Oral Questions

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

In their context, yes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he stand by his statement that it is a target of this Government that a solo homebuyer earning the living wage should be able to get a home worth five times their annual income?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: To the extent that there was a time frame put on that aspiration, which was, as I told the media, in the long term, and to the extent that anyone who knows anything about the law knows that young people, for their first home, don’t buy an average home; they buy down the bottom of the market for their first home, which means they can easily achieve that. And guess what? The ratio is 5.8 percent now.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is he aware that, in Auckland, this target would mean house prices falling to $213,000 or the living wage increasing to $100 an hour?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The mistake of someone who is not familiar with the housing market or the commercial market or, for that matter, has not had any experience in helping people to get into the market is to think that they buy average homes. No, they don’t, Mr Bridges. I don’t know about Mr Bridges’ first home, and maybe he was flush with money, but the rest of us had to start at the bottom and work our way up.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is it his Government’s target to reduce Auckland house prices to $213,000 on average; and if so, what impact does he believe this will have on current homeowners?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It’s very hard to believe that someone would start with an absurd proposition like that. That is so ridiculous. What I said, and for the information of that member over there, who claims to be a lawyer as well, the current low quartile of housing is at 5.8 percent—the wage I’m talking about right now. I was talking about taking it down to 5 from 5.8. That is easily achievable or, to quote Hillary, “You just go there and you do it.”

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he agree with Newshub reporter Jenna Lynch that this target “announced on the hoof could be heading towards the fantastical” or with its commentator Mark Richardson that “There is more chance of the Abdominizer 2000 giving us great abs than this policy of his working.”?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I was going to take that question seriously until he predicated it on a certain person in the press gallery and, right then, all sense of reality flew out the window.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Why is his Government willing to set such long-term targets for house prices but, at the same time, remove specific, measurable targets that drive performance and accountability, such as in the health sector, and which will actually save lives?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member has to remember: two legs to the question and no statements.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Dealing with the question of the health targets, the present Government inherited a series of targets which were distorted, perverted, false, untrue, and had to be changed. You had skin lesions being operated on in the public health system when they could have been in primary health, for a start—a whole lot of examples like that. So, being the rational, sane Government that we are, with a first-class health Minister, we’re going to find new, measurable targets which will—[Interruption] just be patient—have this effect: people in this country will be far healthier as a consequence.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he not consider the public have a right to know the length of emergency department stays, something which was proven to save hundreds of lives a year?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Could I say, from the observation of the claimed targets that the previous Government met, many of them made by public officials and expert advice, they were never met in the first place, but the reality is that ear, nose, and throat operations were down under that Government, paediatric operations were down, general surgery was down, and investment in public health was down.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Did Cabinet consider either the removal of the health sector targets or the addition of the Government’s new house price target he announced yesterday?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With respect to the house price targets, I was asked a question as to what I personally thought, and having probably had more to do with construction and house pricing in Auckland than all of the rest over there, all put together—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: You’ve done it all!

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, yes I have. I’m not one of these people who only worked for a firm and never had ownership of it and has never been in business himself. Can I just say that that was a personal aspiration going on the present low-pricing of housing for first-home buyers, which is 5.8 percent of their annual wage, and usually they buy as couples, so it’s much more reasonable to make that assessment. That was a personal statement, which I stand by, and as for the health targets, well, the Hon David Clark came along with a system and plan and policies of hope to improve public health and Cabinet members agreed with him rather than those false targets put out there by the previous Government, which were never met in the first place.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he believe his Government risks looking non-transparent and unaccountable when they ditched specific, measurable targets like Better Public Services targets and the health targets but, at the same time, announced targets that will only ever be realised in the never-never?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The proposition being put out by that member is a political one to try and gain some public support out there in the constituency. It won’t wash, of course. It won’t wash, because the so-called targets that they had set had this effect on the Public Service: it gave the Public Service a haircut and was a boon for all the private consultants.

Overseas Ownership of New Zealand Property—Exemption for Te Ārai Development

2. to the Minister of Forestry: What reports has he received about the effect of the changes to the Overseas Investment Act 2005 on forestry and other regional land?

I can do no better than to quote the Whanganui-based director of forest owners management services: “bloody good news”. These changes, as they pertain to forest land and forest resource, simplify the application process, vastly reduce the costs associated with forest investors wandering through that process, and, I’m told, it’ll be a boost to grow us at a greater pace to achieve the billion tree outcome.

💬 Clayton Mitchell: Does the Minister consider these changes to be positive towards the billion trees strategy?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: There are a limited range of sources of capital in terms of funding this nation-building project. There is core funding coming out of the Crown; there is funding coming out of entities such as the Superannuation Fund, in the event that they are so inclined; and then there is the source of international capital. Our Government made a choice to simplify the process so we could tap into international capital, subject to rules and regulations that will be covered off by environmental legislation. This is positive for the billion trees strategy.

