Oral Questions

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

Yes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What has happened to the public housing waiting list in the last year?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It has moved from being what the Salvation Army described as an “opaque gatekeeping system” where people who were in need found it very hard to get on the register and those who were on it were very easily moved off it. On this side of the House, we’ve often referred to the studies by the likes of Otago University that have pointed to more than 40,000 people—

💬 Dan Bidois: Be honest. It’s gone up.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Which member made that interjection?

💬 Dan Bidois: Sorry.

💬 SPEAKER: Withdraw and apologise.

💬 Dan Bidois: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: And a very serious warning to that member. He is already not in my good books.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have often, on this side of the House, referenced the research by Otago University that pointed to there being as many as 40,000 people who are in inadequate housing, who are homeless, who are in overcrowded housing. What we know now is, as we expected, the housing register is now reflecting the honest face of the housing crisis.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How can she say that, when the public housing waiting list has gone up by 73 percent—or 4,530 households—to 10,712?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I actually just said—if the member had listened—was an acknowledgment that we have always said those lists will get worse because on that side of the House they denied people the right to register their housing need. They turned around people in desperate need of housing, and they pushed people off the list. In fact, they got rid of two categories to try and hide the housing crisis in this country. We are not hiding the housing crisis; we are responding to it. On this side of the House, we are building more houses than any other Government since the 1970s. We have 1,100 houses built. We have provided roughly 1,900 public housing spaces. We have increased Housing First across the country. We’ve increased transitional housing. We will meet the need.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Has she just acknowledged that the public housing waiting list, some 16 months into her administration, has got significantly worse?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve acknowledged that the housing register now reflects the crisis we have. If the member had listened, we’ve never talked about 10,000. On this side of the House, we acknowledge the research that just two years ago said the need was more like 40,000. It was that side of the House that hid it. We have stood up and said “If you need help, come to the Ministry of Social Development.”, and people are. I would ask the member not to listen to me but to listen to the likes of the Salvation Army, who in their last report acknowledged that there is a changed approach at the front line. People who need help are being acknowledged and are getting it, and that is a vastly different situation than before.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that the Housing New Zealand Corporation building programme is going gangbusters and that the supply of Housing New Zealand Corporation houses is greater now than it has been for decades?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is absolutely correct. We have built, since we’ve come into office, 1,191 new State houses. There are 768 transitional housing places since 2018, temporarily housing more than 3,000 families each year. As I said, Housing First has started to help 521 rough sleepers. We always said we had a crisis, and we are responding to it. That last Government couldn’t even utter the words.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: When the Rt Hon Winston Peters refers to Housing New Zealand and the Prime Minister says that they are building unprecedented housing, does she accept what Housing New Zealand said today at select committee, which is that literally all of the houses built have been either consented or under contract under the last Government?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The combined activity of this Government means that we are building more houses than any Government since the 1970s. What the member said is not correct.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: When she refers to NGOs, what does she say to Ricardo Menendez March of Auckland Action Against Poverty, who says that the Government needs more than just—

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Good friends of National.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Social Development will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: The member will start again and there will be additional supplementaries.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: When she refers to NGOs and their views, what does she say to Ricardo Menendez March of Auckland Action Against Poverty, who says that the Government needs more than just rhetoric; it needs to actually put in the resources required to build enough State homes?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m sure that Auckland Action Against Poverty will acknowledge that this is a Government that stopped the State housing sell-off that we had under the last Government and is actually building them rather than reducing them, and Auckland Action Against Poverty would probably reflect on what a different place we would be in if 10 years ago, the then National Government were listening to Auckland Action Against Poverty

