Oral Questions

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

Yes. And to save time for question No. 2: yes again. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Can she confirm that her Government’s policy to slow debt reduction has freed up more than $10 billion for extra Government spending by increasing borrowing?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I know there’s hot anticipation for our Budget, but I would ask the member to wait until 17 May.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: So was Grant Robertson wrong when he said that he’s got $10 billion free from increased borrowing?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member will well know, that was at the half-yearly update. What we’ve been clearly consistent about is, for instance, that we will be sticking to our Budget responsibility rules, particularly as it relates to our debt track.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Can she confirm that, yesterday, the finance Minister announced a further $1.4 billion of tax increases and spending cuts to free up more room for new spending on top of that $10 billion in extra borrowing?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, the figure that we spent the most time talking about was the $700 million in reprioritisation, and it is fair to say that this is a Government that also was much more focused on chasing tax dodgers and uncollected tax from multinationals, which the last Government wasn’t interested in.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: So will the Prime Minister answer the question: is it $1.4 billion of tax increases and spending cuts that have been freed up with the announcement by the finance Minister?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, I refute the premise of the question. He’s framing these as spending cuts, and I refute that.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Will she commit to delivering on her promise of a universal $10 reduction in GP fees on 1 July, given the substantial amount of funding she’s got available to her?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Even with that reprioritisation, we’ve still been left with a massive social deficit, particularly in the area of healthcare, and the member will see, on Budget day, what we’re doing to start rebuilding key services for New Zealanders.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: When will she deliver on her promise of a universal $10 reduction in GP fees?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, on Budget day, the member will see exactly what we’re doing to reduce the 44 percent increase in GP costs that New Zealanders faced under that Government.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is it still her policy to widen access to very low-cost GP visits to 600,000 extra New Zealanders on 1 July, including senior citizens and people in social housing, just as National campaigned on at the election?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, that’s something that will be revealed on Budget day. What I do note is that New Zealanders, particularly older New Zealanders, might want to take heed of what the Leader of the Opposition has said: that the winter energy payment, for instance, under National would be gone, and so their energy poverty and their inability to heat their home would be gone on their watch.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m just going to ask Mr Robertson to allow the Prime Minister to answer the question on her own. One at a time, thank you.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she agree with her health Minister’s statement that “We will deliver the promises we make.” or does she agree with the statement in the very same interview on the weekend: “We’re going to have to phase some of these initiatives; there is no doubt about that.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Minister of Health is absolutely committed to making GP visits cheaper, and we have to because that last Government let them creep up by 44 percent. So I find it a little bit rich to be lectured by that member when it got out of control while he was in Government.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Why does Shane Jones get a roundabout built just down the road, through his provincial growth fund, but New Zealand families miss out on her promise to reduce GP fees across the board?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Shall we talk about Tauranga? But, ultimately, there’s this assumption here that somehow—

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

💬 SPEAKER: A point of order, the Rt Hon Gerry Brownlee. Sorry, the “Hon” Gerry Brownlee.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: If you keep saying it often enough, Mr Speaker, it might stick. The point I want to make is that it can’t possibly be a start to an answer about a roundabout in Whangarei or a GP fee, to begin that answer by saying “Shall we talk about Tauranga?”

💬 SPEAKER: Well, clearly it can be, because it was. [Interruption] Order! I think there’s been a long tradition in this House that when there have been highly political, personalised questions, the responses will come back and be of the same nature. The Prime Minister will finish the answer.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Look, I am happy to withdraw that part of the answer, because, ultimately, the reason that that proposal was made was because it was unsafe and a death trap. To answer the second part of the member’s question, when it comes to supporting New Zealanders on low and middle incomes, the first 100 days were used by this Government to put in the most substantial reforms in a decade to lift the incomes of those very families we’re now being criticised of not supporting.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is it true that the $10 GP fee has been scaled back in order to provide free dental care for all SuperGold card holders?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m not going to engage in a highly speculative discussion about the Budget. The member will just have to wait. Look, as a previous member of the Opposition, I understand how frustrating this can be.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Well, will the Budget include free dental care for all SuperGold card holders?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Look, I will save the member his supplementaries. I will not answer questions that relate to Budget 2018. The member will just have to wait.

