Oral Questions
1. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements and policies?
on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes, in the context in which they were given and undertaken. However, I would like to correct a statement the Minister made yesterday regarding the household living cost price indexes. Due to a transcription error, he referred to the increase in living costs since June 2008, when in fact the numbers used were for September 2008.
š¬ Hon Amy Adams: Does he stand by his statement that he plans to grow New Zealandās prosperity when forecast average GDP growth over the next two years has been revised downward, from 3.5 percent in Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update 2017 to just 3 percent in Budget 2018, and ANZ Bank today is saying that growth momentum has clearly slowed?
As with any growth forecast, there are a range of views out there. Treasury is historically one of the best forecasters, and I am confident in their Budget Economic and Fiscal Update projections of continued solid growth. The Government does not believe that buying and selling houses to each other until we canāt afford them any more is a sustainable economic strategy. For too many New Zealanders, weāve seen that this kind of growth has not actually translated into improved living standards. Weāve got a planā
š¬ SPEAKER: Order! Order!
š¬ Hon Amy Adams: How can he be so dismissive of these significant growth revisions when a 0.5 percent decline in average GDP growth over the next 2 years is equivalent to around $2.3 billion in lost income for the economy, at approximately $500 per New Zealander?
I repeat that Treasury projections are for solid economic growth. We enjoy good forecasts and we have good times ahead. I think the Minister should stop trying to talk the economy down.
š¬ Hon Amy Adams: Has he now given up all hope of continuing to close New Zealandās after-tax wage gap with Australia, that reduced by a third over the past decade, with the removal of Nationalās tax bracket adjustments, imminent further tax reductions in Australia, and the slowing domestic real and per capita GDP growth trajectory under this Government?
We are planning to transition to an economy thatās more productive, more sustainable, and more inclusive. We want to see New Zealanders prosper socially and economically. This Government has a plan and weāre sticking with it.
š¬ Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very much around closing the wage gapāthe after-tax wage gap with Australia. He didnāt even reference that in his answer.
š¬ SPEAKER: Well, I think the memberās problem is that she had a list of other things added on to it. There was certainly an attempt to answer at least one of those.
š¬ Hon Amy Adams: Does the Minister agree with Jacinda Ardern when she said that public-private partnerships (PPPs) in corrections ājust donāt work and on that weāve been very clearā, and Phil Twyford, who said that PPPs for prisons would be āa no-go for this Governmentā?
There is clear evidence around the Governmentās prior experimentation with PPPs that they did not work. There are a number of perverse outcomes, and this Government has steered clear thus far of any such foolishness.
š¬ Hon Amy Adams: So why is a PPP now being used to fund Waikeria Prison when the use of PPPs for prisons has been clearly and repeatedly ruled out?
Well, I donāt have the detail on that in front of me. But I understand they sold the contractā
š¬ Hon Andrew Little: They signed it and it cost $34 million.
They signed the contract and it cost $34 million.
š¬ Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that thereās a difference between honouring a PPP agreement entered by the previous Government to build a new prison versus having a PPP for the operation of a new prison?
Iām absolutely delighted to confirm that. Thereās a huge difference between honouring contracts and creating a stable environment for the country, and entering into agreements which have a whole lot of fish-hooks attached, which that prior Government was prone to doing.
Tourism, MinisterāStatements on Funding and Freedom Camping
2. to the Minister of Tourism: Does he stand by all the statements he made to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee last week?
I stand by the statements I made regarding the tourism portfolio.
š¬ Hon Todd McClay: Following his statements at the committee last week, what does he say to taxpayers who expect him to be on top of the detail of the $170 million allocated to tourism in this yearās Budget, or would he rather continue to be known as the āvacantā tourism Minister?
š¬ SPEAKER: Order! Thatās not a properly worded question. The member knows that.
š¬ Hon Todd McClay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thatās been widely reported in newspapersā
š¬ SPEAKER: Well, the member should know that there is more than a slight difference in the standards required in newspapers and the standards required in this House.
š¬ Hon Todd McClay: What does he say to tourism operators who have seen his select committee comments that his $75 million of new money previously promised for tourism for this yearās Budget has, in fact, been replaced by a $6 million cutāthatās an $81 million tourism broken promise?
š¬ Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The member is sort of fudging the figures there. The advice that I received from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) was that the 5 percent cut in funding to Tourism New Zealand would have no discernible impact on tourism numbers. In fact, by 2024, weāre going to have 1.4 million extra visitors to New Zealand. So Iām not concerned about tourism destination marketing per se. Itās more about destination management now.
š¬ Hon Jacqui Dean: How many meetings did he have with the Hon Nanaia Mahuta where freedom camping was discussed, when he said at the Estimates hearing that āWe talk about the issue all the time.ā?
š¬ Hon KELVIN DAVIS: My colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and I have a number of meetings, both formally and informally. In fact, thatās what happens, actually, when youāre related. We actually also talk as cousins, for the memberās information. So colleagues and Iāall of us colleaguesādiscuss a whole heap of issues all the time.
š¬ Hon Jacqui Dean: When he said at the Estimates that he āJust took the local government portfolio responsibility for dealing with freedom camping work off the Hon Nanaia Mahutaā, did he tell her first?
