Oral Questions

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

Yes, and I also stand by my statements such as “our agenda will grow the economy, will make sure businesses”—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: This isn’t comedy hour!

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —“are in a position to grow and prosper because I need that economic growth to be able to lift the wellbeing of all New Zealanders.”

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that her Government’s industrial relations reforms are a significant factor in the plummeting business confidence under her Government?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If that is in any way featuring in the minds of the businesses who answered that survey, it shouldn’t, particularly given these reflect the changes in the legislation that existed in the 2000s—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —when New Zealand’s economy was absolutely thriving.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: So was Shane Jones wrong when he said on Q+A that it is a factor?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I just said, if it is a factor, it should not be of concern to business, because that legislation around, for instance, meal breaks and rest breaks was in place in the 2000s, when we had the strongest continuous economic growth since World War II.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to point out that when the Leader of the Opposition asks his questions, he then starts shouting. He began by saying this is not comedy hour. I don’t know what “hour” is—if it means that time of the day, then perhaps he’s got a point, but the reality is he should not be allowed to do that every time he asks a question. He should sit there and get the answer properly.

💬 SPEAKER: Right, well the Leader of the Opposition will stand up and withdraw and apologise now.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: No, the—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: Thank you. And while the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments were a reflection on me, they were not entirely without merit. If the Leader of the Opposition does want to have an answer to his questions, then I think he should at least, when he sits down, stop commenting at that point for some time. Is there a further supplementary?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Prime Minister confirm that under the Government’s proposed employment law changes, a union representative will be able to enter the premises of a business without permission from that business?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I say again: what is being implemented is in line with the employment legislation we had prior to the last National Government, and that was at a time when we had the lowest unemployment in the OECD, the strongest continuous economic growth since World War II, and when we delivered nine Budget surpluses.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Stand up and say them.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In terms of making sure that we are creating an environment where business can thrive, we did that and we are doing it again.

💬 Hon Member: No, you’re not.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I am now going to warn Paula Bennett. We have one person answering the questions, and her attempts to debate other frontbench members while the Prime Minister is answering are unacceptable.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: So can she confirm that under the Government’s proposed employment law changes, a union representative will be able to enter the premises of a business without permission from that business?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In order to visit union members, and at the same time ensuring that they are obliging and fulfilling all of the rules and obligations as set out on that workplace at the time. Should that affect growth amongst our businesses, their ability to thrive and prosper, to become exporters in our country? No.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Can she confirm that under the Government’s proposed employment law changes a union representative will be able to enter the premises of a business without their permission, even if, as is typically the case, say with a farm, the premises of the business is also the home of the business owner?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That would only apply if that individual in question was a member of the union.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Can she confirm that under the Government’s proposed legislative changes a union representative will be able to enter the premises of a business without their permission even if, as is typically the case—say in a farm—the premises of the business is also the home of the business owner?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I have said, if they are visiting a union member, then that rule will apply—and, again, as it has applied prior to the last National Government. Now, I haven’t personally heard of any examples of a union member cohabiting with a farmer and then having a visit on that farm in that farmhouse, but if the member has an example that he has concerns about, I would welcome hearing them.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: So to be very clear, under the Government’s proposed employment changes, can she confirm that a union representative will be able to enter the property of somebody’s home without that person’s permission?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I have said, only if the person in question they are visiting is a member of the union.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Can she confirm that under the Government’s proposed employment law changes, an individual will not be able to negotiate an individual employment agreement that is better than the union-negotiated contract prior to beginning employment?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member well knows, the legislation that is currently being considered by this House includes restoring rest and meal breaks, the duty to conclude multi-employer collective agreements, 90-day trial periods for employers with 20-plus workers, and union access—those are the number of things we are currently considering around employment law. They are all changes that existed before the last Government came in. Now, if the member believes that, for instance, a union visiting a union member is going to cause major economic downturn, then I would be concerned by that, because I do not believe that will be the case or should be the case.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Can she confirm that the Government will abolish youth rates which would help young people into their first job?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is referring to a Labour Party policy. As I’ve pointed out publicly many times before, if you want to look for this Government’s agenda, look to the Speech from the Throne, the coalition agreement, and the confidence and supply agreement. Every other policy is negotiated by this Government as a collective.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Can she confirm that the two or three issues canvassed in this question are merely a handful of many, many significant changes being made by the Government in the industrial area?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. The one example the member just used was a Labour Party policy. As I’ve said, this Government works by consensus. We negotiate everything collectively as a Government.

