Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the Treasury’s Living Standards Framework?

Treasury has this week released the first version of its Living Standards Framework, Dashboard. The Dashboard is a tool created by Treasury within its broader Living Standards Framework to help shape policy and policy advice. The data in it shows the current and future well-being of New Zealanders broken down by ethnicity, age, gender, region, family type, and area deprivation over time. It also shows the distribution of New Zealanders having high, medium, or low well-being for each domain. Current well-being is reflected via indicators across 12 areas such as health, housing, safety, and social connection, while information on future well-being is shown through data on the Living Standards Framework’s four capitals or focus areas: natural, human, social, and financial and physical capital.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What reports has he seen about how the Living Standards Framework and Dashboard will evolve?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As Treasury itself says, the Living Standards Framework and Dashboard are a positive early milestone amid a long-term work in progress. There are issues and information gaps that need to be addressed including how to better embed Māori and Pacific people’s perspectives, child well-being indicators, and cultural well-being. In the case of the well-being of children and young people, we do need to improve data collection to ensure that the Dashboard can properly reflect the well-being of our young people. Treasury has said it will keep developing and updating the Dashboard, and it’s important they do this so that the Living Standards Framework and Dashboard truly represent New Zealand.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: How is the Living Standards Framework contributing to the Government’s 2019 well-being Budget?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Living Standards Framework and Dashboard are an important input into the 2019 well-being Budget. This advice, along with that from other sources, including sector experts, is helping inform Government decisions on Budget choices and the way we measure the outcomes of our policies. It’s important to note that we are using this information not just to track and measure our success but also to inform our priorities for the well-being Budget. These priorities will be announced as part of the Budget Policy Statement next week, and they will focus on the long-term intergenerational outcomes that will improve all New Zealanders’ well-being.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Why did she assert last week that Mr Sroubek’s estranged wife, quote, “changed her tune”, and that she is, quote, “the National Party’s informant”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I assume the member is referring to responses made on my behalf. To answer the question, the Deputy Prime Minister, at the time, was making reference to information that I believe at that time was already raised in the public domain. Certainly, the first I knew of that information was when it was raised with me by the media.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What does she say to the claim by Mr Sroubek’s estranged wife and family that her Government’s statements have been beyond appalling, and have caused immense stress and feelings of utter hopelessness in the estranged wife?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the first I knew of some of those issues was when they were raised with me by the media, and I have seen some reports since then. My expectation would be that if we had information brought to us that raised concerns around her safety, we act appropriately on that. When that issue was first raised with me, I told the Minister directly about that issue, and I understood he followed that up. My understanding is that is what has happened in each case that concerns have been raised with us directly.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Can we be clear that she’s rightly distancing herself from statements made on her behalf that this woman was the National Party’s informant?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I’m pointing out is that—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, so you’re not?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —my first knowledge of some of these issues was when they were already brought into the public domain, and that whenever we’ve had issues—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What’s that got to do with anything? Do you stand by the statements or not?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —of concern raised, we acted appropriately—