💬 Clayton Mitchell: Are there specific concerns related to former Crown forestry land?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Yes. Former Crown forestry land was given back. I’m aware, as the Minister of Forestry, of a range of Māori hapū and Treaty settlement assets, and on one such block of land I have been lobbied by parties associated with that Crown forest land, located in Mangawhai-Te Ārai.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister possibly help us all by telling us who was the concerned local citizen that contacted him and lobbied him on behalf of the local iwi and developers?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I did attend a meeting at the Tara Iti golf course. That land was previously Crown forest land. Present at that meeting were members from the Te Uri o Hau hapū, Mr John Darby, and the US billionaire Mr Ric Kayne. I’m disappointed that the latter’s name has been traduced by the Opposition in the House. I had never heard of the man’s name until I was encouraged to meet him by the former Prime Minister the Rt Hon John Key.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Amongst all those people that the Minister mentioned, was it Sir John Key who was the local citizen that lobbied him?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: After I received my warrant in October, I was the Minister of Forestry and quickly grew to be, as dubbed by Gerry Brownlee, the champion of the country. It was in that capacity that—and I quite enjoy the company of the former Prime Minister, which may reduce my prospects for career development given the nature of the current Prime Minister, but having said that, I took his call. I didn’t think there was anything improper with meeting with those parties, one billionaire, and if it was good enough for him to encourage me to meet with them, listen to them about their concerns, that’s what I’m paid to do. The other side of the House might find more information if they look closer to home.

💬 Hon David Parker: So let me get this straight: is the—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Question.

💬 Hon David Parker: Is the Minister saying that after all the spurious and defamatory accusations levelled against me and the Government by the Opposition, the Rt Hon Sir John Key had been making representations on behalf of Te Ārai for help before I even knew about it?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is simply this. Mr Parker is not asking a question; he is asking for a clarification. Further, he is making an allegation in his question, and, in actual fact, the only responsibility that the regional development Minister and forestry Minister might have in these circumstances would be for his own actions, which would be his interactions with the Hon David Parker that led to the extraordinary exclusion attempt in the recent Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, a bill which is currently before a select committee. Who lobbied who is of no concern to anybody in this House. It’s the actions—[Interruption]

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no, we’ll let him finish first.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, what this House concerns itself with is potential for corrupt practice, and that is the essence of what is at stake here. This sort of question—this self-justifying sort of question—does not do anything to improve the integrity of this House.

💬 SPEAKER: Before I—I very rarely correct the honourable member on technical matters. The bill is currently before the House. It’s out of select committee.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order, the first thing is that the member, when making his point of order, was in grave danger of impugning his own former leader with the language he used. But the reason why Mr Parker is asking the question is because, like me and my colleagues, we are filled with so much incredulity as to the answer that’s been given by the Minister.

💬 SPEAKER: I think the question did start off with a question. I think it was something like “Have I got it right?”, or similar words, and a set of facts were put there. I think we were getting close to the end of it, and I don’t want to cause disruption by having it all again, but if the member can just bring it to a conclusion, very quickly.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You made it very clear at the start of question time that the leader of the National Party could ask a question but not make a statement. I hope that the same rule will be applied here, because I know that it’s a matter of self-defence that we’re seeing in this question, but it should simply be a question.

💬 SPEAKER: And there was a very clear question: “Have I got it right?”, and then a set of facts. It wasn’t the addition of a set of facts after a question had been completed, as the Leader of the Opposition did, and he did it again and I didn’t pull him up on it.

💬 Hon David Parker: Just concluding the question, in effect, did the Rt Hon Sir John Key, former leader of the National Party, make representations on behalf of Te Ārai for help before I even knew about it?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think what we’ve got absolutely clear now is there is no area of responsibility, because this Minister has no responsibility for when that member knew about it.

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I find that a very narrow ruling, given the aspersions that have been directed at me, sir. The Minister has—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon David Parker: The Minister has responsibility for forestry matters, including relating to the forestry land to which this relates, and I’ve asked him whether he received—you know, have I got it right—representations from the Rt Hon Sir John Key on that issue, and I, sir, suggest that’s a question that’s in order.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the first part of the question certainly was in order, and the vast majority of the summary was in order, but the member asked the Hon Shane Jones to make a judgment as to the timing of that member’s knowledge, and it is my view that he does not have responsibility for that.

💬 Hon David Parker: Could I just rephrase the final part of that, then, sir, because it’s a—

💬 SPEAKER: No, you can ask a new question.

💬 Hon David Parker: OK. Is the Minister saying that after all the spurious and defamatory accusations levelled against me and the Government by the Opposition and their proxies, the Rt Hon Sir John Key, the former National Party leader, had been making representations on behalf of Te Ārai for help before 6 March?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I concede this to be a part of my job. When a former Prime Minister who I’ve got quite a bit of time for, rightly or wrongly, suggested, encouraged me to make contact with a fine investor, in my view—Mr Ric Kayne—and associated parties, I had no qualms in doing that whatsoever. Now, that meeting, to the best of my recollection, took place not long after the chief of the hapū, Te Uri o Hau, Mr Russell Kemp, died. I cannot recollect when Mr Key first made contact to me, but it was after that I was made a Minister, sir.

💬 SPEAKER: I am going to ask the Minister now to—and I know we can’t insist on yes or no things. Was it before 6 March? That was the question.