Economy—Innovation in Business

2. to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he seen on the need for innovation in the New Zealand economy?

KPMG’s 2018 New Zealand CEO outlook survey showed that a key concern for New Zealand CEOs is the challenges associated with digital transformation; 64 percent of those surveyed agreed that their organisations are struggling to keep pace with the rate of technological innovation in their sector, and only 26 percent are confident that their existing leadership team is fully equipped to oversee the radical transformation needed within their organisations. This is a consistent message I’ve heard from business leaders across the country: that innovation and adaptability are key to being successful in the modern economy.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: What is the Government doing to help drive innovation in the New Zealand economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker, I’ll just pick a couple of examples in light of your admonition yesterday. We’re making investments to help Kiwi businesses drive innovation through our R & D tax incentive. Budget 2018 allocated a billion dollars for this initiative, which will help hit this Government’s target of lifting research and development spending to 2 percent of GDP in 10 years. We have also assembled the Future of Work tripartite forum, bringing together representatives of business, workers, and Government, for exactly this reason. It’s an opportunity for all affected parties to discuss how we best adapt to technological change. Finally—just one more, Mr Speaker—we announced the micro-credentials programme last week to help employers access the skills they need by working with providers to deliver short courses so learners and workers can upskill in this time of rapid change.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: How do these initiatives fit into the Government’s wider economic strategy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: These policies are part of our plan to transition the New Zealand economy away from economic growth driven by housing speculation and population increase. We need to increase productivity, work smarter, and lift our products up the value chain to remain competitive in a 21st century economic environment. We are working with business to help them adopt new technologies and further roll out digital infrastructure. Through this Government’s initiatives, we are partnering with New Zealand businesses and workers to make this a reality. We have a plan to transition towards a more productive, sustainable, and inclusive economy, and we’re getting on with the job.

Economy—Business Confidence and Economic Growth

My question is to the Minister of Finance: does he stand by the Prime Minister’s comment, “I absolutely believe that our agenda—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think the member might want to start again.

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, let me just check for the sheet, Mr Speaker

3. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s comment, “I absolutely believe that our agenda will grow the economy, will make sure businesses are in a position to grow and prosper, because I need that economic growth to be able to lift the well-being of all New Zealanders”?

