Oral Questions

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

In their specific context, particularly when I said that the women’s and men’s Rugby Sevens should be congratulated for their fantastic victory over the last weekend. In that context, definitely yes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he think there should continue to be mutual obligations on beneficiaries to be looking for work or working towards training for work?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The difference between this Government and the former Government is that we believe that people need to be assisted back into work, and they shouldn’t be forced to starve and freeze whilst they’re getting the employment that should have been set up for them nine years ago.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: So should there be obligations on beneficiaries to be looking for work?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Those obligations already exist. That’s why we have the lowest unemployment since that member can remember.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Should people on the job seeker benefit be drug-free and continue to be drug-free while they’re looking for, or in, employment? [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! There were two Ministers then who interjected, and it’s no good looking behind you. I’ll make a decision and communicate it.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In an ideal world, of course that member’s right, but our job is to take people who have fallen by the wayside, pick them up again, and put them back into the workforce.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does that involve consequences for beneficiaries repeatedly failing to comply with obligations to work, or not being drug-free while, again, looking for work?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That member will know, if he was familiar with our social welfare system, that there are already consequences and that the Ministry of Social Development ensures that that happens all the time.

💬 Hon Members: The Government’s taking them away.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, they have not taken it all away. If that member wasn’t so dislocated from reality, he’d know that.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How can he say they’re not taking away—the Government, that is—the sanctions, when the jobseeker benefit’s up some 4,000, when the sanctions being applied are down 20-something percent, when the Government Minister’s making it incredibly clear that there’ll need to be two opinions before sanctions are applied and formally telling Work and Income they shouldn’t be applying sanctions, and he’s got a working group out that’s mandated to get rid of the sanctions?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It’s very difficult to actually answer that diatribe because it had so many elements to it.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Let me be very simple for the Prime Minister: how does he—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will start with a question.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How does the Prime Minister explain that the number of benefits are up relatively significantly and the sanctions are down pretty significantly?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Benefit numbers were up 3,000 from the all-time high figure under the global financial crisis that that member had under his control, and after nine years had gone up by 3,000. Those are the facts.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he agree with Jan Logie that eight out of 277,000 beneficiaries being suspended each day for breaches of obligation is too many?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In an ideal world, of course I’d agree with that member. The reality is, we haven’t given up. We haven’t given up on the kind of economic and social utopia that we’re organising at this point in time. We don’t take that dismal puritanical view of the roadshow that went around the country filling up telephone booths and calling it a worldwide campaign.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he agree with Jan Logie, who said that applying obligations to beneficiaries are “not the actions of a decent and compassionate government”, or does he actually believe that obligations are a compassionate tool to help people into work, which will improve their life outcomes?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I could say that it’s been a long time since I’ve heard the neoliberal experiment being described as a compassionate tool to help the poor. This is a new one for us.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: So it’s quite clear, is it, that he does not support sanctions, that he thinks beneficiaries should be able to languish on the dole queue?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Which of the two questions would the member like me to answer?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I couldn’t find one amongst that.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How can he stand here and defend the policies of Labour and the Greens to soften obligations, remove sanctions, and put more people on welfare, when he clearly doesn’t believe in it himself, and his colleagues have actively advocated getting the “nephs” off the couch with sanctions?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because the programme that we have advocated, as a Government, about getting the “nephs” off the couch is about providing the work for them in the first place. You can’t get them off the couch if there’s no place to go and work at—that’s the difference. And I’m going to be concerned about Jacinda Ardern calling me shortly and saying I’d better stay here—this job looks too easy.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Will the Prime Minister give a straight question—

💬 Hon Member: Straight answer.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: —a straight answer—to whether or not his Government is going soft on sanctions and allowing beneficiaries to languish on the dole queue?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Repeating a misnomer does not give it any validity. The reality is all of my colleagues and all of these members over here are dedicated to finding more real work and First World wages for New Zealand citizens. And the “First Citizen of the Provinces” has been all around the country opening up opportunities for that to happen. If you’re going to get people off the couch and get them out of the pool room and every other place in town, you have to have work for them, and work we will have.