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: The contact with the former Prime Minister, Rt Hon John Key, most certainly took place prior to 6 March, and, to the best of my memory, I met at the Tara Iti golf course with the hapū, with the billionaire from America—a fine man—and Mr Darby.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: To the Minister for Regional Development—

💬 SPEAKER: No—forestry.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Forestry—sorry. Did he at any time make representations to Cabinet colleagues about the potential for the exclusion of this property from the Overseas Investment Act?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: If I could answer it in this fashion: the Te Uri o Hau land was land that was transferred by Doug Graham and the Jim Bolger regime. I heard very clearly the concerns of that hapū that this compensatory land was suffering a further penalty as our Government moved to exercise article 1 Treaty sovereign powers. That is without a doubt, and I made my concerns about compensatory Treaty land known to Mr Parker. That is not the only block of Māori land that people have referred to me that is caught up with our universal and blanket ban.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Was he aware at the time of his representations to Mr Parker that the iwi had already disposed of more than 75 percent of their interests in the originally settled land?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I do not recall the Rt Hon John Key referring to me that information.

Overseas Ownership of New Zealand Property—Exemption for Te Ārai Development

3. to the Associate Minister of Finance: On what date did he become aware that the majority ownership in the Te Ārai development was not held by iwi but by other commercial and foreign investors?

My understanding is there are no foreign investors in Te Ārai, as Mr John Darby is a New Zealand citizen and Mr Ric Kayne has New Zealand residency. There is no reference in the shareholdings in the submission to the select committee, although it was noted that the development is the most significant asset for iwi. Further, in the report I received from Treasury on 19 March, which cited the select committee submission, the development was referred to as “land transferred to iwi as commercial Treaty settlement redress.” In February 2017, Steven Joyce of the National Party told the House that “this is iwi-owned land.” I subsequently became aware of the level of iwi shareholding in the development from a Richard Harman piece Thursday last week.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: When he told this House last week and RNZ last Friday that the Government’s intention in promoting the exemption was to help the iwi, why did he never refer to the fact that the majority of the significant financial benefit of the exemption would in fact flow not to iwi but to major commercial developers?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I’ve never made any secret of the fact that the transitional exemption was to apply to the land. And, indeed, the member, as a member of the select committee, received advice from Treasury noting in respect of the conflict of the advice from the clerk of the committee as to whether the exemption transitionally was in or outside of the Standing Orders—traversed the fact that the beneficiaries of that would include the various developers of the land and the eventual purchases of those properties during the term of that 15-year exemption.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: When he said in the House yesterday that the exemption was granted solely to the Te Ārai developers because, “There was no … similar submission” and so “the issue didn’t arise”, was he aware that other submitters to the select committee also sought similar exemptions to those sought by Te Ārai?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m not aware of any other submission that sought an exemption, short term or otherwise, on the basis that their development was a Treaty settlement asset that was transferred to them. As I previously said, the Government was trying to balance the general proposition that all land is subject to the laws of this land as an article 1 right of the Government to govern with sovereignty, including Māori land and land transferred to Māori pursuant to settlements with the desire not to cause unfairness by diminution of value of a Treaty settlement asset.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Why did he say yesterday that the reason this individual exemption was granted to the Te Ārai developers and no others was because they were the only ones who asked for it, when the Te Ārai developers didn’t actually seek a specific exemption for themselves, but instead asked for a series of land and development classes to be excluded from the scope of the bill which would have included a number of other New Zealand land owners?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Quoting from the Treasury report to me dated 19 March on the submissions, “The submitters assert the bill will diminish economic returns from the development and seek an exemption.”

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Have I got this right? That the land was conferred on the Māori people there by the National Party; that the body set up called the Auckland super-city, set up by the National Party, then sought to take a 200 metre strip off the front on the foreshore off the Māori, who then decided that their asset was of such diminutive value that they needed to go into a consortium arrangement with the developers; and they seek now to retain the value of that, and that’s the only way they can get there, by going for the exemption that they’re seeking at the present time?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You would have been, I’m sure Mr Speaker, listening carefully to the question. The National Party did none of those things. The Parliament of New Zealand certainly put together some Acts that might have enabled some of those things, but I think it’s very important that the distinction is made. It’s made in all sorts of other ways. No leader, for example—

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, no, I agree with the member. The Rt Hon Acting Prime Minister will ask another question to that end.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Have I got it right that it was a National Government that conferred the land on the Māori at Te Ārai in the first place as a Treaty settlement, that then they passed the Auckland super-city legislation, which saw that super-city taking a 200 metre strip off the front—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The conferring of the land on the iwi was done by an Act of Parliament unanimously supported by the House.

💬 SPEAKER: No. The member will resume his seat. The specific words were “settlement”. Now, the settlement was done by the Government not by the Parliament.

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Reading again from the extract of the Treasury briefing to me dated 19 March: “The land was acquired by Te Uri o Hau and Ngāti Manuhiri as commercial redress in Treaty settlements signed in 2000 and 2011 respectively.” I am aware that there were significant planning delays that have been occasioned in this development, and that, as a consequence of some of their planning conditions, there has been a substantial amount of the former forestry land that has moved back into public ownership.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Is the Minister saying that iwi assets should be protected from the loss of value that comes with his law change, but that no other New Zealand land owner is entitled to have that same consideration from this Government?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: No. It’s actually a bit more nuanced than that and I’ve said it on a number of occasions, but I will repeat it again for the benefit of the member. There is an article 1 Treaty right on behalf of the Government to govern in the interests of all New Zealanders. That means that Parliament passes law that affects all land in our country, including—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to ask the member to resume his seat and to start again, and this answer will be heard in silence. It is actually a constitutionally important point, and it’s one that deserves to be heard.