Transport Infrastructure—State Highway Funding and Regional Fuel Tax

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

It won’t surprise the member that I still stand by all my Government’s policies and actions.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she stand by her Government’s decision to strip $5 billion out of the State highway projects around New Zealand?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I’ve answered in this House many, many times, we had an 11 percent reduction but a considerable increase in the amount of money that is going to local and regional roads and also a commitment, particularly in Auckland, to try and get a considerable number of people off our roads and travelling via public transport.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Prime Minister disputing that there is $5 billion of reduction in the State highway budget over the next decade?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In my answer I just referenced the difference in our State highway spend but also highlighted the fact that we are investing more in regional and local roads.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Of the much promised and vaunted four-lane extension from Whangarei all the way to Warkworth, exactly how many dollars were committed by the prior Government, which this Government inherited?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I believe the member is referring to the ghost roads that the last Government announced via press statement but did very little else.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: By how much will rebalancing transport spending away from regional State highway upgrades to metropolitan public transport increase New Zealand’s productivity?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: There’s actually no such thing as regional State highways, but as we have continually pointed out in this House, what we have instead—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to ask the Prime Minister to resume her seat. I’m going to ask the Minister of Finance and the Leader of the Opposition to both not interject for the balance of this question and all of the supplementaries. Prime Minister, can you start again, please.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I was saying, we have made our decisions based on the fact that only 5 percent of the National Land Transport Fund is on improving local roads and yet half of the truck and car journeys are on them. The last Government was focused on spending its money on roads that were used by far fewer New Zealanders. That’s why we’re reinvesting in local roads, unlike under the National Government, who cut funding on the West Coast, Taranaki, Southland, Otago, Northland, Hawke’s Bay, Gisborne, and the Bay of Plenty.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Can the Prime Minister confirm that Auckland Council’s annual wage bill has increased by $160 million per annum—more than the revenue of the regional fuel tax—and does she think it is better to charge Auckland families $700 a year in fuel tax or require the council to better manage its spending?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, I have no responsibility for the nature of council spending. What I do know is that we have at least taken on the role of ensuring that we properly fund the commitments we want to make to Aucklanders who are currently spending a good chunk of their life in congestion—unlike the last Government, who had a $5.9 billion hole in their Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) spending and no plan on how to fund some of the projects that would make the biggest difference to New Zealanders. That’s the truth.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Why doesn’t the Prime Minister commit to better management of both the Government and council’s finances, which will allow these projects to go ahead without the need for a regional fuel tax?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, if the member wants to talk about better financial management, he’ll need to explain to this House how he was going to fund the $5.9 billion hole in ATAP, which his Government let hang. Not only was it a $5.9 billion gap, it grew to $9.7 billion when you factored in inflation and cost increases—another example of clever accounting by the National Party.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What specific steps will the Prime Minister take to ensure that the people of Southland don’t get charged more as a result of Auckland’s regional fuel tax?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It’s called a regional fuel tax because it is only intended for Auckland, and Southland—[Interruption]. It’ll be the fuel companies who will be answering questions if that’s used as an excuse to hike prices on New Zealanders it’s not intended for. But can I also ask, then, if the member is so opposed to the regional fuel tax, which projects he intends to can as a result of not being able to fund them?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! I think the Prime Minister knows that she answers the questions; she doesn’t ask them.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Prime Minister going back on what she said on TVNZ’s Breakfast this week when she made it quite clear that, actually, this regional fuel tax for Auckland might see prices increase around other parts of the country?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is absolutely false when we take in to account what the Government’s doing here. It is called a regional fuel tax. It is only applicable to Auckland. If the member has questions around why a fuel company might use it as an excuse to hike prices in another region, that’s a question for the fuel companies.

