Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the cost of living?

This morning, Statistics New Zealand released its household living-costs price indexes for the June 2018 quarter. This shows what we have heard from many New Zealanders over the last few years—that they have struggled to make ends meet—and it shows why the policies of this Government to lift incomes and living standards are necessary. The data shows that beneficiaries and those on the lowest incomes face a sharper increase on the cost of living than those with the highest incomes. This is consistent with the long-term trend we’ve seen in these indexes, which show that in the last nine years the increase in the cost of living for the lowest 20 percent of income earners was 65 percent higher than for the top 20 percent of income earners.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: What is the context for these increases in the cost of living?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve seen a range of information that shows that the increases for the cost of living for New Zealanders have gone up over a long period. For example, Consumers Price Index inflation was 14.9 percent from the December 2008 quarter to the September 2017 quarter, yet according to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s bond data over the same period, average weekly rent for a two- or three-bedroom house increased by 38.4 percent compared to that 14.9 percent for inflation. This demonstrates a consistent long-term trend that while some people benefited from economic growth, for many meeting their needs became harder and harder year after year.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: What is the Government doing to help address the increasing cost of living for New Zealanders?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This Government has a number of initiatives designed to address this issue. The changes we’ve made through our Families Package will make 384,000 families better off by an average of $75 per week, once it’s fully rolled out. Low-income families in particular will benefit from this package, including through the winter energy payment and increases to Working for Families and the accommodation supplement, which will help them meet their basic needs. In addition to this, our KiwiBuild programme will deliver tens of thousands of affordable homes, which will help to slow rent increases by decreasing pressure on the supply of housing. This Government understands the pressures New Zealanders face in meeting their costs of living. Turning this around will take time, but we are putting measures in place to assist hard-working New Zealanders and lift wages, which have stalled for so many years.

Climate Change—Economic Impact and Emissions

2. to the Minister for Climate Change: Can he confirm that modelling by NZIER under the wide innovation scenario in the Zero Carbon Bill discussion document shows that the average per household gross national disposable income for the net zero emissions target is $223,000, which is $10,000 lower than the 2018 to 2050 baseline; if so, what will be the impact on global temperatures under this scenario?

on behalf of the Minister for Climate Change: Yes, I can confirm that the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research modelling shows that scenario, but the modelling doesn’t take account of the many ways in which action on climate change will improve people’s lives through reduced traffic congestion, and health benefits from more cycling and walking. As the member will know, there is a range of analysis, including Westpac modelling, that says New Zealand could save $30 billion in GDP growth by acting now on climate change.

💬 David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a question on notice which had a second part about the impact on global temperatures under this scenario, which she didn’t address at all.

💬 SPEAKER: I think that is a fair point. The Minister will address part two.

Countries like New Zealand, which emit 1 percent or less in individual emissions, are estimated to have a combined total of around 30 percent of greenhouse gases globally. That’s around the same level as China, the US, and Europe, so we need to take action, otherwise we contribute to 30 percent of the emissions.

Health Services—Medicinal Cannabis Legislation

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

Yes.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does he support loose-leaf cannabis being available through the Government’s medicinal cannabis bill?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What the Government supports is a sense of commitment to the law change which people like Helen Kelly were asking for, which is not accommodated for in the National Party’s legislation, which, if they’d have consulted with us, if they had any good faith, if they had any integrity, they would have asked us beforehand, and we could have helped them. And we still stand ready to help them.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does he support loose-leaf cannabis being available through the Government’s medicinal cannabis bill?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What the Government supports is the bill that we put up.

💬 Hon Members: Answer the question.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’ll answer the question—I’m famous for it—ha, ha! Being frank and answering questions is my specialty. Can I just say what the Government supports is what we put up in the first hundred years of being a new Government—not after nine years of nothing—

💬 Hon Members: A hundred years!

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In the first hundred days of being in Government—yes, the first hundred days, sorry [Interruption]—actually, it has crossed my mind—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the Acting Prime Minister to complete it, but I think the volume’s got so high now around the House that the sound system is being interfered with. I think we’ll stay in this millennium anyway.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I was talking futuristically and optimistically, and that’s why I confused the 100 days with 100 years. But in the first 100 days, we put the legislation before this House and had a select committee study, and at every point of that select committee study the National Party members had a chance to put changes in.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: And they took that chance.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No. They didn’t do a thing. The very day the report came back to this House, they turn up with a bill that they hadn’t even shown the other side of the House the contents of, and it sits in a ballot box and may never see the light of day—and that member’s career looks like it may not see the light of day, either.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: How does he reconcile those comments with the fact that the National Party has repeatedly asked the select committee to include important detail like whether loose-leaf cannabis will be available, and has offered to work more collaboratively?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: One should not have to remind that member that the bill will be going before a second reading and on to a full committee of the whole House, and at each point they can make a constructive contribution. Please do so.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: So does he support loose-leaf cannabis being available through the Government’s medicinal cannabis bill?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, we don’t answer questions about our—[Interruption]. We don’t answer questions—[Interruption].

