Oral Questions

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

Yes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is he concerned that his Minister of Corrections didn’t know about the November prison population figures publicly released last week when he made the Waikeria announcement?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am concerned when someone in this House seeks to repeat the misinformation of a very tawdry morning radio show. The reality is that my colleague was well aware of the November and then 4 December calculations and figures and forecasts, on which the forward prison programme and planning was based. But he was asked about a different report—namely, the one he’d received just a few days beforehand, the more expanded report—and he was telling the full truth, and then he received the gibe, “But this report’s been out for months.” Right then, that was a false statement by the questioner, and that member has taken up on it as well.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What is this other, earlier report he was basing what he’s said and done on, and can we see it?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that is that member’s party has already requested it under the Official Information Act, so he should actually read it. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to remind members of the Opposition that they are not to bring me into these questions, either directly or by way of interjection.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Isn’t the reality that there’s only one primary report, the justice sector projections one, from November that, as I say, all Ministers, and certainly the corrections Minister—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The question’s been asked.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that that is precisely what this Government’s answer is. There was the November report, which was bedded down on 4 December last year at Cabinet, and that was what my colleague Kelvin Davis was basing his answer on. But, of course, the questioner, namely the Leader of the Opposition, is repeating the very false statement that was made by the interviewer yesterday on morning TV. And third, why doesn’t he ask his colleagues who’ve requested this information under the Official Information Act and get them to read it or, better still, himself read it?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is it concerning that the most senior Labour Party Minister can’t remember what the advice he received says and, instead, needs to google information that he was told about several months prior?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’m afraid that the chronological evidence behind that member’s allegation simply fails. And, in failing on the first grounds, it gains no more size, weight, or evidentiary quality in the second and third round.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: In light of the justice sector November prison population report showing an extra 2,000 prison beds forecast and also Corrections’ estimates that more police will require an extra 900 prison beds on top of that, what are the Government’s plans to deal with this?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, first of all, the member should understand that it was not a target. It was a warning and a forecast that even now, with this visionary, responsible, far-sighted Government, has seen those forecasts being turned down, which surely points to this policy working in the long run and not beleaguering the New Zealand taxpayer at $100,000 a year per prisoner.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: In light of the Prime Minister referring to the long run, in the short to medium term will the Government now follow the evidence presented to it and build more prison beds required, or is the answer to soften the bail, the sentencing, and the parole laws? Which is it?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The member knows which it is because that policy has been announced by the Government with great clarity, and it has been backed up by the fact that for the first time for a long time, we’ve seen a turn down in the number of prisoners in this country. And, more importantly, when we apply more lawyers and more judges to deal more immediately with people who are offenders so the bail numbers aren’t there for 12 months, we will see the figures get better as well.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: In light of the prison forecast set to rise by thousands and the answer that the Prime Minister’s referred to, being a 600-bed prison, what more is he going to do to deal with this issue?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We know—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Doesn’t know.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, 1,500 beds in the ensuing months, but we’re not going to build a 3,000 mega-prison, American style, so that he can have it privatised so that crime pays for the owner.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Did any Ministers declare any conflict of interest in relation to the appointment of Wally Haumaha as the Deputy Commissioner of Police?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, because no conflict of interest exists and, more particularly, the Cabinet Office has investigated this matter and that is their finding as well.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Were Wally Haumaha’s comments in relation to the allegations against Louise Nicholas known by any Minister and raised during any discussions about his appointment?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I say that I can’t speak for all my colleagues because I don’t know who read the Austin report or not. However, I can only assume that he and his colleagues weren’t aware of it when they gave Mr Haumaha two honours, not one.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does the Prime Minister think there would be a conflict of interest if a Minister was appointed to initiate an inquiry into someone who was asked to run as a candidate for election from the same party?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: How amazing—I know a lot of people who, first of all, try to be members of the National Party and then, very late in their desires for a professional career in politics, come to the light, come to their senses, and they never want to go back there again, and I understand why. So, no, we do not hold it against people for having a temporary association with a political party or temporarily flirting with a political party, which I know members over there have done countless times, in terms of the number who’ve come to me to ask me if I could help them out.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: When did he disclose to Jacinda Ardern that Wally Haumaha had been a New Zealand First candidate?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The first thing that we don’t do is make something up that’s not true. Mr Haumaha was never a candidate, and the Rotorua Daily Post is not accurate in this matter—plus it doesn’t actually say that, does it, Mr Bridges? It doesn’t say that. Come on, read it out and tell everybody. You’re the Crown prosecutor that knows everything about the law. Well, actually, the words are very important.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he dispute the Rotorua Daily Post from 2005 when it said last month Mr Haumaha was announced as NZ First’s Rotorua candidate but then the party backtracked and said he was a representative but not a candidate?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Very sadly, Mr Bridges, that story is not true. We’ve been through—[Interruption] No, no, the candidate part—we’ve been through all the 2005 papers, the whole procedure. He was never, ever announced as a candidate—end of story. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: I’m just waiting for the House to settle in both front rows.