š¬ Hon KELVIN DAVIS: If I recall the conversation correctly, the member asked me, āWho is responsible for freedom camping?ā, and I said, āMyself.ā And she said, āWhy isnāt the Minister of Local Government in charge of freedom camping?ā, and I said, āBecause I am.ā Now, I canāt be any more straightforward than that.
PrisonsāWaikeria Prison and Bed Space
3. to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions in relation to Waikeria Prison?
Yes, in the context they were made.
š¬ Hon David Bennett: If he stands by his statement that New Zealand prisons are super-sized factories for low-level criminals, what is his definition of a low-level criminal?
š¬ Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The member is right that our prisons are factories for criminals. In fact, that partyās plans for a mega-prison are, quite frankly, wrong. American-style mega-prisons swallow up young people and churn out hardened criminals. Thatās the matter here. That party there, even though they had access to all the research and the best evidenceā
š¬ Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Iām sure the Ministerās opinions about the previous Government are interesting to him, but they arenāt particularly apposite to the question that heās been asked, which wasā
š¬ SPEAKER: That is a matter for my responsibility, Mr Brownlee, and Iām waiting to see if he gets to it.
š¬ Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Iāll give an actual case. There is a person who is in prison for stealing a $1,000 cellphone. That person was in prison on remand at Waikeria for a matter of days before he started self-harming by stabbing himself in the groin and was sent to the at-risk unit. Those are low-level criminals who should never ever be in prison in the first place simply for shoplifting a cellphone.
š¬ Hon David Bennett: If he stands by his statement that the 1,500 bed build at Waikeria is an American-style mega-prison, what is the biggest American prison by bed count?
š¬ Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I have no responsibility for American prisons.
š¬ Hon David Bennett: If he stands by that previous statement, then what is the average size of an American prison?
š¬ SPEAKER: Order! The Minister said it before and probably anticipated the ruling that I should have made. This Minister has no responsibility for American prisons.
š¬ Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
š¬ Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
š¬ SPEAKER: Which one?
š¬ Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker, while he may have no responsibility for any prison system in the United States, he most certainly has responsibility for his own statements, and for a Minister to make a comparative statement about an American prison, he must of course know exactly what he was comparing, otherwise itās just one of those in-the-wind statements that means nothing.
š¬ SPEAKER: Well, Mr Brownlee, I heard quotes made about mega-prisons; Iāve heard nothing quoted from this Minister about average American prisons, and it certainly wasnāt in the question.
š¬ Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
š¬ SPEAKER: Itās not going to be relitigating that again, is it?
š¬ Hon David Bennett: No, in the Ministerās first answer he mentioned American-style prisonsā
š¬ SPEAKER: Mega-prisons. He didnāt say average prisons.
š¬ Hon David Bennett: āand so Iām asking him to reflect on that and define that.
š¬ SPEAKER: Whatās the member asking me to do?
š¬ Hon David Bennett: Well, to get the member to answer the question, because he referred to American-style prisons in his first responseā
š¬ SPEAKER: So the memberās now relitigating my rulingāis that right?
š¬ Hon David Bennett: No, Iām seeking for the Minister to answer his question.
š¬ SPEAKER: I think Iām going to be kind to the member and let him continue to have a supplementaryānot an extra one; just his next one.
š¬ Hon David Bennett: How does his claim that his Government is focused on rehabilitation match up with the fact that he admitted yesterday that prisoners will have to sleep on mattresses on the ground because the Government havenāt built enough beds to keep up with demand?
š¬ Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The memberās misquoting me. I was asked the question āWhat happens if there is a lack of bed space?ā, and I said, āWell, every corrections system in the world has a contingency plan for just that event.ā So if there was an earthquake today and we had to move prisoners into another prison and there werenāt enough spare beds, they have to have a contingency plan. That contingency plan is the very same contingency plan that the previous Government had, and now theyāre criticising us for having a contingency planāthe very same one.
š¬ Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the member about rehabilitation. He never mentioned rehabilitation once in that answer.
š¬ SPEAKER: Order! The member shouldāI mean, I think he even read the question. He should think about what he said.
š¬ Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked aboutā
š¬ SPEAKER: No. If the member argues again, heās going to be terminated from asking supplementaries. If he wants a further supplementary, he can ask one. He doesnātāall right.
EducationāMÄori Achievement and Partnership Schools
4. to the Associate Minister of Education (MÄori Education): What progress has he made to strengthen the capability of the education system to raise educational achievement for young MÄori?
NÄ Te KÄwanatanga i whakapaohotia tÄtahi hÅtaka mahi nui ki te whakapakari i te ao mÄtauranga mÅ te rautau rua tekau mÄ tahi. Kei roto i tÄnei hÅtaka e whakapakari ana i a Ka Hikitia me Te Tau Mai Te Reo. NÄ mÄtau hoki i mea me Äta tirohia ngÄ take mÅ ngÄ akonga MÄori. Kai te haere tonu ngÄ hÅtaka hou pÄrÄ i Te Ahu o Te Reo, Te Kawa mÄ Te Kura, me Te Whakapakaritanga o Te Kotahitanga.
[The Government announced a programme of huge significance to strengthen the education system for the 21st century. Within this programme is the refinement of Accelerating Success and the MÄori Language in Education strategy. We also advocated that matters related to the teaching of MÄori students must be examined carefully. Programmes like Te Ahu o Te Reo, Te Kawa MÄ Te Kura, and Te Whakapakaritanga o Te Kotahitanga continue.]
