Oral Questions

1. to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent announcements have been made regarding Provincial Growth Fund support to economic development agencies?

on behalf of the Minister for Regional Economic Development: On behalf of the Minister, I would like to take this opportunity to address the lack of acknowledgement of the hard work of the under-secretary and his efforts around economic development agencies. He’s been travelling up and down the country and doing a lot of good work, but with regard to the announcement, I have to acknowledge that the under-secretary was able to recently talk to Economic Development New Zealand and make the announcement that we are able to provide critical support through the Provincial Growth Fund, and we have done that in the way of a $985,000 contribution over three years, which will ensure that they are able to produce a comprehensive professional development programme and a suite of best-practice resources for the economic development agencies (EDAs).

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: What’s he talking about?

Well, you wouldn’t know.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The under-secretary will stand, withdraw, and apologise for his last comment.

I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mark Patterson: What work are you undertaking, as part of the Provincial Growth Fund, to help economic development agencies build capability in our regions?

On behalf of the Minister, our EDAs have been doing a great lot of work over the last few years, but there have been a particular few who have shown, through their efforts and engagement with the Provincial Growth Fund, just what can be done and what can be achieved and how EDAs have made a huge contribution to the empowerment of the Provincial Growth Fund. So the work that is being undertaken to help is around the delivery of development and management programmes to help build EDA staff skill sets. We have seen firsthand how, if we have the right people in the right place at the right time, those people on the ground can make a huge difference. This Government wants to make sure that all of our EDAs are fully equipped to succeed in this way.

💬 Mark Patterson: What role could economic development agencies play in the Government’s regional development strategy?

On behalf of the Minister, regional economic development agencies are a critical part of bringing together our regions’ stakeholders and ensuring that everyone is on the same page. Each EDA is actually quite unique and has evolved differently over time, and they will be required to evolve as we move forward. They are not Government agencies or departments, and neither should they be. So what we’re trying to achieve here is to ensure that the work that we are undertaking in the Government is about EDAs optimising their position to represent their regions in the best possible way. From Kaitāia to Invercargill, EDAs have that crucial role—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I think we have had enough, and we’ll have the daily grammar lesson, as well: there’s no such thing as “quite unique”.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes, particularly those actions which have seen our economy thrive, leading to a rate of unemployment of 3.9 percent—the lowest figure since the Labour - New Zealand First confidence and supply Government a decade ago.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Will new information being looked at in the Karel Sroubek case include the burglary of his estranged wife’s house just days after Sroubek learnt it had gone on the market?

All the information will be looked at that was available at the time that he should have been exported from our country, according to the evidence starting to emerge now, and was not—and was not. And I can say that over 150 decisions were made by the previous Government, of that nature—of that nature—and after 2014, those decisions were made not by the Minister but the same officials that advised Mr Iain Lees-Galloway.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Will the investigation look at whether police have questioned Karel Sroubek about a break-in at his estranged wife’s house?

Again, all the information that should have been available to this Minister, and which will be available now, and should have been available, because of the way it was being handled by certain people in the bureaucracy, clearly—maybe not—and which was the reason that the 19 September letter from the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway is loaded with caveats as to whether or not he’s told the truth.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Has the Prime Minister changed her mind from yesterday, when she declared it wasn’t the officials’ case, and can we take it from her answers today that she is now blaming them?

Let me make it very clear: the Prime Minister is not one to rush to make a judgment on other people, unlike some, but she wisely pointed to the fact that there has to be a reason for this mistake, and, personally, I think we’ve found it.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m just going to do the reminder now, on the “on behalf”—we’ve got to get the persons right.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Has she been informed about any recent intimidation by Karel Sroubek?

The Prime Minister is relying upon the inquiry that has been appropriately ordered by the Minister of Immigration, and when that inquiry is complete, we’ll all be au fait with the information, which, we must say, should have been available to us from the word go, but was not.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why not?

Because you didn’t do your job, that’s why.

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does, as she described it today, “absolute discretion” also mean “absolute responsibility”?

