Oral Questions

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

Yes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he believe New Zealand should implement a comprehensive medicinal cannabis regime that would widen access to medicinal cannabis and license high-quality domestic production?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Government’s view is that if the other members of Parliament were serious in this matter, then they would not have put it into a member’s bill, in a ballot that may not be drawn in favour of the bill, and they would in the last nine years have showed their integrity and sincerity on this issue, rather than playing silly politics.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he agree that New Zealanders deserve greater access to high-quality medicinal cannabis products to ease their suffering, but that we must also have the right legislative and regulatory controls in place to manage that access?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Government’s position is that having observed nine years of nothing on this issue, in the first 100 days the Government sought to change the law to enable a consideration by Parliament, and that’s happening as we speak.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Noting what the Prime Minister has said about members’ bills, will he be open to considering National’s proposed medicinal cannabis scheme on its merits?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that question is that if that was a sincere offer, then prior to the bill being tabled that member—leading a party, supposedly—would have offered us a chance of consultation. But no: after nine years of inertia and nothing, he then turns up with a bill that may not be drawn.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Why does the Government’s current Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill remain totally silent on how a medicinal cannabis regime would operate in practice, essentially proposing to increase access now and leave it to officials to think through the controls and the consequences at a later time?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The fact is that that bill will be reported back to Parliament and, as he will know if he’s observed the parliamentary process, there may be changes, there may be amendments, there may be adaptations—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: They won’t have gone through select committee.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, that member had members on the select committee. Why didn’t you talk to them, or is his party a leaderless rabble?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he believe that a medicinal cannabis scheme should have clear parameters and rules around who can buy and who can sell the products—parameters that are not included in the Government’s proposal? [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! There were four separate interjections from the Government benches then. I hesitate when we’re discussing this topic to suggest methods of members calming down.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It would be good advice, though, Mr Speaker, especially for the one that’s asking the questions. Could I just say this, though: the reality is this is a work in progress. We all know that. That’s the form of democracy we have and this Government was so concerned to respond to a public desire for a change here that in the first 100 days of its coming to power it acted, as against nine years of utter nothing.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: In light of the Prime Minister’s comment just then that the bill is a work in progress, and given that it’s just come back from select committee, is he acknowledging that it’s not fit for purpose and doesn’t do what it needs to do?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What this Government is saying is that unlike the previous Government we have not got a tin ear. We listen and whilst the bill’s before this House we will be prepared to make changes if it’s warranted, and that party over there looking for an alternative leader can consult amongst themselves.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he expect terminally ill and chronically ill New Zealanders to only access the cannabis products they need legally through pharmacists?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I say that the members on this side will be taken by the degree of passion and deep feeling that that member is exhibiting today and we just wonder where it was the last nine years when he didn’t raise a finger about people’s pain and agony and suffering—not a mutter, not a murmur, not syllable, not a sound until he lost power and now he wants to act.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Taking all of the issues with the Government bill into account, I ask again: will he be open to considering National’s proposed medicinal cannabis scheme on its merits?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I tell that member that if he was sincere in that offer, why did he not send me and my colleagues and my fellow MPs on this side of the House a copy of his legislation? Maybe he was embarrassed by what it said—maybe he was embarrassed by its content, but he most definitely did not exhibit any political collegiality by sharing this wonderful bill he’s got. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Who was that? Withdraw and apologise.

💬 Clayton Mitchell: I withdraw and apologise.

Business—Costs

2. to the Minister of Finance: What reports or correspondence, if any, has he received about cost increases on New Zealand businesses as a result of the Government’s policies and actions; and is he concerned cost increases on business will increase the cost of living for New Zealanders?