š¬ SPEAKER: I am now going to ask the Minister to repeat his comments and to speak a little bit more slowly so I can either keep up with it personally or through interpretation. So the Minister can choose either to translate or to repeat.
š¬ Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Repeat. NÄ Te KÄwanatanga i whakapaohotia tÄtahi hÅtaka mahi nui ki te whakapakari i te ao mÄtauranga mÅ te rautau rua tekau mÄ tahi. Kei roto i tÄnei hÅtaka e whakapakari ana i a Ka Hikitia me Te Tau Mai Te Reo.
[The Government announced a programme of huge significance to strengthen the education system for the 21st century. Within this programme is the refinement of Accelerating Success and the MÄori Language in Education strategy.]
š¬ Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A number of desks on this side of the House donāt have earpieces to be able to hear the interpretation.
š¬ SPEAKER: Well, that is the membersā responsibility. If theyāve lost their earā[Interruption]. Well, everyā
š¬ Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker, it is not a memberās responsibility to provide the facilities in here. Thatās a ridiculous thing to say.
š¬ SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Every member at the beginning of the Parliament was provided with an earpiece which plugs in to the thing between himself and the honourable QC beside him, and it is the membersā responsibilityā
š¬ Hon Christopher Finlayson: No need to be a smart alec. Thatās totally offensive in the tone in which you used it.
š¬ SPEAKER: The honourable member beside him. And it is a matter of plugging it in and using it.
š¬ Hon Gerry Brownlee: We donāt have them. Theyāre not here.
š¬ SPEAKER: Well, I mean, is it my responsibility for members losing them out of their desks?
š¬ Hon Members: Yes.
š¬ Rt Hon Winston Peters: Stop taking them home!
š¬ SPEAKER: Right. Right, I just want to say to the Deputy Prime Minister, that is not helpful, and I think he should practise being kind for when he is the Acting Prime Minister. Weāre now going to go back and Iām going to ask Mr Davis to start again, and Iām going to say to members that it is their responsibility either to leave the things plugged in, as members always used to do, so that they can use them immediately, or to keep themā
š¬ Hon Gerry Brownlee: It was here yesterday, itās not todayāsimple.
š¬ SPEAKER: Order! Itās a matter of turning it on.
š¬ Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Ä, hei tÄ«matanga mehemea ka ako rÄtau ki te kÅrero i Te Reo MÄori, horekau tÄnei raruraru e pÄ mai, nÄ reira, nÄ Te KÄwanatanga i whakapaohotia tÄtahi hÅtaka mahi nui ki te whakapakari i te ao mÄtauranga mÅ te rautau rua tekau mÄ tahi. Kei roto i tÄnei hÅtaka e whakapakari ana i a Ka Hikitia me Te Tau Mai Te Reo, nÄ mÄtau hoki i mea me Äta tirohia ngÄ take mÅ ngÄ akonga MÄori. Kai te haere tonu ngÄ hÅtaka hou pÄrÄ i Te Ahu o Te Reo, Te Kawa mÄ Te Kura, me Te Whakapakaritanga o Te Kotahitanga.
[And so, as a beginning, if they had learnt to speak the MÄori language this problem would not have occurred, therefore the Government announced a programme of huge significance to strengthen the education system for the 21st century. Within this is the refinement of Accelerating Success and the MÄori Language in Education strategy. We also advocated that matters related to the teaching of MÄori students must be examined carefully. Programmes like Te Ahu o Te Reo, Te Kawa MÄ Te Kura, and Te Whakapakaritanga o Te Kotahitanga continue.]
š¬ Hon Nikki Kaye: What is the number of young MÄori in the 10 partnership schools whose contracts have been terminated by this Government?
š¬ Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Horekau he mana nÅku mÅ ngÄ kura hourua.
[I have no mandate in regard to partnership schools.]
š¬ Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the memberās delegation, he is certainly responsible for lifting achievement of young MÄori, and so he should know what is the number of young MÄori that have no certain future in terms of partnership schools whose contracts have been terminated?
š¬ SPEAKER: The Minister answered the question. He answered it absolutely.
š¬ Hon Nikki Kaye: No, he didnāt. He said he has no responsibility. Thatās what he said.
š¬ SPEAKER: Thatās right. That is an answer.
š¬ Hon Nikki Kaye: He has responsibility for young MÄori.
š¬ SPEAKER: Order! The memberās been a Minister. She knows that responsibilities within the education portfolio are divided, and, in this particular case, itās been made very clear in the House this Minister does not have responsibility for decisions around partnership schools. And the idea that any Minister should have the list of ethnicities of children in particular schools isāwell, some people might know, but itās not a reasonable expectation on a Minister. Now, does the member have a further supplementary?
š¬ Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Speaker knows that the reality is there may be specific responsibility around decisions on partnership schools, but this Minister has a specific delegation around the achievement of young MÄori and whatās happening with young MÄori in State schools in New Zealand. Itās written into the delegation. This is a situation wherebyā
š¬ SPEAKER: Sorry, Ms Kaye, I have had enough now. I have ruled on this matter. If the member wanted that specific information as it related to MÄori children, she may have been able to develop a primary question within the Ministerās responsibilities. Sheās not getting it this way.
š¬ Hon Nikki Kaye: What has he done to ensure the welfare of the more than 800 young MÄori that he is responsible for that have had their school closure confirmed and have no clarity as to what school theyāll be attending next year?