In light of the Prime Minister’s earlier answer: absolutely yes.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Despite everything businesses are telling him, does he still think that the Government’s industrial relations reforms, the banning of oil and gas exploration without consultation, shutting out foreign investment, and the prospect of new and higher taxes will grow the economy or help businesses to prosper?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t agree with the scaremongering rhetoric of the member, but I’ll just refer her to today’s statement by ASB chief executive Vittoria Shortt, who said: “It’s clear that New Zealand’s sound economic fundamentals have contributed to a positive operating environment. Unemployment is at low levels, the quality of trade remains high and the housing market is becoming more resilient.” Business is getting on with the job; maybe the member should too.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Does he think that part of the problem behind New Zealanders losing confidence in the economic management of this country is due to Ministers not listening to business owners—the people that actually need to take risks to drive the economy—but, instead, dismissing the views of business as just “perceptions”, “bulldust”, “biased”, and “junk”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House, we’re spending a lot of time with the business community. The issues that they’re asking us to work on are the under-investment in infrastructure over a nine-year period, the failure to invest in the skills of the workforce, and the failure to make real progress in international trade negotiations. On all of those counts, this Government has done more in nine months than her party did in nine years.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: So what does he say to business owners who have lost all confidence in this Government’s economic management—who, after inheriting a strong economy, have so far produced the lowest economic growth since 2012, a drop in GDP per capita, and more people on benefits?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I say to them is what I say to all the business owners that I meet: I value what you’re doing for New Zealand, and I want to work with you to help lift productivity, transition to a more sustainable economy, and make sure we deliver higher wages. It will take some time to get ourselves off what the National Party thought was sustainable growth, which was actually population growth—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Unions in people’s homes.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —and housing speculation. But we have the plan to make that transition.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Before the member asks a question, I think—for about the 10th time during this session—I’m going to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he interjects, not to do it in the second person.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Does he think that his comments this morning that, effectively, told businesses around New Zealand that their concerns are wrong and that those in the Beehive know more about what will help businesses grow and prosper than businesses themselves do, will actually do anything to help our economy grow or see those businesses prosper?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I totally reject the premise of that question.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Having regard to the historical record, does the Minister hope to achieve a much superior rate than 1.9 percent over the next nine years, in terms of growth per annum?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Indeed I do, and if I look back to the last time there was a Labour-led Government, there was a 3.2 percent on average growth rate. The consensus forecast remains that we will achieve a 3 percent growth rate over the forecast period here. We’ll do that because we have a coalition Government that is unified in the purpose of lifting wages, lifting the value of our exports, and making sure that every New Zealander gets a chance to benefit from economic growth.

Economy—Business Confidence Reports

4. to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he still think the ANZ survey of business confidence is junk?

As I told the member last time he asked that question, the ANZ business confidence index is statistically proven to be a very poor predictor of future economic growth, which is how the member misuses it.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think that Treasury was wrong in July’s Monthly Economic Indicators report to highlight weakening business confidence as one of the key risks to their growth forecasts?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I agree with Treasury that underlying some of the concerns we’re seeing are concerns with protectionism around the world. We’ve seen another lot of tariffs imposed today. In the last couple of weeks we’ve seen a United States proposal for $12 billion in farm subsidies. That’s certainly not good news for New Zealand. I think what it proves is it seems that National is not the only backward-looking right-wing party in the world.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Well, so that’s allowed.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, if the member thinks that it shouldn’t be allowed, there is an appropriate method of indicating that.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There’s also an expectation that the Speaker will maintain a standard in here that’s reasonable and fair to both sides of the House. I don’t think it was at all fair for that comment to be made, and I think you should have acted.

💬 SPEAKER: I want to thank the member for his advice.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very simple. It said, “Did he think Treasury was wrong to highlight weakening business confidence?” He made no reference to that whatever and just talked about another factor.

💬 SPEAKER: He made quite a lot of reference to the report, I think, to which the member referred.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: When last week he described the ANZ business confidence survey as “a survey of the emotion of CEOs”, was he implying that New Zealand CEOs are being too emotional when they worry about the costs being added to their businesses?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I wasn’t. Another way to express it would have been that that survey is a survey of the vibe of a self-selected subset of CEOs.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: That’s lovely. What makes him confident that Kiwi exporters will be able to pay a 27 percent increase in the minimum wage over three years while still maintaining their international competitiveness?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Most New Zealand exporters are already paying wages that are higher than that. If the National Party position is that they’re going to reverse those minimum wage increases, they should come clean and say so; otherwise, their rhetoric is meaningless.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with the Minister of Finance, who said this morning that businesses are optimistic about their own prospects despite the finding of the ANZ own-activity index, which has dropped to plus 4—the lowest level since May 2009, and well below the long-term average of plus 27?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I’d say two points in respect of that—or three, actually. First, I agree with the Minister of Finance. Second, in support of that I would quote another public board chairman, Rob Campbell, who just in the last week or so said, “This is a great place to open and operate a business. Negativity is for those who stand on the sidelines watching and commentating.” The final thing I would say is to compare business confidence now to that which was the case at the time of the global financial crisis is so desperate as to be delusional.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that in the ANZ survey of businesses’ confidence in their own activity, in fact 75 percent of businesses believe that their own activity will be the same or get better?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, I can. And that’s not surprising, given that virtually all of those businesses are expecting their own businesses to grow.

