Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he seen on the economy?

I have seen reports on the health of our small businesses which indicate that they are in sound shape. Craig Hudson, managing director at Xero, said that their data tells a different story to that of business confidence surveys, and he said that it’s important not to talk ourselves into gloominess over the economy. He went on to say, “Actually, the business performance is doing better than it was last year based on core metrics, which is facts.”

💬 Kiritapu Allan: What do the reports say about the drivers of economic growth?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Writing for Xero, an independent economist named Cameron Bagrie said that the economy is currently “chugging along”. He said that the previous drivers of economic growth, such as the housing market and immigration, are slowing, and that more growth will need to come from other parts of the economy. He said a change in the economic model is needed. On this side of the House, we agree. It is time to move away from housing speculation and population growth and towards productivity and innovation and an economy where all New Zealanders can take part and see real improvements in their standard of living.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: What did the report say about the underlying fundamentals of the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In his analysis of the small business insights data, Mr Cameron Bagrie pointed out that many positives in the New Zealand economy exist today: interest rates are still low, jobs are aplenty, the falling dollar is supporting exporters, and New Zealand has one of the strongest fiscal positions in the world. He went on and on about the many good underlying fundamentals, and he said the economy does not have a slew of red lights flashing that precede a major downturn. I am thrilled that Mr Bagrie is taking note of the many positive indicators in the economy, and I might suggest the other side of the House do the same.

💬 SPEAKER: Now, before I call question No. 2, I want to ask David Seymour if he interjected twice while that question was being asked. Yes, yes, he did. I will take that into account in the allocation of supplementaries in the next sitting week.

💬 David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. No, I misunderstood your question, Mr Speaker. It was not while the question was being asked, but, rather, while it was being answered.

💬 SPEAKER: OK. I will take the member’s word.

Teachers—Industrial Action

2. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s statements and actions?

Yes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is she aware that, under her Government, 60,000 people have been on strike in just 10 months, compared to 30,000 in the previous nine years?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely acknowledge that because that Government couldn’t resolve the nurses pay dispute, we did have a situation we needed to resolve. And it took this Government doubling that offer that that party last made in office, acknowledging the legitimate safety concerns that nurses had, the understaffing and under-resourcing, and that is how we got to a successful resolution after nine long years of neglect.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: With teachers contemplating two-day strikes, does she intend to spend the next two years avoiding any responsibility and not actually fixing the problem? [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Settle down please.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: A good question—a bloody good question.

💬 SPEAKER: Paula Bennett—that’s a warning. I call the right honourable Prime Minister.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have to say I find that line of questioning a bit rich given that the first offer made by this Government is double what that last Government allowed teachers to work under. Double—because we acknowledge that we’ve been left and teachers have been left carrying a neglect of nine years’ under-resourcing of teacher-aides and support. We’ve rectified some of that in the last Budget. We scrapped national standards. We doubled some of the funding that they receive on an operational level. We acknowledge the issues that teachers striked and marched on today. We are working with them to fix the problems we inherited.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Then why did her Government prioritise $2.8 billion for a fees-free tertiary policy that isn’t delivering any extra students over additional funding for teachers’ pay and the other issues she mentioned?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: First of all, that is not correct. Second of all, one of the issues that we have is barriers to learning. One of the first people I met after that announcement was made was someone who was entering into tertiary education to be a primary school teacher off the back of our announcement. We have a shortage of teachers. We have barriers to learning because of cost. We’re addressing both of those issues.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Just to get this patently clear, what term or years of recent politics were the teachers today on the forecourt of Parliament specifically saying they are protesting against?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The last nine years.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I ask again: why did her Government prioritise $2.8 billion for a fees-free tertiary policy that isn’t delivering any extra students over additional funding for teachers’ pay? [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Prime Minister will sit down. I saw what I’m taking to be a response—am I right?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: From me?

💬 SPEAKER: Was the member responding to a similar—well, I’m hearing some people saying yes and some people saying no.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: The Hon Gerry Brownlee will, I’m sure, help me.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Thank you. I think what the Leader of the Opposition was doing was suggesting to Grant Robertson that this is not instruction time.

💬 SPEAKER: Can I ask—first of all I’m going to ask the Hon Grant Robertson: did he do a finger-pointing exercise?

💬 Hon Members: No.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: I’ll hear Simon Bridges.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I was anticipating an answer from the ventriloquist.

💬 SPEAKER: Right, that member will now stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: That was offensive—chauvinistic pig.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Mr Hipkins. Mr Hipkins will now stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: I apologise for calling the Leader of the Opposition a chauvinistic pig.