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: There is an article 1 right conferred upon Government that has the sovereign right to make laws for the benefit of New Zealand that cover every piece of land in our country, and that includes general land, Māori land, and land that passes to Māori under Treaty settlements. As against that proposition, it is also possible for the Government, by doing that, to create a new Treaty breach if they substantially decrease the value of a compensatory asset that passes to Māoridom, pursuant to a Treaty issue. Really, to balance those two issues, you seek to do fairness to the iwi who are complaining of that diminution of value. It is a moot point as to where you cross that line. The Government thought that the appropriate way through, in this case, was to have a transitional, not permanent, exemption for the benefit of the land, which cured the issue. That has been ruled out of order, and so we are taking advice as to what legal duty we have to do something more, but that won’t be progressed through this bill.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: So given the importance that the Minister has placed on the iwi connections to the land, on what basis does the Minister claim this exemption was granted to benefit iwi, when land registry and Companies Office searches show that Te Ārai South development block is, in fact, 100 percent owned by a company controlled solely by John Darby and James Castiglione?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m not aware of the finer detail the member mentions. If the member was worried about that whilst at select committee, she could have asked either the submitter or the officials to provide her with more clarity. I’ve explained the way we approached the decision.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Were any conflicts of interest declared by any Minister when the matter of this exemption was considered by Cabinet on 3 April?

💬 SPEAKER: It’s strictly not the Minister’s responsibility, but I will allow him to inform the House.

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: No, because there were none. The idea that because I know someone I have a conflict is a nonsense. It’s been asserted that I’m a friend of Mr Darby’s; I’m not. It’s been asserted that I’m a business associate; I am not and never have been. It’s been asserted that I may have acted for him in the past. As far as I recall, I have never acted for Mr Darby, but even if I had, that does not give rise to a conflict of interest. I acted for the current Mayor of Queenstown many decades ago. We laugh about it when I see him. That does not give rise to a conflict of interest. I have acted for Radio Otago in claims against the Hon McCully. That did not give rise to a conflict of interest in my current life. The Hon Chris Finlayson acted very well for many iwi through the years. That did not mean to say that he could not deal with iwi as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. These assertions are defamatory and untrue. I had no conflict of interest, and knowing someone does not give rise to one. I have no fiduciary duty owed to anyone else, and I’ve acted appropriately throughout.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: How can he claim Te Ārai deserved an exemption because there was no one in similar circumstances, as he said yesterday, when the last line of their own submission says, “These projects—and others like it—are very beneficial for New Zealand and should continue to be provided for in any amendment of the Overseas Investment Act.”?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The member misrepresents the nature of that submission. The effect of that would be claiming an exemption for wealthy people to sell to wealthier people overseas, like Hamish Price wants in respect of the exemption he proposes for Queenstown, where he says there should be an exemption for houses that are going to cost more than $5 million—the Government disagrees with that. I’ve explained why from a Treaty perspective we thought there was a case in this instance.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think in his second or third supplementary answer the Minister quoted from a document. I would like him to table that document.

💬 SPEAKER: Did the Minister quote from an official document?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, I’m happy to table it anyway, sir. It’s an extract from the Treasury briefing dated 19 March, which—

💬 SPEAKER: Well, no, it’s already a document before the House because it was tabled at the select committee.

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: No, it’s a briefing to me.

💬 SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. It’s to you, not to the committee. That document can be tabled, by leave, even though it’s only an extract and not the proper document. Is there any objection? Certainly not.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Social Development, Ministry—Service Culture

4. to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made about service culture at Work and Income?

Yesterday, in New Plymouth, I launched a package of changes that kick off this Government’s commitment to improving the culture at the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). Changes include a new client commitment posted up in all offices and online; a new layout that includes more private spaces, clearly marked spaces, and a kids’ play area; where possible, access to toilet facilities; easy access to drinking water; a new online eligibility guide; and changes to the process of suspending and cancelling benefits, which has already resulted in a reduction. This Government is committed to ensuring the welfare system is fair and accessible.

💬 Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Why has she implemented these changes?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Most New Zealanders will need the support of MSD at some stage during their life for a range of reasons: support while unemployed, support while studying, support due to disability or illness, or support for superannuation. All of these people deserve to be treated with respect, have their dignity upheld, and be provided effective support. This Government is committed to making our welfare system work for all New Zealanders.

💬 Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What feedback has the Minister received on these changes?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The feedback has been overwhelmingly positive; however, some people have raised that there’s more to do, and I agree. This is just the beginning. Some people have raised that we need to move more quickly. I agree, and we’re going to do our best. I was heartened by a client at Work and Income yesterday who said that the changes made him feel human. Staff said the changes made the workplace a more positive working environment. Even David Tua added to the hundreds of messages I received on these changes, stating “This makes me so emotional. Thank you, Minister, for bringing back the love and kindness; it will make a significant difference.”

KiwiBuild—Workforce and Meetings with Minister

5. to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by all his statements and actions in the House?