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Now, that is enough. Mr King was probably the worst, because I could hear him over all of the people in between. But I will ask people to settle down.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We don’t answer questions reflecting our own personal opinion. This is a coalition, and a very successful one at that. It is our want to consult all of our colleagues before such an answer is given. So if a member like that gets up and says, “Does he support …”, then I have to tell her: think about the Government in its totality, not just one of its major stars. Thank you.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does he believe that loose-leaf cannabis should incur an excise tax?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Could that member ask the question again?

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Happily. Does he believe that loose-leaf cannabis should incur an excise tax?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, I have to tell that member that my personal opinion is not what’s governing this country; it’s my colleagues and what they think as well: the ones behind me and all the ones over there. So we’ll have a full-scale discussion, and what our conclusions are will be reflected in the second reading of the bill and at the committee stage, at the time in which we are able to change it if we have to.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Well, does he agree with the executive director of the Drug Foundation, who said Mr Reti’s bill “provides the detail a lot of people wanted” and “The beauty of the National bill [is] they’ve done a tonne of work and it lays out quite a few things.”?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, that is a comedy. If the National Party had done a tonne of work, then where was it in the last nine years?

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Has he seen reports of the comments made by the former Associate Minister of Health, arguing that he had been advocating for these changes for nine years and was blocked from making them by the previous National Government?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I not only have seen such reports but I was absolutely alarmed by them.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does the Prime Minister support loose-leaf cannabis being available through the Government’s medicinal cannabis bill?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: For the umpteenth time, my colleagues and I will not be getting up and giving our personal opinions. We understand how democracy works, and what this Government will do—

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Point of order.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’ll get around to answering your question.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m not asking for a personal opinion; I’m asking the Prime Minister—

💬 SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Well, that’s how he answered it.

💬 SPEAKER: I find it hard to believe that the member would interrupt—interrupt—a member who’s answering a question to complain about the quality of the answer before it’s finished.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That member needs to understand that this Government governs on the basis of democracy and consultation, and when we’ve had our full consultation at the end of the second reading, before it goes to the full committee stage, as everybody up there knows, every chance will be given for changes to be made. Until that happens, we will not be expressing our personal opinion, because it does not help.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Twice now, I’ve had answers that he says he can’t voice a personal opinion on. I’m not asking for the member’s personal opinion; I’m asking for the Prime Minister to state what the Government’s position is.

💬 SPEAKER: And if the member had listened to the answer, that was in the first sentence.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does the Government support loose-leaf cannabis being available?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have to just repeat the last three answers, because the same question has been put in the same way. It puts me in mind of that 1965 song by a man called Len Barry, which goes “One, two, three … like takin’ candy [off] a baby.”

Housing—Homelessness

4. to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What progress, if any, has the Government made in reducing homelessness this winter?

At Te Puia Marae in May, the Government announced urgent action to tackle homelessness this winter. This week, I announced that the Government has delivered more than 1,000 extra transitional public and Housing First places so far this winter, with many more expected to be ready soon. We know there’s a lot of work to do to end homelessness, but our winter 2018 plan is delivering the first step.

💬 Paul Eagle: What will the winter 2018 plan mean for homelessness this winter?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, we know that homelessness will continue to get worse before it gets better. The winter 2018 response is an “all hands on deck” approach to helping people in need this winter. It’s strongly focused on working with the wider community to have more than 1,500 additional public, transitional, and Housing First places available compared to the end of last year.

💬 Paul Eagle: What response has there been to the winter 2018 plan?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The Government’s incredibly grateful to the public, who responded in droves to the Prime Minister’s call to action. More than 280 members of the public—private landlords, landowners, NGOs, iwi, and developers have contacted us about potential housing opportunities. These contacts have so far resulted in 122 more housing places being made available with nearly another 73 expected to be ready shortly.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Does the Minister still stand by his pledge and that of the Prime Minister that there would be zero homelessness this winter, including “No one needs to live in a car this winter.”?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I stand by the Prime Minister’s statement that no one needs to live in a car this winter, and I urge anybody who is without decent shelter this winter to come forward to Work and Income New Zealand. The Government will do its absolute darnedest to make sure that anybody who needs a roof over their heads gets one.