Family Court Inquiry—Independent Panel

5. to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has he made about the Family Court?

Last Wednesday, I announced an independent panel to examine the changes made to the family justice system in 2014 by the previous National Government. Three people have been appointed to the independent panel: former Chief Human Rights Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan and family law experts La-Verne King and Chris Dellabarca, who will be supported by an expert reference group.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Why has the independent panel been established?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The 2014 changes to the Family Court were meant to help people resolve parenting disputes without having to go to court, but, in fact, the opposite has happened. Prior to the reforms, 30 percent of applications were without notice; following the reforms, we’re now seeing 70 percent of applications without notice. This is clogging up the court and prolonging the stress of all parties concerned.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What approach will the panel take to examining the changes made to the family justice system in 2014?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’ve directed the panel to take a human rights approach when considering improvements, to ensure that the welfare and best interests of children are paramount when settling disputes about their care. The human rights approach means that everyone’s perspectives will be considered, including survivors of family violence, who at the moment are saying they’re not heard, as well as men who say that they’re not being given the opportunity to participate in the parenting of their children as they should do. Talking with children who’ve experienced the Family Court system will also be vital for establishing how the system can work better for those who need it most.

International Education—Government Policy and Post-study Work Rights

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

on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: Yes, in the context in which they were made or actioned.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he believe the material drop in first-year international student visas granted in the past year and, in particular, the 20 percent drop in Chinese first-year student visas is being driven by the proposed changes to post-study work rights?

On behalf of the Minister, no, because they have not come into force yet. I’d also like to point out that while there has been a drop in new students studying lower-level courses, there was a 10 percent increase in the most recent financial year in Chinese student visas granted for study at university level.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Given that answer, does he then accept that the changes to work rights being consulted on will, when implemented, have a further significant negative effect on the numbers of international students studying in New Zealand.

No, because we want to make sure that we have international students studying at a higher level here in New Zealand, as opposed to the “bums on seats” approach taken by the previous Government. I would caution the member for using some of the data that have been used for scaremongering around their sector to talk about the possible detrimental effect to the sector. One of those, I understand, said that there would be a decline in the number of student visas issued by more than the number that is actually issued at all.

💬 Simeon Brown: Does the Minister consider one-year, level 7 graduate diploma courses to be “low-quality international education courses”, as described in the coalition agreement, and will he be cutting their visas this afternoon?

The member will have to wait about an hour and a half to find out the exact details when the Minister of Immigration makes the announcement. But it is very clear that this coalition Government wants to make sure that the nature of international students coming to New Zealand are studying at a higher level, to ensure that there is a match of skills that our economy needs, not the approach that the previous Government took, which was volume and not quality.

💬 Simeon Brown: Will he heed the calls from the National Party and the international education sector to reverse his proposals affecting level 7 graduate diplomas, which will cost the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand sector $40 million per year in what are not low-quality courses?

On behalf of the Minister, unlikely, and you’ll have to wait an hour and a half for the decision.

Energy and Resources—Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration

7. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What advice, if any, did she receive in respect of the obligation to act in accordance with the Minerals Programme for Petroleum regarding the Government’s decision to offer no new offshore permits?

As the member is aware, I have received a range of advice on the Government’s announcement that no new offshore permits would be issued. This included advice on my obligations under the Crown Minerals Act and, therefore, the minerals programme for petroleum. Of course, as the member will also be aware, there was no statutory decision associated with that announcement. I also note that as signalled at the time of the announcement, policy development work has been proceeding on how to give effect to that decision, and this will be released, along with further advice, in due course.