💬 SPEAKER: I don’t know how many times I have to tell the Leader of the Opposition: when he interjects, he is not to do it in the second person.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she think that tarnishing a victim’s reputation by inferring they were politically motivated, and pushing her to feel utterly hopeless, aligns with her kinder, more compassionate style of Government?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The first time I heard any such connection was actually in a media report—I think, my recollection is, on Radio New Zealand. That was the first time I heard that statement. I’d have to say, if there’s genuine concern about protecting that individual’s privacy, we would not be having this question in the House right now.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How did Immigration New Zealand get the home address of Mr Sroubek’s estranged wife, given there was a police safety plan in place—facts known only to the police?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I obviously have absolutely no involvement with Immigration New Zealand’s following up on issues or concerns or, indeed, interviews or questioning. It wouldn’t be appropriate for me to have that knowledge or that level of involvement.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she agree with her police Minister on this, who did have a view, that, quote, “There are some people who just need to be kept safe, and there is no way that anyone apart from police should know where that is.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think there’s appropriateness to the statements the police Minister was making. In fact, my understanding is that when he’s been informed of issues, he’s dealt with that entirely appropriately.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is it OK that two police detectives and Immigration New Zealand turned up at the estranged wife’s home address, unannounced, to obtain a changed statement from her, leaving her feeling “extremely vulnerable, exposed, and under threat.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, I wouldn’t have knowledge of some of the level of detail that the Leader of the Opposition is raising. My advice would be that if these are issues that have indeed occurred, it would be appropriate, I think, for the Minister of Police to put them to the police and have them follow up independently of him. It is an operational issue; it is appropriate for them to respond. There’s also an independent police complaints process if there has been anything that’s occurred that has been questionable or should be followed up on.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Will she answer whether it’s OK that two police detectives and Immigration New Zealand turned up at the estranged woman’s home address, unannounced, to obtain a changed statement from her, leaving her feeling “extremely vulnerable, exposed, and under threat.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said, I simply cannot know exactly what’s happened in this scenario. What I am laying out are all of the appropriate channels that are available for the member to ensure that this is looked into appropriately, because that is not something I will have detail on. I also want to point out that if this individual is feeling vulnerable, they should be supported, and canvassing these issues openly, here in this House, I don’t think is one way of doing that.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Has the system let down the estranged wife of Sroubek?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would have to be intimately involved in every level of detail in order to know that. What we do need to make sure is that if there are complaints there that need to be made, they are followed up on appropriately, and I’m sure Ministers will ensure that that is the case if the member brings those complaints directly to them.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: When will the Opposition get the representations made to the Government on Sroubek’s behalf?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, this is a case that is still potentially subject to legal challenge. The Minister of Immigration has put out the information that is available at this point, but at the same time there is a process still to be gone through.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she know personally any of the people who have made these representations?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I am not privy to the representations in the case that have been made, and nor would it be appropriate for me to be privy to the representations or the process that immigration independently conducts in these situations.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: When will career criminal Karel Sroubek leave this country?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: When this process is complete. Obviously, the Minister of Immigration has made public his decision.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she anticipate it will now take years, given the court case that will ensue?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I am not going to answer a hypothetical on this case. The Minister has issued his decision; now there’s a process to be run.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Has she entirely washed her hands of anything to do with the Sroubek fiasco, and is she ducking and diving to get out of its way? [Speaker stands] Oh, here comes the protection.

💬 SPEAKER: No—the Leader of the Opposition will leave the House.

Hon Simon Bridges withdrew from the Chamber.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Struck a raw nerve.

💬 SPEAKER: He will be followed by the shadow Leader of the House.

Hon Gerry Brownlee withdrew from the Chamber.

Question No. 3—Regional Economic Development

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Regional Economic Development. How many jobs have been created by the Provincial Growth Fund so far?

Both directly and indirectly, we have had, as a consequence of the Provincial Growth Fund, 4,000 jobs created—[Interruption]

Order! Order! [Interruption] Order! Right, we’ll start again. I will ask Government members to watch what is happening and not comment on it. Thank you.

3. to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: How many jobs have been created by the Provincial Growth Fund so far?

As a consequence of the Provincial Growth Fund, both directly and indirectly, about 4,000 jobs have been created. With the acquiescence of the South, 690 associated with investment in rail; over 1,200 jobs over the next five-year construction pipeline phase, as a consequence of roading investments; the Ruapehu gondola—150 jobs directly. I could go on, but it’s on the website.

💬 Mark Patterson: What recent announcements have been made regarding the Provincial Growth Fund?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: On the question of connectivity, a sum of over $30 million to improve ultra-fast broadband and mobile networks. In terms of tourism, the Punakaiki redevelopment—incredibly important for areas around the Dolomite Point visitor experience—dolomite; not very far from the word dynamite—and a host of others, all up on the website.