Families Package—Reactions and Targeting

2. to the Minister of Finance: What reactions has he seen to the Government’s Families Package?

The Government has received very positive feedback on the Families Package. I’ll take just one example of a person who wrote in and said, “I just wanted to say a heartfelt thank you for increasing the family tax credit. I received the increase today, and I cannot tell you what a relief it is to have some extra money to meet our bills. I have never felt motivated to contact an MP or the Prime Minister before, but this certainly deserves acknowledgement and thanks. I have not voted in years, such was my level of dissatisfaction in people available to vote for. However, I am so glad I placed my faith in you, and it was you who reengaged me to vote.”

💬 SPEAKER: I’m going to warn the member that he will lose his supplementary if he does that again.

💬 Tamati Coffey: What reaction has he seen from commentators on the impact of the Families Package on the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: A number of commentators have pointed out the positive impact the Families Package will have on the economy. Last week, ANZ said that the economic cycle has further to run yet and that quarterly GDP growth will pick up later this year, boosted by income growth and fiscal stimulus. The BNZ said that they see a substantial boost to the economy as a result of the package, with growth climbing back up to 3 percent by the end of the September quarter. This Government’s plan supports hard-working families and growth at the same time.

💬 Tamati Coffey: What reactions has he seen to the winter energy payment?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I saw a very confused reaction to the winter energy payment on Morning Report yesterday. First, the person said he disagreed with the winter energy payment being universal, because he would prefer a more targeted approach. Then he reminded us that he supported a universal tax cut for the very same amount, for these very same people, who he just said didn’t need the support. In the end, he said, “This is a targeted Families Package. That’s not necessarily a wrong thing.” I thank Mr Bridges for his support of something that is not the wrong thing.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: What reaction has he seen from the public on a senior earning over $330,000 a year, plus superannuation, plus the baubles of office, deciding not to opt out of the winter payment?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I haven’t seen a lot of reaction to that particular decision, but I’m interested to note that the member’s aversion to universalism is clearly a sign that New Zealand super would be gone if that lot ever got back over here.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the member see any similarity, in terms of policy formation, between his policy and the universality of superannuation, or has he had reports that suggest we should means-test the whole darned lot, like the National Party did when they were last in power?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s quite clear, from the comments coming from the other side of the House, that there is some enormous problem with universalism. On this side of the House, we actually believe that people in their retirement deserve a bit of support. We’ve given a bit extra for the winter energy payment; that lot want to take it away.

💬 SPEAKER: Just before the member calls—because I saw some confusion from the backbench at my earlier interjection with regard to Mr Coffey—I want to remind members asking questions that their microphones are open and that they are therefore not allowed, when they’re called for a supplementary, to continue to clap.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Is he concerned by Treasury’s advice on the Families Package, that 1.7 million families—that is 75 percent of all households—will, in fact, be worse off as a result of this Government’s changes, given his new-found commitment to universality?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: A large chunk of those families are people like Ms Adams and myself, who would have got a $1,000 tax cut.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: So why the winter heating bonus?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House, we are more than happy to stand on a record of redirecting the majority of that money to families with children, who have missed out over the nine years of her Government. In terms of the winter energy payment that she’s interjecting about, can I note that the “worse off” equates to 10c a fortnight because of an accounting treatment, nothing else.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Government have any plans to make Working for Families universal at one rate for every household?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, we don’t. And if the member is suggesting that all payments in our system should be universal, that would make a remarkable transition for the ACT Party.