💬 SPEAKER: As a result of that non-withdrawal, the Opposition will have an extra five questions. That withdrawal will now be made in accordance with the Standing Orders.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: Right, we go back, and I am going to ask Simon Bridges to ask his question again, because I can’t remember what it was.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Then why did her Government prioritise $2.8 billion for a fees-free tertiary policy that hasn’t delivered a single extra student over additional funding for teachers’ pay?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Minister of Finance, for those who are interested in what he muttered, said, “We didn’t.” I’m going to expand substantially on that answer, because in the last Budget we prioritised funding for 1,500 more teachers. We gave a 45 percent increase for operational funding. We provided the first core early childhood education funding increase in nearly a decade. We tripled learning support funding to $272 million. That is called prioritising education. It’s called prioritising children. If that side of the House thinks that everything that was brought to Parliament’s forecourt today was all about us, then where were they on the steps of Parliament?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the fees-free tertiary policy uptake show some positive recent trends, and if so, could she leak that information to the House?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, indeed it does. We have seen an increase in uptake, and one of the issues we have is we inherited a declining enrolment across our tertiary education providers, which we are turning around.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Why on Monday did her Government prioritise hundreds of millions of dollars more funding for new trees than it has for the entire primary school teacher wage settlement?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I say, that pay settlement happened to be double what that Government invested in the sector. But I’d also say that that announcement wasn’t just about the 1,000, possibly 2,000, jobs that it would create; it was also about the environment and it was about erosion. According to some of the ads the National Party has put out—I’m told the Leader of the Opposition cares about the environment; I’m yet to see any proof of it.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: That’s allowed is it?

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, it is allowed in response to the type of questions that the Leader of the Opposition’s been asking.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What was anything other than straight about the question I asked?

💬 SPEAKER: I suggest that if the member wants an answer to that, he looks at the tapes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Why on Monday did her Government prioritise hundreds of millions of dollars more for trees than for the primary school teachers’ settlement, when they’re protesting outside today?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I pointed out, that initial offer—because we are in the middle of a negotiation—was still double what that last Government put into teachers’ salaries. It’s not the only issue that we of course are discussing with them; we’re discussing their workload, non-contact time, professional development—all issues that weren’t prioritised by the last Government.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she agree with Labour leader Jacinda Ardern, who said, “We will not” have national strikes under a Government she leads.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That was in a direct question around fair pay agreements and I stand by it.

Economy—Growth Projections

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

Yes.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: What does it say about the economic management of New Zealand that the projections of the Reserve Bank, Treasury, and, essentially, all bank and independent economists are now more negative about the current state of our growth than they were at the election?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: To pick most of those entities described by the member, they’re all projecting 3 percent growth on average over the next three years, which is the same as what was in the Government’s Budget.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Does he understand that the fact that the economy is not yet completely broken is not the same thing as saying it is not now considerably worse than it was when he inherited it?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The downward trend in GDP growth began at the beginning of 2017, well before this Government got into office. But what we have said consistently, and we will continue to say, is that the last Government might have been prepared to have an economy fuelled by unsustainable drivers of growth like population growth and an overheated housing market; we’re not prepared for that. We want there to be good, high-paying jobs over a long period for New Zealanders. That means a transition in the economy, and that’s what we’re leading.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Well, what does it say about the Government’s economic management of New Zealand that the BNZ head of research, Stephen Toplis, has said, “[W]e do not think the Government’s fiscal targets will be met. GDP growth looks likely to surprise to the downside eating into revenue forecasts while the demands on expenditure will only rise.”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I respectfully disagree with Mr Toplis. The latest Government accounts to the end of May show that expenses and net debt were below forecast and the surplus was above forecast.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: What does it say about the Government’s economic management of New Zealand that under this Government GDP growth has fallen to its lowest level since 2012, growth forecasts are falling, GDP per capita has declined, firms’ views of their own activity index is at a 10-year low, the service sector is down, business investment is down, the New Zealand dollar is falling, and the only things that are increasing are the number of people on the unemployment benefit and the cost of living?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject various premises in that question from the member, and just refer her back, again, to Craig Hudson, the managing director at Xero, who said today that business performance is doing better than it was last year. The member should stop trying to talk the economy down. People in small business out there are working hard and are growing the economy.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Does he think it will do anything to turn around dismal levels of business confidence to have the Minister of Finance simply dismiss any negative economic analysis, ignore changes in the direction of key economic indicators, ignore the concerns of business owners, ignore the concerns of the Governor of the Reserve Bank and Treasury, and instead simply cherry-pick single lines of commentary in isolation to try to convince people that the Government’s policies aren’t actually hurting the economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That’s not what we—