Well, I don’t know why we’re having this Philadelphia lawyer type of argument about what it means. We believe in common sense and plain facts, and the plain fact is that the Minister was relying upon the same people that made over 152 decisions of the previous Government, and he was entitled to rely upon an officialdom properly, adequately, and fully prepared to advise him. We are finding out now what happened, and when we do, rather than make some cheap political points, we’ll own up to the party who was mainly responsible, and we’re looking at it. It sits over there.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: If, as the Prime Minister just described, they are looking at plain facts, isn’t it the plain fact that her Minister of Immigration didn’t ask the right questions and instead has given residency to someone who has committed passport fraud, forced a family into witness protection, continuously lied to officials, and has been convicted of drug smuggling?

The answers to those four questions are: no, no, no, no. The one that is a yes—on behalf of the Prime Minister—is: which was the party that enabled him to travel offshore, despite all of those matters of grave concern that they exhibit now? That party was the National Party.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has he made about Budget 2019?

As widely signalled, Budget 2019 will be New Zealand’s first well-being Budget. We have identified five core priorities that will define this Budget. They cover the areas where we think the outcomes will make a substantive difference to both our current and future well-being. One of these will be mental health. This coalition will finally be giving mental health the priority and focus it deserves. This will see my ministerial colleagues working together to produce initiatives that are squarely focused on long-term intergenerational improvements in mental health.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: Why has the Government made mental health a priority?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We can no longer track our success as a country on just a narrow measure such as GDP growth. We are moving beyond GDP to look not just at our financial health but also the well-being of our people, the health of our environment, and the strength of our communities. Mental health is an obvious example of an issue that has a significant say in our overall well-being. What makes our approach to addressing it different is that by making it an overall priority for the Budget, all Ministers and agencies are expected to identify how they can contribute to it. We will be breaking down the silos of Government and finding a new way of working which will see, for example, education, justice, health, and other areas working together for long-term mental health outcomes.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What are the other Budget priorities?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The full detail of our Budget priorities will be revealed during the Budget Policy Statement on 13 December. They will include sustainably growing and modernising our economy, lifting children’s well-being, and, as I’ve already said, giving mental health the focus that it needs. I can also assure the House that as part of our well-being Budget I will still keep a close eye on our finances and a steady hand on the economic wheel. We owe that to future generations, but we also owe to them and to all of our communities the chance to live fulfilling and meaningful lives and to be valued more than just as numbers on a balance sheet.

Question No. 4—Immigration

4. to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions in relation to Karel Sroubek, also known as Jan Antolik?

Yes, in the context of the information that was provided to me at the time.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that there has been a mistake in the Karel Sroubek case?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: As the member is aware, there is an investigation under way into this matter. It is important that I do not prejudice the investigation or any possible further action. Because of this ongoing work, it is not in the public interest for me to answer questions on the matter at this time. I’ll be able to provide more information at the appropriate time.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the question by the deputy leader of our party to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister stood in this House and said that there had been a mistake made. The Minister has not answered or addressed my question.

💬 SPEAKER: He very certainly did address the question in a way which is absolutely consistent with the long-term policy of this House.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Is the investigation of Immigration New Zealand considering information relating to a break-in at the house of Karel Sroubek’s estranged wife?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I refer the member to my previous answer.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Is the investigation by Immigration New Zealand considering information relating to a New Zealand family being put into the police witness protection programme as a result of actions by Karel Sroubek?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I refer the member to my previous answer.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Is the investigation by Immigration New Zealand considering the facts around Karel Sroubek undertaking business trips back to Europe while on bail?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I refer the member to my previous answer.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Is the investigation by Immigration New Zealand considering Karel Sroubek’s involvement and contacts within Operation Ark?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I refer the member to my previous answer.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: Does he or his office have any record of Mr Mitchell asking to receive a briefing in relation to the Sroubek case?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: To the Minister—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why would you seek a briefing when the Minister can’t tell you anything?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member has started his question.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he believe Karel Sroubek is in any danger from the Government of the Czech Republic?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I refer the member to my previous answer.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is of course the right of any Minister not to answer a question because they deem the answer to be inappropriate as far as public interest is concerned, but there was a patsy question from the Minister’s own party asking him if he had received any requests for a briefing, from the Hon Mark Mitchell, on this matter. Are we to believe from that, and could the Minister perhaps elucidate to the House, as to whether he would give Mr Mitchell any more answers than he’s been prepared to publicly give to this House today?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, that’s a very satisfactory supplementary question. If the member wants to ask it, go ahead.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: If the Minister were to receive a request from me asking for a briefing in relation to Karel Sroubek’s residency, would he provide that briefing?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, I’m interested that the member is asking me that question, because he’s already claimed that he asked for such a briefing. He has not, but if he does ask, I’ll consider it.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just like to clarify for the House that I—

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry, is this a supplementary?