š¬ Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I have said in this House that I have a conflict of interest around charter schools and I also have no responsibility for charter schools. She is referring to students of charter schools.
š¬ Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Quite apart from the extraordinary situation of a Minister with a delegation laid on the Table of the Parliament to have some responsibility for young MÄori studentsā educational achievement stating in the House today that he has no responsibility for that, he certainly, surely, has some idea to be able to indicate to the House what will happen to young MÄori students who are unable to attend their schools currently or from the end of this year, and what is his plan to assist them, given his specific delegation to be responsible for their educational achievement, stated in the document laid on the Table of the House.
š¬ Hon Chris Hipkins: Even in areas where Ministers have ministerial responsibility, where they have a conflict, it is not unusualāand, in fact, itās expectedāthat Ministers will declare that and not comment on the matter, because they have declared a conflict. I am the Minister responsible for partnership schools. Iām happy to answer any question on it.
š¬ Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Itās not actually been public, because I have asked a range of parliamentary questionsāwrittenāaround whether Ministers have declared conflicts. This is the first time that weāve heard this. Am I ableāthatās the question I have for you, as Speakerāto ask the Minister to table the conflict? Because itās not public information at the moment. Itās with the Cabinet Office, but if heās declared a conflict, then I think that should be available to this Parliament if I canāt ask questions about it.
š¬ SPEAKER: If the Minister wants to table the conflict, he certainly can. If the member wants to ask the Prime Minister about conflicts that have been declared to the Cabinet Office, that can also be the subject of parliamentary questions.
š¬ Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Iāve actually already asked that question of the Prime Minister in written questions, and I havenāt been able to get this information. So I seek leave for the Minister to table his conflict.
š¬ SPEAKER: You canāt seek leave for another member.
š¬ Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That member and her colleagues have been repeatedly alleging that my colleague has a conflict of interest. Now she doesnāt know about it.
š¬ Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was not an allegation made by this side of the House; it was accepting the word of the Associate Minister of Education by this side of the House. You just said there is a conflict of interest and, therefore, he has the delegation. I know that the Deputy Prime Ministerāsoon to be Acting Prime Ministerāhas got a lot on his plate, but try and keep up with it.
š¬ SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Now, can I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that through that point of order, he repeatedly interjected. Can I say to the Opposition that twice when Iāve been on my feet, thereās been raucous behaviour. My view is that we should move on to see if Nikki Kaye has a further supplementary that she would like to ask. But we alsoāI make it very clearāhave to take the word of Ministers when they indicate that they do have a conflict, and I will also say that it is not the first time in this House that Iāve heard the suggestion that Mr Davis had a conflict. I think it might have come from my left in the past.
š¬ Hon Nikki Kaye: What is his conflict of interest that means that he does not feel that he can answer whether he has done anything to support the 800 young MÄori whose future is uncertain because of contract termination in partnership schools?
š¬ SPEAKER: Before the Minister answers the question, I actually need to ask the Clerk.
š¬ Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I believe I recall that it was actually the member over there that claimed that I had a conflict of interest earlier in the year, but let me just reassure her that if any MÄori student in the State system will benefit from Te Ahu o Te Reo.
š¬ SPEAKER: No. Order! Order! This is very specific question that was asked by the Hon Nikki Kaye, and it goes to a very clear answer that the Minister had given previously. I want him to answer it.
š¬ Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that this is a matter that you just clarified with the Clerk, because I could read your lips while you were doing it. Once a Minister has declared a conflict of interest, surely it is then up to the Prime Minister to answer questions on that conflict. Otherwise, a Minister declaring a conflict is put in this position where they have to talk about it and explain it, which partly defeats the point of declaring the conflict in the first place.
š¬ SPEAKER: Yeah, and I understand the point thatās made, butā
š¬ Hon Nikki Kaye: But, Mr Speaker, speaking to theā
š¬ SPEAKER: No, sorry. Iām going to rule, if the member doesnāt mind. There are two sets of responsibilities here. Thereās the responsibility on the part of the Prime Minister to receive and be involved in the management of conflicts. The other part is a responsibility on individual Ministers where there are conflicts within their portfolios or delegations to declare them. I have just ruled, by asking the Hon Kelvin Davis to respond, that if he has made a declaration that precludes him from doing some of the work that might otherwise be part of his delegation, then it is appropriate for that to beāat least, in summaryāmade public. Itās something that I myself did on one occasion as Associate Minister of Finance where there was a familial conflict.
š¬ Hon KELVIN DAVIS: To answer, the accusation was made that I had a conflict of interest because I know the leaders of the charter school Te KÄpehu WhetÅ« in Whangarei. As a result, I thought it was best just to step back from any decisions, any commenting, on charter schools in total, because of those allegations.
š¬ Hon Nikki Kaye: I seek leave to table a document. Itās by the Auditor-General, but it actually has a paragraph in there that confirms that it is the Ministerās responsibility to declare conflicts in this area. But supplementaryā
š¬ SPEAKER: Sorry, which document is it?
š¬ Hon Nikki Kaye: Itās the Auditor-Generalās letter to me on these particular issues.
š¬ SPEAKER: So itās a personal letter to the member?
š¬ Hon Nikki Kaye: Itās a personal letter to me. Iām not sure how publicly available it is, but itās a personal letter to me.