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What is her target, in her year of delivery, for the number of people on the public housing register, given her Government’s scrapped the equivalent Better Public Services social housing target?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have to say, this idea that the last National Government setting a target meant that an issue was resolved—that last Government, when the number on the national register reached 10,000, did they build more houses? No. They cut two categories from the list to arbitrarily reduce it. They manipulated the data. This is not a Government that will hide behind numbers. We acknowledge the need and we are building houses.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is the reason her Government won’t hide behind the numbers because there are none?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I believe we are debating numbers because we, of course, have released the data around the register. Again, we very openly, when we took office, said this will get worse before it gets better.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Speaking of numbers, how many State houses will her Government aim to build by the end of this year?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Over a four-year period, we have budgeted for 6,400 public housing places to be created under this Government.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How many will she build this year?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have already built over 1,100.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How many KiwiBuild homes will her Government aim to build by the end of the year?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We are seven months into a 10-year programme and we have already built more affordable houses than that Government did in 10 years.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Well, if she can’t say how many KiwiBuild homes this year, can she even say this term?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as we have reiterated many times, we have stuck with our goal of 100,000 over 10 years, and, again, even one more affordable home is one more than that Government built.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Can we confirm there are no targets or aims or measures for State house building or KiwiBuild this term of her Government?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I find this line of questioning rich, given the last Government refused to do anything about the fact that only 5 percent of new houses were available in the affordable or first-home buyer category, and their response was to do absolutely nothing—absolutely nothing—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Rubbish—that’s a lie.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —which is why we have the supply issue—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Who made that interjection?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: And leave the House.

💬 Hon Member: Oh!

💬 SPEAKER: There’s already been a warning on that subject—to the member next to him.

Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Are my questions asking for deliveries, for targets, and for measures pesky to the Prime Minister?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, I relish in them.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

I do.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: By what date can the public expect to know the question they are voting on to legalise recreational marijuana?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I have said to the member many times, the information that we’ve put out thus far is the decision to have a referendum at the 2020 general election. We are currently working through the detail of the nature of the question. There will be plenty of time, given how far we are away from a general election, for the public to know the question and engage in the debate around it. Given the member’s interest in the area, I would extend the invitation that has being extended many times by the member Chlöe Swarbrick for the member to join the cross-party group.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: That’s not the Government.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: And in response to the question that the Leader of the Opposition seems to be asking on your behalf, again, this is not a Government question; it is a referendum, and any question that is asked is not a question supported by any member of the Government specifically. It’s a referendum.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: So when the Prime Minister makes statements that “We are working through the detail and the dates and things that people might know.”, who are “we”, and which Minister will be responsible for taking a paper to Cabinet on the legalisation of recreational marijuana?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will already know the answer to that question. The Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, is the one facilitating the work on the question that will be asked, in the same way that there would’ve been a Minister responsible for the flag referendum, who may have chosen a different flag option than, for instance, the likes of John Key.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Is the Government planning on establishing a citizens’ jury or working group to decide the referendum question to legalise recreational marijuana?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: When those decisions have been made, they will be made available to this House and the public.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Will the Government be drafting legislation that the public can see before deciding their vote in the referendum to legalise recreational marijuana?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the process and the question will be released in good time, well before the 2020 election. Again, this is the drafting of a referendum question, an opportunity for the public to engage. This is not about any one single position of a Government. I’m sure members on that side of the House are seasoned enough to understand the difference between a referendum and Government policy.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Will the Government have drafted any legislation that the public can see before deciding their vote at the referendum?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I answered that in the last question. All details around the referendum will be released in due course.

Question No. 3—Housing and Urban Development

3. to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What standards, if any, are there for motels that are providing Government-funded temporary and emergency accommodation for people who need it?

I thank the member for the question. Since 2016, Government has been reliant on motels for emergency housing. Where motels are contracted by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development as transitional housing, officials review the property to ensure that the accommodation is of an appropriate standard and ensure that the right consents are in place. I’m advised, however, that there are no standards currently tied to emergency housing special needs grants that are given to people who then use that money to book motels. The motel quality is therefore regulated only by the local council. I do not consider this to be acceptable. Officials are going to advise me on how we can make sure that motels receiving Government money through emergency housing special needs grants meet appropriate standards. This Government is committed to phasing out the last Government’s reliance on motels.

💬 Marama Davidson: Will there be urgent checks on all other motels providing temporary and emergency housing to ensure they meet higher standards than what we’ve seen with the Astro Motel in Ōtāhuhu?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: So my advice is that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is undertaking a stocktake of all motels that are being used for emergency housing to ensure that they are of an appropriate standard and that the clients receive the same level of service as other guests. It’s unacceptable that the special needs grants for motels were established without accountability for the standards. That will change. There are things that we can do, and, currently, MSD staff meet with clients who are staying in emergency housing every seven days. Minister Sepuloni has instructed MSD to explore options for how complaints can get raised in those meetings and dealt with, and where council deems a motel unsafe, MSD will not use that accommodation until those things are remedied. All those things can be done immediately.