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: It’s addressing—

💬 SPEAKER: So it’s a point of order?

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: It’s a point of order for personal explanation, Mr Speaker. There is in fact a request—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. You can’t seek an explanation. It either a point of order or it’s not.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a request from my office to the Minister’s office for a briefing—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I think that if the member wants to make a personal explanation, he may, but he must seek the leave of the House to do it. He doesn’t just try and do it in an unparliamentary manner, as he did.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Could I seek the leave of the House to make a personal explanation?

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

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: This morning, after a request, I wrote a formal letter to the Minister offering to attend a briefing by him and his officials on why he granted residency to Karel Sroubek. That is in the internal parliamentary mail system at the moment.

Question No. 5—Immigration

5. to the Minister of Immigration: Other than Karel Sroubek’s lawyer and family members, who made representations on his behalf in respect of his deportation liability?

Along with Mr Sroubek’s legal representatives and family, a number of other people did make representations on his behalf in relation to the decision to deport him that I considered as part of my decision. As the member is aware, there is an investigation under way into this matter. It is important that I do not prejudice the investigation or possible further action as a result. Because of this ongoing work, it is not in the public interest for me to specify who made representations. I will provide more information at the appropriate time.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Did Alex Swney, an inmate with Mr Sroubek at Wiri Prison, make representations in support of his application not to be deported?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I refer the member to my primary answer.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: What are you hiding?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Nick Smith will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: For saying “What are you hiding?”

💬 SPEAKER: And there will a deduction of supplementaries as a result of the further interjection.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Did John Sinclair, Mr Sroubek’s yoga instructor, make representations in support of his application not to be deported?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I refer the member to my primary answer.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Did Richie Hardcore, former martial arts champion, make representations in support of his application not to be deported?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I refer the member to my primary answer.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Does he or his office have any record of Mr Woodhouse offering to provide information in relation to Karel Sroubek?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. One of the rules of question time is that you should not use inference in the way a question’s asked—it’s quite clear; the Clerk will point it out to you—or you shouldn’t make those inferences and you should avoid that type of approach. That question—

💬 SPEAKER: You can’t “make” an inference. You can take an inference; you make an implication.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, well, thank you. Every day you learn, and in this place the rules change every day, so there’s a lot to learn. The point I’m making is that, in asking that question, the member is trying to suggest that somehow Mr Woodhouse or my colleague Mark Mitchell should have known about the Minister’s consideration of this. Now, given that the Minister can’t tell us anything about what he was doing, how on earth could they possibly know to have asked for those briefings earlier?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I’m not across all of the media, but I got a very clear indication earlier in the day today that, in fact, one of the members the Hon Gerry Brownlee has just referred to had in fact asked for a briefing, because he said so.

💬 Hon Member: We haven’t had the answer to that question, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: No, we did get an answer. It was a very short one.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the Minister denying that the request for a briefing and to offer information was made to him through an intermediary around lunchtime last Wednesday?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I would say to the member that asking a member of the media to backchannel something without making a direct request is hardly an appropriate way to make an offering to a Minister.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: What weight did the Minister place on the representations of supporters of Mr Sroubek who were not family members?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Not much.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d ask you to reflect on the answers that we’ve had to the last two questions, in that the purpose of question time is for Opposition members to ask questions of the Government. The only answers that were given any information were actually about members of the Opposition and what they might or might not have done in this case.

💬 SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat, thank you. It has long been the ruling of Speakers in this House that decisions for deciding not to fully answer questions in this House are decisions for Ministers. They make the decision as to whether something is in the public interest or not, and when they make those pronouncements, the House takes them at their word.

Question No. 6—Social Development

6. to the Minister for Social Development: What announcements has she recently made regarding family violence funding?

I was pleased to announce today at the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges AGM that the Government is investing $15.379 million from Budget 2018 into whānau resilience services. These will provide long-term support beyond our current crisis support services for families who have experienced violence, and will be developed in partnership with communities, whānau, and providers. This reflects the Ministry of Social Development’s commitment to kotahitanga, partnering for greater impact, reflecting that we are stronger when we work together.