💬 Mark Patterson: What economic benefits will be realised from these investments?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: The Government has a very strong focus on identifying within the regions opportunity to endow the regions with greater infrastructure, thus improving productivity and attracting secondary and tertiary investment. It is actually focusing on those areas where pockets of our population have been intransigent, in the sense of either gearing themselves up to come into the world of work or finding the right opportunity. All of these are contributing, at long last, to practical, positive developments within provincial New Zealand.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does he consider that all taxpayer money is being spent wisely?

I certainly hope the member’s not asking me to pass judgment on the spending habits of all taxpayers, although my own purchase of jet planes is possibly not wise spending. But, of course, it is, to answer the member’s question, this Government’s approach that expenditure is undertaken wisely. Ensuring that that happens is an ongoing process. For example, where we have seen areas of expenditure that we do not think wise, we have reprioritised them, as we did through Budget 2018. That exercise in reprioritisation is ongoing.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Is a $2.8 billion spend on a first-year - free tertiary programme that has delivered fewer students good value for money?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The fees-free programme is an excellent investment in making sure that all New Zealanders get access to post - secondary school education and training, wherever they come from. It’s a critical part of making sure that we are preparing for the future of work and ensuring that people who have never undertaken post - secondary school education or training, whatever age they are, have access.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: If that policy is removing barriers for students accessing tertiary education, why are fewer of them now accessing tertiary education than previously?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is removing barriers, and we hear on a regular basis from people around New Zealand who tell us about communities where there are people who wouldn’t have considered going on to tertiary education until they were able to access it in this way.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Does he accept that that $2.8 billion fees-free tertiary programme is regressive?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that much of the cost of that programme is money the Government would have to outlay anyway through the student loan scheme had fees not been abolished?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely. I can confirm that, and I can also confirm the statement made in the House by the Minister of Education last week, I think, which of course indicates the large amount of money we don’t get back from the student loan scheme. This is, in fact, a very good investment.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Given that the Minister denies that the policy is regressive, does he not understand that it primarily benefits people from higher-income families and those who will earn higher incomes over their lifetime?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t believe it’s regressive, because I want to see every New Zealander—whether or not they’re from a rich background or a poor background, whether or not they’re the son or daughter of a truck driver, or whether they’re already in work and want to retrain—having that opportunity.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that those with higher levels of qualifications do earn more money throughout their working life and, therefore, pay more tax?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, indeed I can confirm that. What we want is all New Zealanders earning higher wages. One of the critical ways of getting there is for them to get more training, more skills, and more qualifications.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Given the Minister’s answer to Mr Hipkins’ question, how much additional money has the Government booked for the fees-free policy over and above any savings from student loans?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t have the detail of that information with me today. I’m sure that if a question goes down to the Minister of Education, he will be able to answer that.

Question No. 5—Education

5. to the Minister of Education: What recent reports has he seen on the financial sustainability of institutes of technology and polytechnics?

I have recently seen a report by the Auditor-General, who said that financial sustainability is the most significant challenge facing many of our tertiary education institutions, but particularly the institutes of technology and polytechnics. The Auditor-General found that ITPs—institutes of technology, and polytechs—have been relying on increases in revenue from international students to offset their operating costs and to fund new facilities and that that has made them overly dependent on international education, and as domestic enrolments have fallen, it’s meant that their financial model is no longer sustainable and they have no longer been able to cover their expenses.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What other issues did the Auditor-General identify amongst the institutes of technology and polytechnics?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Auditor-General also identified a lack of coordinated thinking behind polytechnics’ investment decisions, with many developing their own course content despite similar courses already being on offer elsewhere. The Auditor-General found that polytechs had been over-optimistic in their roll projections—that they’d failed to reduce costs to match falling revenues. The Tertiary Education Commission forecasts that most institutes of technology and polytechs will be in deficit by 2020.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What action has the Government already taken to secure the viability of our institutes of technology and polytechnics?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: After a year in Government, we have already had to intervene to prop up four of our existing polytechs. There are only 16 of them. We have announced an across-the-board funding rate increase for all tertiary education providers and we’ve also scrapped the previous Government’s ideologically driven competitive funding model, which even the private providers hated.