💬 Jonathan Young: Does she consider that the ban on offshore permits is a significant change to the regime for petroleum exploration, given the Minerals Programme for Petroleum expressly enables offshore permitting?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I would like to remind the member is that we currently are under way in the process for Block Offer 2018. What the Government also announced on 12 April when we made the announcement is that we intended to change the way in which we applied that in the future. We are currently undertaking the policy work. We have signalled there is likely legislative change for any further block offer announcements. That, of course, will also alter the petroleum programme, as the instrument that sits under that piece of legislation.

💬 Jonathan Young: Does she therefore accept that the manner of the decision at the time was potentially illegal and has badly affected business and investor confidence in New Zealand?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: To the second part of that question, I’d say the only person whose confidence has been jolted is that member and his party. What we should look at, actually, is the decisions and the confidence that the industry are showing. I’d look to Todd Energy investing $100 million in a new gas peaker since the announcement was made. I point to Methanex signing a new gas contract through to 2029. I point to OMV’s decision to purchase Shell’s remaining assets in New Zealand. I point to Tamarind securing a state-of-the-art drilling rig for its upcoming drilling in the Tūī field, and I also remind the member that there is 100,000 square kilometres off the coast of New Zealand that still has exploration permits that this Government will honour. In regard to the first part of that member’s question of whether I consider that the process that we followed did not follow the Act, I point him to the answer I gave in my primary: that no statutory decision was made in regard to our announcement. We announced Block Offer 2018, and that process is proceeding.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that precise answer, does the member think that she’s answering the questions with sufficient clarity, seeing as the questions coming from that member over there are the same every darn day he raises them?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I consider repetition to be a fine form of learning.

💬 Jonathan Young: Is one purpose of the Minerals Programme for Petroleum process to reduce the sovereign risk that “… [a] government may unexpectedly change significant aspects of its policy and investment regime and the legal rights applying to investors to the detriment of investors.”?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: A critical part of managing sovereign risk is giving clarity of policy. What this Government had the courage to do was give a very long-term signal on the direction we were travelling. We are talking about policies that will take 30, 40, possibly 50 years to roll out. This is a Government that has the courage to look beyond the three-year political cycle in terms of sovereign risk. I again point the member to the answer I gave in a previous answer—I’ll go through the list: Todd Energy investing $100 million—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That is tedious repetition.

Building and Construction Industry—Government Procurements

8. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What procedures, if any, will she put into place to ensure Government agencies adhere to MBIE’s Government procurement guidelines for construction projects?

The Government rules of sourcing are undergoing a general review, which will strengthen the provisions relating to construction contracts. As indicated yesterday, I will be seeking Cabinet’s agreement very soon to make it a requirement for Government agencies to demonstrate that they have applied the provisions set out in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE) procurement guidelines. These guidelines were developed together with, and in consultation with, employers and industry, and they set the rules and they set best practice for construction procurement.

💬 Andrew Bayly: How is risk to be apportioned between Government agencies and their contracting counter-parties under MBIE’s Government procurement guidelines?

💬 Hon JENNY SALESA: The Government procurement guidelines—at the moment they’re not mandatory. What industry tells us is that too many of their members don’t even utilise it or consider it as they are negotiating contracts. What I’m seeking my Cabinet colleagues to agree to is to ensure, moving forward, that we actually utilise these guidelines, because they will assist us in ensuring that there is a reset—that as we move forward, we actually utilise these guidelines. I’m also doing a piece of work that’s called risk and liability reallocation. That is another piece of work that I’ll be taking to Cabinet in the next few months. That would also assist us in ensuring that risk and liability are fairly allocated.

💬 Andrew Bayly: How is whole-of-life costing to be assessed under MBIE’s Government procurement guidelines?