Economy—Forecasts

2. to the Minister of Finance: Has he seen GDP forecasts from Infometrics predicting growth of “roughly 2 percent per year between now and 2021”, which is “more than 1 percent lower than Treasury’s economic forecast”; if so, what effect would GDP growth 1 percent lower than Treasury forecasts have on future Government surpluses?

I have seen reports of those forecasts, just as I have seen other reports on the economy released recently, including one from Westpac economists who said they expect growth of about 3 percent. In answer to the second part of the question, it is not the rate of economic growth that will decide future Government surpluses; it’s the priorities and spending decisions of Governments.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Is he prepared to acknowledge any concern at all that all respectable economists and commentators, including Infometrics, ANZ, and the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, amongst others, are now talking down our economic future under this Government’s low-growth, anti-business policies, and we are now, once more—

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Amy Adams: —net losers.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: No. The member cannot make that sort of assertion as part of a question. Start again.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Is he prepared to acknowledge any concern at all that our economy now shows all the signs of slowing down considerably?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m prepared to acknowledge that some business sentiment is negative, but the consensus forecast—for example, the one published by FocusEconomics this month—shows growth of about 3 percent is expected.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: So is he seriously trying to claim that the policies of this Government, like union-friendly industrial relations changes, significantly higher labour costs, more strike action, banning oil and gas exploration, turning away foreign investment, and many others are going to have no effect on businesses or jobs, nor are causative of these lower GDP forecasts?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I repeat: the consensus forecast is around 3 percent growth, which is what Treasury were expecting. And I wonder if the member had taken the opportunity to read further into the Infometrics report, where they actually said, “We do not believe current business confidence levels signal a major contraction in business investment.” So the report she’s quoting actually doesn’t back up her argument.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Would he agree with the proposition that the most effective way to be able to afford essential Government services like higher nurses salaries and more infrastructure is to actually see the economy grow?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes. Economic growth is very important, which is why the consensus forecast that shows 3 percent growth will give our Government the ability to continue to invest in the areas that the previous Government failed to do so.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: In light of that answer, how can he be so dismissive of the numerous economic forecasts which are now coming out, showing that our GDP growth is slowing, which will make it harder to pay for essential services like salaries and infrastructure?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I repeat what I said earlier: there are a number of different forecasts. The consensus forecast released by FocusEconomics this month says 3 percent growth is what we can expect.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: So is the real reason he won’t find more money for the nurses and he’s had to deploy the Defence Force to staff our hospitals that Treasury officials have in fact told him that GDP expectations are lower, and the reality is that he knows he has promised far more than he can afford.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premises in that question, and, in fact, this Government has doubled the amount of money available for nurses because we recognise that over the last nine years the health system was underfunded. Nurses were undervalued. We’re doing something about it.

Economy—Innovation, Productivity, and Reports

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

I have seen several reports recently which suggest the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy remain strong. ASB commented this week that the trade-weighted index will remain supported by New Zealand’s solid economic outlook, strong export prices, and our historically high terms of trade. Westpac economists said this week they expect growth near 3 percent over the next year and that this growth will be supported by fiscal policy, and that the slight softening of growth in recent quarters has been linked to moderation in the housing market. This represents a transition away from a reliance on housing speculation and towards the productive side of the economy.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: What recent reports and commentary has he seen on the importance of a more productive economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The 2018 Global Innovation Index was released recently, detailing how innovative activity drives economic and human development. The 2018 report was based on data primarily from 2017 and 2016. It is disappointing to see that New Zealand’s innovation ranking has dropped in the most recent report to the 22nd most innovative economy in the world, from the 13th in 2012. Liam Dann, in the New Zealand Herald, commented that this is a “damning indictment of the last Government’s efforts to promote innovation in the economy.”, partly due to its cancellation of the previous Labour-led Government’s R & D tax credit policy.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: How will the coalition Government’s plan help to turn this around and support the New Zealand economy to be more innovative and productive?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government’s economic plan includes policies to get our R & D investment to 2 percent of GDP, from our current position below the OECD average. This includes an R & D tax incentive that will give businesses certainty and encourage them to innovate, instead of having to spend time and money dealing with the bureaucratic costs of the previous Government’s R & D policy. This coalition Government’s plan will unlock the growth potential of the productive side of our economy, including in the regions, so that we can transition to a more productive, sustainable, and inclusive growth path.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Minister believe introducing a capital gains tax (CGT) could help transition the economy to be more productive?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There’s no doubt that we need to see more investment in the productive side of our economy and away from the speculative side of our economy. Issues around whether or not a CGT will be released are part of the consideration of the Tax Working Group.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Minister favour introducing a capital gains tax?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I will wait to see the outcomes of the Tax Working Group, but what I can say is that I favour more investment in New Zealand going towards the productive side of the economy and less of a focus on celebrating economic growth that’s driven by population increase and people selling houses to each other, which is what we saw for the last nine years.

