees with the Government’s position that the bill complies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, when 21 experts from five universities, including eight professors, say it breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have seen a number of submissions about the bill and I am stunned at the number of times professors, legal experts, constitutional experts have actually got their analysis about the bill wrong, because like that member—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —they continue to refer to a bill that allows the leader to give a notice to the Speaker, effectively dismissing a member, and that is not what the bill provides for.

Whānau Ora—Review

11. to the Minister for Whānau Ora: Does he agree with his reported comments to Māori Television on 31 October last year that he expected the review process of Whānau Ora to begin within the first 100 days of Government?

Yes.

💬 Jo Hayes: When will he announce the terms of reference and the reviewers for his proposed review—more than 150 days after he first became the Whānau Ora Minister?

💬 Hon PEENI HENARE: For the benefit of the member, she and the House can expect an announcement imminently. It has gone through a thorough and robust process to make sure that the administration of the review is proper before the review starts proper, and they can expect an announcement very soon.

💬 Jo Hayes: How much longer will Whānau Ora service providers commissioning agencies have to wait for security around their futures in the Whānau Ora space?

💬 Hon PEENI HENARE: Their security has never been in question. We’re talking about the review here, and the review will take place very shortly.

💬 Jo Hayes: Will he commit to continuing to fund Whānau Ora at its current level?

💬 Hon PEENI HENARE: Nothing’s happening with the funding for Whānau Ora. In fact, the review, I hope, will actually increase it, but let’s have the review first.

Product Recall—Takata Alpha-type Air Bags

12. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What is he doing to ensure the safety of New Zealand consumers?

Today, I announced the compulsory recall of more than 50,000 vehicles installed with Takata Alpha-type air bags, in order to protect New Zealand drivers and passengers from these unsafe air bags. A voluntary recall has been in place since 2013, but I am not satisfied with the progress to date. Alpha-type air bags pose a significant risk of misfiring in an accident and sending shrapnel fragments towards vehicle occupants. Although no deaths have occurred in New Zealand, there have been 23 deaths globally as a consequence of these faulty air bags. The Government will not take this risk by continuing the approach of the previous Government, which was to do nothing. The safety of our passengers and drivers is paramount, and New Zealanders can be assured that this Government is committed to ensuring that these unsafe air bags are removed and replaced as quickly as possible.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: How will the compulsory recall provide certainty for the motor vehicle industry and consumers?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The compulsory recall has been welcomed by the motor vehicle industry. I would like to acknowledge the efforts of new vehicle sellers to replace the faulty air bags while the recall was voluntary, as replacement of air bags was undertaken at their cost. Making the recall compulsory will provide guidance to suppliers of both new and used vehicles, so that replacement air bags can be sourced and installed as quickly as possible. Consumers can rest assured that if their vehicle is affected, they can seek replacement air bags at no cost to them. I encourage vehicle owners to find out more information and to check the status of their air bags at the website www.recalls.govt.nz. In order to ensure progress is made in a timely manner under this recall, I have set up a monitoring group to provide monthly reporting on the progress of the recall.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: Why is the Minister taking action now, given reports of issues with faulty air bags date back to 2013?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Upon first—

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, very carefully.

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: OK. Upon first learning of the seriousness of the issue, the Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter and I commissioned an urgent report into the matter. Following a compulsory recall in Australia and after advice and discussions with agencies and the sector, the compulsory recall was decided as the most appropriate action. This Government inherited a situation where 50,000 vehicles being used every day by New Zealanders were exposed to a significant safety risk. This Government will not allow this issue to go unaddressed and risk the safety of New Zealanders.