Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?

Yes.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: How can he have confidence in the Minister in charge of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, David Parker, when it has been reported he has close personal relationships with high-end property developers who have sought exemptions from the bill?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that we inherited that deal from a former Minister Steven Joyce, who did not go through the consultation process, and if Amy Adams knew anything about the law she would know that full well. That being the case, Treasury gave us one set of advice, and the Speaker referred to a separate set of advice. As a consequence, we’ve acted on the Speaker’s advice.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: How can he have confidence in his Minister in charge of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, when he said, “We want the prices of New Zealand homes, whether it be a lakeside station, the best [homes] in the Bay of Islands or … modest homes in our towns and cities, to be set by local buyers, not on the international market … New Zealanders should not be outbid by wealthier foreign buyers.”, when that Minister’s own bill now excludes exemptions allowing that to occur?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That summation by that member is demonstrably wrong. For land and for houses, that statement is totally false. What is true—because we do listen to the market, and being so close to it, we do understand how it works—is we’ve ensured there are some exemptions where apartments are concerned.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does he have confidence in his Minister of Foreign Affairs, who has expressed concern about New Zealanders being outbid when buying land by wealthier foreign buyers but now supports a bill that proposes exempting those wealthier foreign buyers?

💬 SPEAKER: Before I allow the question, I want an assurance from the questioner that the statement was made as the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Speaking to that, sir, I purposely left it quite broad and not a direct quote, where he has expressed concern repeatedly in many contexts and while the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

💬 SPEAKER: No, the question was whether the statement was made as Minister of Foreign Affairs as opposed to the leader of the New Zealand First Party.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I haven’t given a direct quote of a statement made by the Minister.

💬 SPEAKER: What I’m going to do is give the member another chance to get a question which is within order.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Thank you, sir. Does he have confidence in his Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, when he said in this House last week that he defined a prison officer who was grabbed on the buttock, squeezed quite hard, and then followed and intimidated by the prisoner as suffering “a pinch on the bottom”?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What I do have is confidence in a justice Minister who understands—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just answer the question.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —I’ll answer the question if you’ll just give me a chance to, Mr Smith, not make that poppycock type of shouting you do every day in this House, to every question. Can I say I have confidence in a Minister of Justice who understands the gradations in levels of sexual offending and he expressed one. What would the member do?

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does he consider a woman grabbed in the workplace for a prolonged period of time and followed and intimidated to be the victim of an indecent assault?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Depending on the facts and not the hypotheticals, and if the facts were proven, that would be a sexual assault, yes.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: How can he have confidence in his Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Ethnic Communities, Michael Wood, when he said, “The office of Ethnic Communities is moving into premises in Onehunga, which will be shared with list MP Priyanca Radhakrishnan. We’ve boosted that support that we’re providing in terms of connecting with ethnic communities, so we have more staff members working in our ethnic communities outreach teams.”, and the editor of the Onehunga Community News says she has a recording of him saying that?

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The comments made by Michael Wood were made in his capacity as a local member of Parliament, and the first part of the quote that Paula Bennett mentions is not actually a quote. It is a reporter’s reporting. It is not a quote of anything that Michael Wood said.

💬 SPEAKER: Can I first—[Interruption] No, sorry, I’m going to deal with this matter first. Can I first check with the Hon Paula Bennett whether the first part of what she indicated was a quote was in fact contained in quotation marks in the publication in question?

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Yes, sir, it was.

💬 SPEAKER: Thank you. Right, the Acting Prime Minister will answer the question.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just say that the reports on the opening of the labour office were wrong. They were misreported. And the office is a labour office for—

💬 Hon Member: It’s a tape recording.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I beg your pardon?