Yes, except on the rare occasion where I misspoke. I particularly stand by my statement following the Leader of the Opposition’s Budget reply speech, that “I’m going to call it: the biggest winner of … 2018 was Judith Collins’ leadership ambitions.”

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m now going to warn the member. He is developing, along with one or two other Ministers, the habit of putting additions on answers after he has answered the question. Like questions, they should be succinct answers, and once a question has been answered the member doesn’t need to add to it, especially in a way that’s likely to lead to disorder or discomfort in the House.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So what changed since his statement regarding KiwiBuild yesterday that the Government is “not planning on bringing workers in from overseas.”, to the Government today announcing that they will be doing exactly that?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Nothing changed; I was simply reacting to the absurd suggestion that the whole workforce for KiwiBuild would be imported from overseas. Our policy, this Government’s policy, has always been that to respond to the legacy of nine years of under-investment in the construction industry workforce, we would not only invest in growing the local workforce but we would bring in skilled tradespeople from overseas, just as the former Government did after the earthquakes in Christchurch.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Before he told Parliament yesterday that the Government is “not planning on bringing workers in from overseas.”, what discussions had he had with the Hon Jenny Salesa, the Minister for Building and Construction, about bringing in 1,500 KiwiBuild visa workers from overseas to build KiwiBuild houses?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The member’s continual fake surprise at this Government announcing and rolling out long-established policy won’t cut any ice with thousands of Kiwi homebuyers who were denied the opportunity to have homeownership for nine long years under that Government. It’s never been our policy to import wholesale the workforce from overseas. It’s always been to grow the New Zealand workforce here in a way that the former Government never bothered to do.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked about discussions that the Minister had had with the Hon Jenny Salesa. I don’t believe that he addressed that issue.

💬 SPEAKER: He didn’t. He will answer now.

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’ve had many discussions with the Hon Jenny Salesa.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: To assist the Minister, I seek leave to table a briefing from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment from December 2017 titled “KiwiBuild visa settings”.

💬 SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. It will be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: When he told Parliament yesterday that he “met with a director and president of another organisation who are acting as intermediaries for the China Development Bank”, what was that organisation?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I was asked to do this meeting by the member’s former colleague Marama Fox—to meet with these officials who are intermediaries of the China Development Bank. I meet with many banks, but I can also confirm that I have never dined with a Chinese border official.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will now answer the question.

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I don’t recall the name of the organisation of the officials I met with, but if the member wants to put a written question down or a primary, I will gladly get that information for her.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: At this meeting on—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Apologies to my colleague, but, Mr Speaker, I’d ask you to reflect on that last answer. When the Minister in earlier questions said that he had been mistaken about this, he must have done some research to find out what the mistake was. You hardly find out that you’ve made a mistake if you don’t know what the mistake was or who the mistake was about—therefore he has not given an answer to the House.

💬 SPEAKER: And I’ve got a lot of sympathy for the member and his point of order. Unfortunately, I don’t have responsibility for the quality of the answers.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: At this meeting on 31 May that the Minister now tells he doesn’t now recall who the intermediaries were, who else was at that meeting?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I reject the member’s assertion. That’s not actually what I said.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Well, who was at the meeting?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I met with a gentleman by the name of Anthony Wilson. The answer to the question before was that I didn’t remember the name of the organisation. I believe the man is a consultant.

Overseas Ownership of New Zealand Property—Exemption for Te Ārai Development

6. to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Is he concerned about the effect of Government policies on regional property development?

The policies of the Government are varied and wide. In so far as property development is rolling out throughout the provinces of New Zealand, my colleagues have a host of priorities to address housing woes of a community nature, of a homeownership nature, and I’m looking forward to the Minister leading a body of work to protect the rights of renters in provincial New Zealand.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: When exactly did he meet with John Darby and Ric Kayne to discuss their concerns about the effect of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill on Te Ārai development, bearing in mind that Russell Kemp passed away on 11 January?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: The effect on the Te Ārai development can be traced back to the excessive zeal that people chose the fortunes of an indigestible bird over the rights of indigenous people. I was well aware of that bird, called a tara, which means a fairy tale. Consequently, I’ve always been sympathetic to the woes that Te Uri o Hau have suffered, and it has reminded me that we definitely put the boundary in the wrong place for the super-city. They would have had greater prospects had my own regional council considered that issue. I cannot remember the exact date, but it would have been very close, after the tangihanga for said chief.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Did he discuss the concerns raised by those gentlemen with David Parker soon thereafter?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I’ve actually done more than that. I have been very loud on the marae in my own area in my community after I was approached by someone who I felt I should have no fear or favour following his advice encouraging me to meet with these developers—your old boss. Upon doing that—

💬 SPEAKER: Not my old boss.

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Upon doing that, I proceeded to alert my caucus, my colleagues, to a potential new source of Treaty grievance as we exercise article 1 powers of sovereignty in order to protect our sovereign interests before the trans-Pacific deal was passed. We may inadvertently create a new raft of grievances for settlement tribes. I have said it then, I said it during our discussions, but I am faithful to the solidarity of the Cabinet’s position.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: So I’m still trying to get an answer to the primary question, which is when he made those representations to David Parker; if the death was on 11 January are we talking about early February or when exactly does he think he raised those concerns with David Parker?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Not only with my colleague Mr Parker; with my colleagues I have repeatedly warned about the danger of the way in which article 1 powers of the Treaty could inadvertently crib the ability of economic development to take place, and I’ve done a great job in preserving that opportunity in terms of the more liberal approach to the forestry resources.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was a simple word that he hasn’t responded to, which was “when”.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, but part of the problem was that the member referred to a primary question which didn’t exist. I mean, I should probably have ruled the whole question out. The primary question doesn’t say “when”, does it, as the member asserted?

