Oral Questions

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

Yes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: From 1 July will it be $10 cheaper for New Zealanders to visit their GP?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I can confirm that we will be making GP visits cheaper over the course of our term, particularly given that under—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —that under the last Government—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —that under the last Government GP costs increased by 44—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: No. I’m going to interrupt. I’m going to give the Prime Minister a chance to answer that in silence, after David Bennett has apologised for interjecting straight after I called for order.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: I do want to remind members that to interject after a call for order is in itself disorderly and will be treated as such.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I said, the reason that we’re addressing the cost of GP visits is because they went up under the last Government by 44 percent.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: When will there be a $10 decrease in the cost of visiting GPs for New Zealand families?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: You’ll, of course, have to wait for our announcements on Budget day to see what we’re doing to make sure that primary healthcare is more accessible than it was under that Government. What I can guarantee is that New Zealanders will be better off not only for their doctors visits under this Government but in general with the health system, which was run down by National.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Sorry to interrupt the flow of questions, but during that last answer the Hon Nick Smith made a remark that is unparliamentary, and I ask you to ask him to withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: Did the Hon Dr Nick Smith make an unparliamentary comment?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I certainly referred to the broken promise of the Labour Party.

💬 SPEAKER: And I am seeking from the Hon Dr Nick Smith—and I will listen to the tapes, as I do in these cases—an assurance that he did not make an unparliamentary remark.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I’m happy to withdraw and apologise so the House can get on with its business.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. He will stand, withdraw, and apologise for making an unparliamentary comment and add nothing to it.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is one of the reasons for the doubt about the $10 reduction because the Government has chosen to prioritise a whole host of other things, including $2.8 billion in students’ free fees that don’t deliver any more students?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. What we have had to do is make sure that we can address the fact that district health boards (DHBs) have had a sixfold increase in their deficit from September to date—over $190 million deficit. We’ve got hospitals that are not fit for purpose, and we’ve got health workers working in unsafe environments. This is a Government that has a plan to address all of it, and we’re committed to doing that over three years.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Can the Prime Minister confirm that in the last couple of months Government coffers are half a billion up, and why doesn’t she use that to do the $10 cheaper fees reduction?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I just outlined, we’ve had a sixfold increase in the DHBs’ deficit. Creative accounting from the National Party has demonstrated that while things were bad when we came in, we didn’t realise they would be as bad as what we have found. Middlemore was just the tip of the iceberg.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Will serious crime, which under present law would warrant a prison sentence, reduce if bail laws were to be loosened?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What we’re trying to address at the moment is the last Government’s solution to what was a static crime rate—a static crime rate—which was to build prisons every three to five years. No one in New Zealand thinks that’s a good answer.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she believe substantial irrigation can be undertaken in an environmentally sustainable manner?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If they’re environmentally sustainable and stand on their own commercial two feet, then they can find their own way to be implemented.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Why does her Government consider public-private partnership - type funding acceptable for some Crown investments but not all of them?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: For the ones that we have ruled out, there have been blatant examples of failure. Do I need to mention Serco and Mt Eden?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister tell us how much extra she needed to find for the four-lane highway promised between Pūhoi and Whangarei by the previous Government?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I could speak to many such examples, but, obviously, that last Government was not interested in funding the investment required for transport, because the Leader of the Opposition’s first significant speech was all about what he wouldn’t do and not what he would do to solve New Zealand’s problems.

💬 David Seymour: Why is the Government honouring existing irrigation contracts?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because it was in the agreement and they’re contracts.

💬 David Seymour: Why is that different with partnership schools?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We’ve given partnership schools an option, and the majority of them look to be taking it up.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is this her kind of Government that breaks promises to New Zealand families in relation to doctors’ fees?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is yet to see what we’re actually doing for doctors’ fees yet, and will see what we’ve got planned on 17 May. But I can also add that New Zealanders already know, based on our mini-Budget, that 380,000 families will be $75 a week better off from 1 July. That’s more than they saw from that Government in their entire nine years combined.