💬 David Seymour: So is the Minister saying that some payments are universal and some aren’t; if so, why is the winter energy payment universal?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The winter energy payment is universal for people on superannuation and for main beneficiary recipients. He doesn’t get it; so, therefore, it’s not universal overall.

Business Confidence—Actions and Reports

3. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements, policies, and actions?

Yes, in the context that they were given, made, and undertaken.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Will he pay more attention to the latest New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion released today than he has to previous reports of declining confidence, given that we now have a series of indicators showing a sharp increase in pessimism in the economy, with the decline in business confidence in this survey to a net 19 percent of businesses expecting economic conditions to worsen in the second half of the year?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I take seriously the concerns of business and business sentiment, but we have to look at the economy as a whole. We’ve got a strong surplus, unemployment’s low, there’s going to be a sustained period of growth, employee confidence is up, consumer confidence is steady. There’s a lot more to the economy than one survey.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Well, given his repeated pointing to own activity measures, does he agree with NZIER, whose survey reported an 8 percent decline in businesses’ own activity, which they say, “point[s] to softer economic growth in the second half of 2018”, being now the second business survey in as many weeks to have own activity figures falling to single digits?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member’s statement at the end there is factually correct, but I continue to implore her to look at the long-term correlation between business confidence and GDP growth, and to note that in the years between 2000 and 2009 there was, on average, 3.2 percent growth, and around 82 of 99 months were seen to be pessimistically viewed by business.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Well, is he going to take any responsibility at all for businesses in the NZIER survey reporting that cost pressures have increased sharply, indicating these costs will be passed on to consumers at an increased cost of living?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ll take responsibility for the fact that this Government is finally getting on with funding, for example, transport, which for nine years was ignored by that side of the House, who now cry foul because we’ve actually decided to fund our transport plans rather than the billions of dollars that Simon Bridges left as a gap in Auckland transport.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Will he be speaking with his colleague Shane Jones, the self-appointed champion of the regions, as to why, according to this latest NZIER survey, pessimism remained pervasive across the regions, and in particular in Taranaki?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Nine months in, we’ve set up a Provincial Growth Fund that’s putting out millions of dollars into our regions. It will put a billion dollars out over this year and another $2 billion over the next two years. That means this Government will have done tenfold more than the previous Government to grow our regions.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: When will he acknowledge that his Government’s policies, such as higher fuel taxes, shutting down oil and gas, and pro-union industrial relations reforms are a core driver of business confidence plummeting under his watch?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ll repeat what I said in my first answer. There are a lot of measures of the health of the economy. One of the most important of those measures is the fact that we have a surplus, that unemployment is coming down, that we actually have sustained growth in the future, and that confidence is shared across the economy. Employee confidence is up, consumer confidence is steady, and we’re working with the business community to lift their confidence.

NCEA—Review and Consultation

4. to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement that “Education is too important to be left to politicians”; if so, is he confident that he is listening to all of the voices in the education sector?

Yes, absolutely; and yes, in so far as practical constraints allow.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: If he is listening to the NCEA coalition of principals, then will he agree today to extend the time line of the NCEA review, given the concerns raised by this group of principals?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There’s a broad range of views amongst the principals, including from the coalition of principals who took out a full-page advertisement in the newspaper over the weekend to express their views. What I have said in response to that is that, at this point, I’m not proposing to extend the time frame—there’s still 2½ months to go on the consultation—but if, at the end of that consultation period, it is clear that people don’t feel that they’ve had an opportunity to have their say or have their voices heard, then I’m absolutely open to extending the time frame further.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: If he is listening to the coalition of principals, will he ensure that there is greater balance on the ministerial advisory group, given the concerns raised by this group?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The ministerial advisory group have, effectively, done the job that they were appointed to do, which was to produce the discussion document. We’re now in a broad and open and public consultation period, where we want everybody to have a say in that. That’s being overseen by a group of principals and the Ministry of Education. The feedback we get through the consultation period is being analysed independently, by the New Zealand Council for Educational Research. If the advisory group has a further role beyond the production of the discussion document, then, again, I’m open to considering whether other voices need to be involved in that process.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Why did he label these principals as having traditional views, and is he dismissing their views because they’re traditional?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, I think that’s actually a factual explanation of the views of some of the people who have expressed that. I want to be very clear that there is nothing wrong with that, and I believe that traditional voices need to be heard in this process, as I’ve made very clear over the weekend, when I was asked about that. Other voices also need to be heard. I don’t agree with the assertion put forward by the principals that the Government is placing too much emphasis on the voices of young people in this process, for example. I think young people’s futures are what we’re talking about and they have every right to be heard in this. I absolutely reject the assertion put forward by one of those principals yesterday morning that this is a matter for adults to discuss.