💬 Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why do we need these new whānau resilience services?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The majority of family violence providers have said that because most providers are funded for the short-term crisis period, they do not have the capacity to work with whānau to break intergenerational cycles of violence. Providers have told us that they have seen the same clients over and over again and are now seeing some of the children and grandchildren of these clients. These new whānau resilience services will provide an opportunity for providers to walk alongside these families for up to three years so they can support them toward better long-term outcomes. The sector has welcomed this announcement and the opportunity to provide the best possible services for families in their communities.

💬 Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What will be different about the whānau resilience services?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Whānau resilience services will be a whole new approach to getting the right outcomes and breaking down cycles of violence. We know that different communities and families have different needs, so we want to ensure that service providers have the flexibility and security to be able to provide the right support for everyone who comes through the door. Whānau resilience services will be about providing localised solutions and building resilience in our whānau and communities so that together we can make a difference in the lives of our whānau and our tamariki.

Question No. 7—Finance

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

That is an excellent question, which the member asks me most days. Each day, I think seriously about my answer to it, and today, with unemployment at a 10-year low of 3.9 percent, I can say that the answer is yes.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: What advice has the Minister received on the effect that labour market capacity constraints are likely to have on the New Zealand economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We received a lot of advice, both formal and informal, about the importance of getting skilled staff and making sure that there are people available to fill job vacancies. And just today I received advice about the increased labour force participation rate at 71.1 percent, the increased employment rate at 68.3 percent, the decreased unemployment rate at 3.9 percent, and the decrease in the underutilisation rate at 11.3 percent—all important information.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Does the Minister accept that our current flexible employment system has been a critical factor in New Zealand’s strong employment data?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think it’s important that we have a balance in our employment relations system, to support the excellent work that is going on in businesses around the country, and it is that balance the Government is seeking to achieve.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Why is this Government looking to change that strong, flexible employment system that has led to today’s low unemployment numbers?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The reason we’re looking to change that is because we believe in fairness.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: So with unemployment having fallen, how does this Government explain there being 9,000 more people on jobseeker benefits over the past year—an increase not only in numbers but also in proportion of our working-age population?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Those are matters that the Minister for Social Development is best placed to answer, but I thank the member for her continuing questions today about New Zealand’s decade record low unemployment rate.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: So close to the famous race in Australasia, can he confirm the economic and social quality of a surplus of $5.5 billion, best growth in two years and higher than the average of the last nine years, lowest unemployment in a decade, and some very favourable polling?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm—

💬 SPEAKER: Well, as long as the polling has to do with economic polling.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely. I can confirm that New Zealanders believe the country is going in the right direction under this Government, and the other three elements of the trifecta are paying handsomely.

💬 Hon James Shaw: Why is the Minister focusing so much on real data about the real economy and real people rather than on the ANZ business confidence survey?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is tempting to look at business sentiment surveys, but, on this side of the House, we’ll continue to focus on real data, such as a surplus of $5.5 billion, such as an unemployment rate of 3.9 percent, and such as a growth rate of nearly 3 percent.

Question No. 8—Transport

8. to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all of his Government’s policies and actions in relation to the transport portfolio?

Yes.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he still committed to a light-rail link from the CBD to Auckland Airport, and, if so, has a detailed business case been completed?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The detailed business case is currently being completed by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he still committed to a light-rail link from the CBD to Auckland Airport?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: If the analysis showed that it would be much cheaper and more effective to connect the airport to the current rail system at Puhinui station, would he consider it?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I agree with the analysis that’s been done by Auckland Transport, by NZTA, and the Ministry of Transport under the former Government when Simon Bridges was the transport Minister, that light rail is the most appropriate mode to deliver a rapid transit service between the central city and the airport precinct.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with his colleague Shane Jones’ statement to One News that the Marsden Point rail spur is “a done deal” and that construction is beginning; and, if so, has a business case been completed?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The business case on that excellent project is currently under way, but I think it’s an excellent idea, and I agree with my colleague the Hon Shane Jones.

Question No. 9—Health

9. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about the new Wellington Children’s Hospital?

Earlier today, I visited Wellington Hospital for a mauri stone laying ceremony to mark the start of construction for the new children’s hospital. As members may already know, this project has benefited from a substantial donation of $50 million from businessman Mark Dunajtschik, and I want to put on record once again the Government’s thanks for his incredible generosity. Today, I’ve announced that the Government is also committing $45.6 million to the project to build the new Wellington Children’s Hospital. This is a great investment in the health and well-being of future generations.

