Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: Does he have confidence in the Government’s management of the New Zealand economy?

Yes.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Does he agree with economic commentator Bernard Hickey, who today said, “This week’s news is the worst economically for the Government since its election and should force it to recalibrate its response.”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t agree with the characterisation by Mr Hickey, but he does make an interesting point in that article, which is that years and years of under-investment in infrastructure are causing constraints in the New Zealand economy and are reducing productivity. That happened over the last nine years. We have an ambitious programme of investment in infrastructure that will start to turn that around.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Does he take it as a signal of confidence in the Government’s economic management that job growth has fallen by 60 percent since the Government took office, and in the past three months, 43 people extra have moved into unemployment every day?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I take as a measure of confidence is that yesterday’s data released by Statistics New Zealand showed that 94,000 more people were employed in the June 2018 quarter than the 2017 June quarter.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Does he take it as a signal of confidence in the Government’s economic management that this week, not only has unemployment gone up but multiple construction firms have gone into receivership, and businesses’ confidence in their own prospects has hit a 10-year low, falling to levels not seen since the global financial crisis?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The issue of the construction industry and the vertical construction industry and the issues facing that industry are not new. Mainzeal, Hawkins, Fletcher’s are all things that happened under the last Government’s watch. I’m actually not going to blame the last Government for that. This is an industry that does need some support. It does need some work. But for the member to conflate all of what is going wrong in the vertical construction industry with the last nine months of this Government is not right.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Is he aware that just 1 percent slower GDP growth would cost the Government approximately $800 million in lost revenue every year, and Government spending would also inevitably increase as fiscal stabilisers kicked in?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There’s a number of factors that would influence whether or not that equation worked, but what I would remind the member is that the consensus forecasts, as put through by FocusEconomics recently, all say that growth will be around 3 percent over the forecast period, and that’s backed up by Treasury, the OECD, the IMF, and the Reserve Bank.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Well, in light of that answer, can he tell the House whether he is intending to stick to his own fiscal responsibility rules if, in fact, GDP growth does not live up to those Treasury forecasts?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’ve been very clear that our Budget responsibility rules are there for the term of this Government. We have been equally clear that if there was a significant economic shock, we would adjust those accordingly. I am interested now by the confused stance of the National Party. Apparently, they want us to spend more. They don’t want the Budget responsibility rules, but we’re also spending too much. They actually no longer have a fiscal stance that the public can judge.

💬 Virginia Andersen: What is the Government doing to address the skills shortage?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We are taking a number of steps to address the skills shortage. The first of those—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s called a reshuffle.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —is by making sure that we’ve got our first year—well, no, Gerry. There’s a skills shortage on your side of the House. It’s very, very clear for all of us to see. We are addressing the skills shortage by having our first year free programme, which is getting many, many more people into the trades and apprenticeships, and also by making sure that we’re focused around issues in the construction sector, particularly.

KiwiBuild—Shared Risk

2. to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by all his statements regarding the Crown’s potential risk in relation to the insolvency of KiwiBuild developers?

on behalf of the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Yes, in the context they were made.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: When he announced five weeks ago that 1,200 new State KiwiBuild and market houses were being built on the Housing New Zealand Northcote development, did he have confidence that the builders, Ebert Construction, would be in business five weeks later to continue working on the project?

On behalf of the Minister of Housing and Urban Development, yes, I did.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does he still stand by his statement last week in the House in relation to KiwiBuild: “In the case of developer insolvency, the Crown … carries no risk whatsoever.”?

On behalf of the Minister of Housing and Urban Development, yes. In the Buying off the Plans initiative, the Crown underwrite is only triggered on completion. Therefore, there is no risk to the Crown in the event of a developer’s insolvency. In some cases, there may be progress payments, in which case liability is limited to the progress payments made. The KiwiBuild unit advises me, however, that these contracts are rare, and they have not entered into any so far.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: When he told his Cabinet colleagues that there would be “appropriate due diligence”, what was the result of the due diligence for Ebert Construction, that went into receivership this week?

On behalf of the Minister of Housing and Urban Development—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: It was brilliant.

