Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) today released its latest annual article 4 report on the New Zealand economy and the Government’s economic plan. The forecasts in the report indicate the economy is expected to grow by about 3 percent a year over the next five years, that unemployment will continue to fall, and that wages will continue to rise above inflation. The IMF said that New Zealand’s economic expansion remains solid and that the economic outlook is favourable.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What did the IMF say about how the Government’s economic plan will help drive growth?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: IMF staff noted that the Government’s policy agenda seeks to support productive, sustainable, and inclusive growth. They noted how growth-friendly measures in the December mini-Budget and Budget 2018 would help drive this growth. In particular, the IMF said that our research and development tax incentive could be an efficient instrument to support R & D spending in the business sector. They said that tax reform could play an important role in shifting incentives towards broader business investment and that the Provincial Growth Fund could help boost regional growth while taking pressure off the main centres.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What did the IMF say about infrastructure investment in New Zealand?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The IMF noted that the current Government has increased spending on infrastructure, but I do acknowledge their comment that we might still see infrastructure gaps continue over the next few years, which goes to show the extent of the infrastructure deficit that this Government inherited. It was interesting to see the IMF comments on rail, notably that there are important gaps in New Zealand’s rail infrastructure. These gaps did not appear over the last nine months. Since the IMF’s report was finalised, the coalition Government has announced a record 10-year nationwide transport infrastructure investment—$4 billion next year—which reintroduces rail into New Zealand’s productivity and economic growth story.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the finance Minister this: with respect to the IMF’s alternative executive director for New Zealand, Grant Johnston—what was his connection with New Zealand?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Grant Johnston, who—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I don’t think that relates—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: He wrote the report.

💬 SPEAKER: Well—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I help you in this matter by—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no, I don’t—in fact, I don’t think the Acting Prime Minister can. I think that all of us know the oft-repeated Speakers’ rulings about using Government supplementary questions to have a crack at the Opposition, and while not all members of the House might be familiar with the direction that the Minister of Finance is being invited to take, it is one which is not appropriate.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: With respect, I think that a member of Parliament should be entitled to set out the CV and the public esteem both here and internationally of someone who wrote the report. That, surely, is not a malicious political position to take. So can I ask my question, sir?

💬 SPEAKER: The—[Interruption]—I beg your pardon? One thing I’m certain of is that the Hon Ron Mark can’t add to the submissions that have just been made by the Acting Prime Minister, and trying to do so when I’m getting to my feet is most inappropriate. On the question that has been raised by the Acting Prime Minister, I think saying that he’s trying to build the credibility of the report, as opposed to taking a shot of the Opposition, is too long a bow for me to risk.

Economy—Business Confidence and Economic Policy

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

Sometimes, no.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he agree with David Parker that business confidence surveys are junk?

In the way that I just heard a most credible report from the IMF—so independent and so far removed from New Zealand, written in the main by the executive director for New Zealand, Grant Johnston, formerly of John Key’s economic advice office—yes, I do agree with Mr Parker’s wise comment.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he disagree with senior bank economists in New Zealand who’ve said, on the back of plummeting business confidence, that the Reserve Bank will need to revise down the GDP growth outlook, and when it comes to what firms are saying about their own activity, it’s a case of, “ignore this information at your peril.”?

Again, Mr Robertson, the finance Minister, very clearly put out, in the most succinct and abbreviated and learned fashion, that the IMF disagrees with those comments. They forecast 3 percent growth for the next five years—all right? I hope that member’s still around.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: So are the ASB, the BNZ, the Westpac, and the ANZ economists wrong about these?

Can I just say that those accounts written by, in the main, offshore, Aussie-owned banks, are not in the best—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: So is the IMF.

No, no. The IMF, Mr Brownlee, is not owned by the Aussie banks. That was your mistake the last time you were in Government.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I never made any such allegation. That’s besmirching my reputation. The reality is that the IMF operates out of Washington DC.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member knows that is not a point of order. It’s—

That’s ridiculous.

💬 SPEAKER: I suppose that balances it up, doesn’t it—sort of ridiculous each side.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he accept his Government’s policies such as many working groups, labour law reforms, high fuel taxes, and the shutdown of oil and gas are creating uncertainty in cost and played a role in plummeting business confidence and in the declining GDP growth outlook?

Can I tell that Leader of the Opposition that there are two very countervailing comments from the market. One is from the mass majority of New Zealanders who are workers, and work confidence and employment confidence has never been so high for a long, long time. And then at the other end of the spectrum, people that are thought—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s why they’re striking!

No, no, look; can you just listen, because you’ll learn something, I assure you. Perhaps not you, Gerry, but the rest will. Can I just say, at the other end of the spectrum you have the stock market, which is back at the new record today as I speak.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: When you told journalist Richard Harman that “the coalition Government will not ‘blink’ like the Clark Government did when it was faced with the ‘Winter of Discontent’ loss of business confidence in 2000; and said “I believe that some people lost their nerve in that administration and that sadly affected the shape of their economic direction. That was disappointing because they had a chance to do much more in terms of structural change to the economy and they didn’t do it.”, what structural change to the economy does he believe is required?

The very structural change that you are seeing from a very visionary Government in 2018.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What is that?