💬 Greg O’Connor: How will the new Wellington Children’s Hospital benefit patients, family, and staff?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The current children’s hospital is almost 30 years old and has services located around different parts of the regional hospital. This is not ideal for children or families who are already going through a stressful time, nor for hospital staff who want to provide the best service for their patients. This new, purpose-built hospital with state-of-the-art equipment will provide these services under one roof. It’s been designed with children and their whānau at the centre, and will make it easier for hospital staff to provide the high-quality care they are so committed to delivering.

💬 Greg O’Connor: When will the new Wellington Children’s Hospital be completed?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This is a major project. The new hospital will be spread across three floors and will have 50 beds and 21 clinic rooms. It will feature more single bedrooms but also—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Please answer the question. It’s a very simple question.

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: To get to the point of the question, I’m advised it will be ready to open in 2021.

Question No. 10—Internal Affairs

10. to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does the report of the Inquiry into the Appointment Process for a Deputy Commissioner of Police recommend that the appointment process be reopened?

The Government is not going to talk about the findings of the report until it is publicly released. We are following the process recommended by the inquiry, which is to first provide the report to the interested parties.

💬 Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a question on notice. The Minister may think it’s not in the public interest to answer, but she didn’t say that; she said that she’s going to follow some process to do with pre-releases to those affected by the report.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think it would’ve been helpful if the Minister added the words “because it’s not in the public interest” or something similar to it. So I’ll ask the Minister to do an addendum to her answer.

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Because it is not in the public interest, we are following the process recommended by the inquiry, which is to first provide the report to the interested parties.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister know of any other times that section 15 restrictions have been used with regard to recent inquiries?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Section 15 has actually only been in existence since the National Government put in the Commissions of Inquiry Act—2013—but section 15 restrictions have been used, for example, on the Government inquiry into allegations regarding Judith Collins and a former director of the Serious Fraud Office in 2014, and the Government inquiry into matters concerning the escape of Phillip John Smith in 2015.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why did she say yesterday, and is repeating today, that the reason she can’t release the report is because of “pre-releases to those who need to see the report”—e.g. those who participated in it—when it’s been a public law principle since the Mahon inquiry into Erebus that people mentioned in inquiry reports have an opportunity to comment on the report before its release?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: It is only fair that the people involved in the inquiry receive the report before the public does. We want to do this as soon as possible and are getting advice, including legal advice, on how best to do this. We are following the process recommended by the inquiry. There were a range of people interviewed by Mary Scholtens QC who will be affected by the report one way or another. We are very mindful of any potential impact on these people. The member may want to consider those people also.

💬 Chris Bishop: Does the report of the inquiry into the appointment process for a Deputy Commissioner of Police make findings or recommendations in relation to the allegations of bullying against Mr Haumaha made by the three public servants who worked with him?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I refer the member to my answer to the primary question. It is those people exactly who we are trying to make sure are protected.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister confirm, in light of the report, which she has seen, that the allegations of a cover-up are just plain ridiculous?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Unfortunately, the scope of the inquiry is not around the terrible allegations put forward by members of this Parliament.

💬 Chris Bishop: Will she recommend to the Prime Minister that the appointment process for a Deputy Commissioner of Police is reopened?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: That is not my capacity. I do not have the ability to recommend to the Prime Minister. It is not within my job description to do so. There is an inquiry that has been undertaken. That inquiry will be released when it is appropriate to do so. It will be released by the Minister of State Services and then he will deal with those issues that the member raises.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why is the Minister of State Services releasing the inquiry when the report was to her as the appointing Minister for the inquiry?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The job that I’ve had as the Minister of Internal Affairs was to make sure that the inquiry was completed independently and under the Inquiries Act as implemented by the previous Government. That has been completed. An oral item has been taken to Cabinet. It will now be handed over to the Minister of State Services as soon as we are confident that all parties involved have been given an opportunity to see the report.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why has she not given a copy of the report to the Minister of Police, Stuart Nash, when it was a joint Cabinet paper in the name of him and Prime Minister Ardern that proposed appointing Mr Haumaha in the first place?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: My job was to make sure that there was an independent inquiry into the appointment process of the Deputy Commissioner of Police. I delivered an oral item to the Cabinet. The Cabinet decided that the Minister who would then be best placed to take possession of the inquiry report and release it and follow through with anything, should there need to be anything followed through with, would be the Minister of State Services.