I’m sorry?

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry, I think the Minister can start the answer again, and can I ask, if it was Ms Collins—can she finish her questions before she sits down.

On behalf of the Minister of Housing and Urban Development, there was appropriate work that was done. In terms of the advice I’ve got from KiwiBuild, things are done in terms of risk management on a development by development basis. Because of the inherent differences, any individual development and the prices it might seek from the Crown to underwrite is taken on a case by case basis. I can give you the advice that I’ve been given, which is how the risk is managed by the KiwiBuild unit: first, an initial assessment is made; second, shortlisting, a second review of the proposal, and a workshop with the developers. The KiwiBuild unit then evaluates the amended proposals. The opportunity to clarify any issues is done, an evaluation panel, then the evaluation report, the chair prepares a final evaluation report, and then the contract is negotiated. In addition, CBRE, Colliers, and Jasmax are contracted to provide independent expert advice to the KiwiBuild unit for each development.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: If, as he said on 26 March this year, the Crown is sharing the risk with developers, then what responsibility will the Crown be taking to ensure that subcontractors and workers are paid on KiwiBuild sites when the developer goes broke, and whether or not they can even get their tools off the site?

On behalf of the Minister, we have asked for advice from the ministry on how it is that subcontractors can get some of their tools back. One of the things that we have asked our ministries to do is for the ministry to reach out to the receivers and to assist our subcontractors to get their tools back. We are waiting for further advice on this. We would like our subcontractors to be paid, and the contracts are apt that were signed. All of those subcontractors that had their contracts signed before 1 July 2017 will get some payment in terms of the labour they provided.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Which of his statements is correct: the Crown will be sharing the risk with developers, as stated on 26 March, or when he told the House on Wednesday last week that the Crown will take no risk whatsoever if a developer becomes insolvent during the KiwiBuild process?

Further to my answer earlier on about insolvency, the Crown underwrite is only triggered on completion of houses, so the risk that the Crown takes is only in the event that a developer goes insolvent.

Transport Infrastructure—Fuel Taxes, Government Policy, and Land Transport Projects

3. to the Minister of Transport: Do the funding allocations in the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport justify increases in fuel taxes over the next 3 years; if so, how?

on behalf of the Minister of Transport: Given that Kiwis understand that we need to deliver a modern, multimodal land transport system across the country to unlock growth and prosperity—

💬 Chris Bishop: You didn’t write this answer.

Mr Bishop, you might have got away with sacking one Māori; I’d be very careful if I was you. We will enhance great prosperity.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you going to allow that comment to stand?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the answer is yes. If people choose to interject mid-answer with irrelevant interjections, then they’re likely to get it back in spades.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That’s not a reasonable position, at all. Firstly, we’ve had one Minister stand in the House to explain that the debacle over the appointment of Pauline Kīngi has not led to a sacking; it’s led, apparently, to a resignation. Now we might, on this side of the House, know how a resignation like that is achieved, but it is not appropriate for a Minister of the Crown to accuse an Opposition member of sacking a Crown official.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m going to do two things now. First of all, I’m not going to take any responsibility for Mr Jones’ answers—I mean, I think no reasonable person would expect me to do that. The second point I’d make is that, actually, the shadow Leader of the House’s point of order had no merit. But, notwithstanding that, seven separate members on the Government side—including Mr Lees-Galloway—at least four times, interjected during the point of order, and, for that reason, there will be an additional seven supplementaries given to the National Party.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Why is he continuing with his plan to tax New Zealanders by an extra $1 billion over the next three years while at the same time, according to Civil Contractors New Zealand CEO Peter Silcock, transport infrastructure construction expenditure would be reducing over the next two to three years?

Over the period at which we’re going to transition this large fund, it is going to pick up the slack in terms of KiwiRail and coastal shipping, as well as enhanced road transport options. I’m not surprised that that person is concerned, but I would say that as he’s the CEO and the chief advocate of the roading lobby, it does not bother me one iota that he shares those anxieties.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Which funding allocation in the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport will be assisting with coastal shipping?