💬 SPEAKER: Before the member starts, I do want to warn the member her questions have got far longer than are necessary for a question. They’re becoming, I think it’s fair to say, pretty close to short speeches of the style that we don’t have in our question time, although other Parliaments do.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’re not doing the things that the member says. In fact, we’re working very closely across the business community and across the wider community to actually make sure that we have an economy that benefits everybody. If the member wants to talk about cherry-picking results, as I noted yesterday, it helps to read all the way down the page of the BNZ rather than cherry-pick the first line.

Education—Government Response to Concerns of Primary School Teachers

4. to the Minister of Education: What steps is the Government taking to address the concerns raised by primary school teachers?

The Government is listening very carefully to the concerns that are being raised by primary school teachers, and we do take them very seriously. To name three things that we have done already: we’ve reduced teacher workload by abolishing national standards; this year’s Budget provided the biggest increase in learning support funding in a decade; and the Government has made a clear commitment to addressing pay equity claims in the education system, which will ensure that our teacher aides—some of the lowest-paid people in the education workforce—are properly paid and respected.

💬 Jo Luxton: What actions has the Government taken to restore teachers’ voice to their own professional body?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government does recognise that one of the concerns teachers have been expressing is that they want their profession to be respected and recognised and valued. The Government has made a priority of restoring democratic representation to the Teaching Council of New Zealand, to ensure that teachers do have a say in how their own profession is governed.

💬 Jo Luxton: What is the offer on the table, and how does this compare to previous years?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Whilst we recognise that pay is not the only issue that teachers are raising during these negotiations, we do realise that pay is a legitimate concern to be raised during negotiations. The offer that is on the table with the primary teachers at the moment is more than double what they were offered under the previous Government. To put the cost figures out there, it is a $484 million offer, compared to a $215 million offer, which was the highest settlement reached under the previous Government.

Housing—KiwiBuild and House Prices

5. to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Will KiwiBuild adjust to the market if the housing market falls by 10 percent or more; if so, how?

It’s hypothetical to speculate on future house prices, but it’s important to realise that KiwiBuild already reflects the market and the shortage of modern starter homes that is such a feature of the current market. Because KiwiBuild homes are affordable, they are likely to be the least affected by any potential movement in the market. Because KiwiBuild is focusing on parts of the market where there is a chronic shortage of affordable housing and a high demand from first-home buyers, we don’t expect to have to adjust the approach.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: What advice has he sought on the value of KiwiBuild houses if lending rates increase by more than 1 percent?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I haven’t requested any specific advice on precisely that issue, but, as I said, I do not expect that the value of KiwiBuild homes will be significantly affected by even the kinds of market fluctuations that commentators are currently talking about as the high- or low-end options.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: If he hasn’t sought that advice, then how can he make his assumption that it won’t be effective?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, we all make assumptions and we all make judgments, and these issues are things that are discussed frequently amongst colleagues and with officials. What I’m saying is that the market currently—particularly in Auckland—has stabilised. Our Government thinks that’s a good thing. We want to see a stable housing market while incomes rise. That’s a successful outcome, in our view.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does he share my concern that by requiring only a 10 percent deposit for a brand new KiwiBuild house, banks are leaving borrowers exposed to interest rate rises and possible falls in property value?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I welcome the recent statement by Kiwibank, responded to positively by other banks, about their willingness to get behind KiwiBuild and provide mortgages that require only a 10 percent deposit. But I will say this: KiwiBuild homebuyers, like all homebuyers, will look at all the information that’s available to them. They will weigh up the risks, as anyone does when they buy a home or take on a mortgage, and I also note recent commentary that shows that the banks are exercising their due diligence in relation to mortgage applications with increased rigour lately.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Will the 10 percent deposits that KiwiBuild buyers will have invested be wiped out if the New Zealand house prices fall between 10 and 15 percent, as publicly contemplated by the Reserve Bank Governor last week?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the first part of the member’s question is highly hypothetical. I note that the Reserve Bank Governor in his recent comments suggested that house prices are expected to grow, according to Reserve Bank projections, by 2 percent in 2019. The governor also said that the market could go up or down or stay the same, and he also noted that the reason he wants to keep loan-to-value ratios (LVRs) in place is because he’s concerned that if he lifted LVRs, the market would take off again. I think the member’s scaremongering is not going anywhere.