I, receive reports from officials on most Government policies and actions, and where appropriate they provide advice on the impacts on New Zealand businesses—for example, on the increase to the minimum wage. I have received some correspondence from businesses on the impact of Government policies, but this is far outweighed by the correspondence this Government has received from New Zealand families who are benefiting from the Families Package. In answer to the second part of the question, it is possible, as it has always been, that businesses will pass on any cost increases they face to their customers. From the point of view of this Government, that’s why we have implemented measures to lift incomes and wages, including today’s excellent announcement that 5,000 mental health and addiction support workers will now get access to a pay parity deal they were previously excluded from.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: What quantification does the advice he’s received tell him about how Government changes have increased costs on small business, and how that will increase the cost of living of New Zealanders?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I get a range of advice. It doesn’t all quantify impacts on New Zealand businesses. For example, the advice from officials on the minimum wage increase varies, as it did for the previous Government—that it may cause some reduction in employment, although that doesn’t actually tend to follow. It also has said that it may have minimal impacts on inflation, although, in the case of the latest change, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials indicate that it would be very small.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Does he have any advice at all that he has sought that gives him any understanding of what the cost on small business has increased by as a result of his Government’s policies and actions?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I get a range of advice, as I said, from officials. But the member is falling for the classic accountants’ trick of seeing the cost of everything and the value of nothing. So investing in our transport system in Auckland actually means better productivity for businesses. So, actually, the things that the member thinks that are costs are investments in our future that her party failed to make.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: So what does he say to Grant Allen, a hard-working small-business owner who’s written to me recently with copies of six letters from suppliers who are all notifying him that they’ve had to increase their prices because of higher fuel, labour, and compliance costs under this Government?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said before, yes, there are increased costs for transport projects right across New Zealand and especially in Auckland. That is because we are addressing, as a Government, a legacy of nine years of underfunding of transport. When we get this right in Auckland—which we’ll do—we will make sure that the $1 billion a year of lost productivity in Auckland caused by traffic congestion will go back into the economy and grow good-paying jobs.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Is he saying that he has no concern about the issues raised by small-business owners of increasing costs under this Government, which have been described by another small-business owner as a perfect storm of rapidly escalating compliance, wage, fuel, and insurance costs, and which are flowing through to raise the cost of living of New Zealanders?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’re working very closely with small businesses on things such as extending the subsidy for professional payroll intermediaries. We’re moving to e-invoicing. We’re changing the research and development regime to reduce bureaucracy. If the member’s interested, she might like to attend one of the Minister for Small Business’ roadshows, that are on modernising the way you do business. If she happens to be in Matamata on 21 August or Queenstown on 27 August, or even Westport on 31 August, she can find out just what this Government is doing for small business.

Economy—Reports

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

I’ve seen a range of reports that highlight the strong fundamentals underlying the New Zealand economy. This includes the IMF’s annual article IV report, which forecasts GDP growth remaining strong at around 3 percent over the medium term, unemployment continuing to fall, and wages continuing to rise above inflation. The IMF said New Zealand’s economic expansion remains solid and that the economic outlook is favourable. There is always more to do to ensure New Zealand has an economy fit for purpose for the 21st century, but we have strong foundations to build on.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What do recent reports on the economy say about the environment for business investment?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In its report, Infometrics has said, “We do not believe current … confidence levels signal a major contraction in business investment.” This is consistent with the views I’ve seen expressed by some business leaders, such as Rob Campbell, who said recently that “The worst thing that we can do as the business sector is to be drawn into the negativity of lobby groups or media outlets. This is a great place to open and operate a business. Negativity is for those who stand on the sidelines watching and commentating.” This Government is getting on with the job of governing and making sure the economy is more productive, sustainable, and inclusive—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What a joke. He’s the only guy you can get quotes from—he’s the only guy you can get quotes from.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —and Mr Bridges’ negativity won’t do him any good at all. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Before the member does a call—I think it’s happened most days in the last couple of times that we’ve sat, or couple of weeks that we’ve sat; Mr Bridges, do you know what I mean?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: No, I don’t.

💬 SPEAKER: OK. In your interjecting—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: We weren’t sitting last week.

💬 SPEAKER: In the last weeks that we sat—you are constantly interjecting, bringing me into the debate. You will learn not to.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What do recent reports on the New Zealand economy say about wage growth?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The report from Infometrics said that wage growth is finally feeding through into a better outlook for household spending. This has been backed up by others, such as ASB senior economist Mark Smith, who recently said, “It’s been pretty tough going for a lot of those people at the lower end of the income scale. The New Zealand economy’s doing very well, but a lot of people are asking, ‘where’s the pay off for me?’ ” This Government is determined to lift the wages of the lowest-paid New Zealanders, to improve the incomes of families, and to make sure that economic growth continues but that all New Zealanders get to have a share in it.