There are two phases to the overarching transition. We have ticked off one phase, and a key part of that phase is the introduction of an additional 10c, largely driven by increases in petrol excise duty. In phase two, we are going to hold true to our narrative that KiwiRail, coastal shipping, and road transport represent a comprehensive response to logistics, supply chain, and transportation challenges in a growing economy.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Given the primary question was asking about funding allocations in the Government policy statement, which specific funding allocation in the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport assists with coastal shipping?

Repeating the question, the member himself raised that supplementary question, and if he felt he was straying off the primary reservation, then he’s only got himself to blame that he now knows about what our priority is for phase two of transport reform.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Does he agree with Civil Contractors New Zealand when they said, “Any reduction in projects on the ground would come at a critical time when infrastructure work in Australia’s east coast is booming, and New Zealand looked set to lose talent and capabilities across the Tasman if projects were not moved forward to bridge the lull in project work.”?

I think Mr Silcock, who formerly was in the orchard industry, is making an important point—that the civil construction sector wants a clear line of sight. They want some confidence so that the high-quality standards of delivery from that sector can continue, unlike the construction sector. I think he should not alarm his members or himself unnecessarily. The Transport Agency and their various planners are working on a whole host of projects. We just cannot guarantee pipedreams like a four-lane highway to Whangarei that was never ever going to be funded or see the light of day.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Why does he think taxing New Zealanders more, creating a transport construction hole, and seeing Kiwis leave for Australia is a coherent transport plan from his Government?

It’s very difficult to accept the view of the National Party that because of a road in Palmerston North, Kiwis from Kaitāia might be going to Australia. Apart from that obvious contradiction, there will be continued investment in roads, there will be an accent on regional roads, and there will be an opportunity, over the full transition, to address the role that coastal and KiwiRail can play in delivering higher productivity, via transport, for all of New Zealand.

Economy—Business Confidence

4. to the Minister for Economic Development: Does his description of the ANZ survey of business confidence as “junk” include the ANZ Own Activity Index, which has dropped to the lowest level since May 2009?

on behalf of the Minister for Economic Development: There’s a bit more to the question, but fair enough—

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry?

Mr Speaker, I think there is a little bit more to that question, but we’ll—

💬 SPEAKER: No, there’s not. The member should rely on the printed copy rather than an early draft.

On behalf of the Minister for Economic Development, no.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is the fact that the ANZ Own Activity survey has dropped to plus 4 percent—its lowest level since May 2009, in the midst of the global financial crisis—well below the long-term average of plus 27 percent, something he should take seriously?

I take very seriously the views of the business community and work very closely with them, but I tend to share the view of the New Zealand Herald’s Liam Dann, who said, “to compare confidence in the economy now and confidence in [2008-09] is ridiculous.”

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he aware that during the term of the previous Labour-led Government, between 1999 and 2008, the ANZ Own Activity Index averaged 20 percent compared with its current level of 4 percent, which is a number that commentator Cameron Bagrie referred to as indicating the economy going into stall—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member has more than finished the question.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, I didn’t actually get to the question.

💬 SPEAKER: No. Well, the member put in two unnecessary additions to the question at the beginning and at the end.

On behalf of the Minister, I think we’ve traversed a number of times in this House the nature of the surveys—in particular, that in the period of the last Labour-led Government that he refers to, in 82 of 99 months there was pessimism from the business community but growth averaged 3.2 percent over that period.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he told the House that the ANZ business survey, which he described as “junk”, is a “survey of the emotion of CEOs”, does he think the New Zealand CEOs are being too emotional when they worry about the costs being added to their businesses?

On behalf of the Minister, it is indeed a survey of business sentiment. There are a lot of other indicators about the health of the economy—for instance, consumer confidence, which is doing well; employee confidence, which is doing well; people being added to the labour market, which is doing well; and overall growth and employment. CEOs will concern themselves with the prospects of their own firm, which is absolutely right, and this Government will continue to work with all in the business community to ensure that those firms grow sustainably.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he think the typical business owner and employer—who is worried about potential effects of the industrial relations changes, costs being added to her business, uncertainty around immigration and tax policies—would respond if he told her directly that her opinions were junk?