💬 Hon JENNY SALESA: As I said in my earlier answer, I will be taking a Cabinet paper very soon. This is one of the things that Cabinet will look at and decide on the details of. Right now, the way that contracting over the last 10—if not more—years has been focused is on lowest-cost pricing. What we’re looking at doing is ensuring that we look overall at the whole-of-life of buildings, of developments, because, at the end of the day, it is us as taxpayers—when we actually have to maintain and fix a lot of these buildings, it really does come back to us. So we’re looking at a reset to ensure we look at the whole-of-life of our developments moving forward.

💬 Paul Eagle: Who will monitor that agencies have complied?

💬 Hon JENNY SALESA: Chief executives are responsible and accountable for giving effect to Government’s expectations, and the usual mechanisms for holding them to account will apply. This includes working with the Government procurement team at MBIE.

💬 Andrew Bayly: When she met with leaders of the construction industry earlier this week, what changes did she promise to make to MBIE’s Government procurement guidelines?

💬 Hon JENNY SALESA: I did not promise to make any changes to MBIE’s procurement guidelines. As I said in my earlier answer, what I said I would do is I would go with a paper to Cabinet to seek agreement from my Cabinet colleagues. This is not an issue just in my sector, as Minister for Building and Construction; this is a whole-of-Government approach that we are taking. We’re looking at all of the work that Government actually does. But can I say, I’m only talking, in terms of vertical construction, of 18 percent. Government is only responsible for 18 percent of vertical construction sector work.

💬 Paul Eagle: Will this new approach to Government procurement apply to all construction projects in New Zealand?

💬 Hon JENNY SALESA: It is in all of our interests to have a strong vertical construction sector. Government is taking a lead for the 18 percent of construction projects that we have responsibility for. As I said, I will be taking a Cabinet paper very soon to my colleagues to seek their agreement. This is a crucial issue that we must address, and, in terms of the meeting that we had with leaders from vertical construction, we agreed that we would do this together, in partnership.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Does she believe that costs for Government construction projects will increase as a result of enforcing whole-of-life costing?

💬 Hon JENNY SALESA: What I personally believe in terms of whether or not the cost of whole-of-life will be more expensive versus the lowest cost is a personal belief. What I can say, though, is—in terms of all of us as taxpayers—in terms of moving forward, it is in all of our interests to ensure that the cost of building and maintenance of Government buildings is actually of good quality. In terms of lowest-cost procurement, what we know—for instance, let’s look at Middlemore Hospital. Some of those buildings that have been built over at Middlemore Hospital—we know now it’s going to cost us millions and millions of dollars. This is us as taxpayers that it comes back to. So we are looking at a different way of contracting whole-of-life, moving forward.

Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Statements

9. to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all of his statements on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill and the potential chilling effect it will have on the expression of dissenting views?

Yes.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he stand by his statement—and I quote—“I have been stunned at those with letters after their name, occupying senior academic positions scaremongering on this bill. They are all wrong.”, and if so, does he apply the same to the youth members of the Labour Party, Green Party, National Party, and ACT Party, who yesterday universally came out in opposition to his bill, describing it as both nasty and terrible?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: To the first part of the question, yes.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Could he answer the second part of my question—that is, does he apply the same to the youth members of the Labour Party, Green Party, National Party, and ACT Party, who have universally opposed his bill, describing it as both nasty and terrible?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility whatsoever for the parties being recited here. That member has been here long enough, and he should know that.

💬 SPEAKER: And he—[Interruption] No, I don’t need the member’s assistance. The member has been asked an opinion about a potential chilling effect, and my view is that he has already answered questions in the House as to some of the evidence to the select committee, and he can be asked whether he agrees with other people’s opinions on the legislation of which he has charge.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I do not agree with the people to whom the comments were attributed by that member just now.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he stand by his statements on his bill in Parliament last night that the Bill of Rights was—and I quote—“a pretty nasty device” and “There wasn’t anything particularly noble about [it]”, and is that why this Government takes such a cavalier approach to protecting free speech and our parliamentary democracy?