Budget 2018—Capital and Operating Pressures

3. to the Minister of Finance: What capital and operating pressures has he taken into account in Budget 2018?

Upon taking office, we have found that we’ve inherited a number of significant capital and operating cost pressures. The operating pressures are seen in Government agencies that have had their baseline funding frozen, or in areas like education, where early childhood centres have seen their funding decline by 12 percent in real terms. In terms of capital, Treasury’s 2018 investment statement showed that the social portfolio—our schools and hospitals—faces challenges from ageing buildings and long-term under-investment, including 19 percent of our district health board assets that are in poor or very poor condition.

💬 Paul Eagle: What specific examples of capital pressures has he seen?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have seen pressures across a number of portfolios, but the one that stands out for me is health. In Budget 2017 total new initiative funding for capital in Vote Health was $150 million. This sum was inadequate to fund the need for capital expenditure but was a significant increase on the equivalent number in Budget 2016, which was zero, and for Budget 2015, which was also zero. This is the reason for the current state of our hospitals: a legacy of neglect.

💬 Paul Eagle: How will the Government handle these capital and operating pressures?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In Budget 2018 we are prioritising critical public services, in particular investing in health, education, and housing. We can afford to do this because we are repaying debt more slowly than the previous Government, we are increasing revenue, and we are prioritising spending in line with this Government’s priorities. We acknowledge that we cannot correct everything in one Budget, but we have a plan to make sure New Zealand is more inclusive, more sustainable, and more productive, and I will be proud to present that plan on 17 May.

Fiscal Strategy—Tax Working Group and Projected Surpluses

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that the Tax Working Group review “isn’t a revenue grab - one option open to the working group is that the recommendations are fiscally neutral”; if so, will he give an assurance that any tax package finally approved by the Government will be fiscally neutral?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes; and in answer to the second part of the question, as the member notes, fiscally neutral recommendations are an option for the Tax Working Group. We will all have to await their report to see if it occurs.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How then, in the absence of such an assurance, can New Zealanders be confident that he isn’t preparing a revenue grab?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: If the member looked at the terms of reference for the Tax Working Group and indeed the policies outlined by the Government, he would see that we have committed that any recommendations from that working group that the Government chooses to take up, if they are legislated, will not come into force until after the 2020 election.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: What would be the combined projected surpluses for the next four years, as outlined in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update?

💬 SPEAKER: No. Does the member want to rephrase the question so it’s a supplementary to either the primary or the other questions?

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, speaking to the point of—

💬 SPEAKER: No. It’s not a point of order.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: All right. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If a question is about the Tax Working Group and revenue, what is not connected about that—talking about the size of surpluses?

💬 SPEAKER: Because the fiscal update is a very specific document, one which is from the past and has nothing to do with a tax working group which—it’s been made clear to the public—will not be implementing its work for another two years. Does the member want to have another go at having the supplementary question?

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Yes, yes. To the Speaker—to the Minister. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: OK. That’s sort of like about 2 all, so we’ll just let the member ask his question.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, what are the combined projected surpluses expected for the next four years?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is doing a great job asking these questions for the Opposition, but unfortunately he’ll have to wait until the Budget for that information.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, how much more money than the $19 billion in surpluses that were recorded in the pre-election fiscal update does he think he needs?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What we need is revenue to enable us to rebuild our health system, fix our hospitals, fix our schools, and make up for the nine years of neglect of that previous Government.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Then why is it that when he had $19 billion in surpluses available to him, plus higher than expected revenues, plus he’s borrowing an extra $10 billion, he’s unwilling and unable to keep the Government’s promise to New Zealanders over reducing costs to GPs?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member will see the full extent of our plan when the Budget comes out. But what I can say to him is that when we have inherited hospitals in New Zealand that require so much work, that have mould in the walls, where we have early childhood centres who have actually had a real-term decline in their funding, it will take time to correct these but we’ve got the plan to do it.