On behalf of the Minister, I do not believe their opinions are junk.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Regarding the ANZ’s commentary “with [the] businesses in a funk, it’s fair to say that the road ahead is looking less assured, and risks of a stall have increased”, has he considered the possibility that any of his Government policies may be harming the economy?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Before the member answers the question, and just to get it absolutely straight with the member, he will ask the question part of that again—I’m not going to make him count it twice—without the addendum that prefaced it.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Well, I’m just struggling to understand at all. I’m putting out a quote from somebody and asking him to respond to that quote.

💬 SPEAKER: No you weren’t. That’s not what you did at all.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, all right. OK—well, I’ll keep it simple, then. Has he considered the possibility that any of his Government’s policies may be harming the economy?

💬 SPEAKER: Yes. That’s a question.

We look very close at the all of the impacts of our policies on not only the business community but also employees, the social sector, and those in unpaid work. The conclusion that we’ve come to is that after nine years of neglect and under-investment from the other side, our policies are going to lead to an economy that is more robust, more sustainable, more productive, and more inclusive. We’re not going to be able to do it all in nine months, but we will be able to make up for a lot of the damage in this first term.

Housing—Urban Growth Agenda

5. to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: How will the Government’s Urban Growth Agenda enable the construction of affordable homes for young families?

on behalf of the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: On behalf of the Minister, yesterday, at the Environmental Defence Society, I announced the Urban Growth Agenda, an ambitious and far-reaching programme to address the fundamentals of land supply, development capacity, and infrastructure provision so that the market can build more homes for young families. The Urban Growth Agenda joins KiwiBuild—the 6,400 more State and public houses—in making life better for renters and tackling property speculation as part of our comprehensive plan to tackle the housing crisis.

💬 Raymond Huo: How will the planning initiatives in the Urban Growth Agenda reduce the cost of new homes?

Two drivers of house prices are high land prices and the cost of building infrastructure in both greenfield and brownfield developments. The Urban Growth Agenda will reform our planning system and allow cities to make room for growth, support quality built environment, and enable integrated transport, housing, and commercial planning so that urban land prices reduce.

💬 Raymond Huo: How will infrastructure-financing initiatives working alongside the Urban Growth Agenda reduce the cost of new homes?

We are also working on a broad range of infrastructure-financing mechanisms so that long-term debt financing is available to developers willing to build trunk infrastructure financed over a longer term, rather than in the upfront purchase price. This will mean it will be more affordable to build and buy new homes.

Primary Sector—Government Policies' Effect on Rural Communities

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

Yes, and I stand by the specific actions that include working with industry to try and eradicate Mycoplasma bovis, fixing the National Animal Identification and Tracing system, releasing the rabbit calicivirus disease virus in March to control wild rabbits, introducing a mānuka honey export standard, conducting a review of the dairy industry—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I’ve so much more here.

💬 SPEAKER: I understand what the member’s trying to do, and he’s done enough.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Which of his policies have helped lead to a fivefold increase in farmer pessimism in the last 12 months?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I’m aware of a survey done by Federated Farmers—an organisation that, perhaps, at times, has come up with such outcomes—but I have to say that while they may maintain that just less than half were pessimistic, more than half were optimistic, and about 30 percent of those anticipated an increase in profitability on their farms. Good luck to them.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: What advice has he received from his $500,000-a-year Primary Sector Council about Government policies impacting negatively on the primary sector and the overall confidence in the economy?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I have to say that the Primary Sector Council has met twice and is due to meet again. They have identified a few challenges for us going ahead. One was a lack of vision—after nine years of National Government, there is no vision. The second thing is they said that the research and science area for primary sectors is pretty muddled, if not chaotic, and we need to sort that out after nine years of National Government. They’ve identified a skills shortage and a capability shortage, because there has been no focus on that for the last nine years under a National Government.