💬 SPEAKER: The member will answer those parts which are in order.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes. I’ll just say that that member has a very well-established track record of taking things out of context, but I stand by my comments last night that the historical context of the 1688 Bill of Rights does not do favours to that legal document. It was an attack on the Catholics of England at the time, to limit their status and position in their community.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he stand by his statements on the bill in Parliament last night that the Bill of Rights was—and I quote directly—“a pretty nasty device” and “There wasn’t anything particularly noble about [it]”, given the fact that it is the founding principle of free elections of MPs, free speech of MPs, and Parliament’s exclusive right to pass laws and impose taxes?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: All those principles are incredibly important and highly valued; just as the principles contained in the Magna Carta requiring open trials, the right to hear your accuser, and all those sorts of things, but bearing in mind that the Magna Carta was a document to entrench the power of aristocrats at the expense of peasants and poor people. We should continue to take the true historical context of these founding documents into account, and we should not be afraid to criticise the historical relevance of those documents.

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

10. to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does she stand by all her statements around the Government inquiry into the appointment of the Deputy Commissioner of Police?

Yes, with the context and intent they were made with.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why did she say in question time yesterday, “The Cabinet did not appoint me as the Minister to appoint the chair.”, when the Cabinet minute, publicly available on the Department of Internal Affairs website, notes, at paragraph 3 on page 1, “the Minister of Internal Affairs [will] be the appointing Minister for the Inquiry;”, and the Gazette notice appointing the inquiry member is in her name?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I want to really thank the member for this opportunity to clarify these highly technical details. Yesterday, the member asked me, “When Cabinet appointed her to oversee the Government inquiry into the appointment process for a Deputy Commissioner of Police,”—and I refer to paragraph 1.3 on page 1 of the Cabinet paper which he is referring to. I believe he’s referring to—and I quote—“Cabinet … [also] agreed in principle” to appoint me, as “the Minister of Internal Affairs … [as] the appointing Minister for the inquiry; … [and] that the Department of Internal Affairs provide administrative support to the inquiry;”. The technical detail that is somewhat confusing is the fact that, as the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Department of Internal Affairs is the default department with regard to inquiries. The concept of the appointing Minister—and this is where it gets really technical—

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I’m trying to help the member, Mr Speaker. I don’t know if he wants the answer or not. It is a technical term meaning that I am the Minister who confirms the appointment by way of a notice in the Gazette. This is the final, technical step in a process that begins with Cabinet deciding to establish an inquiry. To be clear: my role as appointing Minister does not in any way mean that I, personally or unilaterally, create an inquiry or appoint its chair or membership; it is a formal role that confirms and carries out the will of Cabinet.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why did Cabinet make her the appointing Minister for the Government inquiry into the appointment of the Deputy Commissioner of Police when the Minister of Internal Affairs has never been an appointing Minister for any Government inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2013?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I would have to go and check and verify that, actually. I would have to go and check the statement made by that member, because that is not the advice that I have received.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister to endeavour to clear up any misunderstandings of what was a very technical matter: will she use all media, including Snapchat?

💬 Hon Member: That’s low, even for Winston!

💬 SPEAKER: No, it’s a perfectly valid question.

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I’m trying to be helpful to the House and to the member asking the questions, to clarify the separation of duties that are made around the Minister of Internal Affairs and the process by which inquiries are set up, because it’s very, very important for the public of New Zealand to understand that no single Minister of the Crown has the ability to hand-pick, as the particular member has put out in press releases, anybody to do with an inquiry. It is a process that is very important to uphold.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why did she say Cabinet makes the overarching appointment and decision about any chair, in relation to the inquiry, when she is the appointing Minister for the inquiry and appointed the member to conduct the inquiry?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I’m going to have to refer back to the original answer. I think the member is confused about the word “appointing”. He is suggesting that that technical term means that I, independently—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! It does appear to me that some members are not entirely aware of Cabinet processes and responsibilities. The Minister is trying, I think it’s fair to say in a fairly complex manner, to explain to the House. It is not helped by people who have been closer to that position interjecting.