Well, I can only say things slowly. You’ll have to wait. Shouting out, “What is that?” after I tell him what its nature is won’t do, and I’m sure his PR advisers have told him to act more leader-like than that, stand up more slowly, be more careful, and try to be a gentleman. Now, if I can help that member, the reality is that this Government is setting out on some serious structural change; namely, to no longer neglect infrastructure, to ensure that the provinces have their real day in this country, to ensure that the ordinary people are the stakeholders in our future—in short, to grow this economy and make sure that the mass majority, not the elite few, are the beneficiaries.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: So in terms of the core economic, macroeconomic, and prudential policy settings and structural change, what was he referring to?

As Ricky Martin would say, macro, micro, inside, upside, the whole lot.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: When he said to Anika Moa that the blame started in July 1984 when the free market, a massive experiment, took over with devastating consequences, what policies would he implement to take us back to before then?

Thank you for raising the Anika Moa programme. I think it’s the most popular programme they’ve ever had on television of late, for that night anyway. But the point I was making—and I was making it very clear to her—was that as Rogernomics was beginning here, a man called Keating, under leader Bob Hawke, who knew the market in Australia, was starting. One country took incremental change; the other country had a revolution. The Australians grew 35 percent in real terms greater than us, and imagine what a country we would have been if it hadn’t been for the myopic neoliberal nonsense that his party inherited, even though their best leader at the time told them not to; namely, yours truly.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Given his statements about the need for structural reform and given the free market experiment has clearly failed, in his view, since July 1984, does he believe a more command-and-control economy is required?

The present Government, strangely enough, shares a view of the then National Party leader Jim Bolger, who defended the neoliberal experiment but in a recent television interview said that it was wrong; the policies simply didn’t work.

💬 Hon Member: What would he change?

Well, what we’ve changed is we have our Damascus experience before we start off, not when we end off.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Given that he said, though, that structural change is required, that that experiment failed, and that more changes are needed—well, just what are they?

Well, they were outlined by the Minister of Finance today. He talked about research and development. The IMF recognises that. He’s talking about the provincial recovery and infrastructural investment. The IMF referred to that. The IMF even said that the foreign ownership controls on housing would help the housing situation in New Zealand—all those things there. And I want to know why the National Party economic adviser at the time, who is writing this report, was ignored by the National Party that paid him.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is he concerned that his Government has implemented and proposed policies that will increase the cost of living for New Zealanders by over $100 a week?

We are not concerned by the constant repetition of the figures and predictions that we’ve disproved in all the days and all the weeks since that member started raising them. It was rubbish then and it’s rubbish on 18 July 2018.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What does he say to Treasury analysis that 1.7 million families—that’s 75 percent of New Zealand families—will be worse off by $17 per week as a result of his Families Package compared to the previous Government’s package, which he repealed? [Interruption]

No, no—I don’t have to look at Mr Robertson for an answer to that, because the proposition is baseless, without any foundation. That member has had that debunked every day he’s asked the question, but he keeps on asking it.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he agree with Treasury’s analysis that 1.7 million families—that’s 75 percent of New Zealand families—will be worse off by $17 per week as a result of his families income package compared to the previous Government’s package, which he repealed?

Again, the July offensive that that member is seeking out to make sure is his salvation as a leader, by 18 July, is not going to work. We know the inner machinations of the National Party, and this doomsday critique of the Government is not going to be successful, because what the member has just said is false.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Well, if he said “doomsday scenarios from the Opposition”, why did he say that dark clouds were coming when he formed the Government back—what was it—in November last year?

Because some of us can actually read into the future, around the corner. [Interruption] I’m the only person in this House who predicted that Trump would win and Brexit would be successful—not after the event. That was said back then because I had a sense that there was going to be a long, hot summer, that it would affect the economy—and there’s been a downturn. Then you’ve got the dispute between Trump and the Chinese—that may have an effect on our trade. So it’s always wise to understand the people and surroundings you’re dealing with. That’s why I said that.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What, then, will be the growth figures for the next couple of years?

As the IMF was at pains to point out, if it’s going to be 3 percent for the next five years, it’s just quite possible it’ll be 3 percent every year, or thereabouts.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Thank you for the Winston show!

No trouble; it’s free.

💬 SPEAKER: I just want to check that the Acting Prime Minister and the deputy leader of the National Party have finished. I’d just like to make one other suggestion, and that is that when the leader is asking questions, if the deputy leader doesn’t interject or wave her arms around, it means that people get a clearer understanding of what the leader is asking.

KiwiBuild—Eligibility

3. to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Is he confident his KiwiBuild policy will support those most in need of assistance?