KiwiBuild—Buying off the Plans

4. to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Has he been advised of the quantum of risk that the Crown is taking through its Buying off the Plans initiative; if so, what is the quantum of risk?

The types and amount of risk the Crown may take through the Buying off the Plans initiative were assessed as part of the business case I took to Cabinet. In terms of the amount of risk, that will depend on the particular contractual arrangements between each developer and the Crown.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Once the Crown has committed to a KiwiBuild Buying off the Plans purchase from a developer, will the Crown take all of the risk if the housing market falls, and, if not, in what proportion will that risk be taken?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the nature of the risk-sharing arrangement in the Buying off the Plans initiative centres on the underwriting, or Buying off the Plans itself. In that case—in the case of an underwrite—if the developer is unable to sell the property at an agreed price, then the Crown will step in and buy that property at an agreed price and then onsell it to young Kiwi families.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: If the construction risks such as a rise in construction costs lie with the developer, who will take on the risk if the houses are not completed by the developer?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: That risk is one that is shared by the developer and KiwiBuild, and it will be dealt with through the contractual negotiations.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: If the developer becomes insolvent during the process of building the KiwiBuild houses, will the Crown meet the mortgage debts of the developer, and what is the limit of liability in relation to each development that he is prepared to take?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I don’t have that precise detail in front of me, but if the member wants to put down a written question, I’ll be very happy to do my best to answer it.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: If Hawkins Construction and other formerly major and credible developers have gone into liquidation this year, then what assurance can he give New Zealanders that other developers will not leave the New Zealand taxpayer liable for meeting the costs of unmet guarantees in half-built houses?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: What I would say to that is that risk is an inherent part of the development process. The whole idea behind KiwiBuild is that the Government will prudently share the risk with developers in order to build the kinds of modest, affordable starter homes that the market has absolutely failed to deliver to young Kiwi first-home buyers. That is the nature of the risk-sharing arrangement that lies at the heart of KiwiBuild.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What are the risks of not undertaking the Buying off the Plans KiwiBuild programme?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The main risk is that we will continue to see residential developments across New Zealand stall because developers struggle to find finance on acceptable terms. These developments will not be built, will be completed more slowly, and will contain bigger, more expensive homes because that’s where the biggest profit margin lies. This would mean that we would not increase the supply of modern starter homes for young families. This Government is committed to building affordable homes so that we can restore the Kiwi Dream of affordable homeownership.

Transport—Fuel Tax

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

Yes, when described and reported accurately.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Does he stand by his answer to written question No. 13789, where he outlined that New Zealanders will be paying more than $1 billion in new fuel taxes over the next three years?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: What advice did he receive from the Ministry of Transport on the impact on the cost of living of charging New Zealanders an extra $1 billion in new fuel taxes over the next three years?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The Ministry of Transport agreed with the modelling that was done by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, which said that as a result of the full roll-out of three years of consecutive fuel excise duty increases and the Auckland regional fuel tax, the average family in Auckland will pay, typically, $5 extra per week.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Did he take into account, before he announced a billion dollars in new fuel taxes, that fuel prices had already increased, on average, by 20c a litre since he took office?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I take my cue on this from an earlier Government that increased fuel taxes in 2015, after petrol prices had gone up by 40c a litre between January and June 2015. The Government then increased excise tax in July, as that decision had no impact on the economy, and petrol prices later fell as international fuel prices moderated. I think Simon Bridges is a very good role model here.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Can he confirm that after this 20c a litre price movement, his fuel tax increases and regional fuel taxes will mean that his Government is responsible for Kiwis paying over 40c a litre more for petrol than what they were paying a year ago?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, I don’t believe that this Government or any previous Government is responsible for international commodity prices and their volatile fluctuations.