Health, Minister—Capital Spending and GP Fees

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

on behalf of the Minister of Health: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Minister, yes, in the context they were given and taken.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, how can he stand by his answer to question No. 7 yesterday when he said, “The last Budget set aside only $37.5 million for new capital spending per year”, when the actual appropriation was actually $664.5 million?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: On behalf of the Minister, I don’t have the details to hand. I perhaps would question the second figure that the member just put forward, but I’m sure that we’ll be able to resolve the issue if he puts down the question in writing.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: How can he stand by his statement that he was not told of other building issues at Middlemore Hospital, when documents leaked to the New Zealand Herald show acting CEO Gloria Johnson specifically told the Minister of problems in other buildings, and outgoing chair Rabin Rabindran said the Minister was shown pictures of mould in other buildings and commented that the Minister had “seen worse,”?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: On behalf of the Minister, I stand by all my statements. I recall very clearly the visit. My expectation is that district health boards raise serious issues with me, and while we were given a lengthy document outlining a whole series of issues, there was no mention of rot or mould in that particular document.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he stand by his statements on the reason for phasing the GP fees reduction initiative when, having inherited a strong economy, increased Crown revenue, and together with a commitment to borrow $10 billion more, there is no sound reason for the Government to break that promise to New Zealanders?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: On behalf of the Minister, this Government is committed to reducing the cost of going to the GP and funding health more sustainably. We’re also committed to managing the Government’s books responsibly. But I think that member should reflect on the record of his National Government, under which the cost of visiting a GP increased 44 percent and the state of our hospitals was in serious decline. I don’t think any member of the public can take his concerns seriously, given he had nine years to do something about it.

Housing—KiwiBuild

6. to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What progress has been made on the affordable housing policy?

On Saturday, we unveiled the first 18 KiwiBuild homes, currently under construction by Housing New Zealand in Papakura. We were able to get these houses under way quickly because plans to sell the land to private developers had fallen through. Housing New Zealand was also barred, by agreements made under the previous Government, from building more State houses. If not for KiwiBuild, grass would still be growing there. This follows on from the purchase of land from Unitech, where up to 4,000 homes will be built. We’re working tirelessly on the acquisition of other blocks of Crown land for KiwiBuild, developing opportunities for Housing New Zealand for their vacant land, and preparing to launch our programme to buy KiwiBuild houses from private developers.

💬 Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How will KiwiBuild numbers ramp up over time?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, obviously you can’t go from zero to 10,000 houses a year overnight. We are laying the foundations through Government procurement, planning, land acquisition, and working directly with developers and builders. In KiwiBuild’s first year, starting on 1 July and ending on 30 June 2019, we’re expecting to build 1,000 KiwiBuild homes. In the next year, we expect to build 5,000. By the time of the election we expect to have a total of 8,000 completed homes. By June—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. There have been two speeches instead of answers to questions.

💬 Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How ambitious is the KiwiBuild programme compared to historical building policies?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the KiwiBuild programme includes a larger, faster ramp-up in house building than the Christchurch rebuild. It’s comparable in scale to the first Labour Government’s State house building programme, which went from 400 houses in the first year to 4,000 in the third. We aim to go from 1,000 in the first year to 10,000 in the third.

💬 Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How will families looking to buy their first home be able to purchase a KiwiBuild home?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There will be a ballot system similar to that used for Axis homes at Hobsonville, initiated under the previous Government. The criteria and entry details will be announced in due course, before the first homes are ready in September.

Transport Infrastructure—Regional Fuel Tax Impact and Fuel Price Increases

7. 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: What action will he take to ensure that people in Southland aren’t directly impacted by regional fuel taxes in Auckland ending up pushing up fuel prices around the rest of the country as a result of price spreading?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, this Government has made its attitude to price spreading very clear to the fuel companies. We have initiated changes to the Commerce Act, which will give the Commerce Commission more teeth to deal with anti-competitive behaviour. My colleague the Hon Megan Woods has called in BP to make it very clear what our attitude is to anti-competitive behaviour. I think the fuel companies will be in no doubt as to how they will be treated if price spreading takes place.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Will he provide a guarantee to New Zealanders living outside of Auckland that they will not be impacted by price spreading as a result of his Government’s actions?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, but I will provide a guarantee that this Government won’t waste billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on a few hand-picked, gold-plated expressways in the main urban centres, as that Government did for nine years.