💬 Jan Tinetti: What responses has the Minister seen from secondary school principals to the NCEA review?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In addition to the feedback that I received over the weekend, at the time the consultation document was released, the Otago Secondary Principals’ Association secretary, Gavin Kidd, said, “I think there’s general agreement that this is a step in the right direction, and it’s well overdue.” Patrick Walsh, principal of John Paul College, said, “The NCEA directly affects not only students and their parents but employers, community groups, business leaders, sporting bodies and voluntary organisations, to name but a few. If we want a high quality change we must first have quality engagement and feedback.” I had not received any letters or emails from any of the current principals in the new principals NCEA coalition until this Sunday, but I welcome their engagement.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: In light of the fact that, in the last half an hour, the NCEA coalition group grew to over 50 schools, does he consider Massey High School and Northland College as having principals with traditional views?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I’ve been very clear, some of the people on that group have very traditional views. There are a wide variety of views on the NCEA, and I think it’s very important that everybody with a view on the NCEA has an opportunity to be heard in this process.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: If he is listening to the coalition principals, will he agree to personally meet with this group that now is over 50 schools; if not, why not?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Up until they took out an advertisement in the newspaper over the weekend, that group had not asked to meet with me. I have been very clear that I am open to engagement. For example, I already had, prior to the weekend, meetings scheduled with the Secondary Principals’ Association of New Zealand, where over 100 secondary school principals will be in attendance. The Secondary Principals Council have already held a meeting with 50 secondary principals from around the country and have already provided feedback on that. I have also, in addition to that, as a result of the request over the weekend, set aside time—Friday, two weeks from now—to meet with any secondary principals from Auckland who wish to meet with me. That’s an open invitation, and I’m more than happy to engage with any of them.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m just going to warn the Leader of the Opposition that the next time he interjects inappropriately, he will have to withdraw and apologise.

Housing—Ownership, Policies, and Reports

5. to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What recent reports has he seen on the increasing number of New Zealand families locked out of home ownership?

A report by Auckland Council’s chief economist released yesterday highlights the lack of affordable homes for families on middle incomes—people who were traditionally homeowners. The chief economist notes that these middle-income groups have been increasingly locked out of homeownership. The same report shows that families with a household income over $95,000, which is the majority of Auckland families, will be able to afford the first KiwiBuild homes, which are expected to cost $579,000. I also note that outside Auckland and Queenstown, the price cap is $500,000, making those homes affordable for most families.

💬 Marja Lubeck: Which families have experienced the worst decline in homeownership?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Data from the household economic survey shows that the biggest fall in homeownership has been experienced by families who were traditionally homeowners in New Zealand—that is, young families on middle incomes, with children. The income range from about $80,000 to $189,000 comprises half of all families with children and has experienced the most severe decline in homeownership in recent years. Even couples such as teachers, tradies, and office workers whose combined household income may be in the range of $150,000 struggle to afford a home.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What is the Government’s policy towards families on lower incomes who can’t afford to buy?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Homeownership is out of reach for too many people. That’s why we are improving renting by modernising the tenancy laws, implementing insulation and heating standards, and building more State houses. Also, there are families who would like to, but cannot, afford a KiwiBuild home, and that’s why we are developing a shared equity scheme that will make it easier for so many families to own their own home.

KiwiBuild—Eligibility and Costs

6. to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by his statement in relation to KiwiBuild that the Government will build “high quality, modest, affordable starter homes”?

Yes. For example, the homes that we’re building at McLennan will cost only just over half the average Auckland house price and will be affordable to more than half of Auckland families. At 99 to 112 square metres for a three bedroom home, they are modest starter homes compared to the average new home built today, which is 172 square metres. I’m confident that these will be quality homes that Kiwi families will enjoy for generations.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Does he agree with Auckland Council’s chief economist that the “KiwiBuild scheme is likely to be out of reach for half of Auckland’s households”, and that such a household would need to be making over $105,000 a year and would have to have a 20 percent deposit?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It’s not new that houses in Auckland are out of reach for many Kiwi families. That is why we have the KiwiBuild policy to build homes for less than $650,000. It’s why we are intervening in a failed market.