💬 Marama Davidson: Is it his expectation that this will include regular and ongoing checks and monitoring to make sure that everyone, regardless of circumstances, has a decent place to sleep at night?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes. It’s my expectation that that will be one of the options considered. I want the member to know, and for the House to know, that the use of motels for temporary and emergency housing is the lesser of two evils. No one likes it, but we have delivered a massive increase in transitional and emergency housing. In fact, 3,000 extra families have been put into transitional housing since we have been in Government—3,000 families. We are committed to expanding transitional and emergency housing until motels are no longer needed to provide that purpose.

💬 Marama Davidson: Is the Minister aware that $74 million over two years has been spent on motels and hotels, and is this the best use of Government money?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It is not the best use of Government money, and I would much rather that we spent that money on building high-quality, warm, dry State housing and housing provided by community housing providers. That is the single best thing we can do to alleviate the hardship caused by the national housing crisis.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Are bids for Budget 2019 assessed using the Treasury’s updated cost benefit analysis model?

The short answer to the member’s question is no, because Treasury assesses bids using the template in the Budget guidance document that has been publicly released. The main elements taken into account in the assessment of bids, briefly, are priority alignment—i.e., alignment with the Budget 2019 priorities—the Government’s Cabinet Priorities Committee priorities, general Government direction outlined in the Speech from the Throne, the coalition and confidence and supply agreements, intervention logic, implementation readiness and evaluation, well-being analysis, cost understanding—i.e., a cost breakdown and scaling options—and cross-agency or cross-portfolio collaboration. The explanation of the costs and benefits may be informed by a cost-benefit analysis performed by the agency making the bid, which may be Treasury’s cost-benefit analysis tool or another cost-benefit analysis.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Is he really saying that what Treasury’s website calls the Budget 2019 version of the cost-benefit analysis tool has no role in assessing Budget 2019 bids, despite himself saying in the House yesterday that the framework which sets out the criteria for assessing well-being is being used to assess Budget bids?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ll just repeat part of my original answer, which is that a cost-benefit analysis approach is one input into the bid process.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: That’s right. It’s an input—it’s used.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The assessment—yes, but the member is suggesting that that’s how Budget bids are assessed. She knows that’s not the case.

💬 SPEAKER: Careful.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Well, is the Minister aware that the Budget 2019 cost-benefit model, which is used to assess well-being Budget bids, has a significant error in it in which the dollar values assigned to a range of outcomes change significantly every time a user changes the order of the information, such as by sorting it alphabetically?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Budget analysis tool is an input to assessment. So the premise of the member’s question is incorrect. The Budget analysis is one aspect; the Treasury Budget analysis tool is one tool. The member is misrepresenting the role of that analysis in Budget assessment.

💬 SPEAKER: No, I’m going to ask the member to ask her question again.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Ask it again? Certainly, Mr Speaker. Is the Minister aware that the Budget 2019 cost-benefit model used as part of assessing well-being Budget bids has a significant error in it in which the dollar values assigned to a range of outcomes change significantly every time the user changes the order of the information, such as putting them in alphabetical order?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premise in the first part of the member’s question.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Is the Minister aware that that error I’ve referred to in the Treasury Budget 2019 cost-benefit analysis tool means that changing just the order of the information can change the value given to, say, avoiding heart disease from either negative $8,000 to zero dollars, to positive $45,000?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I imagine the spreadsheet is the same spreadsheet as what was used previously, although there have been additional objectives added to it, but the spreadsheet itself—I also probably assume that the member understands that the Minister of Finance doesn’t do the spreadsheet work for Treasury.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Why does he consider that moving house in the last 12 months amounts to $6,000 of social benefit per person?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s not me that considers that. That is an assessment that has been made by Treasury, working with other agencies such as Housing New Zealand. The member continues to conflate together different values. In fact, Treasury themselves have said that the conflation that she’s making is not a valid direct comparison.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Doesn’t having a Budget assessment tool that values not getting diabetes as only being worth half as much as chatting with your neighbour just prove that Auckland Action Against Poverty is absolutely right when they say that this Government has got its priorities wrong?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is comparing apples and oranges, and she does know that because she has been a Minister. What the cost-benefit analysis tool does is, in one area, it looks at fiscal costs to the Government—the example she’s given around diabetes—and, in another area, it looks at wider societal benefit. Treasury themselves have said that that is not a valid direct comparison.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Why did the Government establish the Tax Working Group?