💬 Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was all very interesting, but the question was why she hasn’t given a copy of the report to the police Minister. It had nothing to do with what she just said.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think if the member had listened, he would’ve worked out that it had everything to do with what she just said.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, you were quick to correct Marama Davidson when she mentioned that a particular law had been passed by the National Government—a piece of law, at that stage, that we were very pleased to have recognised as being our work—and insisted that she should refer to it as a law passed by Parliament, which is, of course, most correct. But today, when the Hon Tracey Martin made a similar suggestion in an attempt to, I suppose you would say, blacken the reputation of the National Party, you allowed it to stand. Can we just have a little bit of consistency when it comes to what are, effectively, political attacks from Ministers who are supposed to be answering questions.

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: Speaking to the point of order—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no, I don’t think we need to. The fact that one member said a bill was passed by a Government and the other was—I think, and I’m happy to go back and have a look—passed under a Government; they are quite different things.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s not what she said. The Hansard will show.

💬 SPEAKER: If I got it wrong, then I apologise to the member, but my intent—I didn’t go off at that particular comment from Tracey Martin.

Question No. 11—Energy and Resources

11. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by all her answers to oral question No. 10 yesterday?

Yes, in the context in which they were given.

💬 Jonathan Young: So when the Minister said yesterday “this Government is intent on building a resilient energy system with more resilient forms of renewable energy.”, how many megawatts of new renewable generation will be needed to reliably replace coal, gas, and diesel generation?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As we’ve traversed many times in this House, the Transpower report makes it really clear that we, roughly, need to, by 2050, double the amount of electricity generation in this country. That equates to a very achievable target of around the equivalent of 4.5 wind farms per year. I would point that member to the very good decision that Genesis Energy have made in recent weeks to build a 100-megawatt wind farm in Taranaki as a sign of the good things to come.

💬 Jonathan Young: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question was, I think, relatively simple. The Minister has talked for weeks about the transition away from fossil fuels. She ought to know what coal, gas, and diesel generation represents—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Does the member have a point—the fact that the member doesn’t like the answer is not a point of order.

💬 Jonathan Young: Well, she didn’t answer the question. I asked how many megawatts of new renewable generation would be needed to replace those elements that exist today.

💬 SPEAKER: And I think the Minister did say that renewable generation would have to double.

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, that’s not right. Mr Speaker—speaking to the point of order—what you will find in the Hansard is that the Minister said that the Transpower report says that electricity generation needs to double by 2050. It does not exclude those other sources of generation that are not renewable, and that is why the question has been specifically asked of the Minister today. It’s an important one.

💬 SPEAKER: Ask the question again.

💬 Jonathan Young: Thank you, sir. When the Minister said yesterday “this Government is intent on building a resilient energy system with more resilient forms of renewable energy.”, how many megawatts of new renewable generation will be needed to reliably replace current coal, gas, and diesel generation?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I said in the previous answer, the Transpower report, which talks not just about electricity but talks about the coming needs of the energy system, talks to a doubling of the need for generation in order to make that transition towards a low-carbon system. That equates to around 4.5 wind farms per year equivalency, of which the member should take great comfort. Genesis Energy announced the building of a 100-megawatt facility in his electorate of Taranaki—that is, the energy and not just the electricity system.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister has just demonstrated the point that we’re making by repeating, again, that the Transpower report says doubling of New Zealand’s electrical energy requirements without—remember that a lot of it at the moment does come from non-renewable sources. The question is: if you take the renewable sources out, what do we need? And the answer that she has given does not give us that figure.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, and that’s absolutely right. It doesn’t give that figure, and if the member wants specific figures like that, he should have set up his primary questions in order to elucidate them.

💬 Jonathan Young: Well, how can New Zealanders be confident in her assurances that there will be no energy supply gap when she doesn’t even know what investment is needed to achieve that assurance?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We can have confidence because, as I talked about in the reading of the legislation yesterday, there is a large body of evidence that shows that impediments to the transitions to renewable aren’t either financial or technical; they’re around political will, and this Government doesn’t lack in that. That member can have great comfort in the fact that in this country, we have hundreds of megawatts of consented but not yet built renewable energy. We also know that technological change to store the roughly 6 terawatts of surplus energy we produce in summer that we can use in winter is coming not just through battery power but through things like molten salt, like hydrogen, and a range of other storage facilities. I invite that member to join the 21st century.