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I’m saying that the primary word in the question which I just asked him said “when”, and there wasn’t a reply to that.

💬 SPEAKER: No, I think you said the primary question. That was what the whole premise of the question—

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I said “the primary word” in the question, not “the primary question”.

💬 SPEAKER: If the member wants to have another supplementary question to get it right, he may.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a very important point. The House this afternoon has heard from a question from the Hon David Parker to the Hon Shane Jones that apparently there was no discussion of this matter between the Ministers prior to a date that has been stated in the House today. We’ve now learnt that the Hon Shane Jones was made aware of this soon after a tangi in early January. The simple question was: when did he—

💬 SPEAKER: The member can resume his seat. I’ve asked the member. I’ve given him another supplementary to try to get it right.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: When did the Minister raise the issues with the Hon David Parker that were raised at the meeting with John Darby and Ric Kayne?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: The issues that have been raised by me—I cannot recollect the exact date—pertain to the movement towards us exercising our sovereign power to secure our rights in the face of the trans-Pacific deal and, unfortunately, creating potential grievances under article 2 of the Treaty. I have done this on numerous occasions. I cannot recollect any specific date.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with their contention—that’s the contention of John Darby and colleagues—that the bill as proposed would threaten regional property development projects, including their own?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: The Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, as it stands at the moment, is about to go into the committee stage, so let’s wait and see what’s the final shape and form. But in so far, do the policies impact negatively on the prospects of regional development? No. The Te Arai project fell as a consequence of an indigestible bird, in my view.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he concede that falling commercial construction intentions, which dropped sharply in today’s ANZ activity index from plus 5 to negative 11 percent, the lowest rate since 2011, is a sign that the effect of Government policies on property development has been disastrous?

💬 SPEAKER: I mean, I’ll let the Minister answer it, but it’s getting a very long way away from the portfolio. But I think it’s fair to say that the Minister himself has stretched fairly broadly, both inside and outside the House.

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Property development prospects are growing prodigiously as a consequence of major allocations of capital and an improvement in infrastructure, and that is why my name is being issued with great glee across every province in New Zealand.

💬 SPEAKER: Question No. 10, Darroch Ball.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Seven.

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry, I’ve gone too far. It just felt like a long time.

Mycoplasma Bovis—Response

7. to the Minister for Biosecurity: What recent announcements has he made regarding the response to cattle disease Mycoplasma bovis?

After listening to farmers in rural communities at Mycoplasma bovis information meetings around the country, we are making immediate changes to help the tracking and tracing of animals. The changes are aimed at giving phased eradication the best chance possible for success. They include: neighbours of infected properties will now be informed; secondly, National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) numbers of infected animals will be published on the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) website; and, thirdly, MPI will ensure enforcement of the animal status declaration form. These measured steps balance individual privacy with the need for farmers to protect their farms. In partnership with the farming sector, we are taking our one shot to eradicate Mycoplasma bovis to protect our national herd and our economic base.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: What next steps is the Minister planning for the response?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I have asked officials to draft changes to legislation to make the response effort more efficient. Those changes include, firstly, amending the Animal Products Act to add a new infringement offence for failing to use the animal status declaration form correctly; secondly, amending the NAIT Act to bring its search powers into line with the Search and Surveillance Act; and, thirdly, new regulation to control the use of discarded milk. I’m hopeful these changes will receive support from across the political spectrum as we continue in our eradication efforts.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Is he satisfied there is enough funding that’s been allocated to providers, particularly around emotional support for farming families who are having to deal with their herds being culled; so is he satisfied there is enough funding available to the likes of rural support trust to support these farming families who are having to deal with their livestock being culled, and it’s causing a huge amount of anxiety in the family home and in rural communities?

💬 SPEAKER: The Minister can answer both those supplementaries.

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Yes, to both those questions. And I have informed rural support trust, in particular, and all the organisations—Beef and Lamb and others involved—that my door is open should they feel the need to come and request for more support or information.

💬 SPEAKER: I’ll just make it clear that only counted as one.

Health Services—National Health Targets, Removal

8. to the Minister of Health: On which date and by what method did he advise Cabinet of his decision to dispense with the national health targets?

This matter did not need to go to Cabinet. The data is still being collected, but we are no longer spending tens of thousands of dollars publishing it. We’re developing new measures to ensure that health dollars are delivering improved health outcomes for New Zealanders. Those measures will be taken to Cabinet in due course.