💬 SPEAKER: Question No. 6—the Hon Judith Collins.

💬 Marja Lubeck: Supplementary?

💬 SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. I’ve called it. The member didn’t stand up quickly enough.

Question No. 6—Housing and Urban Development

6. to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: How many of the 10 KiwiBuild houses in Wānaka and the 10 KiwiBuild houses in Te Kauwhata have had an agreement for sale and purchase become unconditional?

Te Kauwhata and Wānaka homes are not built yet. The Wānaka homes will be completed between Christmas and March 2019. Te Kauwhata homes are expected to be completed in 2020. I’m advised that four sale and purchase agreements so far have become unconditional, but settlement is still conditional on the homes being completed and receiving code of compliance.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Is there any doubt that the homes will then be completed and receive a code of compliance certificate?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: What is the total value of the KiwiBuild underwrite across both the Wānaka and Te Kauwhata KiwiBuild developments?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I don’t have that number to hand, but I’m happy to get it for the member.

Question No. 7—Foreign Affairs

7. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does the Government remain committed to an independent foreign policy?

Yes, most certainly. When compared to the last Government, we intend to restore the word “in” to an independent foreign policy.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Will New Zealand sign the United Nations Global Compact for Migration in Morocco next week?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Despite the leader of the party member over there saying that the Government had already done that in the first paragraph of his press statement, that is not the case. He is mistaken, and the Government is still working on it.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Why, given the Government was being briefed on the UN negotiations as far back as March, has it not reached a decision just five days before the agreement is to be signed?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because the briefing in March was to the officials who were going to be part of the negotiations in the months thereafter. That briefing was not for the Government; it was for the officials.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Is he aware that this UN agreement will affect New Zealand’s sovereignty and limit the independent nature of our migration and foreign policies, and for this reason the Government should not be signing us up to it next week in Morocco?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The member would be wise to actually read the compact.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: I’ve read it.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, it says clearly that the compact explicitly reaffirms national sovereignty and recognises the ability for Governments to set their own migration policies. Then it goes on to say that it’s not legally binding. So that member would be wise to get a lawyer to interpret it for him, because it’s clear as daylight in the document.

Question No. 8—Health

8. to the Minister of Health: Is the Government making primary healthcare more affordable for families; if so, how?

On 1 December, 56,000 13-year-olds became eligible for free primary care. That means that all children aged under 14 are now entitled to free doctors visits. This delivers on the coalition agreement between Labour and New Zealand First. I want to thank New Zealand First for their advocacy and acknowledge their proud record on this issue going back to the 1990s and the initial introduction of free visits for children. This coalition Government is committed to making our country the best place in the world to be a child. Extending free primary care to every child under 14 is a big step towards that goal.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: What are the benefits of extending free doctors visits to 13-year-olds?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: By extending the eligibility for free primary care to a further 56,000 13-year-olds, we’re making quality healthcare more accessible for children in New Zealand. This will ensure that all children under 14, regardless of living situation, will be able to live healthier lives throughout critical years of their development. I’m confident that we will see the long-term benefits from making sure children have access to a doctor whenever they need it, and the flow-on effects of this early intervention will go on for years to come.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: What other recent changes have been made to make primary healthcare more affordable?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: More good news. As of 1 December, hundreds of thousands of community service card holders saw the cost of visiting the doctor fall by an average of $20 to $30. That includes about 80,000 people who are newly eligible for a community services card because they received an accommodation supplement or an income-related rent subsidy.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: Why is improving access to primary healthcare important?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We know that last year nearly 600,000 people didn’t go to a GP for reasons of cost. In a country like New Zealand, costs should not put people off going to see the doctor when they’re sick. Not only will cheaper doctors visits mean more people will be able to afford to get the care they need, that will mean many health issues can be identified and treated early, before they become major problems requiring hospital treatment.