The coalition Government established the independent Tax Working Group to consider the structure, fairness, and balance of the tax system. Taxes should be fair, simple, and collected. While the New Zealand tax system has for the most part met these criteria, it’s important for New Zealanders to have confidence in the tax system and that we regularly review and assess it to ensure that everybody is paying their fair share. The expert advisory group has worked for many months and has received over 6,700 public submissions. I want to thank them for their work, and tomorrow they will release their final report and recommendations to the Government.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: How much change is likely to be made to the tax system?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government will now work through the report and its recommendations. No decisions have been made on them. I’d like to reiterate that the Government has always been clear that no changes will be implemented in this term and that there are key bottom lines—in particular, that the family home is off limits, increases to income tax and GST are off limits, and inheritance tax is off limits. Nothing is predetermined and we are not expecting to make wholesale changes to the New Zealand system, but it is important that we make sure New Zealanders pay their fair share, and the Government has already taken steps towards that with its announcement earlier this week around multinationals—something the Opposition don’t appear to care about.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: What is the process and time frame from here?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we have said, we will now take time to discuss the Tax Working Group’s recommendations with our coalition and confidence and supply partners. Together we will seek to address any gaps that the group may have found that undermine the fairness and balance of the system. In April, we will announce our decisions on any appropriate changes and introduce legislation as appropriate from there, with the aim of passing that next year, with any decisions not taking effect until 1 April 2021.

Question No. 6—Foreign Affairs

6. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he stand by all his statements on the New Zealand - China relationship?

Yes.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Does he now support New Zealand’s involvement in the One Belt One Road initiative with China?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: When I last met the Foreign Minister for China, I raised with him the issue of One Belt and One Road. It is in the communiqué that he put out after the meeting was over, but what I did ask him for was: could he possibly put some flesh and some detail around the concept of a very vague document that was signed by the previous Government? That’s where things sit, and my colleague David Parker is going to such a meeting in April of this year.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Does he now support New Zealand’s involvement in the One Belt One Road initiative with China?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I want to make it very, very clear to the people of this country that this is a concept that is being worked on mutually between China and New Zealand. If you look at the original memorandum of understanding that the National Party signed, there is no flesh, detail, or certainty whatsoever. Now, we don’t believe in that sort of vague behaviour, and we’re going to do something precisely in the interests of New Zealand and, indeed, hopefully, China as well.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Well, can the Minister explain to New Zealand why he does not support New Zealand’s involvement in the One Belt One Road initiative with China?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Saying it very slowly—at a meeting with Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, in Beijing, we discussed in some detail what this could possibly mean. He said he was working on it and he’d be getting back to us. Can I say now that, with certainty, there is a meeting coming up, indeed—with other countries, including New Zealand—which the Hon David Parker will attend—[Holds up photo]—on the concept of Belt and Roads. So we will know with more precision what we’re talking about—not the kind of vague promise that ended up like this where that member had apologised to Prime Minister Key for not being better briefed about China trade relations. There it is there—not once; he had to admit he didn’t know what he was talking about, and he apologised to Prime Minister Key for not being briefed.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Why did he recently tell media that he didn’t have enough information on the One Belt One Road initiative and was waiting for his Chinese counterpart to send him some, but his counterpart hadn’t done so yet?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because that happens to be the truth, as simple as it is. I asked him, would he be developing the concept, and he said he would get back to me, and, in a way, he is. He’s going to get back to this Government via a meeting that David Parker is attending in April of this year, and that’s just two months from now. So what we’ve got, in fact, is the possibility of a detail and understanding that we need to have to see whether or not this is a future arrangement that benefits ourselves and China. That is admitted by China, it’s admitted by the Foreign Minister of China, and that’s exactly what our position is.

Question No. 7—Regional Economic Development

7. to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he stand by his statements and actions in relation to the Provincial Growth Fund?