Job Creation and Unemployment—Effect of Government Policies

5. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of the Government’s statements, policies, and actions in relation to the New Zealand economy?

I stand by the economic statements, policies, and actions of the coalition Government, when understood in their context and when reported correctly.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Is he aware that in the first six months of the new Government’s term, job growth has more than halved from its rate of growth over the previous two years?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t have that information in front of me. What I do know is that unemployment has reduced to 4.4 percent—the lowest it has been in many, many years.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Well, has he read ANZ’s recent jobs report, which states, “job growth has stalled and is starting to move in the wrong direction”, and, if so, is he aware that the increasing cost of labour and compliance will make it more difficult for employers to take on new staff?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve certainly read the ANZ jobs report, and what I can say from that and other data is that the economy continues to grow. We are transitioning away from an economy that relied, under the previous Government, on population growth and housing speculation. That’s not sustainable. That has supressed wages. This Government’s going to make sure that everybody gets a fair go in that economy.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Well, does he accept that business has genuine concerns that the Government’s industrial relations reform will make it harder for them to employ staff, or does he agree with his colleague Mr Lees-Galloway that they’re just scaremongering?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve heard concerns expressed by members of the business community about the Government’s changes. What we’re working towards is an environment of industrial relations that’s fair, that actually gives people access to things like lunch and dinner breaks. Once again, we can confirm where the moral compass of the Opposition sits when it comes to people actually getting lunch and dinner breaks.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Given the employment rate was so low when this Government came into office and there has never been a tension between unemployment and inflation since the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act came into force nearly three decades ago, why is he introducing changes to the Reserve Bank Act to create a dual mandate?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What we want is for monetary policy, just like every other aspect of our economic framework, to contribute to the growth of a more productive and more sustainable economy. We will continue to make sure that the Reserve Bank has a focus on inflation, but at the same time, we want it to look after how the real economy is operating. Employment is a good proxy for that. Many other countries in the world use it, and, in fact, those countries that have a dual mandate with both inflation and employment tend to keep inflation under control better than those with a single mandate.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: In light of Statistics New Zealand’s release today showing that low-income households’ second and third most expensive weekly items are food and transport, why are Ministers in the Government promoting regional fuel taxes that will hurt the poor the most and, specifically, increase the price of food and transport?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’ve already heard from the Minister of Transport many times that, on average, it’ll affect a family in Auckland by $5 a week. At the end of this Government’s project, they will have a functioning transport system that will improve productivity in that city by more than $1 billion a year. I’m sorry to say to the member that her Government’s nine years of neglect of transport infrastructure has come to an end.

Provincial Growth Fund—Ngāti Hine and Crown Joint Venture

6. to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

on behalf of the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Yes—on behalf of the Minister.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he said yesterday “the fact that they”—Ngāti Hine—“believe that the transaction suits both their interests and ours is hardly page one news.”, how do we know the transaction suits our interests—i.e., the Crown’s and taxpayers’—when he refuses to reveal the key details of the deal?

Well, to paraphrase a very famous Australian Prime Minister, Menzies, the first thing we’re going to do with Ngāti Hine is put a “g” in it and call it Ngāti Hine—pronounce it properly and ensure that people up there are not offended every time he asks a question. Now, having said that, there is a clear delineation of value to both the owners in the trust and the Government, and that is in a document which, as a commercial document, is confidential.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why are the key details of the joint venture—annual rental and net stumpage rate—commercially confidential given that it’s public money and the public has a right to know to what extent he is subsidising a private trust?

In the same way that the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars divvied up in the Callaghan Innovation fund under that Government were in confidential deals—not available to the public—in the very precise, exact way that that Government behaved when they were in power.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he said yesterday that Ngāti Hine’s acting chief executive officer, the former New Zealand First MP Pita Paraone, was “most certainly within those discussions” about the project, what was the nature of his involvement?

The reality is that Pita Paraone is someone who was promoted to positions by the former National Government. He is a person of immense respect. His father was one of the last surviving leaders of the Māori Battalion. No one in the North, whatever their politics, thinks that he has been self-interested, other than in serving the people of his tribe or his iwi. This is the first time we’ve had any questions about the propriety of his involvement. In fact, it’s not possible for Māoridom to advance their cause if people of that calibre and experience are denied a chance to make a contribution.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was all very interesting, but it did not answer the question at all.