on behalf of the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Yes, because the need is great.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Why is the income cap for KiwiBuild houses set at more than double the average household income, given his stated commitment to help younger generations and middle New Zealand?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because the need is great, because the housing crisis has reached so far that those earning a combined household income of $180,000 are struggling to buy their first home.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: So does he consider it fair, then, that those on middle and lower household incomes will be competing with people like members of Parliament and senior public servants on an equal footing?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m not sure if that would quite work for members of Parliament, given where their combined income might reach, but the truth is that a ballot is the fairest way of dealing with this. The member and I have both experienced the pain of losing out in a ballot, and I can assure her it gets better.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Isn’t his announcement of a KiwiBuild income cap of $180,000, which makes more than 90 percent of first-home buyers eligible for the 1,000 KiwiBuild homes he hopes to build this year, nothing more than an admission that he can’t deliver affordable houses to lower and middle income families and has had to widen the market to try and ensure KiwiBuild doesn’t become “KiwiFlop”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely not. What it is an admission of is the scale of the housing crisis in New Zealand, that has seen even those in the sixth to ninth deciles be shut out of being first-home buyers. This is an ambitious programme. New Zealanders know that we’re actually having a go at correcting the first-home buyer market, unlike the previous Government.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: How can he describe KiwiBuild as a home affordability scheme when a first-home buyer with hundreds of thousands of dollars in other assets, or a newly returned citizen who’s lived overseas and paid no taxes here for maybe decades, qualify for a house on the same basis as a struggling local family?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is not the policy of this Government to shut New Zealand citizens out from Government programmes.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: So in what circumstances will a KiwiBuild house not go through the ballot but be sold directly to an eligible purchaser, as the materials released today say, despite his press release asserting that every eligible buyer will have an equal chance through the ballot system?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Any houses that go through the ballot will mean that people have an equal say. There is, as the member knows, the buying off the plans initiative that has been developed, and the full details of that will be released in time.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m sorry, I did listen carefully. It was quite a specific question I asked of the circumstances in which the direct sales to purchasers, set out in material released, would apply. We heard about how the ballot works and buying off the plans, but not how that particular pathway for sales to individual purchasers would apply. It’s in their materials; I just asked for clarification.

💬 SPEAKER: I thought I understood, but I think if the Minister just repeated the final part of his answer, that will help clarify.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, the final part of the answer was with reference to the buying off the plans initiative, and I said the final details of that and the overall process will be announced in the near future.

School Buildings—Auckland, New Classrooms

4. to the Minister of Education: What investment in new classrooms for Auckland has the Government announced today?

Today, I announced $49 million for a new primary school and additional classrooms for two other primary schools in Auckland. It’s one of our fastest-growing areas, and this Government is committed to making sure there are enough classrooms that are fit for purpose to keep pace with population growth. The funding announced today is part of a $332 million investment in school property in Budget 2018.

💬 Jo Luxton: How many additional students will benefit from the $49 million for new classrooms in Auckland?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Twelve hundred students in total will be accommodated from today’s announcement. This includes spaces for 350 students in the rebuild and expansion of Paerata Primary School, 240 students by expanding Waterview Primary School, and 650 students in a brand new school for Scott Point.

Children in State Care—Historical Abuse, Compensation for Serious Offenders

5. to the Minister for Social Development: What recent decisions and actions has the Government taken about high tariff offenders?

On the advice of the Ministry of Social Development and the Department of Corrections, Minister Davis and myself agreed that compensation claims to serious offenders, including those arising from historical abuse in State care, should be progressed.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: What steps has the Minister taken to ensure no further rapes, murders, assaults are committed by these offenders?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I don’t think I have responsibility for the high-tariff offenders’ offences. My role and responsibility lie with compensation for those who have been victims of abuse in State care, and there are two very separate things going on here that I think that member needs to be very clear about rather than trying to run them together.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: What does she say to the parents of Natasha Hayden, who was murdered in 2005, when they ask, and I quote, “What about the life of the people they’ve killed or molested. What do they get?”

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I want to make it very clear that everybody in this House, from every political party, empathises with victims of crime, particularly the ones who have suffered under horrific crimes, as that member has pointed out. But there are two separate matters here that we are talking about: one is the crime, and these people are not getting compensated for their crime. The issue that we’re talking about here, where the compensation is going, is to where people have been assaulted or abused in State care as children. We have a legal obligation to compensate them if they are found to have their case proven, and as a Government we are committed to abiding by the law.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: What confidence can the public have that these offenders that have recently received large payments from the Ministry of Social Development, on that Minister’s instruction, won’t continue to create more victims of crime?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! That is not an area the Minister has responsibility for.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: What measures has the Minister taken to ensure that funds that are given to New Zealand’s worst offenders will be used appropriately and won’t be used to commit further crime and create more victims?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Every action that this Government has undertaken is within the law. I do need to make the point that National has also always supported compensating these prisoners, so let’s make that clear. However, National wanted restrictions, but all the advice that they were given whilst in Government was that the law wouldn’t allow them to achieve what they wanted. Their plan was a failure. This Government is abiding by the law.

Health Services—Counties Manukau District Health Board Review

Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Order! Louise Upston, you have one of your own members asking a question, and continuing a debate when that happens is not a good thing to do.

6. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by the answer “yes, absolutely” given on his behalf yesterday when I asked him, “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”; if so, what action has he taken to ensure all conflicts regarding the Beattie Varley review into the Counties Manukau DHB were appropriately managed?

💬 SPEAKER: I have been warned that this, as with a supplementary later, is going to be longer than might normally be allowed.