KiwiBuild—Buying off the Plans

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

Yes, in the context they were made.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: When he advised the House that “The types and amount of risk the Crown may take through the Buying off the Plans initiative were assessed as part of a business case I took to Cabinet.”, what was the specific amount and types of risk?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Could the member repeat the question—the latter part of the question?

💬 Hon Judith Collins: When he advised the House that “The types and amount of risk the Crown may take through the Buying off the Plans initiative were assessed as part of a business case I took to Cabinet.”, what was the specific amount and types of risk?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: As I said yesterday to the member, the specific amount will vary from development to development, but there is an in depth risk assessment process in place for each development, and I’m happy to share the elements of it with the member. The KiwiBuild unit advise me that risk is managed through an initial assessment of each project, a short-listing process, a second review of the proposal, and a workshop with the developers. The KiwiBuild unit then evaluate the amended proposal. There is then an opportunity to clarify any issues raised. The project then goes before an evaluation panel. The evaluation report chair prepares a final evaluation report, and then the contract itself is negotiated.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: When he told the House yesterday that, “residential developments across New Zealand stall because developers struggle to find finance”, what makes him think that he is a better judge of the solvency of a building company than those banks that are currently refusing to provide the finance?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I reject the member’s assertion in that question, but I want to make it very clear in relation to this question and questions that the member raised yesterday, in the case of developer insolvency, the Crown, though KiwiBuild, carries no risk whatsoever. When we buy off the plans and underwrite, the Crown simply makes a commitment for houses that have been completed and are ready for sale. So if the developer becomes insolvent, there is no risk whatsoever to KiwiBuild, and in relation to rising construction costs—

💬 Hon David Bennett: Have you ever done that in business?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —which is one of the other risks that member has raised, again there is no risk whatsoever to the Crown through KiwiBuild. Those risks remain with the developer.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Before a member calls—David Bennett will stand, withdraw, and apologise. I’ve just warned his leader for something and he’s repeated it.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: When he told the House yesterday that new houses are to be built in a Mangēre development, did he know that part of that land in stage 1G is still privately owned and his premature announcement has likely increased the price that the Crown is going to have to pay for it?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’m happy to look into that matter that the member raises.

💬 Marja Lubeck: Why is the Government working with the private sector to build more affordable homes?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because many residential developments across New Zealand have stalled because the developers are struggling to find finance on acceptable terms. That’s exacerbating the shortage of homes that has built up over the last decade. This is why KiwiBuild steps in to (a), enable developments that otherwise would not be undertaken to be completed; (b), to speed up developments to increase supply faster; and (c), to enable the construction of affordable homes rather than the McMansions that young Kiwi families cannot afford.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: How robust is this assessment process that he’s referred to today for KiwiBuild, when part of the stage 1G of the Māngere development that he announced the other day is actually still owned by a private owner, who has—although approached by Housing New Zealand—decided that the price has just gone up?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I think, rather than take the member’s assertion at face value, I’ll get the facts and get advice on exactly what’s going on in relation to that development.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What advice has he had on how the KiwiBuild unit manages any potential risk?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The KiwiBuild unit advises me that there is a robust process to manage any potential risk. There’s an initial assessment of each proposal, and the KiwiBuild unit selects potential developers to enter the process. Next, the unit holds workshops for responses—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think the member has read that before.

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

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the main risk is that we’ll continue to see residential developments across New Zealand stall because developers cannot get finance on acceptable terms. These homes will not be built; they will take longer or they will be too expensive for the families who need them, and this would mean that we would not be able to increase supply of modern starter homes for young families. This Government is committed to building affordable homes for young Kiwi families.

Families Package—Salvation Army Survey and Winter Energy Payment

5. to the Minister for Social Development: Will the Families Package address concerns raised in the recent nationwide survey commissioned by the Salvation Army; if so, how?