💬 SPEAKER: I think it did. Further supplementary?

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I suppose it’s worth it.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Was he aware that Mr Paraone told Radio New Zealand that “I had no part in … signing … the deal, or determining what the deal should be, other than to attend the actual planting of the first tree.”; and how does he square that with his comment yesterday that he, the same Mr Paraone, was “most certainly within those discussions.” on the project?

Because in the full picture of the developments in Northland, and particularly the intended Waitangi settlement, Mr Pita Paraone has been a very essential personality who’s very persuasive, and in that full context, he would have been involved there, and also with respect to Ngāti Hine because he belongs to that iwi. As someone who acted for that iwi myself 40 years ago, I know how long they’ve been waiting for some help, and it’s reflected in the very fine statement in today’s Northland papers explaining this: “It certainly is refreshing to have a government that seems to want to actually govern.”

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I ask again: what was the nature of Mr Paraone’s involvement in the discussions?

I could tell that member that everybody in Ngāti Hine has been involved in these discussions. It’s been a long cause that they have campaigned for, and in that respect, his involvement is no more special than any other member.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can people have confidence in the probity of his handling of the fund when $6 million has been given to a trust on conditions that he refuses to release, the acting CEO of which was a New Zealand First MP last year and is two spots off entering Parliament again on the New Zealand Party list?

💬 SPEAKER: I think you mean “New Zealand First”.

Look, the fact is that the number of people seeking to enter Parliament on the New Zealand First Party list is legend, and I can understand why. It’s a certain course to a career, and a long career at that. Can I say, secondly—

💬 Hon Members: Richard Prosser!

Eh?

💬 Hon Members: Denis O’Rourke!

Oh, so you do have a voice, then? They do have a voice, do they? Can I just say that everybody that’s looked at Ngāti Hine, from a long way back, all the way back to the 70s, when Carter Holt Harvey sought to get a 99-year lease and was stopped by a very smart young lawyer at the time so that the properties and the land and forest stayed in Ngāti Hine’s control.

💬 Hon Member: Who was it?

Well, modesty prevents me from saying who that lawyer was, but people in Ngāti Hine remember well, and there’s nothing untoward in this arrangement whatsoever, other than it begs this question: what has the National Party got against Māori advancement?

Defence Force—Operations

7. to the Minister of Defence: What recent reports has he received on the New Zealand Defence Force delivering value to the community, nation, or world?

As established in the Government’s new Strategic Defence Policy Statement 2018, the Defence Force delivers value to the community, the nation, and the world. Recently, I received a report from the Defence Force, delivering value to the community by providing nurses to support the Ministry of Health and district health boards—in particular, Radio New Zealand National carried a report this morning where the nurses’ organisation’s industrial services manager said, “The New Zealand Defence Force nurses help keep people safe and the deployment didn’t undermine what the nurses were trying to achieve.” I commend the New Zealand Defence Force for being ready and able to provide support despite the National Party’s rather cynical posturing.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: Is the Minister aware of any recent efforts by the navy that delivered value to the community, nation, or world?

💬 Hon RON MARK: Yes. HMNZS Matataua was used recently to assist Zealandia sanctuary in mapping a lake floor in Wellington. This will play an important conservation role for the lake by helping to eradicate the introduced carp. And, sadly, HMNZS Matataua was called upon recently to assist police recover the body of Matthew Wallis from Lake Wanaka. The team helped locate and lift the wreckage, which enabled police to return Matthew to his family. Our condolences and deepest sympathies go out to them during this very difficult time.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: Is the Minister aware of any other work where the New Zealand Defence Force has delivered value to the community, nation, or world?

💬 Hon RON MARK: Yes. Last month, I told the House about the successful work HMNZS Taupo is doing on the world stage with Operation Wasawasa in Fiji. I can advise that they have helped Fijian authorities to retrieve over 12 kilograms of cocaine from a remote island only accessible by ship. Through the combined patrols, which began in early June, the New Zealand Defence Force has been helping Fiji authorities to enforce regulations for inshore fishing, to protect their fishery resources, and to police that South Pacific country’s borders. I congratulate, and the whole of the Government congratulates, the New Zealand Defence Force for the great work they are doing every day in support of our communities, our nation, and the world.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Before he approved the deployment of nurses into district health boards to assist with the 12 June nurses’ strike, did he satisfy himself that the parties to that dispute had fulfilled their obligations under sections 11, 12, and 13 of schedule 1B of the Employment Relations Act?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Unless the member tells me that that is a requirement of the Defence Act, I am going to rule the question out.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: It would normally be a requirement, under section 9 of the Defence Act, to make sure all laws are complied with before Defence Force personnel were deployed in New Zealand in peacetime. I’m just asking the Minister whether he was satisfied that all of those boxes had been ticked.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, and I think that goes further than the section 9 requirements. It is not the responsibility of the Minister of Defence, once he’s received a request, to go down below the surface into the negotiations and make legal judgments in that area. It is an area that some of us have looked at in the past.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, Mr Speaker, the Defence Act has been changed—what is it called? Amended—