One Billion Trees Programme—Return on Investment

6. to the Minister of Forestry: How does he arrive at the conclusion that the “$480 million odd dollars” accessed from the Provincial Growth Fund for forestry will lead to at least 2,000 jobs, unspecified commercial returns, and other returns that he conceives to be “nigh on $3 billion”, and, specifically, what are the components of the “nigh on $3 billion” sum?

Mr Speaker, after having reflected on yesterday’s chastenment, I shall be politic in this answer and not personally political. The figure of 2,000—

💬 SPEAKER: Well, that’s noteworthy, I’m sure.

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: The figure of 2,000 jobs was arrived at after officials’ advice and the CEO of Competenz identified that there is a substantial shortfall and that the billion-tree strategy will require at least 2,000 people to come into the industry. This is also on top of the natural churn of over 4,000 people as the industry replenishes itself. In respect of the sky-high figure for the New Zealand economy of $3 billion, that comprises $2.7 billion, which has been received from officials as a consequence of our billion-tree strategy. We will enjoy that upside only modestly reducing the bill left by the last regime of $32 billion left behind as a consequence of signing up to climate change obligations but doing very little at home. The remaining $300 million—and please indulge me, sir—will, naturally, come from the upside of the overseas investment changes, bringing the nephs off the couch, and a host of other benefits that regional economies will enjoy as a consequence of the $480 million investment.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he happy to answer questions on this topic, or is it a waste of his precious time to deal with such paltry and trivial matters?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member has used one supplementary now, and if he wants to continue he will start again on another one.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How many hectares of trees did he put into the calculator to arrive at his $2.7 billion figure, and what is the carbon price it’s based on?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: The billion-trees strategy covers the existing 500,000 hectares, the value of which will be increased as a consequence of our Provisional Growth Fund infrastructure interventions and the refinements from the Overseas Investment Office. In respect of the value of the carbon, that work is under way and it would be unwise to speculate as to how far the value of carbon goes. We wouldn’t want to unnecessarily spook that market. So the figure of $2.7 billion reflects the work of the both the current industry, the new plantings, and the improvements in the area of the Overseas Investment Office changes and legislative improvements.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the $2.7 billion extra worth of benefit verified by Treasury; and if so, will he release all the official advice relating to the forestry investment?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: In accordance with my largely transparent manner, I will gladly provide, at an appropriate time, information which lies behind the analysis undertaken by my colleague Mr Shaw and myself on the question of exposing New Zealand industry to the full costs of the just transition. I am very forward in ensuring that stakeholders in New Zealand realise that this is a costly transition, and the more support I enjoy through the billion-trees strategy the less the financial impost will be on other segments of the economy.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Given his reference to an open and transparent matter, why has he still not released a single funding agreement for any of the projects funded by the Provincial Growth Fund despite many repeated requests?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Continuing, uncharacteristically in a politic vein, I would remind the House that in commercial transactions, if I start there, it is not appropriate to spill the innards of such transactions for short-term political parliamentary partisanship. That lowers the decorum of the House. In relation to other interventions in the broader Provincial Growth Fund, the disclosure is work in progress but I’m confident that sooner rather than later the member’s questions can be answered through better disclosure. But I would point out that where commercial sensitivity is at stake he should follow the advice of his former leader John Key.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the public entitled to know exactly where $3 billion is going to be spent over the next three years in terms of what specific arrangements have been made and what taxpayers are getting for the investment?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I couldn’t agree more with the member’s question. It is a significant amount of money. The Cabinet paper establishing the fund is already available. The processes and the investment statement released by myself two weeks ago are a clear reflection of the desire to be transparent, but there is a caveat. A number of these transactions deserve to enjoy a certain level of confidentiality. That is the way of modern commerce. It may not be the way of rough parliamentary politics, but I’ll go with the former and not the latter.

One Billion Trees Programme—Announcements

7. to the Minister of Forestry: What recent announcements has he made regarding the One Billion Trees programme?

Not wanting to be repetitive, but all brands and all products are better understood when they’re constantly heard about and seen. The $240 million programme represents a grants scheme, $118 million—a substantial improvement on a contribution that was parsimonious and reflective of the last nine years. In relation to the partnership fund, work is under way at the moment to find appropriate partners. And although it wouldn’t have been where I’d have started, in assuring the House that this is not just an industry thing, I understand my Te Uru Rākau officials are talking with Gary Taylor, which is not where I would have started but I’ve encouraged them to get on with it.