The findings from the recent nationwide Salvation Army survey reflect what this Government has been saying: too many children and families have been doing it tough. That’s why we put $5.5 billion into our Families Package to provide extra support for low and middle income families. The Families Package has given 1 million people access to the winter energy payment, 26,000 more people will be eligible for Working for Families, 65,000 children will benefit from the Best Start payment each year, and 136,000 people have an increase in their accommodation supplement. These changes will improve incomes for 384,000 families by an average of $75 per week and will lift 64,000 children out of poverty by 2021.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What does the Salvation Army survey show about the impact of winter heating costs on families?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Salvation Army survey was conducted in June this year, and it showed 45 percent of those surveyed had gone without heating in the last year due to the cost. The Salvation Army reported that one in 10 people surveyed were warming their home using their oven or stove. They said that we are seeing our most vulnerable people struggle this winter. That’s why the winter energy payment is so important. This payment provides financial support for all beneficiaries and superannuitant households, effective as of 1 July this year. The survey showed that families need more support in order to keep homes warm over the winter, and the winter energy payment provides that extra assistance.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What impact has the winter energy payment had so far?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We have received an overwhelmingly positive response to this extra support. One of the comments received was “I just want to thank you on behalf of the elderly for your consideration in this matter. I am sure to many superannuitants this would be critical for their health and well-being.” Another person emailed me to say, “I would like to say a big thank you for the winter energy payment. It is going to make a big difference to me. My husband is seriously ill, under hospice care at home. He feels the cold so much, and we have to have our heat pump on day and night. The payment means I don’t have to worry.” I am proud that this Government has made life easier for those families so they can stay warm and healthy over winter.

Health Services—Adult Cochlear Implants

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

I stand by all my actions, including my defence of the former acting Director-General of Health against the spurious attacks by Jami-Lee Ross, which were this week totally rejected by the State Services Commissioner. Mr Ross should apologise for attacks on this hard-working public servant’s integrity—attacks which Mr Ross did not find himself able to make outside this House.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has his Government cancelled the previous Government’s commitment to increase the number of publicly funded adult cochlear implant surgeries from 40 to 100, from the 2017-18 financial year, at a cost of just $6.5 million?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The previous Government got a long way behind on cochlear implants. I agree with the member that they did put some more money forward in election year for a short-term hit to make a number of cochlear implants, and I congratulate them on finally putting some response forward after years of neglect. We are working on a sustainable solution to follow on from that.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: So when the Minister claims that there is $8 billion short that he will fix when he has an opportunity in Budget 2018 to sustainably fund the increase in adult cochlear implant surgeries, why did he not take that opportunity?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The member has not listened clearly. I have not claimed an $8 billion shortfall; I claimed a shortfall in health spending. This Government has pledged to spend an extra $8 billion in health over the term of this Government.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Can he understand the sentiments expressed by people like Danielle McKay, who was “so upset and disappointed in the new Government.”, and will he revisit his decision not to fund more of these life-improving surgeries?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Again, I reject the member’s assertion that we will not fund more of these. He has not been listening. During the last election campaign, the previous Government responded to unfavourable media attention by reprioritising money from other initiatives—taking money off others—in order for a one-off funding boost that’s running out, and that funding has been used up. They simply did not fund this sustainably, and they should look at themselves in the mirror, because I don’t know how they can do this. After nine years of underfunding, to do one thing and then claim that they’ve fixed the whole system is outrageous. We will find a sustainable solution, unlike that crowd, who simply underfunded health for years and years and years.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: When will he find a sustainable solution?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The member will have to wait and see.

Health Policy—Medicinal Cannabis

7. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by the Government’s Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill and the Government’s medicinal cannabis policies?