Yes. The member’s question assumes that there was a conflict to be managed. As the member heard in the House yesterday, my office has been advised that the substance of the draft review does not cover the period of time the previous acting director-general spent as chief executive of Counties Manukau District Health Board (DHB). As the member is fully aware, the State Services Commission is looking into the matters that member has raised in this House. If the member has any evidence to back up his claims, I urge him to provide it to the commissioner, as he has been requested to do.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: When he confirmed, on 16 December, that Beattie Varley were to proceed with the interview process, was he aware that part of Beattie Varley’s terms of reference was to review the remuneration and additional allowances of a former DHB senior executive?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have not seen a draft of that review. I have been assured by officials that there is an appropriate process in place and that they will report back to me at the appropriate time.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: When he confirmed, on 16 December, that interviews were to take place, did he apprise himself of the fact that remuneration and additional allowances were part of the audit that was being reviewed?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I was assured by officials that an appropriate process was in place. I don’t see it as the role of the Minister to interfere in an appropriate process, and so I did not interfere.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Did he read the memo to him, dated 15 December 2017, from Dr Lester Levy, which specifically referenced inappropriate activity around the “authorisation of salary increases, allowances, and benefits”, which were the subject of the audit that was being reviewed by Beattie Varley? Did he read the memo?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The member should not be playing politics while this matter is being looked into by the State Services Commission. If he has any evidence to back up his allegations, he should provide it to the commission, as he has been requested to do.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked if he read a memo. I gave the date of the memo and the author of the memo and some subject matter of the memo. He didn’t address anything to do with it.

💬 SPEAKER: And it wasn’t answered.

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I can’t recall the exact contents of that memo. I tend to read the memos that come through my office, and I am aware that there have been allegations of financial mismanagement at the Counties Manukau DHB. I’ve also been assured by officials that an appropriate process is in place to work through those allegations and that they will report back to me at an appropriate point in time.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Was he aware that the internal DHB audit being reviewed by Beattie Varley audited, in part, transactions dating back to 1999, a time period covered by Stephen McKernan as CEO?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As the member heard in the House yesterday, my office has been advised that the substance of the draft review does not cover the period of time the previous acting director-general spent as chief executive of Counties Manukau DHB.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Has the Minister, when he’s learnt about the Beattie Varley review—and, according to answers given yesterday on his behalf, he’s confirmed an interview process was to proceed—taken any steps to learn about the audit, understand what issues were involved, and ensure all conflicts of interest were managed appropriately, given the time period dated back to when the acting director-general was the CEO of that district health board?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I contest that. My office has been advised that the substance of the draft review does not cover the period of time the previous acting director-general spent as chief executive of Counties Manukau DHB. If the member has any evidence to back up his claims, I urge him to provide it to the commissioner, as he has been requested to do.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: I seek leave to table a memo to the Minister of Health from Dr Lester Levy regarding financial issues at Counties Manukau DHB, dated 15 December 2017.

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

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

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: I seek leave to table a document which has been redacted to remove the name of a senior executive, subject to review. The title of this document is Salary and Allowance Validation, as part of investigation notes from a regional internal audit, dated 7 May 2017.

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

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

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: I seek leave for the document I just tabled, entitled Salary and Allowance Validation to be published under the authority of the House.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, that is, in my understanding, a matter for me or a matter for standard arrangements. I want to make absolutely clear that documents worked in a proper manner get the protection of the House with regard to matters of defamation. What I’m not prepared to have is to have the Clerk put in a position of publishing a document as a result of this House taking a decision to publish a document unseen, which might subject the Clerk to defamation, from which he is not protected by the privilege of the House. So the answer to that is I’m not going to put that question to the House.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did take steps to investigate this matter yesterday. It is my understanding that if the House grants leave for a document to be published under the authority of the House, then privilege does cover that document and the Clerk of the House.

💬 SPEAKER: My suggestion on this one is that the document is tabled and we take a decision tomorrow—when members have been able to see it and I have been able to consider the privilege matter carefully—as to whether or not it should be published. Do members have a problem with that? Normally, you’d stand up, rather than put your hand up.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: I didn’t want to be knocked down again, Mr Speaker. Could I ask you to give consideration, if not publishing under the authority of the House, to giving this document to the State Services Commissioner?

💬 SPEAKER: Well—

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: No, the member will resume his seat. As a former Minister of State Services, I know where the place is. Something could be delivered to the State Services Commissioner. I don’t think it’s the role of this House to privilege that member with documents being given to the State Services Commissioner. If the member has documents that he thinks the State Services Commissioner should have—[Interruption] Order! Grant Robertson will withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: If the member has documents that he thinks the State Services Commissioner should have, he should give them to him directly. If something has been tabled in the House and we take a decision to publish it tomorrow, then it will in that way be available to the State Services Commissioner. But can I just say that I don’t want, without proper notice, this House being used to protect members in matters which might otherwise be defamatory, except as has normally been the case with debates.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order, are we in some difficulty now, though, because the House has considered—has the House considered the leave? I think it has.

💬 SPEAKER: I think we’ve got—it’s tabled, but that’s not published. If the Clerk takes a decision around the further—where it goes.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is a tabled document not public?

💬 SPEAKER: The short answer to that is it’s certainly not published. It’s the publication that causes the defamation, which is my understanding, although I know that there are people sitting not far away from the member who might have a better understanding than I do.

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: $500 an hour, like Winston.

💬 SPEAKER: $5,000 an hour, I thought the member—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order, I think it’s a relatively important point—

💬 SPEAKER: It’s a very important point.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: —and it’s one that might need a little bit more consideration, because as I understand it, once a paper or anything gets tabled in the House, it becomes publicly available.

💬 SPEAKER: No.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No one can—people can’t go into the Bills Office and ask for it?