💬 Simon O’Connor: In light of that, does he agree with the Acting Prime Minister’s statement around affordability that it would be desirable to have house prices drop to five times the annual living wage; and if so, does this mean that people who already own their houses will see their equity collapse?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I agree with the Acting Prime Minister when he said that it would be good to reduce the median multiple, which currently stands at around 10 in Auckland and 11 in Queenstown—that is, the median price of a house in those markets is, in the case of Auckland, 10 times the median household income. I agree with the Acting Prime Minister when he said it would be good to reduce that multiple to five.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Was the KiwiBuild eligibility criteria on the Cabinet agenda on Monday?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.

💬 Simon O’Connor: If it was on the agenda on Monday, how does he reconcile this with the Acting Prime Minister’s suggestion that there was no discussion of it, it was among a tranche of papers that went through automatically and had not been on the agenda?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I don’t think there’s any responsibility for—oh no, answer the question; it’s probably easier than having the argument.

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There was no discussion of the item because it was adopted by Cabinet unanimously. All the discussion was had at Cabinet committee.

💬 Simon O’Connor: So how can the New Zealand public have confidence in Ministers who seem to routinely slip things past their colleagues in unexamined, undiscussed heaps of paper?

💬 SPEAKER: No, no—far too much irony in that.

Health Services—Counties Manukau District Health Board Review

I seek leave for this question to be held over as a new question for the next time when Dr David Clark is available to answer it.

I think you’d better add in the word “additional” if that’s what you really mean—

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Yes, yes.

—because you can have a new question any day. You just write it down.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: I would like to add in the word “additional”. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

OK, the question is that the question be held over as an additional question next sitting day. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.

7. to the Minister of Health: When was he first told of the Beattie Varley review into audit matters at the Counties Manukau District Health Board, and what action, if any, did he take when those audit matters were raised with him?

on behalf of the Minister of Health: On behalf of the Minister, on 3 November 2017, the Ministry of Health advised me that it had commissioned a review into financial and management practices at Counties Manukau District Health Board. The first time I was notified that Beattie Varley was undertaking that review was on 17 November. On 16 December 2017, I confirmed that Beattie Varley were to proceed with the interview process.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: When Stephen McKernan was announced as Director-General of Health on 21 December, did he seek an assurance from the State Services Commission that Mr McKernan would appropriately manage any conflict in relation to the reviews of audits involving Mr McKernan’s time as the CEO of that district health board?

On behalf of the Minister, as I said to that member last week, I absolutely trusted Mr McKernan to manage any conflicts appropriately.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: When Stephen McKernan raised the Beattie Varley review into inappropriate salary transactions during Mr McKernan’s time as CEO of the Counties Manukau District Health Board with him as Minister, did he take any action to ensure Mr McKernan was properly managing his conflict of interest around the review?

I have every confidence that Mr McKernan was appropriately managing his conflicts during this time.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Does he believe it acceptable for the former CEO of a district health board, when subsequently serving as Director-General of Health, to raise with him directly a review of an audit into inappropriate salary transactions during that individual’s time as the CEO of that district health board?

I’m sure that member is aware that Stephen McKernan was CEO of Counties Manukau District Health Board from 2002 to 2006, and the items that are under review don’t go back further than 2013 in the report. So I do think that the member is clutching at straws.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Has the Minister taken an opportunity to appraise himself of the terms of reference of the Beattie Varley review, which does in fact show that the inappropriate salary transactions dating back to Mr McKernan’s time were matters under review by Beattie Varley and the former Solicitor-General Mike Heron and Deloitte?

The Beattie Varley report is one that is being managed by the Ministry of Health. Officials at the Ministry of Health understand the seriousness of all of these matters. They’re working through a proper process, and it’s not my role to interfere with that.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Do Ministers, including him, have any responsibility to ensure conflicts of interest are appropriately managed by the chief executive of the department that reports to them, when that chief executive was involved in a district health board that was under review and an audit was being provided to that individual as Director-General of Health?