Yes. New Zealanders are a compassionate people. No one wants to see people suffering, and medicinal cannabis provides another option to find relief. This legislation that we’ve put to the House goes further than any previous Parliament has gone. It represents real progress in making these products more widely available.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: In what sorts of locations will medicinal cannabis be allowed to be grown under this bill?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Those details will be worked through by the regulatory body that’s been set up. Today, a bill—which has not yet been tabled—was entertained in front of the media by the National Party. They haven’t consulted more widely on it, so we haven’t seen it. But one thing that seems clear is that the regime that they’re putting forward, from what we can see from the media, would compromise the ability of the regulators to respond to an emerging market situation with an evolving safety profile and changing technologies. It doesn’t look like any solution at all at this stage.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Is the use of loose-leaf cannabis allowed under this bill?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think that’s unlikely, but we will see what the experts say. This member wants to politicise the issue rather than listen to the experts. It’s all a political game. If they’d really wanted to make progress, they had nine years to do that.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: How does that answer reconcile with the reply to written question No. 489, where the Minister states, “The Bill will not restrict the exception and defence to the possession and use of cannabis to any particular dosage form.”?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I haven’t got that particular detail in front of me—and what the member’s question was, because the member’s question is a critical point in that, and how it was framed—but I will be taking advice from experts. This is not a political game for us on this side of the House. We are going further than any Government has gone before. And we’re very proud of it, because people suffering shouldn’t be made into a political game, like that member is trying to do.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Why has the Minister not done the work and presented a detailed and workable medicinal cannabis scheme, as we have presented today?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I don’t think anybody believes the member, let alone himself. We have just put through a select committee process, which was thorough. The member is risking disrespecting those people who presented to that committee. There was an opportunity for constructive engagement, to make real, meaningful change, and that member’s party is just playing a game with it.

Health Services—Mental Health Services for Young People

8. to the Minister of Health: What recent progress has been made to improve access to mental health and counselling services?

Three-quarters of all lifetime cases of mental illness start by age 25, and we need to do more to support young people with mild to moderate mental health needs. That’s why, on Monday, tenders opened for the Integrated Therapies Pilot programme, which will trial free counselling for 18- to 25-year-olds. This excellent initiative reflects the confidence and supply agreement between the coalition Government and the Green Party.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: What’s this pilot programme designed to achieve?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: There is increasing international evidence that psychological therapies can help improve the mental health of young people. This pilot programme is adapted from the UK’s Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme, which looks at people’s needs and responds accordingly. The pilot will help us find out what works in the New Zealand context, including what works for young Māori and Pacific people, rainbow young people, and those with disabilities.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: So what other Government initiatives to support young people’s mental health are being rolled out?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: On Monday, a second cohort of mental health support workers started as part of the Mana Ake programme in Canterbury and Kaikōura. Mana Ake supports children in school years 1 to 8 living with the legacy of earthquakes. It helps them to be resilient and experience positive mental health so they can engage and learn at school. There are now 21 Mana Ake workers, including psychologists, social workers, and counsellors, working across 38 schools in the region, with more to come later this year—more good news.

Education—Partnership Schools

9. to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by the decisions he has made on the future of partnership schools and will he guarantee that the schools have had a fair and robust process with good communication?

Yes, and yes.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: How can he say that it is a fair process when the schools themselves are quoted as saying, “The Government and Minister Hipkins have put their foot on our throats … [and] muzzled us”?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t accept that criticism. The Government has implemented the policy that all three parties in the Government campaigned on. We were very transparent about that, not only before the election but, in fact, when the charter school model was introduced by the previous Government.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: In light of the decision to cut the roll of Te Rangihakahaka, approving, effectively, 25 percent of the school roll they asked for, what does he say to the school leadership, who have said, “[I] believe we’ve been sold out by officials and politicians.”?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I made the decision about the current maximum roll for that school based on the current capacity of their facilities. I was not willing to approve an increase in the roll above that; they have capacity, on the advice I have received, for 75 students. With some improvement, those facilities might be increased to 85. But any increase above that, in their maximum roll, would mean that they were well outside the guidelines for school operating environments—classroom space—that the Ministry of Education sets for all schools. It is one of the criticisms that this side of the House had of the charter school model: that they were operating in facilities that were substandard and would not be accepted in public schools.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he promise to investigate claims by Alwyn Poole of a flawed process due to missing and inaccurate information around their application, and on what date will these schools and children know their future?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, no, because I have received all of the information that the Villa Education Trust supplied to the Ministry of Education in association with their application, and I worked my way through that in making the decision that I did about their application, which was to request more information. I’ve made an undertaking that that school will have a final decision by September, once that information is supplied, of course. If that information is available to me earlier than that, I may be in a position to make a decision earlier than that. I would note that by giving them a decision by September, that still gives them four months to work their way through the transition process, and I note that when the school was established in the first place, they had less than four months to establish themselves.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: In light of the flawed process which has seen the Villa Education Trust school still in a state of limbo, bullying claims against him and the ministry, and iwi leaders lodging Waitangi Tribunal claims against the Government, when will he stop being so vindictive and shafting the school leaders—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! That question is ruled out. Does the member have a further supplementary?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I answer the first part of the question?