💬 SPEAKER: I’ll just make that point absolutely clear. It has been my experience that Clerks of the House have taken decisions not to make publicly available documents that have been tabled.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: And is that the case here?

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, look, I think the sensitivity here is clearly that the member who has just sought the leave of the House to table it does not want to put himself in a position where he can be muzzled by some legal action. Quite clearly, he has tried to do something that he believes—and I certainly believe—is in the public interest, but it would be unfortunate if in trying to do that, the procedures of the House put him into a position of some difficulty with some potential legal action being brought against him, which could see at least a muzzling of this issue for a time and a closure of any discussion of it for a time. We’d like to know that the process that you’ve outlined, which is that it is tabled today and then considered for publication tomorrow, which would grant the member a certain amount of—well, it would grant privilege. Can we just make sure that in the intervening 24 hours, it’s not going to be a problem?

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: No, I want to deal with—I think there are two matters that are here that I want to deal with. The first one is to make it absolutely clear that the member tabling a document here is protected by the privilege of the House, but the further circulation by any person is not protected. I will refer members to Speakers’ ruling 146/1. I’m not going to read the whole thing out, but I’ll read out the important part of it: “Therefore, the Clerk’s Office will not make a document tabled by leave available, other than to members, where it contains material that is known to be the subject of a court suppression order; the purpose of which is clearly and primarily to defame; that is pornographic; or that is confidential to a select committee. Ideally, the House would not allow such documents to be tabled by leave in the first place. If they are, the member has the option of clarifying the status of the document in order that the Clerk’s Office may safely release it, or the member can take responsibility for its release himself or herself.”—146/1. All right. Mr Hipkins, did you have another point of order? OK. I think we’ve—and does the member have any further supplementaries? Right.

Consumer Credit—Review of Lending Practices

7. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What is the Government doing to address predatory lending practices?

Last week, I released a discussion paper outlining findings from the review of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA). The Government is looking at measures to protect consumers, including a cap on interest rates and fees, strengthening enforcement and penalties for irresponsible lending, and introducing more prescriptive requirements for affordability assessments and advertising. These predatory practices, often targeted at the most vulnerable, are trapping families in high-stress debt spirals that are causing harm and distress.

💬 Paul Eagle: What evidence has he heard that suggests the 2015 amendment to the CCCFA did not go far enough?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The review confirmed what I’ve heard across New Zealand, that widespread levels of inappropriate lending, including lenders charging up to 800 percent annual interest, offering loans that are clearly unaffordable, and lashing people with huge penalties and fees, has continued. I have heard from people facing this insidious and crippling debt, from budget advisors and social agencies doing what they can to help, and from across the financial sector. Without exception, there has been acknowledgement that the 2015 reforms did not go far enough, and they support this Government’s action to stop these predatory practices.

💬 Paul Eagle: What are the next steps the Government will be taking in credit reform?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Public consultation on the discussion paper is open until 1 August, and I urge anyone who has been affected by predatory lending or debt collection practices to have their say. I also want lenders in the financial sector to submit. We do not plan to stop people lending, so we do want to hear how we can both keep people safe in borrowing and support honest business. The Government will be looking to make policy decisions later this year to finally address these practices that have gone unchallenged for far too long.

Business Confidence—Reliability and Reports

8. to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he still stand by his statement to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee that business confidence surveys are “junk”?

No, because the member is misquoting me. I was referring to the correlation of the ANZ Business Outlook survey to GDP. The ANZ business confidence headline measure is a poor predictor of economic growth. I stand by that view, because the survey has just a 20 percent correlation with economic growth since 2000—that’s close to two decades of data. Other data with greater merit for forecasting economic growth include consumer confidence and employee confidence, and I was even told on the way to the House today that the number of points conceded by the Canterbury Crusaders in each season in Super Rugby since 1996 has a stronger correlation to economic growth than the ANZ survey.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I seek leave to table a document which is a transcript of the Estimates hearing—

💬 SPEAKER: So is the member seeking to—now, I just want to—is it a corrected transcript?

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: It’s uncorrected, this one.

💬 SPEAKER: All right. Is there any objection to that document, which would normally be available when the committee reports, being available now? There appears to be none.

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

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think the opinions of business leaders matter?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes. And, for example, I share the concern of some businesses about rising protectionism. It’s why we’re pursuing an ambitious trade agenda to lift exports and export growth, but I would note that the problem with using confidence surveys rather than real economic data is that some of the surveys significantly understate growth prospects under Labour-led Governments while overstating growth prospects under National Governments. That is a proven fact, not an opinion.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he saying that the opinions of business leaders as expressed in business confidence surveys are junk—exactly what he did say—or they matter; which is it?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I said that the particular measure that I spoke of, which was the ANZ one that I referred to in the first answer to the primary question, was junk, because it is junk as far as it is to be seen as a predictor of economic growth, which is what the member presents it as.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m asking you to advise us as to what the member should do who is told by another member, Mr Goldsmith, that he wishes to table a document, believing that he’s going to prove or otherwise that the Minister did make the statement, and when it’s consented to, which we have done, then doesn’t use the transcript that he has from the select committee but carries on as before. Mr Parker said, “I didn’t say that.” and when we consented to him to table that document, we either want to hear the proof that he was right or that he was wrong.