Question No. 12 to Minister

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m raising this now because the point I want to make relates to question No. 12, which today you were considering may not be suitable for consideration in the House because it mentions a figure that had—according to the assessment of those who advise you—been calculated in a way that didn’t give it a degree of accuracy. I’d ask you to consider all of the answers the Prime Minister gave today and to ask the question whether or not those met the same test that you are applying to us.

I can’t tell whether the member is deliberately having me on, or what the story is. The member knows that when a figure is provided as part of a question, there has to be authentication. We worked through authentication to a point where there is a figure which I found acceptable—and I make it clear that that was my decision—and the member’s been here long enough to know the difference between a question and an answer.

Budget 2018—Priorities

2. to the Minister of Finance: What are the Government’s priorities for Budget 2018?

When we announce the Budget on 17 May, New Zealanders will see that we have a different set of priorities to the previous Government. Budget 2018 will focus on rebuilding critical public services and futureproofing the New Zealand economy. This starts with long-overdue boosts to health, education, housing, and policies that make our communities safer. The Budget represents a major step towards restoring public services—[Chamber lights flicker]—like lights in Parliament—to the standard that New Zealanders expect and deserve. We are also making the investments necessary to ensure that our economy is fit for purpose for the 21st century—an economy that delivers a better quality of life for New Zealanders in the years and decades ahead.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: Why is it important to focus on these priorities?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s important to focus on these priorities because they are the priorities of New Zealanders—critical public services that allow them to lead safe, healthy, and fulfilling lives—and we only need to look at recent evidence to see why. Radio New Zealand reported yesterday that many emergency department staff have been stretched beyond their limits by unprecedented demand. Radio New Zealand have also reported early childhood centres are struggling to hire qualified staff. Newshub is reporting parents are being urged to be vigilant as winter approaches—

💬 SPEAKER: OK, OK.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —because of reports showing that children have been hospitalised with asthma at nearly double the rate since 2002. There are huge challenges left behind by the previous Government, but we have a plan to deal with them.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What choices has the Government made in investing in these priorities?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Oh, we’re taking the responsible approach of balancing the investment needed in our critical public services with our Budget responsibility rules. That means we will deliver a surplus in Budget 2018 and we will reduce net core Crown debt to 20 percent of GDP within five years of taking office. We have the resources to make the critical investments necessary to rebuild our services because we do have a slower debt repayment track than the last Government, we are increasing revenue, and we have reprioritised unfocused and poorly targeted expenditure from the previous Government. It will take more than one Budget to undo nine years of neglect, but we have the plan to do that.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Where’s Amy?

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How many extra students have enrolled this year—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Sorry, I’m just going to ask who made that interjection.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: Thank you.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How many extra students have enrolled this year in response to the $2.8 billion tertiary education policy, and why does that spending take priority over keeping an election promise to reduce the cost of GP visits this year?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t have the information on the exact numbers here, but what I do know is of the 80,000 people who would be eligible to benefit from that, 50,000 of them will be in trade training, workplace training, and apprenticeships—an area that that party neglected consistently during their time in office.

Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration—Consultation and Impact

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

Yes and yes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept there was no formal consultation, including no process for the submission of views, on the Government’s recent oil and gas announcement?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: There was engagement with those who work in the sector, and there certainly could not have been any question over our intent, given how public we were over the fact that there is an end point to fossil fuels in New Zealand and that we needed to transition. It was a point I made quite clear in my campaign speech, in fact.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she then accept that there was no cost-benefit analysis prior to the same oil and gas decision?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, that would require an ungettable knowledge of both what is likely to be tendered—and we know from the last time there was a block offer there was one successful bid—and then it would also require knowledge of the likelihood of that block offer coming on stream. It is a very difficult area to make predictions over, but what we do know is the cost to New Zealand and the environment of not making a transition over a 30-year period.

💬 SPEAKER: Before I call the next supplementary, I just want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that with his position, and when he is asking supplementaries himself, there is a requirement to let the Prime Minister be heard. His constant interjection makes me think that he doesn’t actually want to continue asking supplementaries.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: I hope the member’s not going to argue with me, because if she is she will lose some supplementaries.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I just wanted to make a point, Mr Speaker, and ask your—

💬 SPEAKER: If it relates to that ruling that I’ve just made—

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Well, you’re often talking to us about there being order in this House, and sometimes it is the length of answers that do sometimes lead to some of that disorder, as you know.