š¬ SPEAKER: Well, Iāthe member seeks leave for that document to be tabled. Is there any objection? No, thereās not. It may be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
š¬ Hon Nikki Kaye: On what date did he declare the conflict of interest, ruling himself out of supporting young MÄori in partnership schools?
š¬ Hon KELVIN DAVIS: When it was discussed. To be honest, if she had wanted that information directly, she could have asked a writtenā
š¬ Hon Amy Adams: We didnāt know until now.
š¬ Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No, I can reply in written form, Mr Speaker.
š¬ SPEAKER: Sure. I mean thereāsāwell, I donāt. No one can be expected to know the exactācarry around the exact date of something like that.
š¬ Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
š¬ SPEAKER: Ohā
š¬ Hon Nikki Kaye: Well no, this cuts to the heart of whether the Minister was acting inappropriately on the time line as to when he declared that conflict of interest, and the date really matters. So if he doesnāt knowā
š¬ SPEAKER: Well, if the date matters, thenāif the date is really important, the member, Iām sure, will put down a question.
PrisonsāWaikeria Prison Announcement and Reoffending Rates
5. to the Minister of Corrections: What recent announcements has he made to address the growing prison population?
Good news. Yesterday, I was proud to announce that this Government is setting a new direction for prisons in New Zealand. We are building a 500-bed, high-security replacement prison at Waikeria and, alongside it, we will be building a 100-bed mental health facility, which will be the first of its kindāadding an extra 1,500 beds to the system. Our commitment to reform our broken justice system and this Governmentās commitment to social investment will help to stop the growing number of people entering through our prison gates.
š¬ Greg OāConnor: Why did he decide to build a small-scale prison over a mega-prison?
š¬ Hon KELVIN DAVIS: American-style mega-prisons are crime-breeding factories. They swallow up young offenders and spit out hardened criminalsāsometimes a fully patched gang member. They do not keep communities safe. We have chosen to build a smaller prison because international evidence shows smaller prisons work, while mega-prisonsā
š¬ Hon David Bennett: How much protection does he need?
š¬ Hon KELVIN DAVIS: āfavoured by the Oppositionācreate better criminals, not better people.
š¬ SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. David Bennett will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
š¬ Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.
š¬ Greg OāConnor: How will his recent announcement address reoffending rates?
š¬ Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We know smaller prisons are more effective in providing real rehabilitation, and the 500-bed facility at Waikeria will be one of the smallest prisons in New Zealand. From the outset, it was blindingly obvious that there is a massive problem with mental health issues in our prisons. What I canāt understand is why no Government took serious action to address this until now. We need to address the underlying issues facing prisoners, like mental health, through the specialised mental health facility. Otherwise, we will always struggle to address reoffending.
PrisonsāDefinition of Low-level Offenders
6. to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all of his Governmentās justice policies and decisions?
Yes.
š¬ Hon Mark Mitchell: Does the Minister still agree with the Prime Ministerās comments that weāre filling our prisons with low-level criminals?
š¬ Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes.
š¬ Hon Mark Mitchell: How many people are in prison for possession of cannabis?
š¬ Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I donāt have that particular figure on me. What I can say is that we know that more than 50 percent of those who enter the prison system in any one year are convicted of crimes that do not entail violence or are not otherwise serious.
š¬ Hon Mark Mitchell: What is an example of a non-violent assault?
š¬ Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member may well be aware that earlier this year, a High Court judge in Auckland was dealing with an offender charged with indecent assaultāin fact, convicted of indecent assault. The actions comprising that offence were pinching the bottom of a prison officer, and the judge was having to face the fact that the prisoner, because of the operation of other law, was facing a mandatory maximum sentence of seven years. The judge said he was not going to sentence anybody to seven years for pinching somebody elseās bottom.
š¬ Hon Mark Mitchell: Could the Minister just clarify for me that he just stood in the House and told us that an indecent assault is an example of a non-violent assault?
š¬ Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No, that member is deliberately misrepresenting what was saidā
š¬ SPEAKER: Order! Order! [Interruption] Order! The Minister should know that he cannot make that accusation, which is, effectively, a breach of privilege. The Minister will withdraw and apologise.
š¬ Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I withdraw and apologise. The member has misunderstood what I have said. The charge that that particular offender faced was one of indecent assaultāthat was the name of the charge. The action which that charge related to was pinching a prison officerās bottom. Now, that is a world of difference from other actions that result in a charge of indecent assaultāthat are genuinely more offensive, are violentāand that is why the High Court judge grappled with the idea that he should sentence that offender to seven years, and he declined to do so.
š¬ Hon Mark Mitchell: How many people, under your definition of non-violent assaultsā
š¬ SPEAKER: Order! Order!
š¬ Hon Mark Mitchell: āsorry, the Ministerās definition of non-violent assaultsāare currently in prison?
š¬ Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Again, I donāt have that detailed figure, but I repeat: what we do know is that 50 percent of offenders entering the prison system in any one year are convicted of offences that do not entail violence and are not otherwise serious offences. That member will know that we have a sentencing Act and a sentencing regime that distinguishes between different categories of offence. There is more serious offending and there is less serious offending.
š¬ Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he stand by the definition of a low-level criminal, as given to the House yesterday, as ānot committing violent crimes ⦠[only] committing ⦠āstreet crimesā, ⦠younger offenders, young male offenders, those with mental health issues, those with addiction issues, those with literacy problemsā[actually] all people who have problemsā?