KiwiBuild—Māngere Development

6. to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What progress, if any, has he made towards the Government’s target of building 1,000 affordable KiwiBuild homes in 2018/19, 5,000 in 2019/20, and 10,000 in 2020/21?

The Government has announced that it will transform Māngere with an ambitious programme to build 10,000 new homes for Kiwi families. Under our plan, 2,700 worn-out State houses will be replaced by 10,000 new homes, made up of 3,000 new State houses, up to 3,500 new KiwiBuild affordable homes, and 3,500 homes sold on the open market. The first stage of the development is under way; 35 State houses are being demolished, to be replaced by 66 more State houses and 100 other homes, at least half of which will be KiwiBuild. The first KiwiBuild and affordable homes in this development will be completed towards the end of 2019 and early 2020.

💬 Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How will the Government ensure the local residents are able to rent or buy homes in the completed Māngere development?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I am determined that the local community will benefit from this redevelopment and not be priced out of the new homes. HLC is working hard to keep the prices of KiwiBuild homes as low as possible. We’re also working on long-term rent and shared-equity options. And, for KiwiBuild, we’ll be using priority ballots to ensure that local residents get the first shot at owning their own home, in their own community.

💬 Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How does the Māngere development fit within the Government’s plans for large-scale urban development?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The Māngere development is the first fully integrated transport and housing development. HLC and the KiwiBuild unit are working closely with the New Zealand Transport Agency - led light rail project to ensure that these two projects make Māngere an even better place to live. Integrating transport and housing is how we invest in the infrastructure to get ahead of growth. Māngere joins Unitec, Northcote, and Tāmaki as the initial large-scale developments, where this Government is building modern starter homes for young Kiwi families.

💬 Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What interest has there been in the KiwiBuild scheme and these large-scale developments?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, over 35,000 Kiwis have registered their interest in KiwiBuild. For aspiring homeowners, the next step is to start the qualification process in order to be ready to enter the ballot on their chosen KiwiBuild properties as they go on sale in the coming months and years.

Regional Economic Development—Mining on Conservation Land

7. to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he stand by his statement, “the extractive sector will not be written out of any script of regional development that I or the party I belong to are a part of”?

Within the context in which the remarks were given, absolutely.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he believe there should be new mines on the Department of Conservation’s (DOC’s) stewardship land?

When I made those remarks—the member ought to bear in mind that words have meaning, and all of my words have thoughts behind them; after all, in the absence of thoughts, as Shakespeare said, your words never get to heaven. We are currently undergoing a process of categorising land that is known as stewardship land, and, as that process unfolds, as the former parliamentary commissioner advised, we will assign appropriate values to those lands. As that process reaches some conclusion on stewardship land, at that point I will be in a better position to know as to what proportion should be dedicated to economic development and what proportion to preservation.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can he say, as he was quoted by the New Zealand Herald, that “The extractive sector will not be written out of any script of regional development that I or the party I belong to are a part of”, if he is not prepared to clearly state that there should be the possibility of a new mine on low-value lands on the DOC estate—which, by the way, comprise 85 percent of the land on the West Coast?

I am well aware, having returned from the West Coast as something of a hero after a brief visit there—[Interruption]. The audience realised that although I spoke at Shantytown, my vision, unlike the last regime, bears no shanty resemblance or resonances for that part of the country. As I said, the mining sector is already part of the political economy of that part of the country. The statutory decisions lie with other Ministers, but the quality of my advocacy will continue, because unlike that member, I am a lion in the regions, I am a lion in the House, but I am not a wimp when I go back to Epsom.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will he be a hero and resign as Minister if the Government he is part of bans new mining on stewardship land?