💬 Mark Patterson: What feedback has he received from the forestry sector to the pending Overseas Investment Act changes?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Within the overseas investment legislative changes shepherded forward by the Minister, a key provision has provided daylight, has decluttered the consent allocation process, and gives certainty, something akin to a primrose path, for an industry that has been blighted by neglect, uncertainty, and broken promises—indeed, right back to the time when Graeme Hart appealed to John Key, snuffed out by Mr Nick Smith, to start planting trees nine years ago.

💬 Mark Patterson: How does the programme support the creation of jobs?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Lining the pockets of billionaires!

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: The importance of employing new battalions of New Zealanders in this nation-building strategy of planting trees, both exotic and native—what lies at the pith of this policy genius, that being the programme not the speaker, what we are doing in that regard—

💬 SPEAKER: Please keep me out of the debate.

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: We are wheeling out, Mr Speaker, a whole host of initiatives touching the hard end of the employee spectrum. It is more expensive than relying on orthodox approaches, and we are also working in partnership with industry, and I am preparing a paper for additional interventions that improve the prospects of our young people working in this industry with likeminded employers.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is it not correct to say, as the Hon Gerry Brownlee has said, that this is just lining the pockets of millionaires?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: If I can make the observation that it was not a “millionaire” but a “billionaire”, Graeme Hart, who came to John Key, the Prime Minister, who was the millionaire. It was the billionaire Mr Graeme Hart who brought forward a proposal, snuffed out by Nick Smith; so you’re quite right: it does not actually line the pockets of someone who’s a millionaire. It was designed as a possible intervention with New Zealand’s billionaire. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Right. Thank you, both.

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

8. to the Prime Minister: Does her Government expect high standards from all Government departments and Ministers?

Yes.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: If there are women in the police or the Public Service who have been bullied, does she have confidence that they can safely come forward, speak up, and not have their careers detrimentally affected?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I am sure the member on the other side of the House would hope, issues of bullying should not be political ones. I would hope that, regardless of who is in charge at any given time, we have an environment and a culture where women, and indeed any employees, feel safe and able to raise issues of concern. And if it is brought to the attention of the Government of the day that that hasn’t happened on their watch, we would expect, as we have set out, for that to be resolved by those departments.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: In light of that answer, is she concerned that the culture currently within police because of the fiasco around the appointment of Wally Haumaha—that there may be women who do not feel safe in coming forward?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would want to make sure that we have created an environment where those individuals, if indeed that is the case, are able to come forward. Of course, we have instigated an inquiry into the process. The Inquiries Act means that the person who we’ve appointed, Mary Scholtens QC, is able to make sure that the name or particulars of anyone that is part of that inquiry is able to be withheld or protected. Those protections exist.

💬 Chris Bishop: Does she have confidence in Deputy Police Commissioner Wally Haumaha in light of new allegations of Mr Haumaha contacting witnesses, allegations which aren’t covered by the already established inquiry into the appointment process?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said in this House previously, we’ve undertaken an inquiry so that we can ensure that we’re applying the principles of natural justice. This is a statutory appointment, though, and so any question of issues like standing down or gardening leave, those, because of constabulary independence, are matters for the Commissioner of Police.

💬 Chris Bishop: Does she have confidence in her Government’s professional independence from Mr Haumaha when her police Minister gives him a shout-out in his workout videos, her Deputy Prime Minister attended a celebration on a marae for his appointment as assistant commissioner, her foreign affairs under-secretary has whānau links to him, and he was previously announced as a candidate for New Zealand First?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Sorry, I am going to go back to that question and not require but ask the member to think very carefully about rewording it. We have had a tradition in this House, wherever possible, of not including the actions of family members—certainly within question time. I’d ask the member to reflect on his question and, if he agrees with me that that is unhealthy, to rephrase it.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Surely we have to have some accuracy in the questioning in this House. Mr Bishop began by talking about what, in effect, is an allegation of witness tampering. So the real issue, sir, for you to judge is: who is this witness who is being tampered that he talked about? The fact is the person is not a witness. The person may be a complainant, and there’s a huge difference. He’s putting the two together quite naively and mistakenly and getting away with it in the House when he should be stopped.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think if we had the degree of exactitude that the Deputy Prime Minister is advocating, we’d have quite a few members on both sides of the House who wouldn’t be able to answer or ask a single question. Mr Bishop—going back to where we were at.