💬 Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Has the Minister seen any reports of action the last Government took to stop the unscrupulous behaviour of fuel companies under their watch for nine years?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Actually, none.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: What reports has that Minister seen of unscrupulous behaviour by his Government in ramping up fuel prices and taxes on New Zealanders by 25c a litre?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: None, but I have seen reports of a Government that is willing to institute a transport policy that spends money rationally right across the country, right across the transport system, and doesn’t pork barrel billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on a few gold-plated expressways.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that while fuel taxes increased by 17c a litre under the last National Government, the amount of spending on roads in Southland and many other regional areas declined significantly?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you for that question. I can conclude that spending on transport in Southland was reduced significantly over the last nine years under that Government. Local roads were neglected, and I can tell the member that under our Government policy statement, spending on transport will increase in every single region in this country.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Can he confirm that while his Government Ministers—the Associate Minister is so concerned about fuel price increasing by 17c a litre in nine years, while his Government’s putting up fuel prices by 25c a litre in three years?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the reason is that this Government is committed to investing in growth. We believe in investing in infrastructure to get ahead of growth. We will not allow people to continue to die on the roads because that Government refused to invest in local and regional roads. We will not allow the people in our major urban centres to waste hundreds of hours every year sitting in gridlock because of a failure over nine years to invest in economic growth and good transport systems.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What other statements has he seen about the regional fuel tax?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I saw a statement this morning out of the select committee hearing in Auckland, by Mayor Phil Goff, who said that the failure to pass the regional fuel tax will consign Auckland to a permanent future of gridlock.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether his Government will continue the removal of the rural road subsidy, which was the inherited position the Government got into after the last election?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Our Government’s committed to a 50 percent increase in spending on local roads and local road maintenance. We won’t stand by and allow the infrastructure deficit to continue that saw regions all over this country starved of the funding that they need to maintain their local roads.

Regional Economic Development, Minister—Statements

8. to the Minister of State Services: Is the Government committed to a professional, competent, and politically neutral public sector; if so, how is the reported statement by Regional Economic Development Minister Hon Shane Jones that Ministers be able to appoint their “shit-kickers” consistent with this?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes; in answer to the second part of the question, I have no responsibility for Shane Jones’ comments, and I suspect that both of us are probably quite happy about that.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has the Minister had a discussion with the Minister for Regional Economic Development on the specific skill set that would be required by the new Government, in leading the public sector, to be able to qualify as a “shit-kicker”?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have a very collaborative working relationship with the Hon Shane Jones and discuss a wide range of issues with him on a regular basis. I have had a short conversation with him this week about this matter, and I’m sure that that conversation will be ongoing.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: What specifically was the content of the conversation he had with the Minister for Regional Economic Development about his desire for Ministers to be able to appoint shit-kickers to senior Public Service roles?

💬 SPEAKER: Before the member answers, I allowed the question because it was a direct quote. Having used it now three times, I think the member might be able to use his imagination just a little and avoid using the word.

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

💬 SPEAKER: I fail to see what it could be.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well, when you have Ministers of this Government during their ministerial roles—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat.

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The nature of the conversation was a very preliminary one, and I’m sure that we will be having further discussions on an ongoing basis about the matter. I am aware that this is a contested issue. Other Ministers at various times have argued that Ministers should have a greater role in appointing senior public servants—including Ministers in the last National Government, notably one Hon Simon Bridges.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister share the view of the Minister for Regional Economic Development that the State sector has too many useless “phantom bureaucrats”; if so, what measures will the Government be taking to get rid of these phantom bureaucrats?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.