💬 SPEAKER: Updated.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Updated. And it is a responsibility for the Defence Force to provide proper health and safety conditions for New Zealand troops on shore. You will remember a number of your colleagues, at the time, being quite concerned that those provisions might extend to deployments as well. But it is abundantly clear that the Minister ultimately making a request would have an obligation to ensure that people were being treated properly, inside the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act, in anything they were being asked to do.

💬 SPEAKER: And that’s easily resolved. Are the sections that Mr Woodhouse quoted anything to do with the Health and Safety at Work Act?

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: They are actually, in respect of the Code of Good Faith in bargaining. But, in support of the shadow Leader of the House, there are general obligations, I think, on the Minister of Defence to ensure that the deployments are consistent with other laws. I don’t see how the question can be ruled out. If he doesn’t know the answer or didn’t get that advice, that would be a perfectly appropriate answer. But I can’t see how the question is out of order.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I’m ruling it out of order, because I’m saying that those provisions of the Employment Relations Act are not his responsibility. He has an obligation, to my understanding—because, as I say, I have had some familiarity—to get an undertaking that the appropriate procedures have been put in place as far as employment relations are concerned, but not to dig down into the detail of the negotiations, which those sections relate to.

Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Statements

8. to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all his statements regarding the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill?

Yes.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can he confirm the advice of the Human Rights Commission that his electoral law changes would be illegal and unconstitutional in the home of MMP Germany, because the constitution imposed on it by the Allies, including New Zealand, after the defeat of Nazi Germany specifically contains a provision protecting the freedom of speech and association of members of Parliament?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m aware that the Human Rights Commission made a submission to that effect. Since we don’t have a written constitution or a basic law, and since the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill if enacted does not undermine the freedom of MPs, then I do not see that it applies.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Where is the justice in New Zealand insisting on basic democratic protections for Germany to protect freedom of expression and Parliament’s independence, but then proposing laws in New Zealand that contradict those?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not quite sure what that member is referring to, but that is not what the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill does.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the Minister aware that in jurisdictions like Zimbabwe and Pakistan, where they do have the sorts of electoral law he’s proposing for New Zealand, MPs have been dismissed for exposing corruption within their own Government, MPs have been dismissed for voting differently on bills to what their leader directed them, and MPs have been dismissed for holding press conferences without the consent of their leader; and is that what he wants for New Zealand?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That member is very helpfully allowing this House to enter the realms of the absurdity and stupidity. None of those things will apply under the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement, and I quote, “electoral law should not be the subject of widespread divergent and disagreement between the parties. The convention is that the parties will agree on electoral law, because the voting public expect there to be a consensus on electoral law”, a statement made by list MP Andrew Little in 2014; and if so, why is he pushing through these major changes without any cross-party consensus?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: From time to time, different political parties do have a different view about our electoral law and our constitutional make up. Those differences are often traversed, well-versed. Some parties believe there should be a written constitution, others don’t. That is the nature of politics.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement “electoral law changes should come from thorough independent reviews, and not self-interested political parties”; and if so, why have none of the five independent reviews and commissions into MMP recommended any changes in respect of where an MP has fallen out with their party?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Once again, that member draws a long bow, refers to a number of unrelated things, and draws a conclusion. The reality is that this Government sticks to the fundamental principle of MMP, which is that party political proportional representation is the be all and end all of MMP, and it is not for individual MPs of the day to undermine the will of the electorate.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that my question specifically asked whether he agreed with the statement that electoral law changes should not be made unless they’ve been recommended by an independent commission or review.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m going to ask the member to leave the quote out but ask the very tail of the question again.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement that electoral law changes should come from thorough independent reviews and not self-interested political parties?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: This Parliament has passed electoral laws before that have not been the consequence of an independent review, and equally it has declined to pass laws that have been as a result of an independent electoral law review, like the previous Government refusing to fully implement the recommendations of the last review of our electoral laws.