As I said, I can remind the member that I’ve had a go at resigning before. That is not in the immediate future of anyone that I know on this side of the House. We will undertake a process which actually stretches back to 1987. We will move forward on some of the sentiments articulated in an earlier report from the parliamentary commissioner and ensure that stewardship land is robustly categorised. The actual formal and legal decisions lie with other Ministers, but, rest assured, the Coast and New Zealand in general will hear a clear voice from myself reminding everyone of the importance of the extractive sector.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: What message was he sending, and to whom, when he said to the New Zealand Herald: “Stewardship land has been lying around since Rogernomics times and any changes to stewardship land will be a change of policy agreed to by the entire Government.”—was it to the Prime Minister who announced in the Speech from the Throne that there will be no new mining on conservation land under this Government, and stewardship land is part of the conservation estate, or was it somebody else?

The full quote referred to the fact that, just as the provincial fund is not some joystick belonging to just my good self—so all of us; we bring our perspectives forward. And as my colleague said in a recent interview, these are decisions of such large import they will embrace all of the perspectives that lead to a sustainable future for the regions of New Zealand.

Census 2018—Participation

8. to the Minister of Statistics: Does he stand by his statements regarding Census 2018 that “I am very confident that we will get to everyone”, and “this census looks to be more successful than previous censuses”, when it had more than 400,000 people not counted?

Yes, in the context in which they were made. On 6 March, census day, I expressed my confidence based on advice from Statistics New Zealand that they were working very hard to get to everyone that they were aiming to get to on census day. On 12 April, when I said, “this census looks to be more successful than previous censuses” in answer to a question in the House from Dr Jian Yang, the National Party statistics spokesperson, I was referring to online response rates and other targets, which, at that point, Statistics New Zealand advised me they were on track to meet or exceed. The assertion that there are more than 400,000 people who haven’t been counted is Dr Smith’s extrapolation and is not a number from Statistics New Zealand nor one that I have confidence in. The final number will only be known once the post-census reconciliation is complete and published in March next year.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with Professor Lumley of Auckland University’s Department of Statistics that the lowest turnout rate in more than 50 years, for Census 2018, was “very serious”, and the statement by Acting Prime Minister Winston Peters that the census result was “very disappointing”?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: It is important that New Zealanders have confidence in our national statistics agency and in the census. While the response rate to this census does appear to be lower than hoped for, based on initial and partial information, Statistics New Zealand will make use of reliable Government data to fill in the gaps. This method is called imputation and has been used to fill data gaps since 2001, in line with international best practice. The imputation methodology has been discussed with a group of international census specialists, including members of the US Census Bureau and the UK’s Office for National Statistics. The peer review will continue as the methodology develops.

It is important to note that the imputation methodology was a core part of the census modernisation programme that was agreed to in the 2014 National Government Cabinet, of which Dr Smith was a part. To express a lack of confidence in the output of that process months before it is complete would be to express a lack of confidence in the decision which he was a part of. Given that Dr Smith has been a member of this House for the last six censuses, I would assume he would know better.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: How would the Minister describe the performance of this census with the previous five he’s referred to, with a 90 percent return rate, when in 2013, 97.6 percent was the net coverage rate; in 2006, it achieved 98 percent, in 2001, 97.8 percent, and in 1996, 98.4 percent; and why does he not agree with statistical experts that say that this census was a shambles?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: Dr Smith is confusing his statistics. There is a difference between the coverage rate and the response rate. The methodology changed after the 2006 census, and the only comparable data to this year’s census is the previous one. The full and partial response rate for the previous census was 90.5 percent. The 90 percent figure that he’s currently quoting is an interim figure of full and partial responses for this year’s census, which we won’t know the completed number for until after the reconciliation is complete in March of next year.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with former Labour Party president Mike Williams when he said this year’s census was “an industrial strength fiasco” and that the flawed data should be “dumped and the census done again properly”?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: Absolutely not. No, Mr Williams is completely wrong. As Dr Smith would know, having been a member of the Cabinet that signed off on the census methodology here, this year’s census is called a digital-first, with mail second. Previously, we were using mail first, digital second. We have used supplementary information since 2001. The strategy for census transformation, which his Government signed off on, and of which this census is a part, is part of a road map for using more imputation in the future. Dr Smith ought to know that, because he signed off on it.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he believe he did everything possible, as Minister of Statistics, to ensure Census 2018 was successful, when he did not issue a single press release encouraging participation, as compared to the 14 issued by previous Minister Maurice Williamson in Census 2013; when he chose to be touring the Pacific during the crucial census week; and when he dismissed the widespread concerns from members from this side of the House and the media, when we raised them, about this year’s conduct?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: Again, Dr Smith really ought to know better, especially given that he’s the spokesperson for State services and should understand that there is actually legal separation between the Minister and the agency. And, not only that, when I did go out doing promotional activities for this year’s census, I wasn’t even allowed to touch the census papers because of the fear of it looking like I was interfering with the census. So the idea that the Minister can somehow interfere in the census process, the way that he is implying, would be a breach of the law, and, once again, Dr Smith ought to know better. If he has any further questions, perhaps he could direct some of them to his colleague Dr Jian Yang, who is actually the National Party’s statistics spokesperson and who in the 512 written questions he has asked about statistics this year, 129 were about the census, and I’m pretty sure many of those will answer the kinds of questions that Dr Smith is unable to answer for himself, given his extensive experience.