💬 Chris Bishop: Did the panel convened by the State Services Commission to interview the short-listed candidates for the job of the Deputy Commissioner of Police recommend that Mr Haumaha be the preferred candidate for the job?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m not going to get into elements of an issue that is now being independently assessed by an independent inquirer.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: When the Prime Minister just previously said, as she did yesterday, that, actually, he cannot be either stood down or on gardening leave because it would be the decision of the commissioner and that she can’t do it, is she aware that under section 13 of the Policing Act, the deputy commissioner’s role is a statutory appointment that holds office at the pleasure of the Governor-General on the advice of her, the Prime Minister, and that she has the power to act?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That includes them acting in that role of employment. What the member was asking about was whether I had the ability to stand someone down when there had been no formal process, and we’re undertaking an inquiry to ensure natural justice provisions apply, because the threshold test here is incredibly high. If the member is asking about gardening leave or temporary stand downs, that threshold, of course, is very different, and that is employment matter for the Commissioner of Police.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise an issue that is troubling a number of us on this side of the House: the regularity with which those of us who enjoy Māori ancestry—and I direct your attention to Speakers’ rulings 39/4-5. I accept in the roundhouse of politics it is tough, but I am particularly irked by the allegation that Mr Bishop made, enjoying private briefings from dissolute elements in the police force, that he has labelled those of us, essentially, by talking about Fletcher Tabuteau and Winston Peters, as somehow not passing the test of parliamentary probity. And I’d invite you to reflect on it, because it will lead to a substantial bout of disorder from the House. Now, I’m not suggesting that Mr Bishop is anti-Māori, and, quite frankly, I don’t care if he is, but it is an important principle, with the number of Māori in the House—whether they’re urban Māori or broader traditional Māori—that you contemplate that situation, because we’re not going to put up with it for one more day.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: As one of those Māori, there is actually also a convention that we express our conflicts of interest for our whānau and particularly when we are looking at making statutory appointments, and this side of the House has a right to question that.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, yes, I would have made the same point that the Hon Paula Bennett has made, because what Mr Jones is effectively doing is saying that if there is a statutory appointment that involves someone who identifies as being a Māori New Zealander, then that process can’t be questioned and nor can anything that would make the suitability of that person appropriate for that. But further than that, sir, you sat there while Mr Jones referred to another member of this House, effectively, as having some racial bias, and that’s a completely unacceptable thing for him to do.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: The allegation that someone is a cousin and therefore is biased in the choice of someone in a governmental job is so demonstrably false when the person doesn’t go to the lengths to describe how far removed that relationship might be. If he were Scottish or Māori, he might understand that this would include 7,500 people. But no such attempt is made. It’s the insinuation that because that relationship, distant though it might be, nevertheless corrupts the member’s mind in being impartial—and that’s unfair.

💬 SPEAKER: I am in a position to rule. Members may have forgotten that I intervened on Mr Bishop’s question and asked him to reword it, because I thought the tone of it was not consistent with the way that we have gone as a country over the last number of decades. He reflected on that and, despite the opportunity, decided not to repeat the question in that form, and I want to thank him for that.

There are a lot of elements of judgment in this. I, of course, don’t want to indicate that people cannot be questioned where there are seen to be untoward influences, and of course that is the case, but what I did indicate was that I thought it was particularly important where family matters are being brought into account that people are either very specific or very careful and not general in allegations.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Precedents in rulings in this House are very important, because they do guide the House. I’d ask that you have a look back through, I think, the mid-part of 2015 when a then prominent member of the Opposition, now a very, very prominent member of this House, was asking questions of a Minister of the then Government that related directly to a family member. Those questions were allowed, they stood, and they went on for quite some days. When you’ve gone back over those transcripts and perhaps reflected on the wisdom of the course of action taken by the prominent Opposition member, now a very prominent member of Parliament, could you perhaps bring down a ruling that brings all of these things together. I think the general allegation made against the Parliament by Mr Jones today that it is somehow racially selective to bring up an issue that relates to the appointment of a person who is of New Zealand Māori descent is a very, very backward step for this Parliament.

💬 SPEAKER: I don’t feel any need to bring back a considered ruling on it. I think the matter is pretty clear. Speaker’s ruling 41/1 makes it clear that people should avoid referring to MPs families in their private capacities. It is all right to refer to family members who have official roles, and that is a ruling of long standing. It is also all right where there is a clear intersection of the public business of an MP and a Minister and the actions of a family member, and that is an area of longstanding ruling where there is a suggestion of inappropriate behaviour on the part of a Minister in favour of a family member—that is the subject of questioning in the House and will always continue to be.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Speaking to the point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, is the member going to add anything to it?