Oil and Gas Exploration—Gas Supplies

9. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by all her statements and actions regarding the Government’s decision to ban further offshore oil and gas exploration?

Yes. In particular, I stand by my statement welcoming the recent news that New Zealand’s largest gas user has secured supplies until 2029. It’s good to see this level of certainty in the context of the long-term transition we announced in April.

💬 Jonathan Young: Does the Minister acknowledge that the data reported to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) this year shows that current gas demand can only be accommodated by current supply until approximately January 2020?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The quality-assured data reported in the data from MBIE shows that we have around 10.5 years of gas. This has been the estimate of 2P reserves. This has been the number that it has been for the last 20 years, on average, give or take a few points. Nothing has changed. The member needs to realise that there is 100,000 square kilometres off the coast of New Zealand that is available for exploration. In fact, we have the busiest drilling season that Taranaki has seen in years coming up, and that member should be pleased.

💬 Jonathan Young: Is the member aware that according to the data reported to MBIE this year, the 2020 shortfall between what is produced and what is needed is more than the entire consumption of households over the whole country?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The quality-assured data reported to MBIE—the 2P reserves—show that we have 10.5 years of gas reserves left. This is, I repeat, what it has been, on average, give or take a couple of percent, for the last 20-odd years. Does that member seriously think that Todd Energy would have just invested $100 million in a gas peaking plant that’s due to be completed in 2020 if they really believed that was the case?

💬 Jonathan Young: Despite the Minister referring to the abstract—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Start with a question.

💬 Jonathan Young: Will the Minister, despite her referring to the abstract equation of 10.5 years, guarantee to New Zealand households, schools, hospitals, and businesses who rely on gas that they will not be hit by massive price spikes—as has happened in Australia—because of domestic gas shortages?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I repeat to that member: this is a long-term transition. We have exploration permits that go out for 30 and 40 years. If that member really thinks we’re about to run out of gas in 2020, then he should talk to his boss, the former Minister of Energy and Resources Simon Bridges, who was obviously asleep at the wheel as the Minister if that’s what he was presiding over.

💬 Jonathan Young: Will the Minister guarantee to New Zealand households, schools, hospitals, and businesses that rely on gas, that, based on this data provided to MBIE, they will not be hit by massive price spikes?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I rely on is the quality-assured data supplied to MBIE that shows, just like we have for the previous two decades, give or take a couple of percent, we have 10.5 years of gas in reserve. If there really is to be a shortage, this is something that has been building up over the last decade. So that member needs to look to members within his own party, because decisions that were made 10, 15 years ago are what will have an impact there.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Minister explain, in additional to Todd Energy’s recent decision, what the recent Methanex decision means with respect to this point of not being able to gain supply into the future?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As mentioned in my primary answer, that Methanex has just signed a contract through to 2029, what we see is investment decisions being made with the knowledge the sky isn’t falling in. I suggest that member and his party with its new-found commitment to climate change may want to consider that too.

💬 Jonathan Young: What is the Minister’s plan for supplying enough gas to New Zealanders that, even though Methanex have signed an agreement with no new gas yet discovered—what is her response if, over the next two years of exploratory drilling, they prove unsuccessful?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The deal that Methanex entered into through to 2029 is exactly the same kind of deal they have been entering into for the last few years. There is nothing new here. I repeat to that member that all the exploration permits that existed before our announcement exist. That is 100,000 square kilometres off the coast of New Zealand that is available for exploration. If there were to be no finds in that, then it’s a good job this Government has a plan to transition those communities and those people that are reliant on those jobs.

Consumer Credit—Vulnerable Consumers

10. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What is the Government doing to provide safe and appropriate lending options for vulnerable consumers?

Last week, along with the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, I attended the Financial Inclusion Industry Forum in Ōtara, which saw 150 people from across the public, private, and Government sectors come together to improve people’s financial capability and create safe lending alternatives. For the first time, we had business leaders, community agencies, and the Government sector in the room working together to improve people’s financial situations. On behalf of consumers and this coalition Government, which intends to make New Zealand an inclusive society where everyone can thrive, I sincerely want to thank all the organisations who took part. I look forward to our ongoing work to ensure all New Zealanders are protected from the misery of debt spirals and the predatory lenders creating horrible financial stress.