Yes.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: When will he release the interest rate and terms for the $7.5 million loan announced for a hot pool at Methven, so that New Zealanders can know the size of the effective grant, if any?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I may very well follow the standards of the last regime, where, for all of the loan finance provided to the recipients in terms of irrigation, nothing was released. I have sought the advice of the Ombudsman, but I am tempted to follow the tenets of the last regime, where not a single element of information was released. And, indeed, when Peter Thiel ransacked the fund of the last Government, nothing was revealed.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he recall the Prime Minister saying, “This government will foster a more open and democratic society. It will strengthen transparency around official information.”?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Yes, and I recall being the last man standing who has agreed to that level of transparency. In addition to that, I feel that transparency must be seen within bounds when there are two parties to a transaction—one a private sector recipient and the other the Crown—which is why the Ombudsman, who gave advice to the last regime, I understand, has been in discussions with our officials. I accept that New Zealanders ought to be reassured that when we allocate pūtea, it is done in a defensible and robust fashion, but within that context, I am taking legal advice.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept the figures of the latest household labour force survey, which showed that while New Zealand was creating 10,000 jobs per month under the last two years of the National Government, over the past three months, it’s created only 667 jobs per month, and, if so, does he think the Provincial Growth Fund will compensate for that massive reduction in job creation?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: On the question of jobs, as the first citizen of the provinces, I look at things through the spyglass of optimism, and the reality is that as we make our allocation decisions, these projects and these capital investments take time to fully roll out. But I have sought additional advice, and very shortly, I will provide a figure both to the House and to the public which is inversely related to the gibberish I had from that member around about Waitangi time.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that if job growth had continued at the same pace that it had under National, there would have been an extra 28,000 jobs created in the past three months in this country, and is the Provincial Growth Fund in any way compensating for that lost opportunity for Kiwis?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, the Provincial Growth Fund is really premised on the notion of provincial futures, and I have had precious little time to think about those dim, bleak times that he refers to.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether it’s been his experience that at these constant meetings and launches of Provincial Growth Fund projects, he and his colleagues have been seriously crowded out by National Party local politicians, mayors, and councillors who want to be in on the most exciting thing that’s happened in the provinces for decades?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I was recently in mid-Canterbury and there were two contradictory signals coming out of various parts of the National Party body: number one, the sitting member—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! That’s the end of the member’s responsibility. He has no responsibility for either parts of the National Party through it.

Question No. 8—Education

Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Minister of Education: does the coalition Government intend to ensure better and more consistent quality in home-based early childhood education?

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker.

No, we’ll have the end of the question as well.

8. to the Minister of Education: Does the coalition Government intend to ensure better and more consistent quality in home-based early childhood education; if so, how?

Yes. This morning, I announced that Government-subsidised home-based early childhood education will move to become a fully qualified workforce. Currently, home-based educators are not required to hold a relevant qualification. In fact, the proportion of services with qualified educators has actually been declining over the last decade. The Government has decided to move towards a level 4 early childhood education certificate as the minimum qualification for home-based educators, and we’ll be working with those in the sector to determine an appropriate time for this qualification requirement to become mandatory. It does represent a substantial shift, and we do want to minimise the disruption for parents, for whānau, and, particularly, for children. In the meantime, changes to the funding rates and the criteria will increasingly encourage home-based services to use a qualified workforce.

💬 Jo Luxton: Why is it important for home-based early childhood education to move to become a fully qualified workforce?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We have consulted widely and we’ve heard from educators and parents about the unique place that home-based learning holds—and, in particular, the family feel that it provides—with small groups in close relationships, particularly between the child and the educator. But we did also hear about concerns around inconsistent quality across the sector, due in part to inadequate Government oversight. Evidence suggests very clearly that an early childhood education qualification supports educators to provide children with stimulating, warm, and supportive early learning experiences.

💬 Jo Luxton: What other changes to home-based early childhood education are being announced today?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The move to a fully qualified workforce is one of several decisions we have made as a result of the review of home-based early childhood education that I initiated last year. Three other significant decisions are: strengthening the role of the visiting teacher, giving the Education Review Office more power to monitor the quality of home-based early childhood education, and introducing more explicit requirements on service providers to provide health and safety training and professional development for the educators looking after children.

Question No. 9—Housing and Urban Development

9. to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: How many social houses has this Government built that weren’t already consented or under construction under the previous Government?