💬 SPEAKER: The member has until midnight—or the end of the sitting time at least today to table the document. Mr Parker did not indicate that he did not use that word. [Interruption] Mr Parker did not indicate that he did not use that word. He indicated that the circumstances in which it was used differed from the way that had been alleged.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I seek leave of the House to read the transcript.

💬 SPEAKER: No.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he interpret the Minister of Finance’s statement this morning on Radio New Zealand, “I take all business surveys seriously” as a rebuke or as a belated effort to repair the Government’s relationships with business after his “junk” comments?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I don’t. I listened to that interview and I thought the Minister of Finance handled it very well, and made the points—not that he needed my affirmation, but he made similar points to those which I’ve already made.

💬 Tamati Coffey: What correlation is there between increased confidence in the ANZ Business Outlook survey and exports declining as a percentage of GDP?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: It’s interesting to note the correlation between increasing confidence in the ANZ business confidence survey and falling exports as a percentage of GDP under the last Government. Despite setting a target of raising exports from 30 percent to 40 percent of GDP, the last Government let exports fall to 27 percent—

💬 SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. This is in exactly the area that we’ve discussed with the Acting Prime Minister recently, and I’m going to protect him the way that I’ve protected other Ministers.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he rate as junk the ANZ’s conclusion this morning, regarding the fall in job ads by 1.2 percent over the quarter, that, “Recent deterioration in business expectations of activity and hiring intentions appear to be flowing through into job ads.”?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: As the Minister of Finance just brought to my attention, they’re up year on year, and I also note that we’ve got low unemployment, we’ve got dropping unemployment, we’ve got economic growth, we’ve got a Budget surplus, and we’ve got a report from the IMF that says that the prospects are very good. I suggest that the member stop trying to talk down the economy.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with the Acting Prime Minister’s comments today in a Politik article in relation to business confidence, “We said on the night of going into coalition with Labour that there was going to be a possible blip on the horizon because [of] all those years of slow growth, but [it’s] getting better … It’s almost inevitable. You can see it in the Bible for goodness sake.”—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: No—order! Sorry, I think the technicians thought the member had finished. So the member can continue from after the quote, but get to the end of the question.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Yes—and if so, does he have any insight into how the Bible can explain the current low levels of business confidence?

💬 Hon David Parker: Whilst I went to a youth group as a child, I am an atheist. Therefore, I don’t pretend to be a current expert on the Bible. But, in respect of the sentiments other than those biblical, I absolutely agree with him.

Education—Charter Schools, NCEA, and Primary Teachers’ Industrial Action

9. to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statements and actions regarding students and teachers?

Yes.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he stand by his statement that he will work in a way that respects and engages iwi given Sir Toby Curtis’ statement today: “If the Minister hasn’t gone to the schools to talk to the people in the schools, if the Minister hasn’t gone and spoken to the parents, if the ministry hasn’t gone to the schools and talked properly to the teachers, if the ministry hasn’t done their job properly, I’m left with no other view than that this is a process of bullying that we have never had or experienced in this country.”?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question: yes, absolutely, because this Government believes that Māori students, regardless of where they’re going to school, are entitled to a world-class education so that they can fulfil their full potential. Where I differ from the quotation of the member—I don’t think Māori students should have to leave the public education system in order to get the quality of education they deserve.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he commit to asking the Education and Workforce Committee to urgently take out provisions from the Education Amendment Bill that remove the partnership school model in light of the claim in front of the Waitangi Tribunal?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he agree with Sir Toby Curtis, who, when asked about what he would want to say to him and the Prime Minister regarding partnership schools, said that “this is a situation that calls for a bit of aroha”; and where is the love for these students that he won’t even bother visiting?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, I do agree with the member that, in fact, in all of the decisions we make about education we should show a little bit of aroha, and I am currently considering the applications of the existing charter schools to become State schools, and I am not going to make comment on that while that process is ongoing.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he take responsibility for his actions and start listening given a large group of principals have given him a “fail” mark on NCEA, primary teachers are striking for the first time in 24 years, and there is a claim lodged in the Waitangi Tribunal alleging multiple breaches by him and the Government?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’ll answer all three of those things. But, first, this Government is going to great lengths to listen to all New Zealanders’ views when it comes to education, and we keep being criticised by the Opposition for doing so, who seem to alternate between saying we’re consulting too much and alternating between saying we’re not consulting enough. With regard to the threat of strike action by the primary teachers, this Government is not responsible for the current pay and conditions that the teachers are dissatisfied with. All of those agreements were reached under the previous Government. With regard to charter schools, this Government’s position on charter schools has been very clear from the beginning. And, with regard to the NCEA, we are listening to everyone with regard to the NCEA. I have spoken to some of the principals who have been signatories to that advertisement that appeared in the newspaper and they made it very clear to me their view, to almost directly quote one of the principals who I spoke to, that the principals should have been consulted first, they should have come up with the recommendations, the Government should have given them feedback on that, and then the principals should have made the decision. The Government disagrees with that approach.

Animal Welfare—Animal Abuse in Farming Sector

10. to the Associate Minister of Agriculture: What extra steps, if any, are MPI taking to ensure animal abuse in the farming sector is identified and addressed effectively and without delay, following the footage released over the last week by SAFE and Farmwatch?