💬 SPEAKER: No.

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: The member can take another point of order, but I have ruled the question out.

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It is a fresh point of order, Mr Speaker. If a member makes an assertion in a question and you deem to rule the question out, either the member should have to withdraw and apologise for it or the Minister should be allowed to reply to it, otherwise it remains on the record of the House and the other side, the other party who is, ultimately, the subject of the criticism, doesn’t have an opportunity to respond to it.

💬 SPEAKER: There were probably about three reasons for me ruling that question out, including the very initial phrase in it. The question was totally out of order and has been ruled out as a result. We’re not going to go back to being able to answer half a triply-flawed question.

Provincial Growth Fund—Ngati Hine Forestry Trust

10. to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Is it still the case that the eligibility and assessment criteria of the Provincial Growth Fund, as laid out by Cabinet in December 2017, includes the criterion that “investment should neither socialise losses nor privatise gains”?

Yes.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I didn’t hear the answer, but I presume it was yes.

💬 SPEAKER: It was yes.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he square that answer with comments in the May Ngati Hine Forestry Trust’s newsletter talking about the joint venture with the Crown, to which $6 million has been allocated from the Provincial Growth Fund, that “Without providing any specifics, the Trustees can advise that the financial returns to the beneficial owners to be received from this Forestry Right upon harvest will be substantial.”?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is no such trust as the “Ngatahine trust”, and that member should be required to get himself informed or desist from insulting a tribe up north.

💬 Hon Member: That’s not a point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: No, it’s a very clear point of order. There’s a challenge as to whether that supplementary question is properly authenticable, and it’s a very strong assertion from the member who lives in the area that there is no such trust, and, therefore, there can’t be a question. If the member has the newsletter here—

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Speaking to the point of order, I can only go on the website of the Ngati Hine Forestry Trust, which includes this newsletter that I’m referring to. If they’ve got their terminology wrong, well, then I can’t be expected to deal with that.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think there might be a couple of points, mightn’t there?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Now he’s reading from it, but it wasn’t what he was reading; it was the way he was pronouncing it. There is no such tribe as “Ngatahine”.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think I’m going to be the last person—and the person sitting on his left certainly won’t be supportive of everything that’s mispronounced being ruled out. Ask the question again, please.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: With pleasure, Mr Speaker. How does he square that answer with comments in the May Ngati Hine Forestry Trust newsletter, talking about their joint venture with the Crown to which $6 million has been allocated from the Provincial Growth Fund “without providing any specifics the Trustees can advise that the financial returns to the beneficial owners to be received from this forestry right upon harvest will be substantial”?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: The Ngati Hine Forestry Trust has indeed effected a transaction with the Crown.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s called mates rates.

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: That transaction will increase the number of trees, moving towards the overarching 1 billion trees figure, and the fact that they believe that the transaction suits both their interests and ours is hardly page one news.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, the last time the phrase “mates rates” was yelled out in connection with this, you ruled that out of order. Is that still your ruling, Mr Speaker?