I’m advised that officials were not able to compile building consent dates in this time frame for this question. This is primarily because each community housing provider and Housing New Zealand would need to compile this information, often from reviewing the consent documents for each and every development. However, I can advise the member that approximately 700 completed homes started the construction process after late 2017. I should note that this programme of work was not fully funded when we took office, but it was fully funded as a result of Budget 2018. The yearly build season is now under way, and last month Housing New Zealand had 2,155 new homes under construction. Overall, consent data shows that Government agencies, including Housing New Zealand, are building more homes than any Government since the 1970s, and we will keep ramping this up.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Will the Minister stand by the statements of his Housing New Zealand chief executive, who told the Social Services and Community Committee today that most of those houses were started under the previous Government?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I don’t believe that that statement has been taken out of context in relation to the primary question.

💬 Simon O’Connor: What does he say to first-home buyers who are missing out on a home because Housing New Zealand is buying houses at 5 percent, or sometimes more, above their market value due to his inability to construct new State houses?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, of 1,884—gross—State housing additions in the financial year that we’re talking about, only 249 homes were bought. That happens for a number of reasons. One is that we often need to acquire more homes for development or to rehouse tenants while new homes are being built. Also, Housing New Zealand was told by the previous Government that it wasn’t able to plan new housing in areas that had been previously identified for the sale of State housing—Porirua, Hutt Valley, and parts of Christchurch—so the organisation is now playing catch-up in those areas. We’re also committed to providing additional State housing in areas where we need it, and I reject the premise of the member’s question that poor people do not deserve to have homes tenanted to them.

💬 Simon O’Connor: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that’s an imputation against the Standing Orders—happy, always, to be corrected, but that last point is, well, ascribing something to me that I did not say.

💬 SPEAKER: I’ll give the member an additional supplementary.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When Housing New Zealand statistics show that 53 percent—53 percent—of recent State housing acquisitions were actually existing houses purchased or leased off the market, has the Minister not simply taken houses away from Kiwi families who are trying to buy their own home?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We’re committed to ramping up the building of more State houses, and I will say that when the last Government was in office, they reduced the number of public housing—that is, State and community housing. Five years in a row, those numbers fell under the last Government. We’re committed to building additional supply, increasing State housing, and increasing public housing overall. That’s what we’re doing. We can’t do it overnight, but we will do it.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Does he accept, then, the view of Bernie Smith, spokesperson for Monte Cecilia Housing Trust, that the Government’s decision to pause tenure review and other Labour Government policies is “only creating further homelessness.”?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I think what the member means is tenancy reviews, and, actually, I disagree with Bernie Smith of Monte Cecilia in this respect. Even at the peak of the former Government’s much-hyped review of tenancies, fewer than around 200 people a year were moving on to private tenancies as a result of that policy. The only difference—and we have recommenced tenancy reviews. The key difference is that our Government will not be throwing disabled people, families with young children, and pensioners out on the street, as the former Government was doing.

💬 Simon O’Connor: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Seeing as it was a question on notice, is it the expectation that an answer will be eventually delivered to the House, or is your expectation that a question would have to be answered again to actually get the figures?

💬 SPEAKER: I’m going to ask the member whether he is serious in that point of order and in bringing it up now, because if he is, he needs to have a very good look at the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Well, always a serious question. But while in respect to the Minister’ answer, he wasn’t—

💬 SPEAKER: No, the member’s not asking a question—well, he might have been asking a question of me. If he wasn’t satisfied with the primary answer, he should’ve brought it up at the time.