💬 SPEAKER: I think that was really marginal. Does the Leader of the Opposition have a further supplementary?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. Is it true that Government oil and gas officials only learnt of the decision the day before it was announced, and that the same is true for oil and gas sector heads, who learnt that evening before the announcement?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: When it comes to the officials, I can say no.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Was the announcement on oil and gas, without formal consultation and cost-benefit analysis, rushed through because of the Prime Minister’s trip to Europe the day after the announcement was made, and her desire to make an impression there on the student leaders and the world’s leaders?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely not. The urgency was the fact that the Minister of Energy and Resources had a requirement to make a decision around the 2018 block offer. She followed the requirements of the Crown Minerals Act, which the member will be familiar with, in order to make that decision. And, secondly, the urgency is called climate change. It’s already here, and you should visit Kiribati and Tuvalu to see the urgency of it.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister read of any other reports of political leaders suggesting that we’re going to have to come to grips with this matter, belatedly so, just over the last weekend?

💬 SPEAKER: I want to make it very clear that if the Prime Minister’s going to answer that question, it is to be an official report.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Do you consider media reports official?

💬 SPEAKER: No.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does the Prime Minister accept this decision will do absolutely nothing to lower domestic or international consumption of hydrocarbons, and, in fact, may see emissions rise?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I accept reports, like the likes of Westpac, that says that there are in fact benefits to be had to New Zealand of making an early transition decision. This decision will not affect the industry today or tomorrow, but it will in 30 years’ time. The reason it won’t is because we are honouring every one of those 50-plus permits that are already out there, but we will not pretend that we do not have urgency over this issue, unlike the Opposition, who seems to have absolutely no plan at all.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Has she seen any official estimates on what emissions reductions there’ll be from her decision.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The plan here is to ensure that we are transitioning away from fossil fuels. It seems to be an issue that the member has not quite got his head around—that even if we use every single fossil fuel currently available, we still do not meet our climate targets. But, again, I would expect that shallow analysis from someone who has no plans.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to consider a ruling based around how you treat the asking of questions in Parliament, which you’ve been very, very clear about in terms of the silence that requires, versus the noise that we’ve just witnessed over two questions to the Prime Minister that began seconds after she started answering. Now, I know there can’t be complete silence, and I’m not asking for that, but it does create quite a large imbalance in terms of the way the questions and answers are treated.

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

💬 SPEAKER: Before that happens, the person who interjected during the point of order will stand, withdraw, and apologise. There was a member in that quarter who interjected loudly at the beginning of Mr Robertson’s point of order. Who was it?

💬 Todd Muller: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point raised by Mr Robertson, it would help if the answerer of a question answered the question rather than going into some really quite uninteresting political statement, saying that effectively there was no analysis, and that it was just an idea that we had. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: I’m on my feet, Mr Robertson. You will now stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: Can I make it clear, I was getting concerned with the noise levels but I am aware that for people outside the House, the way that the microphones work, they have no trouble hearing. I am also aware of the fact that people within the gallery are generally not impressed with the sort of behaviour that we were seeing from my left, earlier on. I made the judgment that as I could hear the answer, I would let it run.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How on earth can the Prime Minister criticise so-called shallow analysis from the Opposition when her Government asked for precisely no official advice on emissions, on costs of living—actually on anything?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Firstly, I refute that. Secondly, as we’ve repeatedly said, there are over 50 permits currently in operation that will continue. The size of the North Island currently has permits over it. Oil and gas exploration will continue for at least 30 years in New Zealand. What we’ve established is that consumers will not have low-cost options and alternatives to fossil fuels until we start taking responsibility and indicating that we have to transition. That’s the bold decision this Government made. Now I’m asking the Opposition: show us your plan. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Before I take supplementaries off the National Party for the interjections, which I won’t do now because I was holding the Leader of the Opposition up, Mr Simpson and Mr Bennett will not interject for the balance of this question time. Is that understood? I just want a slight nod. Thank you.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: In light of this oil and gas decision, does the Government have similar plans regarding stopping coal exploration production?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: This was something that related to oil and gas exploration. We’ve said that we will not continue mining on conservation land, and when it comes to coal we’ve only spoken around coal-generated energy use. So the answer, outside of that, is no.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How can that be a good answer, given her concern on climate change and given that coal has doubled the emissions of gas, and climate Minister James Shaw has signed an international pact to phase out coal for power generation by 2030?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I just acknowledged the fact that we’d signed up to that pact. But the point is that, actually, the industry and users of coal have already faced up to the fact. That’s why Fonterra, for instance, and other major industry players are already transitioning away from it. That’s why my message to the Opposition is: catch up.