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Yes, I am. The point which needs to be made—and thank you very much for that clarification—is that the gentleman to my left has had no role in the statutory appointing of the said person, Mr Haumaha. So any attempt to further taint a member of Māori descent who is not connected to the statutory process needs your protection.

💬 SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Jones, for stating the obvious.

Employment Relations—Industrial Action and Employment Law Change

9. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: How many people have gone on strike this year compared to previous periods, and will the Government’s employment relations policies encourage more strike action in the future?

In answer to the first part of the question, accurate data on how many people have gone on strike this year is not yet available. Work stoppage data is self-reported and subject to delay and collation. In answer to the second part of the question, no.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: In light of all the strikes under this Government, does he think that this makes a mockery of the Prime Minister, who has said previously that there will not be any national strikes under her Government?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No, and the member needs to listen more clearly, as the Prime Minister clarified earlier in this question time that that comment was made in relation to fair pay agreements.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s changes to employment relations law that take away the right of businesses to deduct pay for a partial strike, even if the partial strike brings the entire production process of a business to a halt, will make strike action more frequent in the future?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No. In fact, I would suggest to the member that having the opportunity to take a partial strike without penalty—partial strikes such as, for instance, wearing a campaign T-shirt to work—means that those union members are more likely to take lower-level action, rather than resorting directly to strike action.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s employment law changes mean that employers will be required to disclose the personal information of employees to unions whether they’re union members or not, and that these changes are strongly opposed by the Privacy Commissioner?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No. Again, the member is incorrect in his characterisation of the legislation. Should a new employee not wish to have their information passed on to the union, they can opt out.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Why, then, is he pressing ahead with changes to the employment relations law that even the Privacy Commissioner has opposed on the basis that the employee’s personal information may be handed over to unions without their knowledge?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Because this is a Government that believes in people getting a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, and we are committed to restoring the rights that workers had before they were ripped away by the National Party in 2015.

Economy—Employment and Wages

10. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What is the Government doing to lift wages?

This Government supports the right of Kiwis to get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. The Employment Relations Amendment Bill restores the rights of Kiwi workers to bargain for decent pay and conditions that existed before 2015. This Government believes that families need enough income to participate in society. That’s why we’ve already raised the minimum wage. We’ve extended the living wage to the core Public Service, and especially important is pay equity. I applaud yesterday’s historic pay equity settlement for education support workers.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What are his plans in relation to lifting wages?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I will shortly introduce the Equal Pay Amendment Bill to lift wages for people working in female-dominated professions. The Government is working with business and unions to develop fair pay agreements. We plan to raise the minimum wage further, to $20 an hour by 1 April 2021, and through the Future of Work forum we are preparing for a more productive, more sustainable, more inclusive economy with a highly skilled, well-paid workforce.

💬 Marja Lubeck: Why does the Government think that increasing wages is important?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Sadly, the share of income that goes to working people has fallen drastically in the last 30 years. That is one of the major reasons New Zealand wages lag so far behind Australian wages for comparable jobs. It’s a major cause of the growth in inequality. A better paid workforce leads to a more productive economy. That’s good for society and it’s good for business.

Oil and Gas Industry—Offshore Exploration Permits

11. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What reports has she seen on the process she is undertaking to give effect to the Government’s decision to ban offshore exploration for oil and gas?

I will take this opportunity to remind the member that there was no ban on offshore exploration; rather, the Government has made the decision that no further offshore exploration permits will be issued. But regarding this decision, I have seen many reports, including those I have received from officials in the recent weeks, with the following titles: “Progressing Changes to the Crown Minerals Act, Options for Consideration”; “Crown Mineral Act Changes, Next Steps”; “Proposed Changes to the Crown Minerals Act for Cabinet Consideration”; “Final Policy Decisions for Tranche One of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 Review”. I have also received 14 weekly reports that have addressed this, but I will not occupy the House’s time by reading out the title of each of these.

💬 Jonathan Young: Does she agree with Woodward Partners energy analyst John Kidd’s investment note, published 13 August, which says “The Minister’s mixing of references to the process of obtaining the Cabinet approval required to give statutory effect to the announcement speaks to the procedural and legislative difficulties the Minister will now be juggling as she navigates a route to secure the formal policy decision still required”?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No, I do not agree with that assessment.