💬 Matt King: If rural proofing is merely a guidance tool for Government agencies rather than mandatory, what incentive is there for them to apply it to their policies?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Just one example of rural proofing—that is a policy designed to advise policy makers in Wellington to consider the effects in rural areas. One such example of the stupidity under the previous National Government was that those people going for licences had to be tested at a traffic light. There are a huge number of rural communities that—thank God—don’t have a traffic light, but that Government said that before you could get a licence, you had to be tested at a traffic light. That’s what rural proofing will do: ensure sensible policies for rural communities.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: When he said rural proofing would go through a rural lens and ensure all Government policy makers would focus on easing the cost of compliance, why has this not allayed farmers’ fears of more red tape and anti-farming policies from this Government?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: There are no anti-farming policies. There are additional costs because the farming sector realised that expectations from our customers and consumers around the world demand the best in terms of environmental management, the best in terms of animal welfare, and the best in terms of labour requirements—provisions and guarantees that the previous Government couldn’t give. We will be in a position to give those assurances across the board so that we can sell our products for better returns and better profits for the farmers.

💬 Barbara Kuriger: Since mid-June 2018, have any Cabinet papers included rural-proofing aspects on any Government policies, and what were those policies?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The Ministry for Primary Industries is leading the process of rural proofing and providing advice across all Government agencies. Our Government has gone through a proper process of ensuring that, firstly, there’s Cabinet endorsement, and then there’s a wide level of awareness of this. The rural lens that we will put over that will be utilising both eyes, not having one eye closed like the previous Government.

Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Advice and Submissions

7. to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree with the statement yesterday by Dr Bryce Edwards of Victoria University that the waka-jumping bill itself is bad enough for democracy but the process surrounding the bill has also been a blow against democracy, and it makes the “legislation process look like a turning point in the health of this Government”?

💬 SPEAKER: I will allow the member to answer the question even though the member corrected Dr Edwards’ grammar.

No.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has he seen the Cabinet Office advice specifically on his electoral integrity bill that Mr Edwards refers to that contradicts the Green Party’s public statements that the party has to vote for the bill?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Could the Minister summarise the advice that the Cabinet Office gave with respect to the electoral integrity bill?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes—at odds with Dr Edwards’ description of it.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will the Minister make public the advice from the Cabinet Office with respect to the electoral integrity bill prior to the bill being further debated in the House?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: How is hiding this crucial advice from the Cabinet Office consistent with this Government’s commitment to be the most open and transparent Government ever?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I understand it, informal advice sought by the Green Party from the Cabinet Office that was couched in very kind of tendentious terms is a matter for the Green Party to release, not me.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will he ensure Parliament has access to the advice by officials on the electoral integrity bill’s compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act prior to further debate in the House, given that it was, very unusually, not made available to the select committee or the public?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I don’t agree with every proposition in that question, except to say that the Attorney-General has supplied his certificate to the House that the bill is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will the Government consider adopting the many amendments that were suggested by the Clerk of the House, the Law Society, the Human Rights Commission, and other officials—that Government committee members refused to discuss at select committee—during the committee stage of the House?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I understand it, that committee could not reach agreement on anything, and the bill has been discharged from the select committee and is to be debated in the House unchanged.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is it fair for him to be pressing the Greens to vote for this bill when the origin of this problem was in the chaotic formation of this Government when New Zealand First would not meet directly with the Greens; and why doesn’t the Government do as Helen Clark did in 2005 on the same bill at the same stage of the process, and with the same controversy—simply shelve the bill?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The bill is a Government bill. It has been agreed by Cabinet and the full Government as a Government bill. That member might want to reflect on his actions in 2003 when, after Maurice Williamson publicly stated that he thought it was time for the National Party to stand for something, that member moved a motion in his caucus to have Mr Williamson expelled from that caucus.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wish to put on the record a personal explanation—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member wants to seek leave to make a personal explanation relating to the comment that Mr Little just made. Is that right?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s correct.

💬 SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is none.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: The statement made by Mr Little is totally incorrect and false.

💬 Raymond Huo: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With due respect, what Dr Smith described about the proceedings of the Justice Committee was incorrect.