Auckland Transport Alignment Project—Funding Gap

4. to the Minister of Transport: What advice did he receive about the funding gap in the Auckland Transport Alignment Project prior to the new version he announced last week with Mayor Phil Goff?

Officials informed me that the August 2017 Auckland Transport Alignment Project was short $9.7 billion to deliver on the promises that had been made. This is larger than the $5.9 billion shortfall that the previous transport Minister admitted to when he published the Auckland Transport Alignment Project. Auckland needs these new projects, and projects cost money. Without action, the $9.7 billion hole that I inherited would have meant that vital projects such as Mill Road and Penlink would not have been built.

💬 Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How did he close the funding gap in the Auckland Transport Alignment Project announcement he made with Mayor Goff?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We made hard choices, we prioritised projects, we didn’t put in anything that wasn’t funded, and we raised more revenue so that we can make a record amount of investment. The regional fuel tax means that without taking more than its fair share of the national transport budget, Auckland will get $4.3 billion more of investment for projects like Mill Road and Penlink. Anyone who opposes the regional fuel tax needs to explain what $4.3 billion of projects they would cut.

💬 Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What did closing the funding gap allow the Government and council to deliver?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Closing the $9.7 billion funding gap that we inherited allowed us to give Aucklanders confidence and certainty with a fully funded 10-year $28 billion programme of transport investments that will unlock the city’s growth and prosperity after years of neglect. At long last, we can start to get ahead of the growth.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Rest assured, I’m not having you on, and we are still perturbed about the interpretation you put on a number that is used in question 12—notwithstanding that you’ve said you agreed with that number. In this question, there was, in a primary question, an assertion that there was a funding gap. What was the verification provided to the Clerk’s office to establish a non-specified funding gap?

💬 SPEAKER: A document was provided to the Clerk’s office and accepted, showing a set of assumptions which led to me accepting the question on the basis that there was a funding gap.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: Further point of order—the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, no, it’s the same one, because we need clarification from you so we don’t make the same mistake in lodging questions in the future. So if a verification was there that was able to establish a funding gap, and therefore the term “funding gap” could be used, does that mean that if we are able to establish that there are deficiencies in some of the Government’s numbers, we can use equally expressive terms in primary questions?

💬 SPEAKER: It’s something that I’ll consider carefully on a case by case basis.

Health Services—Doctors’ Fees

5. to the Minister of Health: Is it his intention to reduce GP fees for all New Zealanders by $10 per visit by 1 July 2018?

Last year, more than half a million New Zealanders couldn’t afford to visit the GP to get the care they needed. I’m not about to announce Budget details today, but what I can say is that the Government is committed to increasing the number of people that can afford to visit the doctor in the upcoming Budget.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Largely thanks to the curtailment of the question, it was very specific—it specified a reduction and a date—and I don’t think the question was addressed.

💬 SPEAKER: And the question was addressed.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he stand by his comments that Labour having to prioritise coalition commitments with the New Zealand First and Green parties is the reason the policy cannot be implemented from 1 July?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Coalition priorities will be delivered, and I’m not going to comment further on what will be announced on Budget day.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why, then, did he answer an oral question seeking assurance on Labour’s GP fees policy on 16 November, nearly a month after coalition agreements were signed, “That member refers to specific aspects of our policy as announced, and we intend to deliver on it.”?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We do intend to deliver more affordable care at the level of GP visits. Under the last Government, GP visits went up 44 percent and there was underfunding in the health sector. We are determined to make access to primary care more affordable.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: When he told Morning Report, yesterday, that the Government “needed to prioritise the things that had been promised.”, was he telling New Zealanders the Government saw free tertiary fees for rich families and winter heating payments for retired millionaires as a higher priority than reducing the financial burden of GP visits on low-income households?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, then, in that case, isn’t the Minister really telling New Zealanders that despite the strong and improving economy the Government inherited, he overpromised, can’t count, and therefore can’t deliver on the pledges he made in Opposition.