💬 Michael Wood: Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who said of child poverty reduction targets, “Our plan is to put an end to the debate over how we measure poverty by finally agreeing a set of robust measures, but also requiring successive Governments to set targets against them.”; and if so why are targets a good thing for child poverty reduction but not health improvement?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Where there are a broad range of measures, reporting that demonstrates that public money is being well spent on services can drive improvement in health outcomes. Where there is a narrow range of targets, that can incentivise movement away from where it would produce the best outcomes for New Zealanders. To use some of the examples in the targets of the former National Government, we have targets for childhood obesity that measure the number of times someone is referred, not if they’re actually getting any better. Likewise for tobacco: if people are educated, not if they are actually giving up smoking. I think the public can see that it makes sense to have a broad range of targets that actually achieve the outcomes that New Zealanders would expect, not a narrow range of targets that drive perverse incentives in the system.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: In light of his answer that the scrapping of the health targets did not need to go to Cabinet, why did the Prime Minister say, in this question time, that they did go?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That member should not be allowed to get away with predicating a question on a falsehood, which he just did. Go and check the Hansard.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Acting Prime Minister a very clear question about why this didn’t go to Cabinet. He made clear it did.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m not prepared to referee this. I’ve had an assurance from the Prime Minister that he did not say that, and, on that basis, the question is out of order.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: In respect of—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Both of you—please. [Interruption] I think the Prime Minister will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: In respect of his reply to my supplementary question, in referencing and criticising the vagueness of obesity targets is he aware that those very targets were introduced in 2007 by former health Minister the Hon Pete Hodgson?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This Government acts on evidence; I don’t know what that Government did in its day—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was pretty direct.

💬 SPEAKER: No, I don’t need a point of order. I need an answer.

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: There are a range of targets that were introduced over time. There are performance measures that have been improved over time. We support those ones that are improving the outcomes for New Zealanders, not ones that are driving perverse incentives.

💬 SPEAKER: No; it’s still not an answer. Answer the question please.

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’m not sure whether that particular one was introduced by Mr Hodgson, as the member’s suggesting—

💬 SPEAKER: OK. Thank you.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he stand by his statement “when the overall statistics showed that the number of electives was going up, yet in centres like Northland, Auckland, Counties Manukau, Bay of Plenty, and Waikato, if Avastin injections and skin lesion removals were taken out of those pumped-up statistics, the actual number of surgeries was dropping.”; and if so, will he release those statistics?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The statistics that I was referring to were ones that were given by the previous Government, when I was in Opposition. They were reported in a news story on TV3 and used for that story, and they showed that when Avastin injections and skin lesion removals were taken out, in many areas of the country the statistics were going down. For example, in 2016, across New Zealand, ear, nose, and throat surgeries dropped, paediatric surgeries dropped, and general surgeries dropped—across New Zealand.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I realise it had two legs, but the question was “Will he release those statistics?” and he referred to them again in his answer.

💬 SPEAKER: I think I might be over-interpreting. I think what the Minister actually said is he doesn’t need to, because they’re already in the public arena.

Inland Revenue Department—Families Package Administration and Business Transformation Project

9. to the Minister of Revenue: What additional payments or changes to existing payments has his Government required Inland Revenue to administer?

We’ve asked IRD to administer elements of our Families Package as part of the existing administration of Working for Families tax credits, the independent earner tax credit, and paid parental leave.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: What advice did he receive from the Commissioner of Inland Revenue on the ability of IRD’s computer systems to cope with processing the Best Start tax credit payments?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: The commissioner of IRD assured both me and the Minister of Finance that the IRD computer system can handle all payments without any difficulty.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he concerned with Stuff headlines yesterday that “Accountants fume over ‘perfect storm’ at Inland Revenue” and reports that many accountants are experiencing delays and issues logging on to the myIR tax system?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: I think that headline was slightly disingenuous. What I can tell the member is that, last week, 700,000 people successfully logged on to myIR. The IRD processes 70,000 calls a week, and just yesterday 18,000 people filed returns.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: Is it unusual for IRD to manually process a new entitlement rather than automate during their peak season?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: No, it isn’t. A recent example is that, in 2015, the child support changes were manually processed for a short period. Technology changes are not made during peak time, and automated processing of Best Start is expected to commence soon after 7 July.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is he saying that everything’s fine in terms of IRD’s computer system right now?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: In terms of IRD’s computer system, I’m assured by the commissioner that, yes, everything is fine. We are in the peak season at this point in time, but the computer system—everything is fine.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How closely is he monitoring the implementation of the billion-dollar Business Transformation project at IRD, and is he happy with progress?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Extremely closely.

Defence Force—Navy Patrol Vessel Activity

10. to the Minister of Defence: What recent reports has he seen regarding Navy patrol vessel activity?

Yesterday, I saw a report about the successful ongoing deployment of the inshore patrol vessel HMNZS Taupo to Fiji. I was particularly pleased to hear that the combined operation, on its first patrol, confiscated the entire catch of six commercial fishing vessels that were alleged to have been fishing illegally inside the Quelelevu lagoon, which is traditional fishing ground. This is part of Operation Wasawasa II, where New Zealand and Fiji are working together to help patrol Fiji’s exclusive economic zone and enforce regulations for inshore fishing. Working with HMNZS Taupo are sailors from both the New Zealand and Fijian navies, and fisheries officers from both New Zealand and Fiji, as well. I’d like to congratulate the commanding officer of Taupo, Lieutenant Ben Flight, and his crew for their outstanding work.

💬 Darroch Ball: How does Operation Wasawasa II support the Government’s Pacific reset?