š¬ Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That is one of the more ridiculous questions asked in this House for a long period of time. Theā
š¬ Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
š¬ SPEAKER: I canāt at the moment see what the question can be. The memberās asked does he stand by his statement made in the House yesterday, and I think what weāre going to do is weāre going to hear the Ministerās reply.
š¬ Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I did not define less serious offending in those terms. That member has taken a number of statements made at different times in the House yesterday toā
š¬ Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I need to address that becauseā
š¬ SPEAKER: Noāis the member disagreeing with the answer?
š¬ Hon Mark Mitchell: I am. Iāve got the Hansard hereā
š¬ SPEAKER: Well, the member canāt.
š¬ Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I said before, our criminal justice regime recognises a difference between more serious offending and less serious offending. Thatās why we have a sentencing Act. Thatās why we have different lengths of custodial sentence prescribed for different crimesā
š¬ Hon David Bennett: Iād hate to see if someone pinched you, whether theyād get in prison.
š¬ Hon ANDREW LITTLE: āand, in fact, we have sentencing that doesnāt even involve custodial sentences because the offending is at the less serious end and can be dealt with by non-custodial sentences, including with fines and other financial penalties.
š¬ SPEAKER: I just want to deal with Mr Bennett now. Mr Bennett, can you just please hold your tongue, and especially not refer to people pinching me while that happens. It hasnāt happened for a very long time and it certainly shouldnāt result in a prison sentence.
š¬ Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just bring to your attention that the Minister just intentionally misled the House in that answer?
š¬ SPEAKER: If you think that, then thereās an appropriate action to take, and that wasnāt it.
Transport InfrastructureāÅtaki to Levin Expressway and Light Rail
7. to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?
Yes, including my action of putting before the House the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill, which passed its second reading in the House unanimously.
š¬ SPEAKER: Order! Thatās enough. The question is well and truly answered.
š¬ Jami-Lee Ross: Did he advise the Prime Minister to assure the public that the Åtaki to Levin expressway would continue as plannedāa statement which is now false?
š¬ Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I advised the Prime Minister to say thatāat the time she was asked that questionānothing had changed in relation to that highway project.
š¬ Jami-Lee Ross: Does he agree with the Prime Minister when she stated in relation to Labourās Government policy statement that āÅtaki is continuing in the same way. If we hadnāt done anything last week, Åtaki would be in exactly the same position as it is now and will continue to be.ā?
š¬ Hon PHIL TWYFORD: At the time the Prime Minister made that statement, the exploratory work, the public consultation around the future alignment of that roading project, was continuing. The Prime Minister was correct.
š¬ Jami-Lee Ross: When will he tell the Prime Minister that her statement in April is now false, given that the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is re-evaluating the Åtaki to Levin expressway?
š¬ Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The NZTA is now re-evaluating that expressway. Itās re-evaluating and rescoping dozens and dozens of roading projects around the country. In light of the Government policy statement on land transport, which prioritises safety and which prioritises access, reducing carbon emissions, and resilience, itās a great transport policy and itās going to deliver a fantastic transport system.
š¬ Jamie Strange: How has the Government updated its policy on light rail?
š¬ Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Both this Government and the previous one had plans for light rail. The previous Government began work on route protection, but wanted to wait to start construction until 2047. This Government believes that three decades is a little too long to leave Aucklanders stuck in worsening congestion, so weāve made light rail a priority and weāve begun the process to start building it.
š¬ Jami-Lee Ross: Does he agree with the NZTA representative who said in the Dominion Post this morning that the Åtaki to Levin expressway was being re-evaluated āto better align with the new Labour-led Governmentās transport policyāāsomething the Prime Minister said would not happen?
š¬ Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I do agree with that NZTA staffer because she just articulated something thatās almost exactly the same as the answer I just gave in the House.
š¬ Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether or not the successful passage of his bill through the House with the support of all sides of Parliament is an example of being a lion in the electorate and a lamb in Parliament?
š¬ SPEAKER: Order!
š¬ Rt Hon Winston Peters: Whatās wrong with that?
š¬ SPEAKER: Well, the Minister has no responsibility for other membersā behaviour inside or outside of the Parliament.
Health ServicesāFunding for Drug and Alcohol Treatment
8. to the Minister of Health: What is the Government doing to increase the number of alcohol and drug detoxification beds in Auckland?
Yesterday, the Government announced a one-off $16.7 million investment to build two floors at the Auckland City Missionās new HomeGround facility. When construction is complete in two yearsā time, it will house 30 studio units for alcohol and drug detoxification. Itās a 50 percent increase on the current 20 beds that are funded in Auckland.
š¬ Anahila Kanongataāa-Suisuiki: How is this investment being funded?
š¬ Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The funding will be drawn from funding recovered under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act. As the Prime Minister said, it feels entirely appropriate that we use the money that has been accumulated through misery to end misery.
š¬ Anahila Kanongataāa-Suisuiki: Why is this investment important?
š¬ Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We know that demand for detox and treatment programmes is high. Too often, people are waiting too long to get the help they need. Programmes like the one at Auckland City Mission make a significant differenceāit is tried and true. This investment will help turn lives around.
Regional Economic Development, MinisterāStatements
9. to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he stand by his reported statement that āas the CEO leaves Fonterra, the chairman should in quick order catch the next cab out of townā?