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No.

Transport, Minister—Regional Fuel Tax Increase

6. to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements and actions on fuel taxes?

Yes, when described and reported accurately.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Will he rule out any increase to the rate of regional fuel taxes beyond 10c a litre, or will he be supporting Phil Goff’s call for more when he said this morning that the regional fuel tax was “not as good as he wants.”?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The law as contained in the legislation that’s currently before the Parliament allows only for a 10c a litre increase.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Does he stand by that answer, given that in the regional fuel tax legislation is a power for the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to increase the rate of regional fuel taxes beyond 10c a litre?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The member’s statement is correct, but this Government has no plans to increase the rate of the fuel tax.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: If this Government has no plans to increase the rate of regional fuel tax past 10c a litre, why has he put a piece of legislation to the House that grants a power to increase the rate of regional fuel taxes?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because the way the National Party is chopping and changing its policies at the moment, it may well be that a future National Government—in, say, 20 years’ time—may want to increase the rate.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: If the Government has no plans to increase the rate of regional fuel tax past 10c a litre, will he agree to have that section of the bill removed?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, I certainly won’t.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, with respect to fuel tax, has he heard of the user-pays principle so often touted by a certain political party?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I have heard of the user-pays principle so often touted by the members on the other side of the House. I also would point out that the former National Government increased the fuel tax—the fuel excise—by six times in nine years to a total of 17c a litre.

Health Services—Budget 2018 Funding

7. to the Minister of Health: How will Budget 2018 help DHBs to respond better to their capital needs?

Treasury advice to me shows that there is approximately $14 billion worth of capital investment needed in health over the next 10 years. Spending on health capital will be a priority for Budget 2018 and will be the first step in addressing nine years of neglect and underfunding of health by the previous Government.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: So why is this capital investment needed?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Capital investment is required because funding has been inadequate to date. The last Budget only set aside $37.5 million for new capital spending per year, and spread over four years it represents only 1 percent of the investment required over the next 10 years.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: So how will this investment in health benefit patients?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Patients who turn up for treatment at health facilities shouldn’t have to worry about the health of the facilities they are treated in. New Zealanders can be assured that providing a world-class public health service is a top priority for our Government. Budget announcements will be made in due course, but what I can tell the House is that we will begin, in this Budget, to turn around nine years of neglect and underinvestment in health by the previous National Government.

Regional Economic Development, Minister—Statements

8. to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Yes.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Who are the “phantom bureaucrats” he was referring to in this Radio New Zealand interview on 26 April?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: The poor souls that were politicised by the last regime.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will he allow his public officials to properly and rigorously analyse the applications for the provincial growth fund?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: The process for any allocation out of the provincial fund of capital into the provinces will be adhered to, and I refer the member to the Cabinet paper, and I’ve got every confidence the level of responsiveness amongst the bureaucracy has increased in the last five days.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Then why is he publicly criticising his officials when they are just doing their job?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: The writ of being the provincial champion requires from time to time to isolate the importance of pace, the necessary qualities of responsiveness, and to ensure that the State sector is not dogged by the failures of the last nine years but is into a new MMP environment.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why does he believe he should be able to hand out $1 billion a year with minimal restraint?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Such a narrow and negative construction put upon that question. There is no hint whatsoever that Ministers Robertson, Twyford, Parker, or myself are doing as he alleges. We are adhering to the tenets in the Cabinet paper, and I accept there are some challenges, given the last regime, I recall, were willing to spend $11 million. We’re up for $1 billion.

Energy and Resources, Minister—Statements on Offshore Exploration

9. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by all of her statements and actions regarding the Government’s decision to ban further offshore oil and gas exploration?

on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources: Yes, and in particular I stand by my statement: “I don’t want to see an abrupt transition that leaves industries stagnant, communities without a future and individuals without hope. What I want to see is a clear, transparent and well managed pathway to a new economy.” That is what this Government is doing.