💬 Jo Luxton: Which organisations and community groups has this Government been working with to provide safe and appropriate lending for vulnerable consumers?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Attendees came from across the public and private sectors. All our major banks and lenders were represented, as were Government agencies and community agencies. We had lenders and finance providers sit alongside the community groups who support the people who may have had issues with their products. Sadly, we had more people express an interest than we were able to accommodate, and I sat in on some of the working group sessions and heard firsthand a lot of the issues that need to be addressed, and I’m discussing these with my colleagues and officials. I am proud of the work that this Government has done in the short amount of time to get to the point where all of these people can come together to be part of a solution.

💬 Jo Luxton: What are the next steps to support safe and affordable finance and to stop the predatory lenders?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Projects agreed for action at the forum included improved access to simpler, safer financing for vulnerable people and progressing an emergency savings safety net for New Zealanders. Three key concepts for vulnerable consumers to access safe, reliable, and affordable vehicles include an affordable ownership model, a social leasing model, and a community ride-sharing model, which the Financial Services Federation will now champion to develop. The Hon Carmel Sepuloni and I will receive a progress report in October, but in the meantime I’m progressing changes to the CCCFA to get regulation in place to stop predatory lending, which has gone on for far too long. I thank Fleur Howard of the Good Shepherd New Zealand Trust, who summed things up well at the end of the forum, when she said that the debt spiral is a real issue driving people into poverty, and if we’re going to help people get out of poverty, then we’ve got to make some of these schemes work. Doing nothing is not an option, which happened under the previous Government.

Prisons—Waikeria Prison

11. to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by all of the statements made in prison network capacity papers, including that the planned 1,500 bed facility at Waikeria is the “most efficient and cost-effective way to add quality and capacity to the prison network” and that large-scale prisons “allow a full range of specialist facilities and rehabilitation programmes”?

Yes. Good decision-making is about taking your time to look at all the options. That is exactly what we did. In the end, we made the right decision to build a smaller prison and a specialised mental health facility. We know the option to build a smaller prison is more effective in providing real rehabilitation. What is not cost-effective is building mega-prisons which churn out better criminals, and not better people.

💬 Hon David Bennett: When his Cabinet paper of 28 May 2018 describes the 1,500-bed Waikeria Prison as an American-style mega-prison, what specifically about the build makes it American-style, given his Cabinet paper—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The question’s finished.

💬 Hon David Bennett: No, it’s—

💬 SPEAKER: It is finished.

💬 Hon David Bennett: No, I’ve got to explain—

💬 SPEAKER: No, you don’t “got to explain” at all. You’ve asked the question.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I haven’t finished the question, because it’s got a “given”; that was the point.

💬 SPEAKER: And you’re not allowed “givens”.

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: American-style prisons are bigger and house more people. What we will do is build a smaller prison with mental health facilities. Only on “Planet National” is building a mega-prison a good idea.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Why, then, in his Cabinet paper of 20 December 2007 did he propose to build the 1,500-bed Waikeria proposal, saying it was the only sensible plan of action?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The member’s got it wrong, because what we were talking about is continuing the preparation work in anticipation of building something. If we didn’t do that, we could have had to foot a big bill.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I wish to table a document showing that the Minister said—

💬 SPEAKER: Is the document publicly available?

💬 Hon David Bennett: It has been released recently; yes, it is, but—

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I’m not going to put it to the House.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Can he confirm that he said at Vote Corrections Estimates that no additional specialist facilities and rehabilitation programmes for the pop-up beds proposed in the prison capacity Cabinet papers are funded in Budget 2018?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I’m sorry, Mr Speaker. Could he repeat the question.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Can he confirm that he said at Vote Corrections Estimates that no additional specialist facilities and rehabilitation programmes for the pop-up beds that are proposed in his prison capacity Cabinet papers are funded in Budget 2018?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: In terms of the pop-up units that I think the member’s referring to, there will be some facilities, but not to the extent that you would get in a—such as what we’re building at Waikeria.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I’d like to table the transcript where the Minister said that there would be—

💬 SPEAKER: Is this a select committee transcript?

💬 Hon David Bennett: Yes.

💬 SPEAKER: If the member proposes once more to table something which he knows can’t be tabled and won’t be put to the House, I will treat him—as previous Speakers have done with members proposing in that manner—as being disorderly.