💬 SPEAKER: No, no—the member has been here for some time now. He will know that while questions are meant to be accurate and there’s a degree of authentication required for primary questions—and if I have severe doubts or anxiety, I can require it for supplementary questions—we don’t have such a high standard for supplementary questions from either side of the House that all assertions made in them are accurate.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In light of your comment about authentication of primary questions, I wanted to raise an issue with you about this very primary question No. 7, in that it is described in the question as the waka-jumping bill. That is not in quotation marks, therefore—

💬 SPEAKER: And I apologise. That is my responsibility for letting it through in that form. It should have been within a quotation, but I’m sorry that I did focus on the grammatical errors later in the question.

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I promise it will be a constructive one. Just a question: is it in order for a member to use a personal statement to suggest that a member has misled the House?

💬 SPEAKER: I don’t think that there was a suggestion that someone deliberately misled the House, in the statement made by Dr Smith. If he was suggesting a breach of privilege that way, that would be out of order, but I did not take it that way. Maybe I was being generous.

Tertiary Education—Vocational Institutions' Financial Support

8. to the Minister of Education: What steps is he taking to address serious financial viability issues affecting New Zealand’s institutes of technology and polytechnics sector?

On becoming Minister of Education, I put in place an immediate programme of work to deal with the serious structural issues facing vocational education and training in New Zealand generally, but particularly facing the institutes of technology and polytechnics sector. While that work is under way, there are some immediate issues that we need to deal with, and last week I announced that I have dissolved the Unitec Council and appointed a commissioner at Unitec. I am doing this after receiving the final submission from Unitec’s council, which supported the move. Unitec needs urgent and significant financial support, and I believe the commissioner is needed to ensure that both the Tertiary Education Commission and I have the oversight that we need.

💬 Jan Tinetti: Who has been appointed as commissioner?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The new commissioner is Murray Strong, who is also the Government-appointed Crown manager at Tai Poutini Polytechnic on the South Island’s West Coast. He’ll be supported by an independent financial adviser already in place, and I will soon be appointing an advisory group to support him. Murray Strong is extremely experienced in working with tertiary education organisations that are experiencing some difficulty. I hope that his appointment will give real confidence to students and staff about Unitec’s future. This Government is absolutely committed to ensuring that Unitec’s role as a major provider of vocational education and training in the Auckland region is secured.

💬 Jan Tinetti: Why are many of our polytechnics and institutes of technology struggling?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The majority of the sector is projected to be—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Fees-free—no one turned up.

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —in deficit within two to three years under the current settings, due to the unsustainable financial position the sector was in when we became the Government, Gerry. The complete—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat

Building and Construction Industry—Government Policy and Skills Shortage

9. to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does she agree with the comments of Property Council Chief Executive Connal Townsend that there is a “perfect storm” in the building and construction sector that includes issues with cost escalations, allocation of risk, lack of skills, and problems with the Building Act 2004?

There are a number of longstanding issues affecting the building and construction sector, including the allocation of risk, lack of skilled people, building costs, and the Building Act. My colleagues and I have a work programme to address these issues.

💬 Andrew Bayly: What new policy initiatives has she announced to prevent the loss of skilled tradesmen leaving New Zealand for Australia, where there is a boom in construction and infrastructure projects?

💬 Hon JENNY SALESA: What this Government has done—and I chair this—is we have convened nine Ministers to look at and to address construction skills in general. We are at the moment seeking advice from industry. We know that these issues are longstanding, and we know that the Government does not have the answers on its own. We are willing to make sure that we are training enough people. I have not yet announced a new scheme to stop people from going to Australia, but we are looking at training enough of our own people to build our own houses.

💬 Virginia Andersen: What is the Government doing to lift skills in the construction sector?

💬 Hon JENNY SALESA: The ministerial group that we’ve established, the construction group—we have a draft construction skills action plan. We’re out now asking industry, because the nine Ministers together have come up with five ideas—three of them are brand new; two of them are expansions of ideas—and it is all to make sure that we are training up our own people. The reality is that in the building and construction sector, the majority of the workers in the sector—256,000—are New Zealanders. So in the long term, the long-term solution has to be that we train up our own people to build our houses, including KiwiBuild.