💬 Hon Member: There’s a tape recording.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The office is a labour office for ethnic communities funded by Parliamentary Service, not an office of ethnic community services.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Will the Prime Minister be asking to hear the recording from the Onehunga Community News as they believe they have a direct quote from the under-secretary?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What the Prime Minister will be doing is asking that member to produce a report to this Parliament and back up her allegations. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Nathan Guy.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Can he have confidence that his Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Ethnic Communities is not misusing taxpayer-funded money by having offices of bureaucrats attached to Labour electorate offices?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because of my last two answers, and more importantly, if that member wants to make that allegation, please turn up in in Parliament with the proof, and then we’ll be able to examine the evidence. But I and my colleagues are just too busy to do her work for her.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the article from the Onehunga Community News. I know that we don’t normally table media articles, but this is not a widely circulated publication. Anybody looking at it will see that there are no quotation marks over the statement that Paula Bennett has told the House was a quote.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m not going to put it to the House; I am going to ask the member to give it to Paula Bennett so that she, if appropriate, can correct her statement to me, which would be a serious misleading if it was correct. Further supplementary? Sorry, you’ve finished?

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I’m done, thank you.

💬 SPEAKER: OK.

Economy—Government Policies

2. to the Minister of Finance: Will this Government’s policies help transition the economy; if so, how?

Yes. The Government is ambitious for New Zealand’s economy. Through our research and development tax credit we’re encouraging Kiwi businesses to look at how they can do new things in different ways. Through our initiatives, such as the Green Investment Fund, we’ll be working with the private sector to make investments that benefit New Zealanders in the present, without compromising our ability to meet our future needs, and through our Provincial Growth Fund we’re investing to ensure New Zealanders in the regions get the same opportunities to fulfil their potential as those living in our main centres. This Government has put in place the policies to help transition our economy to one that is more productive, more sustainable, and more inclusive.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: Why is this transition necessary?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, if we look back at New Zealand’s growth over recent years, it’s very clear why it’s necessary. First, we’ve seen growth driven by an out-of-control housing market and population growth—that’s not sustainable. Nor is it sustainable to ignore both our international obligations on climate change and the damage to New Zealand’s brand and reputation in the world from failing to shift to a lower carbon economy. Secondly, the growth we’ve seen has not translated into meaningful improvements to many New Zealanders’ lives. That’s why this Government is changing our focus to an economy that is more sustainable and inclusive.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What will a successful economic transition look like?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: A successful transition will result in an economy where we have productive businesses that can do more with what they have, sustainable growth that meets our needs without compromising our ability to do so in the future, and inclusive growth that improves the well-being of all New Zealanders and enables a just transition for businesses and communities. This transition will take time, but we have the building blocks in place, and we can see today in the GDP numbers that the transition is beginning, with growth in business services, information, media, and telecommunications—major contributors to GDP growth.

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: How is this Government helping transition the economy to becoming more productive when Statistics New Zealand figures published just this morning show real per capita growth is going backwards and is now at its lowest level since 2011?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Before the member answers I just want to say to the people in both those quadrants at the back, can they keep their mouths shut while questions are being asked.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What the release from Statistics New Zealand shows today is that GDP growth for the quarter was in line with what economists were expecting. Thirteen of 16 industries grew in the quarter; annual GDP growth was 2.7 percent, in line with the OECD average; and, interestingly, business investment is up 5.5 percent year on year, compared with 3.7 percent in the previous year under that member’s party. Businesses are investing in the economy. The member should join in. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: No, the member—I’m going to ask her to read her question again.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: How is this Government helping the economy to transition to being more productive when Statistics New Zealand figures released just this morning show real per capita GDP growth is going backwards and is at its lowest level since September 2011?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The way that this Government is making the transition, as the member asked, is exactly what I’ve just spent three answers answering—that we are going to invest in the productive part of our economy, practically, through initiatives like the Provincial Growth Fund and the Green Investment Fund, rather than the previous Government relying on people selling houses to one another and the population growing.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Well, does he agree that GDP per capita growth is what matters most for achieving higher material living standards and that falling GDP per capita is showing that New Zealanders were working harder and harder for less, with both of those statements having been made by Grant Robertson?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: And what a sensible member Grant Robertson, Opposition MP, was. What I would say to that member is GDP per capita will increase once we move to a more sustainable, more productive, and inclusive economy. I would also suggest to the finance spokesperson for the Opposition that she perhaps listen to her predecessor, who said that it was unwise to look at quarterly numbers because they go both up and down.

Question No. 1 to Minister

I seek to clarify a previous discussion that we had, if I may.