Question No. 9—Immigration

9. to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all the Government’s statements and actions on the immigration case involving Karel Sroubek?

Yes, in their context and given the information and advice that was available at the time.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Who advised Immigration New Zealand of the whereabouts of Karel Sroubek’s estranged wife when this information was known only to New Zealand Police?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That’s an operational matter for Immigration New Zealand.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: What was the purpose of two New Zealand police detectives accompanying an immigration official to the location of Sroubek’s estranged wife?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That’s an operational matter for the New Zealand Police.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Why did the New Zealand Police and Immigration New Zealand both apologise and New Zealand Police say that they would not accompany an immigration official—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m going to give the member a chance to rephrase the beginning of the question and make sure that it is within this Minister’s responsibility and that he’s not asking this Minister to answer for police operational matters, as has been made clear he can’t.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why did Immigration New Zealand and New Zealand Police both apologise—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! All the member has to do to stay within order is take the police out of it, and then he’s got the stuff that this Minister’s responsible for.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Why did Immigration New Zealand apologise to the estranged wife of Mr Sroubek and state that they would not approach that situation like that again?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I cannot speak to the veracity of the second part of the member’s statement, but, in answer to the first part of his statement, Immigration New Zealand apologised for any distress caused. But I will say to the member that I have sought assurances from Immigration New Zealand that they followed standard procedures. They have assured me that is the case.

Question No. 10—Education

10. to the Minister of Education: Does the Government plan to make new offers to try and prevent strikes in primary and secondary schools prior to the start of the 2019 school year?

The Government, through the Ministry of Education, is ready and willing to come back to the negotiating table as soon as possible. We’ve been very clear all along that we are happy to reconfigure the offer to better address teachers’ concerns within the $1.2 billion envelope that is now on the table.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he agree with the ministry using their resources for a Facebook video campaign talking up the offer that has generated parody videos and that teachers have called insulting, crass, and propaganda?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Ministry of Education have an absolutely legitimate role in explaining the offer.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: What does he say to Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) president Jack Boyle, who described the Government’s previous offer to secondary teachers as last-minute, half-hearted, and almost a failure of their moral responsibility?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If our offer is a failure of moral responsibility, the member might want to consider where she’s been for the last 10 years, because the offer that we have made to the PPTA is a 9.3 percent increase on the existing rates, plus an additional top step of the new salary scale, which adds up to an increase of about 12.6 percent, which is almost as much as all of the percentage increases put together under the previous Government.

💬 Jo Luxton: What are the pay increases currently on offer as part of the negotiations?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The $698 million offer to primary school teachers, which I note the Employment Relations Authority described as handsome and competitive, would see most primary school teachers receiving an increase of between $9,500 and $11,000. The latest $496 million offer to the secondary school teachers would see most secondary school teachers receive an increase of just under $10,000.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: When will he take responsibility for what are being called mega strikes in 2019, and does he stand by the statement “There is no more money” when in November alone this Government announced $900 million in spending initiatives?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: $217 million of the spending initiatives I assume the member is referring to were directly related to the teachers’ claim, in the sense that they were dealing with the role of learning support coordinators, which is something that the teachers have been requesting through these negotiations. In terms of accepting responsibility, I fully accept responsibility for the fact that we have made teachers the biggest pay increase offer they have received in over a decade. I also fully accept responsibility for the fact that it is going to take some time to deal with the decade of neglect our education system has experienced.

Question No. 11—Health

11. to the Minister of Health: Why did he say of the final report from the Government’s $6.5 million mental health inquiry that “I guess, doesn’t contain too many surprises”?

I think all members of this House will have heard stories from people with lived experience of mental health and addiction issues, and will know that we face huge challenges in this area; that is no surprise. It is one thing to know we need to change, and it’s another thing to know what that change will look like. The inquiry panel heard from thousands of New Zealanders and has produced a considered report containing 40 recommendations. It is already shaping, and will shape, our response to mental health and addiction for years to come.