💬 Andrew Bayly: What new policy initiatives has she announced to facilitate the introduction of appropriate new products into the building and construction sector?

💬 Hon JENNY SALESA: I have not yet announced a new policy in this area. However, this is part of the area of priority for work for me as the Minister for Building and Construction. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is currently—right now—out consulting with the sector, because we are looking at a products review. The policies that MBIE will present to me as Minister will come in the next few months. So I will be presenting a paper to Cabinet in the next few months, and after then we will make some policy decisions.

💬 Andrew Bayly: What new policy initiatives has she announced to amend the Building Act to make it more fit for purpose?

💬 Hon JENNY SALESA: I have not yet announced a new policy to do with the Building Act, but that is because we have a big work programme in the building and construction sector. We are looking at reviewing products right now, and the regulations. We are looking at reallocation of risk and liability. There are several other work programmes that we’re currently doing with MBIE in terms of me being Minister for Building and Construction. We will look at all of that because we are looking at a whole-of-system approach. We don’t want to be introducing new legislation that we then have to come in and amend and amend, or amend later on. We want to get it right the first time.

💬 SPEAKER: Just before I call the next supplementary, can I ask the—I think it’s Marja Lubeck up the back. I know she was waving more fingers than might be normally considered offensive, but I would ask her not to do that again. Thank you.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Why was no money allocated in the 2018-19 Budget for additional skills training for the construction sector?

💬 Hon JENNY SALESA: The construction skills action plan that I expect to take to Cabinet in the next few weeks—a lot of the new things that we’re proposing will be paid for, but it will be paid for under baseline. Any new money that we would expect in terms of training new people will probably be considered in the Budget process of 2019.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister confirm that she was involved with an announcement yesterday that will directly contribute to an improvement in the level of skills in the workforce in the building and construction sector?

💬 Hon JENNY SALESA: Absolutely. The Minister of Education, the Hon Chris Hipkins, and I announced the micro-credentialing skills system, which will allow us to ensure—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Lowering of standards.

💬 Hon JENNY SALESA: —that we’re building these houses as fast and as efficiently as possible.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Now, I do realise that the member has some expertise in the area, but I would much prefer him to make his contributions from his feet rather than his seat.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is that an offer?

💬 SPEAKER: If the member wants to have a question, go for it.

Land Information New Zealand—Sale of Mt White Station

10. to the Minister for Land Information: Does she agree with Forest and Bird that the Government has failed to clean up the historic anomaly around the ownership of Mount White Station, and is it in any way related to the 126 pastoral lease reviews that have completed the review process and are presently awaiting her ministerial sign-off?

on behalf of the Minister for Land Information: On behalf of the Minister, in response to the first part of the question, I disagree. In fact, tomorrow, a representative of the owner and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) are meeting already to start discussing how to resolve the status of Riversdale Flats. Regarding the second part of the question, there are no pastoral lease applications awaiting ministerial sign-off. I think the member may be confused—126 pastoral leases have completed tenure review and need no further sign-off; they are done. Land has been freeholded and the other land returned to the Department of Conservation estate. If the member would like the details of the 126 completed reviews, he could do no better than to look on LINZ’s website—all the information is there.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Does the Minister agree with the following statement on the recent sale of Mt White Station to a Czech-born businessman: “It’s astonishing that the Department of Conservation and LINZ haven’t got it sorted” and that “it should be part of the national park. The Green Party would protect our high country landscapes and stop the sale of more than a hectare of land to overseas interests.”?

To be clear, the lease was purchased by a New Zealand permanent resident. Citizens and New Zealand residents are allowed to buy property in New Zealand.

💬 Hon David Bennett: If the Minister says that it was purchased by a citizen or New Zealand resident, why did it have to go through the office approval process?

There is a very specific answer to this question, which I’ve seen—and, in fact, I have it before me now, conveniently, and it will be somewhat embarrassing for the member, I suspect. Because the buyer is a New Zealand permanent resident, the Overseas Investment Office could not impose conditions. It is normal for it to go to the department in that situation.