💬 SPEAKER: You seek to make a personal explanation in order to correct a previous statement.

Thank you, sir—

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry—first of all, is there any objection? There is none.

The first part that I said had been quoted in the newsletter had not. It is what the editor maintains Mr Wood had said to her. The second part that was in quotes was. I made an error, and I apologise for it.

💬 SPEAKER: Thank you.

Overseas Investment Amendment Bill—Te Ārai Development

3. to the Associate Minister of Finance: What is the purpose of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill?

There are three main purposes. The first is to ban foreign buyers of existing New Zealand homes; the second is to bring forestry registration rights into the overseas investment screening regime to ensure they’re treated similarly to existing screening for freehold and leasehold forests, whilst at the same time streamlining screening for forestry to encourage foreign direct investment in the forestry sector; and the third and equally important purpose is to preserve policy space for future Governments to protect the rights of New Zealanders to own their own land. This policy space would, in practice, have been lost for ever had this Government not acted to do these things before the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) comes into effect.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Was it the policy intent of the bill for developers of multimillion-dollar homes targeted at foreign buyers, such as the Te Ārai property development, to be exempt?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: No. The transitional exemption that was put forward but has been ruled out of order was put forward with the intent of helping the iwi who had suffered long delays on the project. It was a time-limited, transitional measure. There was advice from Treasury that this was procedurally appropriate to allow an exemption. However, the Speaker has advised that the select committee’s recommendation is not within the Standing Orders. The Government accepts the Speaker’s ruling, and therefore the transitional exemption will not proceed.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Well, is it his intention to promulgate regulations under the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill to exempt the Te Ārai development, or any other development linked to John Darby, from the provisions of that legislation?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: No, and, indeed, the other regulation-making power in the bill—and the member will know this because she was on the select committee—would not allow such an exemption.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister: under this visionary and responsible policy, what proportion of New Zealand homes will no longer be able to be purchased by a foreign buyer outbidding a New Zealander?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: There are currently 1.8 million homes in New Zealand, and more than 20,000 new homes will be built over the next year. Under this law, foreigners cannot buy any of the 1.8 million existing homes and can only purchase a fraction of the 20,000 new homes that would be built and would then have to either onsell them or lease them to New Zealanders. The bill as reported back from select committee ensures that more than 99 percent of New Zealand homes will not be able to be sold to foreigners.

💬 David Seymour: Was the bill’s process subject to any time pressure due to the need to pass it before the CPTPP is ratified?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes.

💬 David Seymour: Is that why it’s such a dog’s breakfast of inconsistent amendments now?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: It isn’t. It’s actually quite a complex bill. We don’t want to in Auckland stop some foreign direct investment in multi-storey apartment buildings that are going to be onsold or leased. That is probably the most important change that has been made at select committee, but it remains true that a foreigner will not be able to buy any existing home in New Zealand, and, as I said, more than 99 percent of New Zealand homes will not be open to purchase.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Since becoming the Minister responsible for the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, has he had any discussions about the bill and the proposed Te Ārai development exemption with the chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, Michael Wood; and if so, when?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Obviously on a number of occasions, but I do that with every bill that I’m responsible for.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Since becoming a Minister has he met, corresponded with, spoken to, or texted John Darby or Ric Kayne, as the beneficial owners of the Te Ārai development, or any representative of their business interests; and if so, for what purpose?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: No. I know thousands of people in New Zealand, including Mr Darby. I have bumped into him probably once or twice in the last decade. The last time I can recall talking to him was when I bumped into him, and it’s so long ago I can’t remember when it was.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Well, since becoming a Minister, has he met, corresponded with, spoken to, or texted any representative of John Darby and Ric Kayne’s lobbying firm Thompson Lewis; and if so, for what purpose?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Everyone in the House will know that GJ Thompson actually was the acting chief of staff here, so I’ve regularly spoken with him—unfortunately for the member, not about this issue. Someone made me aware that Mr Lewis had some involvement in this. I have not spoken to Mr Lewis about this at all, nor corresponded with him. The two meetings that I can recall having with Mr Lewis since we were elected were in respect of carbon rights and forestry, and members of staff were present at those meetings to witness them, as well.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that notwithstanding his proximity and the Government’s proximity to Mr Thompson, this is evidence that the Government is not corruptible on this matter and would somewhat suggest that Mr Thompson was far more successful with the previous Government?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to allow the Minister to answer the question. I am going to deduct two supplementary questions from the Opposition for the interjections from the acting shadow Leader of the House and the finance spokesperson.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Accepting that punishment, I should have perhaps taken the point of order quickly in order to—rather than try and draw your attention to what I think is a breach of the Standing Orders. It is certainly out of order in this House to suggest that something infers corruption. I would suggest that the opposite also applies—that a question can’t contain a suggestion that something lacks corruption or corruptibility.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I totally disagree with the member. I think that the first part of the question was certainly in order. The second part wasn’t. I was waiting to see if the Acting Prime Minister could use—what he sometimes does—his deft skills to bring things which are apparently out of order into order. He didn’t and therefore I ruled out the second part.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m not challenging; I just want to explain why I raised it in the way that I did. The inference is not in the way the Acting Prime Minister asked the question; it was in the fact that it inferred that the Hon Amy Adams could have inferred it in her questions.