💬 Matt Doocey: What does he say to Shaun Robinson, Chief Executive of the Mental Health Foundation, who said, “The government have been waiting for the inquiry, and the inquiry has instructed them to stop delaying and get going. There is no further justification for delay,”?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This Government has not had any delay. We invested $200 million into the mental health and addiction ring-fence for district health boards in our first Budget. We launched the mental health and addiction inquiry in our first 100 days. We’ve introduced the Mana Ake programme in Kaikōura and Canterbury to get mental health workers on the ground in primary schools and in intermediate schools. We’ve introduced nurses in schools for decile 4, which we’re rolling out across New Zealand. And, on Saturday, we introduced community service card discounts that will be, on average, $20 to $30 per person across the country for over 500,000 New Zealanders, which is the way into mental health services through primary care for most people, and we think that that will make it more accessible. On top of that, we will be making announcements shortly around the talking therapies pilot announced in the Budget for 18- to 25-year-olds, an initiative sparked by recommendations from the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand. We are getting on with a number of things in the meantime because the evidence is there, and we will continue to get on with it. We will respond urgently and carefully—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! That’s enough, thank you.

💬 Matt Doocey: Can he commit, with almost $3 billion prioritised for a failed tertiary fees-free policy, that his Government will ensure there is enough funding to adequately respond to what the public expects from the mental health inquiry?

💬 SPEAKER: I’m going to give the member one more chance to get that question in order.

💬 Matt Doocey: Can he commit that there is enough funding to adequately respond to what the public expects from the findings of the mental health inquiry?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This Government has been really clear already that one of the key priorities in the upcoming Budget is mental health and well-being. This Government is committed to responding meaningfully and significantly to this report; however, I will note that many of the issues that we are facing have built up over years: workforce issues, senior nurses around the country are in short supply. We have inherited underfunding in our health system, which will make response challenging. We’re committed to dealing with the issues we’ve inherited, but I think the member will understand that his Government has set us in a difficult starting place.

💬 Matt Doocey: Given the mental health inquiry report recommending establishing a cross-party group in Parliament, will he accept my invitation to join a cross-party group on mental health, which he previously rejected?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I will note that Mike Houlahan had an excellent piece in the Otago Daily Times today about the concern about this inquiry being turned into a political football. I share his concerns, but I do look forward to all parties in this House playing a constructive role as we respond to this inquiry. In the first instance, the Health Committee is the most appropriate vehicle for cross-party discussions, and I understand the committee will receive a briefing on this very report later this month.

Question No. 12—State Owned Enterprises

12. to the Associate Minister for State Owned Enterprises: On what date did Landcorp send its submission to the Tax Working Group and was it invited to do so by the Tax Working Group or one of its members?

I’m advised Landcorp sent its submission to the Tax Working Group on 31 May 2018. I’m also advised it was not invited to do so. It responded to the Tax Working Group’s public requests for submissions.

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: Did anyone in Government ask Landcorp to make this late submission to the Tax Working Group?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Mr Speaker, with your forbearance I’m to going read out the answer. On 1 November, the acting Pāmu financial controller, the head of environment, and Mr Peter Fraser attended an agri-sector stakeholder meeting hosted by Treasury to discuss environmental taxes feedback from the Tax Working Group.

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, well, no, I can—I think the member might be able to express it better than I can, but I know where he’s heading.

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: Well, my question hasn’t been answered.

💬 SPEAKER: Maybe the member could repeat it just so it’s clear.

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: Did anyone in the Government ask Landcorp to make a late submission to the Tax Working Group?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I have described a meeting, which is publicly declared, between, arguably, the most senior of the Government departments, Treasury. At that meeting were members of the Landcorp team. At that meeting matters were discussed pertaining to environmental taxes for the Tax Working Group. I am not advised that a politician had invited them to do so.

💬 SPEAKER: And there’s just one further thing so the question is answered, and that was were they invited to make a late submission, which is the essence of the question.