💬 Hon RON MARK: Navy patrols into the Pacific help aid regional prosperity and security, which is of fundamental importance to New Zealand. The Pacific faces a growing array of challenges. The strategic environment is also changing and becoming more contested. Recognising this, New Zealand has announced a reset of our approach to the region. Joint operations such as Wasawasa II are an important aspect of the Government’s focus on building deeper partnerships in cooperation with Pacific Island nations and assisting them in building their capability and capacity to effectively monitor and patrol and police their own territorial waters. This deeper and more mature partnership reinforces the significant increase to New Zealand’s official development assistance in the Pacific.

💬 SPEAKER: Can I just say: both answers have been too long.

💬 Darroch Ball: What further deployments to Fiji of navy patrol vessels will take place this year?

💬 Hon RON MARK: In mid-August, HMNZS Taupo will be replaced by the offshore patrol vessel Otago. Otago, being a larger vessel, will conduct patrols much further out to sea, giving Fijian authorities even greater reach. Fishing, in Fiji, is their third-largest natural resource sector—

💬 SPEAKER: OK, thank you. I think the member has answered.

💬 Darroch Ball: What additional activity are navy patrol vessels conducting within New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone?

💬 Hon RON MARK: Go navy. Recently, the inshore patrol vessel Hawea completed a three-day fisheries patrol on the West Coast of the South Island. Guided by information from an Air Force Orion and working with officials from the Ministry for Primary Industries, Hawea boarded 11 vessels over a 72-hour period, including six vessels of interest—

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: How many?

💬 Hon RON MARK: Six vessels of interest. Six infringements were detected, and this patrol is the sixth patrol conducted so far this year by our navy. I’d like to congratulate Lieutenant Troy Gordon and his crew, who are doing an outstanding job.

Police—Safer Communities and Better Public Services Targets

11. to the Minister of Police: Did Cabinet make a decision to formally abolish the Safer Communities package targets for the New Zealand Police of 98 percent attendance at home burglaries within 48 hours and for 95 percent of New Zealanders to live within 25 km of a 24/7 Police base by June 2022; if so, when did Cabinet make that decision?

No.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why did he not take a paper to Cabinet formally abolishing those important targets given those targets were established by Cabinet in the first place?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: The previous Minister never asked Cabinet to note or agree to the performance targets the Minister alludes to. [Interruption]

💬 Chris Bishop: Does he agree with the comments of—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m just going to interrupt the member and indicate to the Opposition that they have an extra three supplementaries as a result of the animal noises from my right.

💬 Chris Bishop: Does he agree with the comments of Police Commissioner Mike Bush, who told the Justice Committee in March, in relation to targets, that the right targets drive the right performance, and, if so, why does he think that 98 percent of burglaries being attended to within 48 hours is not the right performance target for the police?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Targets don’t keep our communities safe; resources do. It’s why we’re putting 1,800 more police into our front-line police over the next three years.

💬 Chris Bishop: Well, does he agree with the comments of Mike Bush in relation to the nine performance targets set by the previous Government that “They’re the right targets for the police. They’re the things we should be aiming at. They’re the things that we, as an executive, think are the right performance outcomes for the New Zealand Police on behalf of the public that we serve.”, and, if so, why is he acting contrary to what the police commissioner thinks are the right targets for the police?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: I see my role as the Minister of Police as providing the resources for the commissioner to actually achieve the targets of keeping our communities safe and putting the bad guys behind bars.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why did he tell the Justice Committee a couple of weeks ago “There are only two performance targets I’ve asked the commissioner I would like to see.”, when this leaked Cabinet paper shows he wants to retain the previous Government’s 10,000 fewer serious crimes Better Public Services target and the 25 percent Māori reoffending reduction target, amongst others, and is he confident he hasn’t misled the Justice Committee?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: There are only two performance targets I’d like to see. If the commissioner has operational targets that he’d like to deliver on, then that is fantastic and I back him on those.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why did he tell Parliament in the annual review debate on the police that the Government was retaining the 10,000 fewer serious crimes Better Public Services target when he’s now telling the House he’s only setting two performance targets for the police?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: I am only setting two performance targets for the police.

Housing Supply—Measures to Increase

12. to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What is the most effective measure he has put in place to increase housing supply since he received his ministerial warrant?

There are so many and they are so interdependent that it’s difficult to single out one most effective measure. However, one important initiative was standing up for a 25-home Housing New Zealand development on Banff Avenue and calling out that member’s stigmatising of State house tenants.

💬 David Seymour: Is that really an answer becoming of a Minister with such a large job in front of him?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, because the issues of nimbyism, of urban intensification, and of affordable housing in our big cities have to be dealt with and addressed fairly and squarely. But we do have an urban growth agenda that is designed to increase the supply of housing—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s answered the question.

💬 David Seymour: Is the member’s performance answering these questions today any clue as to why the new dwelling consents have not increased at all since he’s been Minister, any more than the trend he inherited?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We’ve inherited a market that is consistently underpowered and has failed to meet demand, and that’s why we have an urban growth agenda that includes reforming the planning system. It includes bringing in new sources of finance for infrastructure to support urban growth, more ambitious spatial planning between central government and local government, and a far more ambitious reform agenda than was ever attempted under the last nine years.

💬 David Seymour: Supplementary—

💬 SPEAKER: No, the member’s had two.