Provincial Growth Fund—Announcements and Media Reports

9. to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent media reports has he seen regarding the Provincial Growth Fund?

The Leader of the Opposition warbled yesterday. He described the fund, in a very harsh and cruel manner, as beads, blankets, and trinkets to the regions. I’m not entirely sure if that was reflective of a certain audience he had in front of him, but I think what that did was diminish the status of the regions, and there’s some small prospect that, given a bead is a small piece of plastic with a hole in it, he was talking about himself.

💬 Mark Patterson: Did he agree with the Leader of the Opposition, when—

💬 Hon David Bennett: No, no, no. You can’t ask that question.

💬 Mark Patterson: —he admitted in that interview that regional development would not be a spending priority for a Government he led?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can I say to David Bennett that he knows very little about Standing Orders, and his interjections have just lost the recently awarded questions to his side.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How does the Minister have responsibility, and doesn’t that question, effectively, fly in the face of your veto on the Government using questions to attack the Opposition?

💬 SPEAKER: No. In this particular case, it was a very straight question: does he agree with the Leader of the Opposition? I mean, that’s a very reasonable question.

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: It is troubling to the provinces, and, indeed, to myself, that the Leader of the Opposition has announced that regional development would not be a priority, which might explain why so many members on the other side of the House are so actively advocating that I continue in this vein.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My case in point here is that no such announcement has been made by the Leader of the Opposition. So, if you think about what the question was, there is no way that that particular response from Mr Jones could be considered inside Standing Orders.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the fact that an answer may be inaccurate is something that I cannot always pass judgment on, and I’m not prepared to. The quality of the answer—I think it’s very much dependent on one’s viewpoint, or the direction one is coming from. And, in this case, if the member disagrees or if the member’s side disagrees, then they should further question the Minister; or, if they believe that he is deliberately misleading the House, then there is other action that can be taken.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We’re trying very hard to stay within the dictates of some of the initiatives that you’ve brought to the House since you’ve taken that seat. One of them that has been quite strong, and was particularly reinforced a few weeks back, was that the Government should not use its own questions to gratuitously attack the Opposition. That was nothing less than a gratuitous attack on the Opposition. If it wasn’t that, then it was a Minister being grossly reckless with the truth.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I’m not certain that there’s anything in there that I’m being asked to rule on.

💬 Mark Patterson: Which Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) projects have involved the distribution of beads, blankets, and trinkets to the regions?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: It’s unfortunate that that residual language, based on the association of the last regime with the Māori Party, has subsisted in the narrative of the Leader of the Opposition.