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I stated that a meeting was hosted at which they attended. Within such meetings, obviously there is to and fro of the content of environmental taxes. That is not to be construed and is not consistent with a direct invitation to do so.

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: When was the Minister first aware that the State-owned enterprise (SOE) for which he is responsible is advocating for a nitrogen tax, a water tax, and a capital gains tax?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I shall repeat what the Deputy Prime Minister said. Ours is, in many respects, a freedom Government. Along with a host of other Government entities, this SOE made a submission. I was made aware of that submission when questioned about it by the media.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Why did Landcorp make a submission that was one month after the closing date, supporting a nitrogen fertiliser tax and a water tax, and not being opposed to a capital gains tax?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: It may come as a surprise to the other side of the House, but we observe our roles in a governance capacity, and then we appoint a board, and, indeed, we have appointed a fine New Zealander today, Dr Warren Parker, who, without a doubt, will address any governance challenges in that regard. We do not bully. We do not take for granted our responsibilities, and we allow the operational decision-making and the board of governors to function in a unified fashion. They have made their submission. It is now a matter of public record but it is only one of a host of submissions.

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: Did the board of Landcorp sign off the submission to the Tax Working Group, or did the chief executive Steve Carden act on his own volition?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: That allegation about the CEO may have been the case under the regime on the other side of the House, but I am advised that the executive discussed and I am advised that the board of directors were aware of the contribution that has been made.

Point of Order—Deduction of Supplementary Questions

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise this point of order trying to be constructive. The events of question time today caused me to reflect on the frustration that is building amongst the Opposition. Can I just ask you to carefully look at the questions that are being framed and asked this week, and the answers that have been given? If the answers given are used to attack the Opposition or to attack, particularly, the Leader of the Opposition, tensions will rise to the extent that frustration will be expressed.

I think your action this week has not been helpful to the order of the House. If I could further, while I’m on my feet, ask you to reconsider your policy of deducting questions. That is unfair on the Opposition and as has been stated in a point of order by the Hon Chris Hipkins, the Opposition’s job is here to hold the Government to account. Those supplementary questions are valuable to the Opposition and I ask you to reflect, as I say, on the questions and answers of this week and as you do that reflection, would you please consider a different policy than the deducting of supplementary questions?

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, when you’re doing that consideration, I wonder whether you would also give consideration to the repeated reflections on the Chair that we have come to see during question time. I have been removed from the House for reflecting on the Chair on more than one occasion. This, I believe, is the first time you, as the Speaker, have asked a member to leave the House for reflecting on the Chair. The previous Speaker, in fact, removed someone for coughing at one point during question time.

I think we do need to protect the role of the Chair and the impartiality of that role. I think that continued and repeated reflections on that are going to lead to disorder on both sides of the House.

If I could speak further to that point of order, because I agree entirely with the comments made by the Hon Chris Hipkins, it is inappropriate for any member to reflect on the acting of the Speaker. He is in a very difficult position, required to make instant decisions, so I am not condoning any behaviour that reflects on the partiality or impartiality, on you, Mr Speaker. I’m just asking you to look at the broader matter of the quality of questions and the quality of answers and your policy of deducting supplementary questions.

Sure, and I want to say to the member I will be looking again at the question time today. I have been reflecting on the supplementary question on which I arose when the Leader of the Opposition asked it. It was out of order on at least two counts, and as I rose he questioned my partiality. I have had representations from members of the National Party with regard to the deduction of questions and that was the reason that I reverted to the approach of my immediate predecessors on interventions reflecting on the Chair and reverted to the practice that the right honourable gentleman who took the point of order is very familiar with and followed himself.

I’m still not convinced that on all occasions it is the right thing to do, but I do want to assure members that I will attempt to keep order in the House. Part of that is making sure that questions and answers are, as far as is possible, within the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings and, most importantly, at the point that I am intervening, that I am not chipped with accusations similar to those that were made by two senior National Party members today.