On behalf of the Minister, yes, absolutely.

Student Loans—Borrowing Limits

8. to the Minister of Education: What action is the coalition Government taking to address cost barriers faced for New Zealanders studying medicine, dentistry, optometry, or veterinary science?

Yesterday, I announced that the student loan borrowing limit for those students in long undergraduate programmes such as medicine will be extended to a maximum of 10 equivalent full-time student (EFTS) of study. This means that those students who have been unable to complete their medical degrees because they have reached the student loan cap will now be able to finish their studies in a timely manner and get into the workforce.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: What response has he seen to this announcement?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The announcement has been very well received. The New Zealand Medical Students’ Association has said the announcement is “a huge relief for many of our students, who can now focus on completing their medical degrees and serving their communities.”, while the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations has said, “This doesn’t just benefit students, but also benefits the health and wellbeing of New Zealand.”

💬 Dr Liz Craig: When will this change come into effect?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government was intending to make this change in next year’s Budget, to come into force at the beginning of 2020; however, after listening to feedback, we have brought that forward. This change will now take effect from 1 January 2019.

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

9. to the Associate Minister of Finance: Does he believe all his conduct in respect of the proposed exemption for the Te Ārai property development from the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill meets the standards expected of a Minister?

Yes, but I note for the benefit of the member that it is the Prime Minister who is responsible for that assessment.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Did he just take Shane Jones and Kelvin Davis at their word, or did he seek legal advice to back up the claim that not granting an exemption for the specific Te Ārai land would cause a Treaty of Waitangi grievance?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: My decision was informed both by my conversations with ministerial colleagues and the advice that I had from Treasury, which was in itself informed by legal advice.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Given that four of the Te Ārai lots listed in his proposed exemption appear to have no iwi ownership at all, and a further lot is subject to a registered lease in favour of Mr Darby’s interests for much longer than the exemption period, why were these particular lots included in the exemption?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: For the reasons that I explained last week. I think, as I acknowledged then, that either the select committee or I could have looked at that further, and, indeed, had the exemption been carried forward, we could have done. I would note that, in respect of the underlying proposition which I put to the House repeatedly last week, we were concerned about the position of the iwi. I looked at the accounts for the year ended 31 March 2007 for Te Uri o Hau Settlement Trust, and it records that the settlement trust advanced to their investment arm $20 million to facilitate the purchase of the Mangawhai land. It was intended to be repaid from the sale proceeds. Due to the loss in value—this was some time ago—of the underlying asset, they’ve already suffered impairments of $14 million. Even after a $14 million impairment, this remains the largest investment of that trust, and we have sympathy for their position.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: I seek leave to table the certificates of title for lots two, three, and four on depositor plan 138522 and the certificate of title for lot two on depositor plan 478524 and the leasehold title for lot one on depositor plan 478524.

💬 SPEAKER: Is there any objection to those documents being tabled? There is objection.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: With respect to alleged underworld influences, is it a fact that Steven Joyce was backing the development, that Sir John Key was lobbying for the development alongside Michelle Boag, and that the Te Ārai submission was written by last year’s National Party chief of staff Wayne Eagleson?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, I’m sure that the members of the House are aware that there was lobbying by the Rt Hon Sir John Key—I wasn’t aware of that until last Tuesday night. There is a parliamentary record of the involvement of Steven Joyce, and I wasn’t aware, and I’m not aware, whether Mr Eagleson was involved.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Does he consider that it meets the high standards required of Ministers to take a paper to Cabinet recommending an exemption of significant commercial value without first having verified the ownership of the land to be exempted, with Treasury saying they didn’t know who owned the land when they drafted the exemption?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: As I also said last week, the exemption only applied to residential lots. The golf course, the sand mine, any lots over five hectares, and any of the land that is already sensitive does not fall within the scope of the exemption, and the member should know that, because she was on the select committee.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: How was he made aware of Mr Kayne and Mr Darby’s involvement in Te Ārai, which he says occurred on 6 March?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I actually didn’t. That 6 March date was a date that I picked in order to make a question in order last week. I think the time that I received detailed advice from Treasury on the Te Ārai submission was 19 March 2018, although by then I had also received submissions from Cabinet colleagues.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: So isn’t it more likely that the reason he told the House, in previous questions, that the first time he became aware of Mr Darby’s and Mr Kayne’s involvement in Te Ārai on 6 March was because that was the day the New Zealand Herald published a story about Mr Kayne threatening to pull the plug on the development if he didn’t receive an exemption?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I wasn’t aware of that article.

Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Consistency with Existing Legislation

10. to the Minister of Justice: How is his Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill enabling a member of Parliament to be dismissed consistent with section 23 of the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014, that states, “(1) The House has no power to make a member’s seat become vacant by expelling the member (whether to discipline or punish the member, to protect the House by removing an unfit member, or for any reason or purpose) from membership of the House”, and “(2) Subsection (1) overrides any law to the contrary”?

The Government’s Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill is consistent with section 23 of the Parliamentary Privilege Act, because it does not provide for any member to be expelled by the House.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister say it does not allow a member of Parliament to be dismissed from the House when section 55B explicitly says that a leader of a political party serves a notice to a leader and, at that point, the member’s seat becomes vacant?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The actions of a leader of a political party and, indeed, members of the caucus of a political party represented in Parliament do not constitute the House.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does his Government continue to support the principle established 330 years ago with the Bill of Rights and codified unanimously by this Parliament in 2014 that voters alone get to dismiss MPs?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: If he agrees with the principle that voters alone get to dismiss MPs, why is he promoting a bill, in this House, that gives the power to party leaders for a member’s seat to become vacant?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That member is, yet again, wrong when he says that the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill provides for a leader of a political party represented in Parliament to remove a member of the House. The leader of a political party represented in Parliament, under the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, has no such power.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister claim that the leader has no power to dismiss a member of Parliament when section 55B in his bill specifically sets down the process for a leader to do just that, when his own officials before the select committee say that that’s what it does, and when over 21 constitutional experts have said that is what his bill does?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That member has misunderstood or mischaracterised the provisions of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. No leader of any political party represented in Parliament, under the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, has the power to remove a member of Parliament.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why is his Government refusing to release the advice of officials on whether his bill is compliant with the important bill of rights?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not quite sure what the member is referring to. The Attorney-General has provided a section 7 certificate in relation to the bill and finds that it is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

uestion No. 9 to Minister

Q

I should have done this at the end of my question. I seek leave to table an extract from the 2017 accounts for Te Uri o Hau Settlement Trust showing the loss to which I referred and that this remains, after that loss, their largest post-settlement asset.

I do want an assurance from the Minister that it’s not a document that’s publicly available.

💬 Hon David Parker: Well, I got it from the web, but it’s certainly—

Well, I’m not going to put that leave.

Families Package—Reactions and Targeting

11. to the Minister for Social Development: Will there be a social impact from the Families Package measures that came into effect on 1 July; if so, what would it be?

Yes. By 2020-21, around 384,000 families with dependent children will be better off, and approximately 650,000 families without children. As of 1 July, 26,000 more families are eligible for Working for Families tax credits, our Best Start tax credits are expected to benefit around 65,000 children born in the year, and around 1 million people will benefit from the new winter energy payment. There have also been increases to paid parental leave, the orphans benefit, the unsupported child’s benefit, and foster care allowance. As a result of our Families Package, 64,000 children will be lifted out of poverty by 2021.

💬 Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What feedback has she received from expectant parents?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I spoke to a number of expectant parents on Sunday. They expressed to me their excitement and relief. More than one couple stated the increases in paid parental leave, Working for Families, plus the Best Start payment will mean they now have the option of one parent staying home for longer with their newborn baby. Many couples also shared that these changes will go a long way towards lifting the financial pressure and making their job of raising children just that little bit easier.

💬 Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What reaction has she received regarding the winter energy payment?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’ve received so much correspondence from individuals expressing their genuine gratitude for the difference this payment will make. One woman wrote, “Thank you very much for the winter energy payment. My son has autism and lives at home and gets supported living payment. I really appreciate that the Government cares about the least-privileged members of our community. Families affected by autism are often struggling, so an extra help is great.” Numerous organisations, including UNICEF, the Salvation Army, and the Child Poverty Action Group have all expressed positivity towards our Families Package. The Children’s Commissioner has said that this is an incredibly positive first step.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: How many people earning over $100,000 per annum will receive the baby bonus?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We’ve been very clear that the Best Start payment in its first year is universal; in its second and third year, at that point then it is means-tested, and at $79,000 it is abated. That, to me, is a very clear response to that member’s question.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, sorry; it’s not to me.