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: What I am trying to express is that at no time have I, personally or unilaterally, been able to select any members or appoint any chairs. That is a decision of Cabinet. The appointing Minister, which is a technical term, is around making sure that the decisions of Cabinet have been gazetted, that the decisions of Cabinet have been followed through with regard to report back. So I answered the question yesterday with as much clarity as I could when the answers were about Cabinet appointing me to oversee the inquiry. I will not be overseeing the inquiry; I’m just the Minister of Internal Affairs. Then he asked me, also, when Cabinet authorised me—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think that’s enough.

💬 Chris Bishop: Can she confirm the following: Cabinet appointed her as the sole appointing Minister for the Government inquiry into the appointment of a Deputy Commissioner of Police; she appointed the inquiry member from a shortlist of at least five names; the Gazette notice appointing the member is in her name and her name only; and the Minister of Internal Affairs has never been an appointing Minister for any inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2013?

💬 SPEAKER: The member may answer any of those supplementary questions.

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: In answer to the first question, no. Cabinet had conversations and there were three Ministers delegated to make the decisions. To the last question—sorry, there were a lot of them in there—no, I cannot confirm that either. To the second to last question, yes. As the Minister of Internal Affairs, it is my name only on the Gazette. It is my responsibility to gazette the decision of Cabinet. I forget the second question.

Health Services—National Bowel Screening Programme Review

11. to the Minister of Health: What confidence can the public take from the review of the National Bowel Screening Programme that was released this morning?

The independent review of the National Bowel Screening Programme confirmed the safety and value of the programme. The review found that despite some issues with the pilot programme, overall it performed well, and the national roll-out of bowel screening is progressing well. We know that screening programmes save lives, and this review should give the public confidence that it is safe and effective.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: So what are the key recommendations of the independent review?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The report makes a wide range of recommendations, including strengthening project management and reviewing IT governance; greater clinical oversight and refining the governance of the programme itself; ensuring a workforce development plan is in place; and a greater focus on equity of outcomes, including increased engagement with Māori and Pacific peoples. These recommendations and others contained in the report will help strengthen and improve the National Bowel Screening Programme as it is rolled out nationwide.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: Has the Ministry of Health committed to implementing these recommendations?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Government is committed to making bowel screening a success. Once the National Bowel Screening Programme is fully implemented, it is estimated that as many as 500 to 700 cancers each year will be detected early, when they are easier to treat. This will save lives and improve the quality of life for many New Zealanders. The Ministry of Health has accepted the recommendations, and it will publicly report on its progress early next year, and again a year later.

Canterbury Recovery—Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal

12. to the Minister of Justice: What advice, if any, has he received on the need for the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal?

I and, I suspect, other Ministers in this Government have been inundated by correspondence from literally hundreds of Cantabrians who are concerned that eight years on their insurance claims are still not settled and have been caught up in a log jam, and they want action.

💬 Stuart Smith: Why weren’t homeowners, the Earthquake Commission, Southern Response, or other industry specialists consulted, as noted in the regulatory impact statement?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Government made a commitment about establishing a means for the thousands of Cantabrians who are still waiting for their insurance claims to be processed, took appropriate advice, and we are now acting on the promise that we have made in getting an earthquakes insurance tribunal established.

💬 Stuart Smith: How effective will the tribunal be, given its stated purpose of dealing with only simple cases when the regulatory impact statement makes clear that the vast majority of remaining claims are complex?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: One of the challenges that seems to have existed is that those who have gone to court and taken litigation so far are up against the giants of the insurance industry, who can expend any resources, frustrate any claim or any of the litigation on any claim, and this is a process of allowing those parties to come together in a relationship of greater equality with the assistance of the State so they can get their insurance claim sorted out.

💬 Stuart Smith: Supplementary?

💬 SPEAKER: No. The team’s supplementaries have all gone.