💬 SPEAKER: It couldn’t infer anything. It might have implied something; you inferred it.

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The involvement of either Mr Thompson or Mr Lewis in this had no effect on my decision. The advice we had received from Treasury to the select committee, based on public submissions that were heard by all, was that this was an iwi-based development that had suffered interminable delays, and we had some sympathy for their position—

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Iwi-based?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, that is as it was described to me, Amy Adams, and the paper trail will show that. The paper trail will show that. We had some sympathy for that position, and so we were willing to agree to a transitional provision. We wanted it to be tight because we didn’t want there to be exemptions up and down the land, which is why the other regulation-making power is narrow, so that if future Governments want to unwind the ban on foreign buyers, they’re going to have to do it by primary legislation and not sneak it through by ministerial discretion.

Justice, Minister—Statements on Indecent Assault of Corrections Officer

4. to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement in answer to Oral Question No 8 on Tuesday that “The member is alluding to the offender I referred to in a question last week, relating to the pinching of a prison officer’s bottom”?

I stand by all statements in the totality of the issue that that member is referring to, which also included statements that this particular offending was offensive, unwelcome, and totally unacceptable, and I also stand by my statements to the effect that the consequence of that offending should not have been seven years’ jail without parole.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: When the Minister made that statement, had he read the sentencing note in relation to the indecent assault offence?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No, I had not. I relied on reports in the New Zealand Herald about the nature of that offending. And I go back to the point that I have been very clear and my track record on issues of sexual harassment and sexual violence is very clear, and I take no moral lesson from that member and his party, who had a Minister of Justice who, when he had the opportunity to let the Law Commission do its work on changing the nature of trials for sexual offending so they did not traumatise victims and re-victimise victims, told the Law Commission to stop doing its work.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Why is the Minister commenting on and characterising an indecent assault on a female corrections officer, when he hasn’t even read the sentencing notes?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That member is completely wrong, because the issue was all about the consequences of that particular offending. In that particular case, the offender was convicted, the offender was sentenced, but it was circumstances in which that offender was facing seven years’ jail without parole. This Government is not going to have and continue that party’s promotion of American-style justice, with over-the-top, disproportionate sentencing.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he acknowledge that the victim in fact had her buttock grabbed hard and held by the offender, and when she tried to get away the offender followed her and grabbed a gate to prevent her from leaving, which left her, in her own words, feeling totally degraded, vulnerable, and uneasy when performing her work duties?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I accept what that member says, and it would be nice if that member and his colleagues had said more when they had a leader who molested a hospitality worker repeatedly by pulling her hair.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The suffix to that answer is entirely out of order and it should have been brought to account very quickly. He had no ministerial responsibility for that, not even in his capacity or in the time frame.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think a very serious accusation was being levelled at this Minister, and I think what he was trying to do was contrast approaches. This is generally a robust Chamber. That was a very robust questioning line from the Hon Mark Mitchell, and I think that the response, while it went right up to the edge and was unusual, was not out of order.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point of order—