The video footage pertaining to the Northland farmer released by Save Animals from Exploitation (SAFE) and Farmwatch is currently being investigated by the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI). Last week, I announced by Framework for Action on Animal Welfare in New Zealand. It identifies four pillars: an independent voice in animal welfare; transparency and inclusive decision-making; strengthening codes across all uses of animals, ensuring they set high standards and underpinned by effective monitoring and enforcement; and capacity-building to ensure that people have the skills and capacity to meet animal welfare standards. I am engaging with the Chief Executives Forum so they are clear on my expectations that they will provide industry leadership, as well as being involved in the development of the framework.

💬 Gareth Hughes: Does she agree that this case highlights the need to establish an independent commissioner for animals to promote oversight of welfare issues and to be a voice for animals?

💬 Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Since becoming the Minister responsible for animal welfare, I have heard many views on animal welfare calling for an independent voice for animal welfare, including at my recent animal advocates hui in June. My framework for action outlines the need for an independent voice for animal welfare to ensure advice on animal welfare is future thinking, timely, trusted, and well-informed. As part of this, Cabinet will consider the possibility of establishing an independent voice such as an animal welfare commissioner.

💬 Gareth Hughes: Will she consider amending the law to allow CCTV surveillance on farms and slaughterhouses, as is happening in France, the UK, and Israel, or promote the use of cameras with landowner permission, as is currently allowed under the law?

💬 Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: At present, the current legislation does not allow MPI or any other law enforcement agency to trespass and install covert cameras on private property for any offence under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. There is currently no Government policy on the use of permitted cameras on farms, but my expectation is for the industry to step up and ensure there is support to identify animal welfare issues, and that the appropriate avenues to report such issues are available.

💬 Gareth Hughes: Will she consider whistleblowing protections for workers who make complaints about animal abuse?

💬 Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: There are confidential hotlines for farmers and workers who can provide information on potential animal welfare offences. The Protected Disclosures Act exists to encourage employees and contractors to report serious wrongdoing, including criminal offending in the workplace, and provide protection to whistle-blowers. In the case of potential animal cruelty, contractors and employees on farms should report this immediately to MPI as the appropriate authority to investigate. My expectation is industries support those farmers they represent at the farm gate in understanding what the rights and avenues for reporting animal welfare issues are. My animal welfare framework for action will address these situations further.

💬 Gareth Hughes: Will she request a ramp up of random and repeat inspections for farms subject to complaints?

💬 Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: I’m informed by MPI there are currently 183 active investigations under way involving animal welfare, with 23 animal welfare inspectors across New Zealand, 4.9 million milking cows alone, with 14 million hectares of farmland in New Zealand to cover. I will assure, through my framework, the capacity for effective and timely enforcement is accounted for. This work is currently being developed.

💬 Gareth Hughes: Does she agree that New Zealand shouldn’t be reliant on animal welfare groups such as SAFE and Farmwatch to gather evidence on animal abuses?

💬 Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Cruelty to animals is not accepted by any New Zealander across the country. I want to thank those animal advocate groups who have stepped up, but like I said in my former answers, industry also has to play its role to ensure that no animal cruelty is allowed on any of our farms, in our homes, or wherever we have animals.

💬 SPEAKER: Just before I call the member, I have been advised that there’s been a fire alarm in the Beehive, and, as a result of that, that building is currently being evacuated. I want to indicate that I’m also advised that there is no indication yet of there actually being a fire, but can I make a suggestion to members who would normally go back that way that they might be entertained and stay for at least the first part of the general debate until that matter is clarified.

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

11. to the Associate Minister of Finance: Does he believe 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 competent Minister?

Yes, and again I note for the benefit of the member that it is the Prime Minister that is responsible for assessing whether my conduct meets the standards expected of a Minister.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Is the following version of events in respect of Te Ārai correct, and, if not, which part is incorrect? Sometime in January, shortly after the tangi of Russell Kemp, Shane Jones met with John Darby, Ric Kayne, and iwi. Then, sometime after that meeting, he discussed an exemption for Te Ārai with Shane Jones and Kelvin Davis—and that neither man made any mention of Ric Kayne or John Darby being involved in the development, just mentioning the iwi. Then on 19 March, he received official Treasury advice, which, for the first time, informed him of the interests of non-iwi developers in the land, and which opposed allowing an exemption for Te Ārai. And then, three days later, not having taken steps to verify the actual extent of iwi ownership in the land, he recommended an exemption for Te Ārai to a Cabinet committee, and this was formally approved by Cabinet on 3 April?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: No, and it’s inaccurate in a number of ways.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Does he consider it to be an acceptable standard of conduct for a Minister to take a paper to Cabinet recommending land be exempted from the laws of New Zealand due its particular ownership, without knowing the details of the ownership of that land?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: In general terms, yes. I have admitted as a matter of detail that it would have been better if we had more information as to the beneficial ownership of some of the lots. I have noted to the House previously, however, that the golf course, the forestry land, the sand mine areas of more than five hectares, and other areas of sensitive land would not have been affected by the exemption.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Why did he include former Ngāti Manuhiri land in the proposed exemption to the bill, that he has repeatedly claimed was only made to protect Treaty settlement assets, given that Ngāti Manuhiri no longer own the land and haven’t owned it for several years?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I’ve released the Treasury advice to me and the Cabinet paper. It is clear that the motivation for this was the concern about the diminution in value of the iwi assets. There was concern amongst Treasury and other advisers, including Te Puni Kōkiri, that we not create a precedent that said that there wasn’t an article 1 right for the Crown to do as we have done, that we emphasise that it was being done in the interests of fairness, essentially, and that’s what we did.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just seek to clarify? The Minister referenced then releasing the Treasury advice, which hasn’t to date been released. Is he, in that answer, therefore now releasing that information?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: That information was released yesterday, and it’s been available to the member since then. Indeed, it’s been released in its totality and there weren’t even redactions made in respect of legal advice for which we could have claimed privilege.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister tell us as to what reports he has seen that say that the people behind the primary question on the Te Ārai exception are Steven Joyce, Sir John Key, Michelle Boag, and Wayne Eagleson, who made the submission in the first place?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I have seen those reports. It is also true that I made my decision on the basis of the documentary record and my involvement in it, and I think that the documents show consistency with the answers that I have given in this House.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Did any member of his ministerial office have any written or oral communication with any member of the lobbying firm Thompson Lewis about the Te Ārai development, and whether during or after the time a principle of that firm was engaged as the Prime Minister’s chief of staff?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The only correspondence that I’m aware of was that there was an unsolicited email, which copied submissions at two different stages to my office, to my parliamentary email. That email wasn’t brought to my attention or responded to by me or anyone else in my office.