💬 Jonathan Young: When you were asked on Q+A “Did you—

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Jonathan Young: Sorry. When the Minister was asked on Q+A “Did she talk to them”—referring to Methanex“—beforehand?”, and she said, “Yes, and we talked to the industry.”—so when was her actual dialogue with Methanex about no more offshore block offers?

I have spoken to the industry and individual members of the industry, including Methanex, on multiple occasions between November last year and the end of March this year, and spoke to Methanex specifically before the announcement was made on Thursday, 12 April.

💬 Jonathan Young: When she was asked on Q+A whether Methanex knew that this was coming and she replied “Absolutely … They were at the petroleum conference when I went and gave a speech.”, what part of her most direct comment on block offers that “the Government is actively considering this issue and we’ll have an announcement in the coming weeks” would enable them to absolutely know there will be no more offshore block offers?

I spoke extensively in my speech at the oil and gas industry conference, including announcing that there would be no announcement on Block Offer 2018 and giving an extensive treatise on the Government proposed transition as a response to not announcing the 2018 block offer.

💬 Jonathan Young: What is her response to Methanex’s comment that they were disappointed over the Government’s decision to end offshore block offers and the lack of consultation with industry that has gone into making this decision?

The announcement that the Government made on Thursday, 12 April was a significant announcement and there is no question that many of those in the industry felt disappointed because they were going to have to, and are going to have to, think about how they transition their industry over the next 30, 40, or 50 years, which will be the duration of ongoing exploration under the existing permits. But what we are not going to do is take the stance that the leader of his party takes on environmental matters and follow the St Augustine principle of “Lord, make me chaste, but not quite right now.”

💬 Jonathan Young: What does the Minister say when it was reported in a public meeting yesterday that the Hon Andrew Little has said to a petroleum professional in New Plymouth that the decision to end new offshore exploration has not yet been made.

I would say that the person who said that at the meeting hosted by the Leader of the Opposition and the various Taranaki MPs who are members of the National Party—that that person did not listen to what the Hon Andrew Little was saying.

Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Submissions

10. to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement regarding his Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, “I am stunned at the number of times professors, legal experts, constitutional experts have actually got their analysis about the bill wrong”, and has he considered the possibility that he is wrong?

In response to the first part of the question, yes. In response to the second part of question, I can assure the member that I have given considered and lengthy consideration to the very issues that he raised and the issues surrounding the bill. I’ve thought long and hard, and I’ve come to the conclusion, by an overwhelming margin, that I have been right all along.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has the Minister considered yesterday’s strong submission against the bill from the Human Rights Commission saying it breaches the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and that it will damage New Zealand’s reputation in respect of both human rights and the quality of our parliamentary democracy, or is he seriously saying that the Human Rights Commission is also wrong?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have heard what the Chief Human Rights Commissioner has said. I disagree with him. We have had this legislation in force in this country before and it did not have the effects described.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement from the New Zealand Law Society, opposing his bill, saying it hinders the constitutional rights of MPs and will have a chilling effect on their free speech, or is he now arguing that not only are more than 20 constitutional experts and the Human Commission wrong but that, actually, the Law Society, representing 12,000 lawyers, is also wrong?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes. I declare a conflict of interest today in that I am an associate member of said Law Society. However, let me answer the question this way: I have read the Law Society’s submission and in about paragraph 2 or 3 it proceeds on a fundamentally failed assumption, which is that the legislation currently being considered by the Justice Committee provides for the leader to remove a member of Parliament—and it does not do that. As I explained to the House on a previous occasion, there are a number of steps to go through, and the leader’s role in the process is simply one of a cipher, because the decision is not the leader’s alone.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister tell the country how many of these professors, legal experts, and constitutional experts raised objections to the identical precursor legislation of 2001?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I wasn’t a member of the House on that occasion. Although I consider myself a student of previous Parliaments, I do not know how many academics took objection to the previous legislation, which worked very successfully in the time that it was enforced.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister claim that that legislation—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Sorry, Mr Finlayson; I can tell the member’s agitated. I’ll ask Dr Smith to start his question again.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister claim that the legislation was a success in improving the integrity of Parliament when we had the nonsense of the leader of the Alliance, Mr Jim Anderton, pretending in this House that he was continuing to be the leader of the Alliance while outside the Parliament he established the new Progressive political party; and is it the truth that that eroded trust in this institution?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! No, I think the member knows that this Minister has no responsibility for the actions of Mr Anderton a number of years ago.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the previous answer to the question, the member had asserted that the previous legislation of the same had worked. My question was: how can he argue that when these were the events that occurred under the previous legislation? There is no question of the Minister having responsibility for Mr Jim Anderton. What he does have responsibility for is his answers in which he asserted the previous legislation worked well.