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I don’t have the exact figures on me. However, we have been very clear—it is no secret—that the first year of the Best Start payment is universal.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: How many people earning over $100,000 per annum will receive the winter energy payment?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The exact same number that are currently eligible for superannuation, and I do believe that that side of the House has not changed their view on superannuation being universal.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister confirm that fewer people earning over $100,000 will benefit from the winter energy payment or the Best Start payment than would have benefited from the tax cuts that were repealed in order to pay for those things?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think that’s a very important point. Under the previous Government’s proposal for the tax cuts, $440 million would have gone to the top 10 percent of income earners, and I think that’s a very important differentiation to make.

Prisons—Prison Population

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

Yes, in the context they were made.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Does he stand by his statement that he hadn’t seen the forecasts when he made the announcement in relation to Waikeria Prison, and, if so, why did he correct his answer three hours later to say he had seen dozens of reports on the forecast?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We’d been working off the forecasts since late last year, but I hadn’t seen the report that was released last week.

💬 Hon David Bennett: If he had seen dozens of reports on the forecasts, what does the November 2017 report say that the prison population will rise to in 2027 under the higher settings that are projected?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: If nothing else is done, the figure will be 14,399. But let’s also just bear in mind that the forecast for this year is meant to be 11,600. We’re currently tracking over 1,000 below that.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I’d like to just table the actual report, which says—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Not a chance. It’s publicly available.

💬 Hon David Bennett: OK. How was the 900-bed increase estimated by the Department of Corrections, due to the extra police, included in the November 2017 report, given these projections weren’t created until months after the report was finished and that the report does not try to estimate or accommodate any subsequent announcements or future Government policies?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: In relation to the police projections, the police gave advice to the Minister of Police, Corrections gave different advice, and what we’re doing is hoping that the police are right, but we’re planning for the worst possible scenario.

💬 Hon David Bennett: When did the Minister approve the release of the report, which was made publicly available on Saturday?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I’m not responsible for releasing that report.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Mr Speaker, I apologise for not being able to seek leave for this at the time of my question, but I wish to seek leave to table a letter from Beattie Varley Ltd to the Ministry of Health relating to the review they undertook. If you may allow me, Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: Give me the date.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: 17 August 2017.

💬 SPEAKER: Is there any—[Interruption] No, no, the member—[Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. We’ve had a number of Speakers’ rulings on this particular area. The member has covered the subject matter of it. The member has covered the date and who it’s from. Is there any objection to that letter being tabled? There appears to be none. The member may table the letter.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Mr Speaker, I was trying to explain to you there is a redaction in this letter for natural justice around two individuals that are former executives, whose names are redacted from it because they’re subject of the review, around their salary transactions.

💬 SPEAKER: OK.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: That is the case with the letter.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: That should have been told to us beforehand.

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. Order! To be fair to the member, I did interrupt him. Now we have all the facts, I will put the question again. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There appears to be none, still.

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

💬 SPEAKER: Any further supplementaries?

💬 Hon David Bennett: Yes.

💬 SPEAKER: David Bennett. We’re going back to question 12.

💬 Hon David Bennett: So when the Minister said that the Department of Corrections had made its own estimate for the number of increased beds that would be required as a result of the increase in police numbers, what is that number of increase in beds that the Department of Corrections has estimated, and when will he release that report?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The projected capacity for 2027, including the Corrections and police numbers, is 15,049.

💬 Hon David Bennett: That figure of 15,049—what year is that based on?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the member just told him.

💬 Hon David Bennett: He didn’t.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the member just said exactly that.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, he didn’t.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, can I check. Did the member say 2027?

💬 Hon Kelvin Davis: Yeah.

💬 SPEAKER: He did.

💬 Hon David Bennett: In 2027, the Minister has said the total number will be 15,049. Where does that reconcile with any justice sector projections, which say that the number is much higher than that?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The justice sector predictions don’t say it’s higher. But what we’re also saying is that these forecasts—the previous Government treated them as targets, and their target was just to keep building prison after prison after prison. We’re treating them as warnings and we’re doing something about it.