💬 Jonathan Young: Is Mr Kidd correct when he surmises: “The invitation for bids for Block Offer 2018 is being held up by Government wanting to pass enabling legislation to accommodate the policy change into the Crown Minerals Act, so as to ensure the Block Offer 2018 process does not face a legal challenge on the basis of being inconsistent with the legislation in place at the time”; and if not, why?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’m currently seeking advice on whether it would be prudent to take a precautionary approach during this transition period. I’m asking whether we need to consider a belts and braces approach to ensure that we minimise the risk for legal challenges, as we want to ensure there is certainty for industries and communities. We know and note—as members opposite will know—it is not uncommon that when people don’t get what they want, they may like to test it in the courts.

💬 Jonathan Young: Does she agree with Mr Kidd’s further contention: “If the Government was to proceed with the invitation for bids, then there would appear to be a strong case for judicial review; if legislation is not able to be passed in a timely manner, we think there is a material risk that Block Offer 2018 will not proceed”; if not, why not?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In answer to that first part of the question, no I don’t agree with that assessment. As I told the member in the answer to the previous question, I am seeking some additional advice at the moment, but, whatever outcome we go with, there will be a Block Offer 2018 that will be initiated.

💬 Jonathan Young: When the fact sheet accompanying the Prime Minister’s announcement on 12 April 2018 said “Officials will review the Crown Minerals Act to ensure the Act is consistent with this announcement”, does this imply that the Prime Minister’s announcement was inconsistent with the Act?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No. As I’ve answered the member previous times in the House, there were two announcements that were made on 12 April. There was the area that we were beginning consultation on for the onshore block offer of 2018. There was also the longer-term announcement around future block offers, and the fact that they would not contain offshore offerings. As we also said in the press statement that sat in front of the fact sheet the member is referring to, we were beginning the process around what changes would need to be made to give effect to that. I also point the member to the Cabinet minute that also said that.

Health Services—Cyber-security Threats

12. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions on cybersecurity in the health portfolio?

Yes, in the context they were given and taken.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: When his office told Newshub a few weeks ago that he would not appear on camera to discuss 800,000 daily cyber-attacks on the Bay of Plenty District Health Board (DHB), with his office saying, “I just don’t believe your request has reached the threshold I would ask him about.”, does new select committee information showing 1.7 million cyber-attacks per day on another DHB now reach the threshold for him to front up on camera?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Which DHB is reporting being under cyber-attack 1.7 million times per day or 20 times per second?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It’s impossible to give a definitive answer on the number of cyber-attacks across New Zealand, but I’m advised in respect of the reference the member made earlier to the Bay of Plenty example, which is a mid-size DHB, that it’s subject to between three and 10 cyber-attacks per second, which is between 260,000 and 864,000 every day. In that context, it is quite impressive that there have been no breaches. I certainly have not been advised of any successful breaches yet. But, within a wider context, challenges to cybersecurity are real and frequent. The healthcare sector remains one of the most targeted by malicious cyber actors. There are millions of cyber-attacks across New Zealand every day in the health sector.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: As the responsible Minister, why can he not identify the most cyber-attacked DHB in New Zealand at the moment?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: What matters are breaches, and it is extraordinary in fact, in my view, that we haven’t had any confirmed breaches in New Zealand. We know that in Singapore, Hong Kong, and also in Mexico in the last month, there have been confirmed breaches. These issues are taken incredibly seriously and, in fact, public discussion of these matters is incredible unhelpful, I’m advised by security people, and that member knows that.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying it’s when defences aren’t working that one should worried—not when they are?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That is quite correct, and I take my hat off to those people who work day in, day out, and especially when I’m advised that publicly discussing potential breaches and the response to them can support the activities of malicious cyber actors. That’s why it’s not in the public interest to discuss any potential breaches in public, even to the extent of confirming that a potential breach is being investigated.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: In reply to written question No. 16298, he said he would update the Prime Minister on cyber-security issues when necessary; how, then, has he updated the Prime Minister on a DHB reporting 1.7 million cyber-attacks per day?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think the member has not heard my initial answer.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s not clear to me that the Minister has addressed the question. I asked him: has he updated the Prime Minister on cyber-security issues?

💬 SPEAKER: And I heard the initial answer, the member’s supplementary question, and the Minister’s reply. I think he even answered the question—more than just addressed it.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: What is the threshold number of cyber-attacks for the Minister to appear on camera?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As I think I explained, the issue that’s important is when there are breaches, and if there are any potential breaches, I expect to be kept briefed on them. But to repeat—publicly discussing potential breaches and the response to them can support the activities of malicious cyber actors. That’s why it’s not in the public interest to discuss any potential breaches in public, even to the extent of confirming that a potential breach is being investigated. If the member has specific information on potential breaches, he should contact my office directly.