💬 SPEAKER: OK. Order! That’s enough. Thank you.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has he seen a report on Stuff on 29 June saying National’s Paul Goldsmith “slammed Jones for backtracking on his promises, being ‘deliberately tricky’ and refusing to be held to account.”, and, if so, what is his excuse for such shameful behaviour?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m just trying to work out whether I just completely rule it out or I give the member another shot. I’ll give him another shot because I’m generous.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I’m very happy to have another shot. Has he seen a report on Stuff on 29 June that says National’s Paul Goldsmith “slammed Jones for backtracking on his promises, being ‘deliberately tricky’ and refusing to be held to account.”?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Speaking as the regional development Minister, there has never been an incident where Goldsmith has slammed the Minister.

💬 Mark Patterson: What recent PGF announcements has the Government actually made?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: During the past week, the “provincial champion” was invited to Murihiku—that’s in the deep South, Otago, in an area grossly neglected over the last nine years—and Te Tai Poutini, the West Coast, where, in Hokitika, Westport, Greymouth, busts are being created of my good self. We have allocated funding to ensure that the necessary feasibility study goes ahead to strengthen KiwiRail services into that region, and that is a boost of the tourism—something that will please my ministerial colleagues; and, in addition to that, a sum of money to ensure that the ports—further evidence of neglected infrastructure in the recent past—are repaired. And I’m very confident, along with input from industry and elements of the local government community, I will continue to deliver fiscal lucre and goodwill to that particular part of the country.

Health Services—Use of Defence Personnel During Nurses’ Industrial Action

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

Yes, in the context they were made and taken.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why did he not inform the New Zealand public that Defence Force medical personnel were being deployed to New Zealand hospitals on 12 July under section 9 of the Defence Act?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The public have been informed.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was: why did he not inform the New Zealand public?

💬 SPEAKER: I heard it, and because we have had a look at this, the Minister could have replied that it’s not his responsibility. I think he has answered the question.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point of order, there is a difference between the responsibility to inform this House under ministerial statement and the moral responsibility to inform the New Zealand public of what’s going on in its health service.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, if the member wants to continue down that line, he can ask further supplementaries.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he not believe it appropriate as Minister of Health for him to have informed the New Zealand public of what arrangements were in place on 12 July in our hospitals, including the deployment of New Zealand Defence Force medical personnel?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: My key priority in the lead-up to the nurses’ strike was making sure that safe staffing was in place, and indeed it was. I want to thank the personnel from the defence forces who assisted with that, I want to thank the New Zealand Nurses Organisation (NZNO), and I want to thank the district health boards (DHBs) who all worked constructively together to ensure that there were safe staffing arrangements in place around the country. I take my hat off to them.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: What were the circumstances that led the Government to conclude that the NZNO alone could not provide all life-preserving services as required by the Employment Relations Act?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I contacted the Minister of Defence in advance to ensure that there was a contingency in place. The nurses organisation and the DHBs worked together to make sure that all the rosters were filled for safe staffing requirements, and that was done.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was not about the process that followed after the conclusion that the NZNO couldn’t provide those services; it was: what were the circumstances that led to that process being necessary in the first place?

💬 SPEAKER: Ask the question again.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: What were the circumstances that led the Government to conclude that the NZNO alone could not provide all life-preserving services, as required by the Employment Relations Act?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The NZNO worked constructively with the DHBs and, obviously, with Defence Force personnel to make sure all of the rosters were filled. They clearly had some rosters that they didn’t believe were going to be filled when they requested the additional assistance. All of them were. So safe staffing was the priority; that was achieved.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he accept that when NZNO representatives have reiterated that a revised offer would require more money to be ratified, his continued statements that there is no more money are inflammatory and unhelpful?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No.

Police—Liquor Licensing of Clubs and Resources

11. to the Minister of Police: Is he satisfied Police are using their resources effectively to target crime prevention; if not, why not?

Yes, I support our police 100 percent. I wish that member would also.