School Buildings—Marlborough Girls’ and Boys’ Colleges Rebuild

9. to the Minister of Education: What progress can he report on a rebuild of new secondary schools in Blenheim?

Last Friday, I visited Marlborough Boys’ College and Marlborough Girls’ College to discuss options for moving forward with the rebuilding of both colleges on a new or existing site. Discussions about this started over five years ago, and the Marlborough community is still waiting. The biggest challenge is that over the last two years, since co-location on a new site was approved by the previous Government, a viable site still has not been identified. I’ve asked officials to update all of the options and report back to me as a matter of priority so that we can get this moving and give the community what they were promised so long ago.

💬 Jamie Strange: What reports did he hear about the condition of the existing Marlborough Boys’ College and Marlborough Girls’ College buildings?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It wasn’t necessarily just about reports that I heard; I saw first-hand that the staff at the Marlborough Boys’ College have a 82-year-old building with large cracks and bursting pipes. I was told of a leaking indoor gymnasium and library. When I visited Marlborough Girls’ College, they had leaky internal guttering in their science and technology classroom, and issues with almost every other block in the school. In one block I entered, the smell of mould was so overpowering we left within a moment or two. It’s time to see some action on that site, and the new buildings that they were promised so long ago actually coming to fruition, and that’s what this Government is going to deliver.

💬 Stuart Smith: Will he confirm that at least $60 million will be invested in the co-location of Marlborough Boys’ College and Marlborough Girls’ College?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If we continue to go ahead with the option of co-location on a new site, it’s likely that it will be significantly more than that. The experience of Shirley Boys’ High School and Avonside Girls’ High School in Christchurch, for example, suggests that the costs could be well over $100 million to go ahead with the previous Government’s proposal—something that they did not budget enough money to cover the cost of.

Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration Permits—Impact on Existing Permits

10. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by her statement to the Petroleum Conference, “we have 10 years or so of natural gas consented for drilling, and potentially many more years that could be discovered under existing exploration permits. Some of these permits run as late as 2046. They are not under threat”?

Yes, in the context it was given. I especially stand by the assurance I gave to the assembled industry delegates that this Government saw the need for a careful, long-term, and managed transition of 30-plus years and that the coming changes would honour existing permits.

💬 Jonathan Young: In light of that, will she guarantee the Government will not bring any legislation during this term that would amend the conditions of the area covered by the 24 offshore exploration and production permits already approved?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I can assure, and have given an assurance to industry of, is we will not make changes to the existing permits to make them harder to get. We are currently discussing with industry changes that they may like to see, and we are having those discussions.

💬 Jonathan Young: When does she plan to inform the already shell-shocked oil and gas industry of her Government’s intention to introduce the Marine Mammals Protection Seismic Surveying Bill?

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I don’t have any ministerial responsibility for that legislation.

💬 SPEAKER: That, as well as the fact that it doesn’t derive from either the primary question or the supplementaries. Have another go—if the member wants to have another go at a supplementary.

💬 Jonathan Young: When does she plan to inform an already shell-shocked oil and gas industry of her Government’s intention to introduce any further legislation affecting their permit areas?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I said in answer to the previous question, that was in order, I have begun preliminary discussions about changes to the Crown Minerals Act and what they may take.

Mycoplasma Bovis—Industry Contribution to Costs

11. to the Minister for Biosecurity: Does he stand by all his statements and actions in relation to Mycoplasma bovis?

on behalf of the Minister for Biosecurity: On behalf of the Minister, yes, in the context in which they were given and undertaken.

Hon Member : Mafioso.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member himself has complained, or members have complained, about the Leader of the Opposition being referred to in a similar manner, and I think that he could set a good example to his members, because it was followed by at least one of his members.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: How much money did the Minister request from the cattle industries in a meeting this week regarding M. bovis costs?