Police—Appointment of Deputy Commissioner of Police

12. to the Minister of Police: Was he told of the comments made by Wally Haumaha to the 2004 Operation Austin inquiry that Louise Nicholas’ allegations were “nonsense” and that “nothing really happened and we have to stick together” during the appointment process for Mr Haumaha as Deputy Commissioner of Police; if not, when did he first learn about those comments?

In relation to the first part of the question, no. In relation to the second part of the question, the Hon Stuart Nash was told on Thursday, 28 June.

💬 Chris Bishop: What did he mean this morning when he said on Newstalk ZB, “To be honest, I probably would have done things differently. I would have undertaken a bit of due diligence myself, made a couple of calls and had a couple of discussions with a few key people?”; and does that mean that he would not have appointed Mr Haumaha if he was aware of the comments made by him in relation to Operation Austin?

Those were questions that the Hon Stuart Nash made in response to—so they were answers in response to questions asked of the Hon Stuart Nash. In any event, the Government has commissioned an independent inquiry into this matter, and it is not in the public interest for me to provide any further response.

💬 Chris Bishop: How was he not aware of the comments made by Mr Haumaha, when Louise Nicholas raised concerns a year ago with police that his appointment as assistant commissioner would, in her words, “come back to bite police in the arse”?

As I said, in response to the primary question, the Hon Stuart Nash was told of the specifics of the comments attributed to Mr Haumaha on 28 June; that is, last Thursday. The matter is now the subject of an independent Government inquiry and it’s not in the public interest for me to comment any further.

💬 Virginia Andersen: What actions has the police undertaken to change police culture since Operation Austin and the inquiry?

Police is now a fundamentally better organisation than the one described by the commission of inquiry in 2007. As Dame Margaret Bazley herself has said, the police has made a colossal change. Over the last 10 years, under the current and previous commissioners, women now make up 50 percent of district commanders, and they are increasingly entering senior ranks. The police can always do better and that’s why we’re pushing for greater diversity amongst the force.

💬 Chris Bishop: Did the Rt Hon Winston Peters disclose to him during the appointment process of Mr Haumaha as Deputy Commissioner that he was a former New Zealand First candidate?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have provided all the evidence that that statement is not correct. He can go to the Electoral Commission if he likes. He can get the evidence but not come down here and, like the rest of his questions, just repeat baseless innuendo which is false. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: No, I am prepared to rule, and that is that there is again something which is longstanding but often ignored, and that is that when statements are made, they should be authenticated. Now, we have had in this House a very clear statement to the contrary from a member without parliamentary responsibility but with responsibility as a party leader on that matter. So I am ruling the question out of order.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Doesn’t the essence of what you’ve just ruled mean that Mr Peters should in fact authenticate the claim he makes that the man was not a candidate? When we have relied on, firstly, a local newspaper celebrating his success as being appointed New Zealand First’s candidate, which was only withdrawn—

💬 SPEAKER: OK, and subsequent to that we’ve had a very clear statement from the Acting Prime Minister that the newspaper article was inaccurate. We’ve had the word of the member, which, while it was not done in a formal setting like a primary answer, must be taken. Unless the member has any evidence to the contrary—and I think evidence about who are candidates and who are not candidates is very easily obtained—then I’m going to stay with my ruling, and that is that we will accept the word of the Acting Prime Minister that the particular individual was not a candidate.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Would it be reasonable in this circumstance, then, for the question to be reworded, with the gentleman concerned referred to as a New Zealand First party member who was seeking candidacy?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, if the member wants to do that, he may, but he doesn’t get an extra question.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What the House is being invited to do now is to go beyond the privacy provisions that there are in the electoral law of this country, which mean a person can be a member of a party and that is confidential to the party, not to the whole country. Mr Brownlee, in his naivety, gets up and he suggests we go past the privacy provisions of the electoral law in this country and enrolment in this country and party membership in this country just because he wants to indulge himself.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s an unreasonable characterisation. It’s quite unreasonable.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m now going to rule that this whole discussion is hypothetical, because National have used up all of their supplementaries and there is not an opportunity to reword anything anyway.