Yes.
š¬ Hon Paul Goldsmith: Did he accept the Prime Ministerās judgment the last time he called for the sacking or resignation of a board member of a company: āCalling for the sacking of any board member is a step too far, and I have told him that.ā?
š¬ Hon SHANE JONES: A little bit of context around this issue: I originally gave those remarks in the context of an event that was bound by Chatham House Rules. Members in that audienceāeither with Fonterra or a National Party memberāchose to leak them, so I simply stood up and have got no compunction to repeat what I said to the face of so-said man, the soon to be departed leader of Fonterra.
š¬ Hon Paul Goldsmith: Then why is he defying the Prime Minister by doing it again?
š¬ Hon SHANE JONES: The Prime Minister and I have a very warm and respectful relationship and I have an extraordinarily high level of admiration, and that admiration will stretch even to a higher level in several weeksā time. There has been nothing said by me, there has been nothing articulated in this small episode, other than to stand up and show that whilst I am a friend of business, unlike that member, I am no sycophant.
š¬ Hon Paul Goldsmith: Since making those comments, what has the Prime Minister or her office said to him about his comments?
š¬ Hon SHANE JONES: I donāt have much to do with the Prime Ministerās office; I have a great deal to do with the Deputy Prime Ministerās office. In terms of what remarks may have passed between my good self and the Prime Minister, they lie within the context of our relationship. But I can assure you, I stand by my remarks in terms of accountability that should be shown by a failing corporate governance culture at the highest levels of our largest companyāand if a cab doesnāt suit, then shanksās pony is just as good.
š¬ Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that if the farmers of this country have, sadly and alas, taken a haircut of over $700 million, no one in politics should respond to that?
š¬ Hon SHANE JONES: I have been overwhelmed by the number of responses supporting my overdue criticism of so-said company and its corporate culture. Many of the farmers have said to me that at long last weāve got someone who will speak truth to corporate power and who will show that that particular corporate emperor definitely has no clothes.
š¬ Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he accused the leadership of Fonterra of being full of their own importance, did he look into his own heart and acknowledge his own failings in that area?
š¬ Hon SHANE JONES: I think the whole House knows that I am a very hearty politician, and any suggestion that those comments directed at that particular board do not enjoy support amongst the hoi polloi of the provincial community shows how out of contact that particular member is. And look, Fonterra cannot wander around making advertisements, such as they did this year, drawing on the countryside and the personalities of country people and not expect the āChampion of the Countryā to hold them accountable.
š¬ Rt Hon Winston Peters: In other words, is the Minister saying that someone from the provinces should be defending the farmers of this country and not somebody from Epsom?
š¬ SPEAKER: Order! Order! Itās not an area for which Mr Jones has responsibility.
Energy and ResourcesāSecurity of Electricity Supply and Renewable Energy Investment
10. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Has she developed comprehensive and tested contingencies to replace gasās role in New Zealandās total energy demand, with MBIE having recently downgraded the reserves of the countryās largest gas field, Pohokura, by 27.2 percent?
on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources: The Government has set itself the goalā
š¬ SPEAKER: On behalf of.
Oh, sorry. On behalf of the Minister, the Government has set itself a goal of having 100 percent renewable electricity in a normal hydrological year by 2035, and the Interim Climate Change Committee has been given the task of planning for that transition. Officials across a range of agencies are working at wider energy demand issues. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employmentās latest gas reserve figures also noted that Mangahewa reserves have increased 44.5 percent. The important point to note here is that these figures do fluctuate year to year, and we currently have 10.5 years of reserves remaining, which is broadly in line with the figures published every year for the past decade. Finally, itās important to point out that the Government has not ended exploration for gasā31 exploration permits, covering 100,000 square kilometres, remain activeāand weāve also announced that a block offer for further onshore acreage in Taranaki is proceeding.
š¬ Jonathan Young: Considering that those gas reserves are the lowest they have been in 15 years, what is her plan for security of electricity supply for retail customers and commercial users as domestic gas supply does run out?
Iāve been very clear in my original answerāin my primary answerāthat we still have 10.5 years of reserves remaining, which is broadly in line with the figures published every year for the past decade. That situation was not changed from the day before the Government made the announcement to the day after.
š¬ Jonathan Young: Considering the Minister has created a potential end date for exploration, knowing that thereās no new offshore permits and itās going to be reviewed for onshore in three yearsā time, can she be more specific, please, about what her plan for security of electricity supply will be for those users of domestic gas when that supply does run out?
I reject the assertion in the first part of the memberās question. The Government has a clear plan to ensure that we have a diversified electricity supply network. Just over 82 percent of our electricity currently comes from renewable sources, and, of course, we want to do better than that.
š¬ Jonathan Young: Will she guarantee that during her Governmentās transition to 100 percent renewable electricity, New Zealand will at no time burn more coal than it presently does to ensure security of electricity supply?
No Government can give that guarantee, because we canāt control how much it rains.
š¬ Jonathan Young: Will wind play a significant role in the transition to 100 percent renewable energy; and, if so, how much more investment will be required, given that this past Sunday evening, the countryās 17 wind farms contributed only 1/100th of 1 percent of New Zealandās electricity?