💬 SPEAKER: No. Well, I’ll give the member another go, but I don’t want him to relitigate my ruling.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I’m not going to, but I am going to suggest that it is a slippery slope to the bottom if, rather than rejecting or refuting the question, we get into some sort of tit-for-tat “Who was worse at what?” Regardless of the merits of the answer, I would suggest that that is going to cause disorder in this House.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I agree with the member, and I don’t want that situation to occur, but when a Minister’s values are being questioned, as they were, then one can expect a robust response.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to clarify: that question wasn’t laying any criticism; it was asking if he acknowledged what actually happened to the victim in that case.

💬 SPEAKER: It was part of a series of questions which were robust.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Oh, my God!

💬 SPEAKER: David Bennett, was that you?

💬 Hon David Bennett: Yes.

💬 SPEAKER: Stand up, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he understand the words and characterisation that he chose to use in relation to an indecent assault on a female corrections officer has sent an appalling message to prison inmates and may have increased the risk, particularly for female corrections officers, in their own workplace?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I don’t accept that member’s characterisation of the consequences of what I have said. I have been very clear about my attitude towards, and actions on, issues involving sexual harassment and sexual violence, which is a step way better than members opposite.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Will he apologise to the growing number of women who are deeply offended and feel his characterisation of an indecent assault against a female corrections officer as New Zealand’s justice Minister is totally inappropriate?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Since nothing I said conveyed that meaning, I think the most important thing is actually for members opposite, who allowed their Minister of Justice to stop the Law Commission doing work that would have made trials on sexual offences a lot better for victims of sexual violence—she stopped it in its tracks. That was wrong.

Greater Christchurch Regeneration—Symposium on Lessons From Canterbury Earthquake Sequence

What announcements has she made about learning the lessons from the Canterbury earthquake sequence to help New Zealanders prepare for the future?

Before the Minister answers, who made that interjection? [Interruption] Sorry, we have two, including a Minister, I understand, wanting to answer a question fairly soon. I think both sides of the House need to know we’ve moved on to the next question. We might be returning to the issue soon, but in the interests of the Minister who is to answer the question, the question should be asked without interjection. Dr Webb, ask it again.

5. to the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration: What announcements has she made about learning the lessons from the Canterbury earthquake sequence to help New Zealanders prepare for the future?

I’m delighted to share that, in partnership with the Christchurch City Council, a symposium has been scheduled for 29 and 30 November this year. A series of workshops will also be held in the build-up to the event. Around 250 people are expected to attend the symposium, including people from a range of experience and expertise: community and voluntary groups, the public and private sector, as well as academics. I’m thrilled to see this Government committed to delivering this event—something the previous Government was not able to do.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What topics can she expect the symposium and workshops to cover?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: While the content of the symposium is still being developed, I can announce that the preceding four-part workshop series is currently being organised on the themes of social and psychosocial recovery, recovery leadership and governance, procurement delivery models, and supporting business recovery. The Canterbury earthquake sequence affected every part of Cantabrians’ lives and had deep psychological impacts. I’m pleased to see a range of topics that have been identified and will be discussed.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: How does the symposium fit with the Government’s wider programme of work to advance the recovery of Christchurch?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’m pleased to say that there is a cohesive programme of work under way to ensure the voices of people affected by the earthquakes are heard. These include extending the funding for the Residential Advisory Service, free and independent advice to homeowners who are experiencing conflict with insurers, including the Earthquake Commission (EQC); introducing a bill into Parliament which proposed common-sense legislative amendments to the Act, including increasing the EQC building cap, removing cover for contents, clarifying EQC’s ability to share information, and extending the time frame EQC can accept claims; appointing an independent ministerial adviser, whose recommendations EQC is implementing, including increasing the number of settlement teams in the Christchurch business unit working to settle Canterbury earthquake claims. We’ve also recently announced that the Government is launching a public inquiry into EQC, as well as a special insurance tribunal to resolve outstanding earthquake and insurance claims. Budget 2018—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Oh, there’s such a long list.

💬 SPEAKER: And the Minister’s finished for today. Thank you.

Question time interrupted.