💬 SPEAKER: OK. I’ll let the Minister answer it. I was probably slack in letting him go on last time.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think that the very example that that member points out is a very good illustration of the realities of the legislation and, if you like, realpolitik—that political judgments will continue to be made—just as the ACT Party will be very glad of the previous legislation, because it got rid of a recalcitrant member who had no useful contribution to make and who distorted Parliament. On another occasion, a set of political judgments were made that did not lead to a member leaving this House.

GST—Collection from Offshore Suppliers

11. to the Minister of Revenue: What recent announcements has he made about the collection of GST from offshore suppliers?

Today, the Hon Meka Whaitiri and I announced the release of a discussion document that removes a current loophole for offshore suppliers who are not required to collect GST from low-value goods sold to New Zealand consumers. I actually think the issue we are addressing is best summed up in a quote from Greg Harford, Retail New Zealand’s general manager, when he said, and I quote, “For many years, New Zealand retailers have been disadvantaged by the fact that they have to pay GST on sales in New Zealand while foreign websites in direct competition with Kiwi firms do not. This systematic competitive disadvantage has been caused entirely by Government tax policy, and it is fantastic news that the new Government is moving to level the playing field.”

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: Is this a new tax?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Absolutely not. GST has always applied to imported goods since 1986, but we’ve never been able to collect it as the cost of collection at the border outweighed the revenue collected. The proposals in the document build on the GST on online services, or the Netflix tax, that National brought in in October 2016, as well as the work of previous Ministers. I do acknowledge the Rt Hon John Key, Bill English, Steven Joyce, Judith Collins, Nicky Wagner, Tim Macindoe—in fact, the whole of the last National Cabinet who signed off on this in July 2017.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: What do other countries do?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. That’s just far too broad; it’s not—[Interruption] No, no.

Research and Development—Tax Credit

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: why is her Government proposing to replace the—

Order! The National Party just lost a supplementary for Mr Bishop’s interjection.

12. to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: Why is her Government proposing to replace the Callaghan Innovation growth grants worth $232 million in 2016/17 with a research and development tax credit that would have been worth $219 million in the same financial year, if there had been no behavioural or allocation change?

on behalf of the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: On behalf of the Minister, I reject the premise of that question. The figure raised in the question is based on the 2016 R & D survey, which suggests total business sector spending on R & D was $1.602 billion. The Opposition have extrapolated this figure using a 14.5 percent growth grant equivalent tax rate to suggest growth grants were worth $232 million in 2016-17. In fact, growth grants were worth much less than this. Annual estimates show that growth grants cost the National Government $144.2 million in the 2016-17 financial year.

💬 Dr Parmjeet Parmar: So what will be the cost of tax credits for the same year?

There was no tax credit in the same year, so it’s hypothetical.

💬 Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Why is the Government pushing the financial risk of doing research and development on to business by not being willing to continue its support at the same level as is currently in place?

That’s an interesting way to spin this. We’re not putting the financial risk on business at all. In fact, what we are doing is empowering New Zealand businesses to actually undertake R & D in a way that hasn’t happened for a long time. I don’t think we’ve been successful at all. I think we’re at about 1.23 percent of GDP, when the OECD average is 2.38. Labour and New Zealand First know that we need to increase the R & D spend, and that is why this is a very important part of our coalition agreement.

💬 Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Supplementary.

💬 SPEAKER: No, the Opposition’s run out of questions.