What I will say is the Minister is very keen to work with Government-industry agreements—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m now going to sit the member down and remind him that he is speaking on behalf of the Minister. He must use the first person when he does that, and he’ll get it wrong if he doesn’t.

On behalf of the Minister, the Minister is very keen to work with industry agreements, to work in partnership. But what I would say—the Minister—is that that member has two options. First of all, he can be positive and support the Minister while he sorts your mess out, or he can step back and stop being so negative.

💬 SPEAKER: It’s just clear that there’s not been enough Latin taught in recent years.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question—

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, and the member may ask it again, because it—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Yeah—thank you, Mr Speaker. How much money did the Minister request from the cattle industries in a meeting this week regarding M. bovis costs?

On behalf of the Minister, I do not have that information at hand, but if you put the question down in writing, I’m sure you’ll get a good reply.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Which option does he support the most: asking industry to contribute 50 percent of M. bovis costs, or 40 percent? Does he also confirm to the House today that he has requested up to $870 million for industry to be in partnership to pay for M. bovis costs?

On behalf of the Minister, what I have said is I am very keen to work in partnership with industry bodies to sort this out, and I will reiterate what I said earlier: that member can either help us sort this mess out, which, of course, occurred in the first two months under your watch, or he can step back and stop being so negative, because it’s just not being helpful.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry—I will call the right honourable gentleman in a second. I, again, want to refer the Minister to using the correct person, and it’s not the second.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister why he’s calling upon the questioner to help him out in this problem that arose during the time that he was responsible for that breakout, and he did nothing about it at all?

On behalf of the Minister, this occurred in the last two months of that Minister’s watch, and he sat on his hands and did absolutely nothing. As a consequence, we find ourselves in this real mess at the moment. If he had actually done his job properly, we wouldn’t be facing the problem we have now.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Why is he pressuring the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand and the Meat Industry Association, who are Government industry agreement partners, to pay more for M. bovis response costs than the agreed cost-sharing framework that farmers have signed up to?

On behalf of the Minister, I have made it very clear to those industry associations that I am very keen to work in partnership with them to sort this issue out. If that Minister had done his job properly, we wouldn’t be in the situation we are now.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Why is the coalition Government prioritising free tertiary education instead of appropriately funding M. bovis response costs that impact the New Zealand economy and rural communities?

I reject the proposition behind that question.

Forestry, Minister—Announcements and Statements

12. to the Minister of Forestry: What recent announcements has he made regarding the forestry sector?

Yesterday, I announced the new national environmental standards for plantation forestry. It provides a uniform set, a consistent set, of regulation; strips red tape; and enables the forestry sector to proceed with confidence across all of the regional council areas of New Zealand.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: How will these standards encourage investment in our forestry sector?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: The encouragement of investment, in terms of forestry and the regions, has grown immeasurably since the election. These rules ensure that less time is wasted on having to change strategies of operation as a consequence of dilatoriness under the former regime.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: What other forestry announcements has he made recently?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: First, there is the Gisborne tree planting—the symbolic start of the billion-tree strategy. Secondly, there is the announcement of the Matariki Tu Rākau kaupapa—Matariki being the arrival of the Māori New Year—where a whole host of community groups will work to plant more trees. It will acknowledge not only that this year is 100 years since the end of World War I but it will celebrate and give our young people an opportunity to do something a lot more formidable under the rising stars Matariki, the seven sisters.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Was the Minister correctly reported when he said that the 1 billion tree planting goal was “fanciful”?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: From time to time in the House the allegation has been thrown at me that the figure is fanciful, but just as I will demonstrate under the rising of Matariki, the star of the new year, I will show that in that case the member is talking not about a star but a planet—off the planet.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Did he, or did he not, tell the Rotorua Chamber of Commerce that that figure was fanciful?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I’ve said so many things in Rotorua. As the member on the other side would know, a visit to Rotorua can have gaseous consequences. But I repeat what I said: the reference to “fanciful” comes from the nature of the allegations and taunts unwisely thrown in my direction by the Opposition lost in space.