💬 Hon David Bennett: If the Minister didn’t impose any conditions in this case, then how does he reconcile that with the comments of Forest & Bird that this is an “outrageous” and “gutting” decision?

As I said, I respectfully disagree with them.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Can the Minister assure the public that there will be no more sales of Crown pastoral-lease land to overseas interests until the Government has changed the laws around the overseas ownership of such land?

This Government takes overseas purchase of New Zealand interests very seriously, in contrast to the Government that’s gone before.

Youth Unemployment—Reports

11. to the Minister of Employment: What recent reports has he seen that demonstrate the progress young people not in employment, education, or training are making under this coalition Government?

Yesterday, we saw the release of the latest household labour force survey, and I’m happy to share with the House that in the latest quarter, the youth “neets” rate was 10.9 percent, down from 12.4 percent in the last quarter.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: Does the survey also demonstrate how Māori rangatahi are currently progressing?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That’s excellent news as well, I’m proud to say. Our Government are very proud to inform the House that the rate for Māori young people who are classified as “neets” is now 15.6 percent, down from 19.6 percent just over a year ago when the National Opposition were in Government. That means—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: All gone to Australia.

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —Mr Brownlee—that more of our rangatahi—that means young Māori—are either learning or earning, and that’s great news for them and their whānau.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: What does he consider to be the reason for these outstanding results?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I said when I became employment Minister that this Government is one that cares, and our Prime Minister has put that view many times—that we are a compassionate Government, unlike the Opposition last year. We want to see our young people do well—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: They’re going to Australia. They’re on the plane.

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —so we got out there and worked with our communities, unlike Gerry Brownlee and the Opposition. We worked with our communities—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. He’s going to learn not to react, at some stage, if he wants to finish his answers.

Police—Deputy Commissioner of Police, Inquiry into the Appointment Process

12. to the Minister of Internal Affairs: If she could redo the appointment process for the membership of the Government inquiry into the appointment process for a Deputy Commissioner of Police, would she do anything differently; if so, what?

Just to be clear, as Minister I do not undertake the appointment process; the Department of Internal Affairs does. However, since we have just had a highly respected New Zealander resign as the chair of an inquiry due to issues raised regarding historical social media interactions, it does appear that the process developed by the National Government in 2009 and amended by them in 2013 and 2015 may need further attention.

💬 Chris Bishop: Ha, ha!

💬 SPEAKER: Does the member have a question?

💬 Chris Bishop: A supplementary, yes.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the member better get to it.

💬 Chris Bishop: How many candidates did Department of Internal Affairs officials place before her for consideration for selection as the member of the independent inquiry, the Government Inquiry into the Appointment Process for a Deputy Commissioner of Police, and what due diligence did she and her office do on the candidates?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: If I recall correctly, there were at least five in the first tranche, and then another five in the second tranche, that were placed before me, but I would have to go and confirm that with my officers. With regard to due diligence, it was the standard procedure that has been in place since 2009.

💬 Chris Bishop: Can she confirm, then, to the House that she hand-picked Pauline Kingi to conduct the Government Inquiry into the Appointment Process for a Deputy Commissioner of Police, in preference to at least nine other suitably qualified candidates, and what was it about Ms Kingi that made her the right choice for the job in comparison to at least nine other candidates?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The answer is no.

💬 Chris Bishop: Does she stand her statement on Facebook on 24 July: “I know for me particularly, the process is everything. Process is here to protect us all so I make sure that when I do something I do it well and I do it properly.”, and does she think she handled the appointment of Pauline Kingi well and properly?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Yes. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Who was that? Which member made that noise? [Interruption] Order! Chris Bishop will resume his seat. Which member made the noise? [Interruption] No. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise. That level of grunt is not acceptable.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: Thank you.

💬 Chris Bishop: Did she consult with any ministerial colleagues when deciding to appoint Pauline Kingi as head of the Government Inquiry into the Appointment Process for a Deputy Commissioner of Police, as paragraph 43 of the Cabinet paper establishing the inquiry envisaged she would, and, if so, what Ministers did she consult with?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Yes, and the Cabinet.