💬 SPEAKER: I think it was in a slightly different context, and I’ll let it go this time.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the newsletter correct when it says that the Crown will fund all the costs of planting, managing and harvesting a pine forest on this 3,600 hectare private block in return for an unspecified share of the proceeds, and then the Crown will plant at its cost a new pine forest on the land it has cleared which will then be owned 100 percent by the trust?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: The details referred to by the member reflect transactions that are commonplace in the forest sector. Given that this is a Government that is working tirelessly to rehabilitate that sector, I realise that news probably is a form of education for the member on the other side of the House. The transaction most certainly enables the Crown to work with the landowner and boost the number of trees that will be grown, train the number of people required to tend the trees, and what proceeds are available at the end of the cycle of the tree growing will be shared between the two parties.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: On what percentages will that sharing of proceeds be?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: These two-bit suspicions are unworthy of the House’s time. They’re more akin to the habits of some figpecker bird. The actual commercial terms of that transaction lie within the confidentiality provisions entered into between the Crown and that particular party.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, while you can’t be the responsible for the quality of an answer, I think you can express on behalf of the House a concern when a Minister begins by saying that it is beneath the House’s dignity to start questioning public expenditure. That, sir, is completely inappropriate and does, I think, point some of the sensitivity the Government feels around this particular issue.

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Sir, it is well within the rights of any member to point out the pettifogging, time-wasting nature of Opposition questions that do not elucidate information but waste the time of the House.

💬 SPEAKER: I—[Interruption]—no. I am ready to rule. Thank you.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Down. Down.

💬 SPEAKER: The Acting Prime Minister will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I apologise, Mr Speaker.

💬 Hon Members: What? Didn’t hear it.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I could hear him. Now, I was on my feet and about to rule on Mr Brownlee’s point of order. I think the way Mr Jones started his answer was not helpful. I’m not sure that his response to the point of order was helpful either, but I think all these things have to be taken in context, and if the member thinks that the interjection came from behind him then I think we’re not at a high point in the House at the moment, and therefore I’m not going to rule Mr Jones’ response out.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why does he regard a concern for probity and transparency in the spending of a billion dollars of public money as “two-bit suspicions and pettifogging”?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: The principles outlined in the Cabinet paper governing the allocation of the $3 billion provincial fund are robust, and all Ministers exercising their powers as a consequence of that Cabinet paper are not pettifogging, and, on regular occasions, that information is available. The fact that the Opposition are jealous that such a fund exists, the fact that the provincial leaders are every day barracking us to do more—I can’t be held responsible for the mental dishevelment of the other side of the House.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Did he or his officials discuss the project with Ngati Hine Forestry Trust acting chief executive officer and trustee, the recently retired New Zealand First MP Pita Paraone?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: To the best of my knowledge, the trustees of that organisation include a Mr Pita Cherrington, who I went to St Stephens School with; a Mr Waihoroi Shortland, a candidate of the Māori Party and also a fellow colleague of mine at St Stephens School in the 1970s; and, indeed, on occasions, Mr Pita Paraone. The leader of the Ngāti Hine tribe was most certainly within those discussions.

Benefits—Sanctions

11. to the Minister for Social Development: Does she believe people on benefits should face reasonable consequences and sanctions if they are not available for, and do not take reasonable steps to get, a suitable job, do not take any offer of suitable full-time, part-time, or temporary work, or work that is seasonal or subsidised, do not attend and take part in any suitable job interviews they are asked to, and do not take and pass any drug test potential employers or training providers require?

I do not accept the characterisation of beneficiaries inherent in the question. At the end of June 2018, only 0.8 percent of all current work-tested beneficiaries had a sanction in force. Between 2014 and 2018, this had fluctuated between 0.5 percent and 1.3 percent. Contrary to the narrative that side of the House is trying to spin, the vast majority of people with work obligations fulfil them. I’d also like to point out that there are thousands of working-age New Zealanders accessing our welfare system with ongoing high and complex health and disability needs. We have a responsibility to these people to ensure that they can lead a dignified life and continue to contribute to their communities. I believe that people should be supported into meaningful work and to live in inclusive communities where everyone has the opportunity to participate.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: I raise a point of order. That was a lengthy answer by the Minister, but it didn’t actually address the very specifically, carefully worded, primary question down on notice.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think the last part of it certainly did.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Does she believe that people who can work should work?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I believe that the vast majority of people who can work want to work, and this Government is committed to supporting them into meaningful employment.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: What is the process for someone who is on a job seeker benefit that occurs before a sanction is applied?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can the member repeat the question? I’m not sure if I heard it properly or understood.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m with the member. Could the member repeat it?