💬 Chris Bishop: Ha, ha! Is it a good use of police resources to oppose liquor licence applications for Wellington bowling clubs, which in the case of the Whitby Bowling Club has not had a single liquor licence issue in 40 years?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: That is actually an operational matter and, as that member would know, I actually have no ability to direct police in the use of their resources. But what I would say, as I understand it, Wellington police are working better to understand the reason why some clubs are seeking licences that in some instances run for 17 hours, from 8 a.m. in the morning to 1 a.m. the next morning for seven days a week—that’s all.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is it correct that police have research that shows licensed clubs accounted for virtually zero issues over a five-year period in the Wellington district; and don’t the police have better things to do than shake down bowls clubs, bridge clubs, and tennis clubs?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Police are not shaking down bowls clubs, whatever clubs, and tennis clubs.

💬 Virginia Andersen: What is the Minister doing to ensure the New Zealand Police service is resourced effectively?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: It is this Government’s priority to ensure that police are fully resourced, especially when one considers there were 72 fewer officers at the end of financial year 2018 compared to the same time in 2012. We are correcting this. We provided an additional $300 million in Budget 2018 to start the process of delivering 1,800 more front-line officers and 485 back-office staff over three years.

💬 Chris Bishop: What does he say to Newtown Bowling Club secretary, Lorraine Brennan, who said “We need the police to advise us, not bully us.” and prominent Wellington resident Paul Eagle, who said “Rather than targeting clubs or making them feel like easy targets, they should be looking to have a wider conversation with sports clubs.” [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member is going to resume his seat. Mr Bishop’s going to ask the question, and he or his team have three additional supplementaries because of the interjections.

💬 Chris Bishop: What does he say to Newtown Bowling Club secretary, Lorraine Brennan, who said “We need the police to advise us not bully us.” and prominent Wellington resident Paul Eagle, who said “Rather than targeting clubs”—ha, ha, excuse me—“or making them feel like easy targets, they should be looking to have a wider conversation with sports clubs.”?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: I agree with the member from Ōhāriu when he said there were two sides to every story, and police are actually in the process of talking with and consulting with these bowling clubs in the first place.

💬 Chris Bishop: What steps, if any, is he taking to stop police wasting resources opposing licences for well-known places of ill repute like the Wellington Bridge Club, the Island Bay Tennis and Squash Club, and the Whitby Bowling Club, and can he confirm to the House that the next on his target list is not happy hours at rest homes? [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Before I call the member—because we’ve had exactly the same offence from the Opposition, the extra supplementaries are now withdrawn.

💬 Hon STUART NASH: I would assume that the people from the Whitby Bowling Club would be horrified to hear that member call them a place of ill repute.

Housing—Warmer Kiwi Homes Programme

12. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent initiatives has she announced that will help keep Kiwis warm and healthy, and make it more affordable to heat their homes?

On 1 July I had the pleasure of launching the Government’s Warmer Kiwi Homes insulation and heating programme, in Christchurch. While there I visited the first home to be insulated and met many of the people who will benefit from having a warmer home. This is possible because of the Government’s allocation of $142.5 million to the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme in Budget 2018. Our new programme will cover 67 percent of the cost of fit out, and we expect that over the next four years 52,000 families will benefit. This compares to the previous Government’s scheme that only covered 25 percent of the cost per fit out. This means that thousands of Kiwi families will have warmer homes and lower electricity bills, reducing the cost of living for those most in need.

💬 Paul Eagle: What response has she received about this programme?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’ve received positive feedback on how much of a difference a programme like this will make for Kiwis. There have been numerous positive media reports on Warmer Kiwi Homes, with Age Concern Canterbury calling the shift in funding to two-thirds of the cost of insulation a game-changer, making the cost of insulation manageable for a lot more people. Pam Wootton-Peters, whose house was the first to receive insulation under the programme, said it was like living in a different home. Bev and Wattie Meadowcroft also relayed to me at the launch that they wouldn’t have to sit outside to keep warm, as it was often warmer outside their home than inside before their insulation. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority has also informed me there’s been a surge of interest in the new programme via the website traffic and through their call centre and service providers.

💬 Paul Eagle: How does this work link with the Families Package and the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: This is all part of a Government plan to give New Zealanders warmer, drier homes. The Warmer Kiwi Homes programme, the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act, and the winter energy payment, part of the Families Package, are all part of a suite of measures this Government has introduced as part of its commitment to warm, healthy housing.