💬 Hon David Bennett: How does the Minister reconcile his answer that there would be additional funding, when at the Vote Corrections Estimates he said there would be no extra funding for those services?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No, that’s not what I said. I’ll tell you what the facts of the matter are now. When we became Government, the prison population was some 10,400. It is now lower than what it was when we inherited the situation. In fact, it’s decreased by some 600 since March. Whatever the member is trying to get at, the fact of the matter is that what this Government is doing not just in corrections but also across the justice sector with my colleagues the Hon Stuart Nash and the Hon Andrew Little—what we are doing is working; we haven’t changed a single bit of legislation, and yet we are getting these decreases in the prison population. Now, it’s early days yet. It may be just a bit of a blip. As I have said previously, we have to wait for a few more months’ worth of data to see if this is an actual trend, but we are doing better now in nine months in Government than those people did in nine years of Government.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Does he think that $750 million for just 600 beds at Waikeria Prison is good value for money, when the $1 billion to build 1,500 beds would have managed demand as well as including better rehabilitation and mental health facilities, according to his Cabinet papers?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Again, they’re missing the point. What we’re doing is reducing the prison population. It’s started to go down. We’re doing a lot better. But only on “Planet National” is there spending $250 million on capacity that is not necessarily a good thing.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Can he confirm, in his 28 May 2018 Cabinet paper, saying that on 9 April Cabinet directed the Department of Corrections to place its planned procurement of a new prison facility at Waikeria into a state of managed delay, that at that stage no contract for a public-private partnership (PPP) had been signed by the Department of Corrections, despite Grant Robertson saying on 20 June 2018 that the PPP contract for Waikeria Prison was in place, and that breaking it would have cost significant sums of money to this Government?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: At that stage, a procurement process was in place. But, look, we just took a pragmatic position. A PPP is going to build the prison, and, as I’ve said earlier, the Department of Corrections will be the organisation that will run it, and so they should.

Police—Liquor Licensing of Clubs

12 to the Minister of Police: Is he confident that the Police are behaving appropriately with regard to their responsibilities under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012?

on behalf of the Minister of Police: In answering this question, can I assist the member by saying that—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! “On behalf of”.

Sorry. On behalf of the Minister of Police, can I assist the member by saying that the police’s role under our constitutional arrangements is to enforce the law as they consider appropriate, and not with regard to the opinion of the Minister of the day.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is it acceptable for police to say to bowling clubs that they will not object to a licence if the club agrees to police suggestions around hours and other licence conditions, but they will object if the club doesn’t, and do these kinds of standover tactics have a place in New Zealand?

On behalf of the Minister, the police have a statutory role of registering objections, where appropriate, to licensing authorities. The only opportunity they have to engage with licence holders is at a time when licences come up for renewal, and I have no criticism of police and licensing authorities, and those others involved in the decision making on licences, engaging with licence holders to ensure the safe distribution and sale of liquor in our communities.

💬 Chris Bishop: What is his response to the decision of Judge Kelly in the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority decision between Rapira-Davies and Patel, in which the judge said “Reporting agencies should be careful to avoid ‘negotiating’ conditions with an applicant in exchange for those agencies not opposing the application. … It would be an improper use of their reporting role …”?

On behalf of the Minister, and in pursuit of the relationship of comity between this House and the judiciary, I stand by the member of the judiciary’s comments.

💬 Brett Hudson: Does he think it appropriate that police lodge an objection with no detail behind it to Johnsonville Club’s liquor licence renewal application, and only then open a direct line of communication with the club, something which they could have done prior?

On behalf of the Minister, as I understand the process, the police have an obligation, when licences come up for renewal, to make their views known. That is the basis on which they engage with licence holders. I would suggest that it would be entirely inappropriate for the police, at any time that suited them during the currency of a licence, to go around and express a view about that licence holder, unless there had been a breach of the law.

💬 Chris Bishop: When he said, “We still need to keep improving if police are going to achieve their ambitious organisational target of 90 percent trust and confidence …”, does he think blanket opposition to bowling club licences will build trust and confidence in the police?

On behalf of the Minister, I’m not aware of any blanket opposition by the police to any liquor licences.

💬 Chris Bishop: Has he seen the comments of racing Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, in relation to BYO events at racing tracks—namely, “Why are bureaucrats in Wellington interfering with their lifestyle?”, and what will he be doing to preserve these great rural traditions?

On behalf of the Minister, as I so often do when I go to the Tauherenīkau races: enjoy myself immensely.

💬 Chris Bishop: When the Labour - New Zealand First coalition agreement committed to a serious focus on combating organised crime, in light of the recent behaviour by the police, can he confirm he did not mean this focus to extend to the Whitby Bowling Club, the Island Bay Tennis and Squash Club, and the Wellington Bridge Club?

On behalf of the Minister, I have full confidence in the police’s strategies for combating all types of crime.