💬 Hon Louise Upston: What is the process for someone on a job seeker benefit that occurs or takes place before a sanction is applied?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I will speak to the question as well as I can. The process for a person who is on a job seekers’ benefit, obviously seeking support from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), is that MSD is tasked with giving them the most effective support that they can to support them into what is meaningful employment for them, and that is what we’re committed to doing.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: if the admonishments in the question are in any way a fact, how can she explain how the people on the benefits went from 286,000 in 2008, at the height of the global financial crisis, up to 289,000 in 2017?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think that’s a very good question. The assertion from the other side of the House has been that they were more successful at getting New Zealanders into employment. National did not get 70,000 people off benefit. There were more people on benefit as of the end of last year—289,000—than when National came into power in 2008, when it was 286,000. We are now, under this Government, experiencing the lowest unemployment rate that we have for a long period of time, at 4.4 percent unemployment.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Why has there been a 21 percent drop in sanctions?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I explained yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition in general are little bit confused. What has occurred is that I was concerned that mistakes were being made when benefit suspensions and cancellations were being put in place, and so I put in place a process, as of the beginning of May, whereby a senior person in the office had to sign off on any suspensions or cancellations. The policy didn’t change in terms of when it might be applied, but the sign-off was in place to ensure that mistakes wouldn’t be made. Clearly, in the past mistakes were being made, because there’s been a 23 percent reduction in the number of suspensions and cancellations because of a better process being put into place.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Should there be obligations on people receiving the jobseeker support, and should welfare be a fair go, not a free ride?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There are obligations in place for people receiving welfare. What we need to make sure of is that as a Government we don’t do what the previous Government did, which was to stigmatise all New Zealanders having to access the support of MSD. We take a strengths-based approach to New Zealanders. We want to support them with meeting their aspirations, and I have to say that the recent action from the Opposition has been highly predictable: when the polls are down, attack the beneficiaries.

Mining on Conservation Land—Policy Consultation

12. to the Minister of Conservation: What progress on policies or principles has she made in relation to the implementation of no new mines on conservation land as detailed in the Speech from the Throne?

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, thank you. Minister Woods and I are making good progress on how to implement the policy. We will consult our Treaty partners, local government, the minerals industry, environmental and community groups, and the wider public through a discussion document to be released within the next three months. That consultation document will be a chance for the public to contribute their views on the issues the Government should consider in implementing the policy, the best tools to use, and any transitional measures.

💬 Sarah Dowie: Does she agree with regional economic development Minister Shane Jones that for areas like the West Coast, the extractive industry must have a future and that mining would be made possible on stewardship land by reclassifying it?

💬 Hon EUGENIE SAGE: There were several questions in that. Mining is important on the West Coast, but so are the other sectors, like agriculture, dairy farming, forestry, fishing, and tourism. We need a diverse economic base, and that’s what the Minister for Regional Economic Development is ensuring we have throughout the regions. The whole number of mines—the member should be aware that the two largest gold mines in New Zealand are not on public conservation land. There are 112 mining access arrangements on the West Coast; only 54 of those are active. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member, I am going to ask Mr Jones just to turn down the volume on his interjections. I have an open mike, and he is coming through my mike, so use your inside voice, Mr Jones.

💬 Sarah Dowie: If we are to have no new mines, does she agree with energy and resources Minister Megan Woods, who is promoting the potential use of the West Coast to be a source of rare minerals, which are essential for wind turbines and electric cars?

💬 Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Not all mines are on conservation land. Areas like minerals for new technology can be found equally on private land.

💬 Sarah Dowie: Does she agree with the Hon Damien O’Connor that “We need to continue with mining in order to construct key infrastructure around the country.”?

💬 Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Yes, and mining will continue because the two largest goldmines in New Zealand are not on conservation land. There are coalmines that are not on conservation land.

💬 Sarah Dowie: Why doesn’t the Minister admit that her policy has become a farce and it is now Government policy to allow mining on stewardship land by simply carving it out of the conservation estate?

💬 Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The member is confused. There has been a review of stewardship land which has been going on for some time. On the West Coast, there are a million hectares of stewardship land. Stewardship land is conservation land to be managed to protect its conservation values.