💬 Jonathan Young: So what is the Minister’s view, with lake levels at 62 percent of the historical average for this time of the year, with wind energy generating only 25 percent of its installed capacity over the last 13 weeks, natural gas reserves depleting, the Minister severely limiting future oil and gas exploration, electricity demand—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Question, please.

💬 Jonathan Young: I started with a question. With electricity demand forecast to more than double, as she has said by 2050, what is her view that New Zealand will not be heading into an energy crisis as commentators are starting to say?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: First of all, I wish that member would stop scaremongering. We are not in an energy crisis. We have some short-term issues around gas infrastructure and hydro lakes that are still in the normal range. So that member should not try and create a crisis. But this Government is very clear. The problems we are experiencing at the moment are short term, but we have to have a plan to transition to a 100 percent renewable system, and that is what we’re doing. The problems we are seeing at the moment are that member’s party’s failure to act around the opportunities that were in front of them when they were in Government.

💬 Jonathan Young: After the Minister said yesterday “this Government is intent on building a resilient energy system with more resilient forms of renewable energy.”, how many megawatts of new renewable generation is specifically being built in the next 12 months?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Well, I can point first of all to the 100 megawatts that was announced to be built in his own electorate. But what we know is that we have hundreds or thousands of megawatts that is consented but not yet built. In terms of building it, that is over to the individual generators, and this Government is working with those generators to give them the long-term signals that there is demand for the building of that renewable energy. The member needs to understand that actually leadership is required from a Government in order to send those long-term signals, and we are doing just that.

💬 SPEAKER: Question No. 12, Dr Deborah Russell.

💬 Jonathan Young: Sorry, I have another supplementary, sir.

💬 SPEAKER: No, I’m informed that the National Party has used all its supplementaries. [Interruption] Well, can I have an assurance from the National Party whips—I will do a reconciliation. All right? Further supplementary.

💬 Jonathan Young: Thank you, sir. Following that answer, considering that wind generation over the last 13 weeks was just 25 percent of its installed capacity, what level of investment would be required for wind energy to meet the requirements that she is expecting, particularly around the new Waverley Wind Farm, when she is quoting 100 megawatts?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: One of the things that we know is that wind energy on its own is not sufficient to provide the security of supply that our energy system needs. What I said in a previous answer is that we are a country that produces roughly 6 terawatts of surplus energy in the summer months and has roughly the same deficit in the winter months. So to ask that question without also including what needs to be done in terms of storage capacity misses the opportunities that sit in front of this country. What the member is asking is what the private investment will be from the generators, and they are prepared to make those investments when they see the long-term demand signals and see there is a Government that has a strategy around building a renewable and resilient electricity system, and that is just what we are doing.

Question No. 12—Revenue

12. to the Minister of Revenue: How is the Government enabling improvements in the way New Zealanders interact with the revenue system?

This week the IRD launched a major public information campaign to tell New Zealanders about the biggest changes to the tax system in a generation and what it will mean for them. Just one example: we are taking legislation through the House that will remove secondary tax codes and provide automatic refunds for 1.6 million New Zealanders. IRD’s online services are being significantly redesigned to make it easier for its 2.9 million users, including businesses, who will be able to file all their returns online.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: How will the improvements to the tax system that are being implemented through the IRD business transformation programme benefit families and low-income earners?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Because of better information. Of the 1.6 million Kiwis who’ll get an automatic refund, around 530,000 individuals are beneficiaries or people who earn less than the minimum wage and who have never applied for a tax refund before, even though they may have been eligible for one. IRD will also be able to proactively manage and adjust entitlements for 330,000 Working for Families customers so that they are always getting the right amount and don’t have a tax debt at the end of the year. Making sure families get what they’re entitled to, and ensuring that individuals are not over-taxed, will help improve the well-being of New Zealanders and their families.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: How is the Government ensuring that taxpayers who work a second or third job are not being over-taxed?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: From April 2019, IRD will be receiving salary and other information faster and more frequently. We are proposing that for those Kiwis who work a second or third job, which we know is generally out of need rather than want, they will no longer have the burden of secondary tax. I am disappointed that the Opposition, who are against that bill, want to stand in the way of good, hard-working Kiwis getting their refunds faster.