Yes, wind will continue to play an important role in the future security of New Zealandās electricity supply, as will geothermal, as will hydro, as will a number of other potential sourcesāsolar is another one. More distributed generation is another potential source to secure greater security of supply.
š¬ Jonathan Young: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the question how much more investment would be required, and if the Minister could elaborate on that, that would be appreciated.
The first part of the memberās question asked whether or not wind would continue to be a part of the security of supply, and I said yes.
Drugs, IllegalāMethamphetamine Smuggling
11. to the Minister of Customs: What initiatives has the Government taken to curb the smuggling of methamphetamines into New Zealand?
This coalition Government is committed to stopping meth and other illegal drugs from coming across our borders. In Budget 2018, I secured an additional $58.1 million to help protect our borders, which includes an extra 127 customs staff over the next few years.
š¬ Rino Tirikatene: Why is the Government spending so much money on stopping the smuggling of meth?
š¬ Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: The damage to our communities and our whÄnau is immense. The use of illicit drugs costs us $1.8 billion in social harm every single year. It impacts on our employment and our productivity, and weakens the fabric of our society across all our regions. The extra $58.1 million will go a long way to addressing this matter.
š¬ Rino Tirikatene: Is the Minister taking a cross-agency approach to preventing the importation of meth into New Zealand; and, if so, why?
š¬ Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Yes, absolutely. We will continue building on the success of our joint work with police, immigration, and other agencies across Government and overseas by enhancing outreach campaigns, sharing intelligence, and increasing community engagement. Why? Because itās the smart thing to do.
Health ServicesāConflicts of Interest and National Oracle Solution Programme
12. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his decisions and actions regarding the National Oracle Solution (NOS) programme?
Yes, in their context.
š¬ Dr Shane Reti: Why did the ministry proceed with commissioning Deloitte as independent reviewers, when Official Information Act (OIA) documents show the first words of Deloitteās own conflict of interest declaration state āDeloitte has been involved in the National Oracle Solutionā, meaning they will be reviewing their own work?
š¬ Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I canāt speak for why the ministry made that decision. The procurement process originally was done under the Government procurement rules that that Government set up, and the conflicts, perceived or real, were declared in that piece of work, as the member knowsāthe memberās got the OIA release now. The ministry did, though, subsequently commission Audit New Zealand to undertake an assurance process on the process followed by the ministry in its engagement of a consultant to review the National Oracle Solution programme.
š¬ Dr Shane Reti: Why did the ministry proceed with commissioning Deloitte as independent reviewers, when OIA documents now show Deloitte and Deloitte-related entities provided 28 consultation services to the project from 2011 to 2017?
š¬ Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The project didnāt exist in 2011.
š¬ Dr Shane Reti: When was the Minister made aware that Deloitte or Deloitte-related entities have been āmaterially involvedā in the majority of their services provided to the project since 2013, and what steps did he take?
š¬ Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I havenāt been advised of that.
š¬ Dr Shane Reti: Why did the Minister deny reviewer Thorsten Engelās 2011 conflict of interest in oral question No.Ā 9 yesterday, when it is now clear that Deloitte were providing significant services to the project in 2011?
š¬ Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The project didnāt exist in 2011.
š¬ Dr Shane Reti: I seek leave to table Deloitteās conflict of interest declaration for the independent NOS review and Deloitteās additional conflict of information statement for the independent review.
š¬ SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. They can be tabled.
Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
š¬ Dr Shane Reti: I seek leave to table a 4 April 2017 email from Deloitte confirming that they have been materially involved in the project. It comes to me as an OIA.
š¬ SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is an objection.
š¬ Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I seek leave to table all of the OIA correspondence received by Mr Reti to provide the full context for all of those things and to provide a clear view of the history of this issue. Thereās one from 23 Mayā
š¬ SPEAKER: No, noāis there any objection to those documents being tabled? There appears to be none.
Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
š£ļø Spoke in this debate (18)
- Hon Amy Adams (New Zealand National Party ā Member for Selwyn)
- Hon David Bennett (New Zealand National Party ā Member for Hamilton East)
- Hon Dr David Clark (New Zealand Labour Party ā Member for Dunedin North)
- Hon Kelvin Davis (New Zealand Labour Party ā Member for Te Tai Tokerau)
- Hon Paul Goldsmith (New Zealand National Party ā List Member)
- Hon Chris Hipkins (New Zealand Labour Party ā Member for Rimutaka)
- Shane Jones (New Zealand First Party ā List Member)
- Hon Nikki Kaye (New Zealand National Party ā Member for Auckland Central)
- Hon Andrew Little (New Zealand Labour Party ā List Member)
- Hon Todd McClay (New Zealand National Party ā Member for Rotorua)
- Hon Mark Mitchell (New Zealand National Party ā Member for Rodney)
- Greg O'Connor (New Zealand Labour Party ā Member for ÅhÄriu)
- Dr Shane Reti (New Zealand National Party ā Member for WhangÄrei)
- Jami-Lee Ross (New Zealand National Party ā Member for Botany)
- Rino Tirikatene (New Zealand Labour Party ā Member for Te Tai Tonga)
- Hon Phil Twyford (New Zealand Labour Party ā Member for Te AtatÅ«)
- Hon Meka Whaitiri (New Zealand Labour Party ā Member for Ikaroa-RÄwhiti)
- Jonathan Young (New Zealand National Party ā Member for New Plymouth)