Question No. 10—Energy and Resources

10. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What plans, if any, does she have to replace the $28 billion and thousands of jobs lost to the people of New Zealand, according to the NZIER report, because of her Government’s decision to ban new exploration permits outside of onshore Taranaki?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I reject the premise of the member’s questions. Problems with the source modelling that the report is based on have already been well canvassed. But, in particular, I’d like to draw the House’s attention to the fact it ignores the fact that the Government is protecting 100,000 square kilometres of existing exploration area—an area the size of the North Island—nor does the report consider new jobs that may be created via the transition. A report concluded that in New Zealand, green energy could create more than 25,000 jobs. Secondly, this Government has a comprehensive plan for transitioning to renewable energy—the growth area for jobs. Amongst other things, we’re producing a renewables strategy that will remove roadblocks and accelerate them coming on stream, and we’ve already got people on the ground in Taranaki to work alongside locals on the transition plan for the coming decades. Thirdly, that member may wish to side with the industry and claim that the sky is falling in, but we’re actually seeing the medium term for gas is firming up. We’ve just seen the largest exploration firm in New Zealand invest a further $500 million in Taranaki, we’ve seen Todd Energy investing $100 million in a new gas peaker in Taranaki, and we’ve seen Methanex advertising for high-skill, high-wage jobs in the last couple of weeks. It’s also worth pointing out to that member that Westpac’s climate change impact report carried out by EY and Vivid Economics, released in April of last year, indicated that if New Zealand took faster action on climate change, it could save $30 billion by 2050. This Government has a plan to transition away from fossil fuels over a number of decades and grow new jobs and new industries. We’re implementing it; that side of the House isn’t.

💬 Jonathan Young: Regarding the 100,000 square kilometres that the Minister says that her Government is protecting, has she read her officials’ advice to her that states that of that particular area, the estimation is that there will be four wells drilled with a chance of discovery of less than 10 percent, or is she holding to her assertion that 15,000 kilometres of that offshore area will be producing active hydrocarbons?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: If that member wants to cling to that hope, then he needs to look to colleagues in his party that held the portfolio for failure to plan beyond a fossil fuel future, because of that 100,000 square kilometres—roughly the size of the North Island—this was identified as some of the best prospects by the industry themselves. This Government knows that we need to plan beyond a fossil future. We have certainty that we can continue to use thermal peaking for the next couple of decades, but we are not burying our heads in the sand and leaving communities and this country high and dry.

💬 Jonathan Young: So when she talks about people on the ground in Taranaki, when participants in last week’s road map for Taranaki 2050 were asked to bring a child’s drawing of what Taranaki might look like in 2050, is this really how she’s going to replace the $28 billion and thousands of jobs that will be lost?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think that member actually needs to stand by the community he represents. There is actually a lot of positivity in Taranaki about the positivities. I point to the $20 million that this Government has committed through the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) into that region, including $1 million towards a green hydrogen feasibility study that will utilise the existing skills in that area. What we have seen is a series of community workshops, because we actually do think it is important to talk to those people that will be impacted by change as it comes. That member is free to ridicule it.

💬 Jonathan Young: So when she says she’s “not just sitting back and magically hoping the future plays out in Taranaki [that] we’ve put $20 million through the Provincial Growth Fund into various projects.”—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I just want to make sure that the member has a source for his assertion that the Minister said that.

💬 Jonathan Young: She just said it now, sir.

💬 SPEAKER: That she was magically—

💬 Jonathan Young: Yes. Sir, she said that on TV ONE news last night.

💬 SPEAKER: OK. I’ll go and have a look at it. The member will carry on. I’m relying on the member’s word, remember.

💬 Jonathan Young: Sure. I can send it to you, sir. So when she says we’ve put $20 million through the PGF into various projects, is she not aware that most of those projects were in place by the previous Government prior to her exploration ban?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: For the member’s clarification, I actually said I wasn’t magically hoping, unlike those on the other side of the House. But I’m very interested to know that member is now claiming the Provincial Growth Fund for the previous National Government. I actually see that as a key achievement of our side of the House and what we’ve achieved in Government. But what we have done is commit to working alongside the people of Taranaki, Venture Taranaki, the local leadership, and accelerate the plans that they want to do. We have got Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials on the ground working to accelerate what the local people plan. Have we gone down there and handed out a whole new plan? No. That is not the correct way to transition plan.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: What other comments has she seen about the NZIER report?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I saw one comment yesterday that said the findings of the report were a disaster. I actually think the actual disaster we’re facing is unprecedented climate change: the massive ice melt, the warming of the oceans, rising sea levels and the displacement of people, record temperatures almost every year, extreme droughts, and flooding. The commentator was, of course, Simon Bridges, and it’s time that he and his party realise that the real disaster is climate—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! There will be an additional three supplementary questions to the National Party as a result of that out of order question and answer.

💬 Jonathan Young: Can she tell us how many tonnes of emissions will be removed from New Zealand because of her Government’s decision to ban new exploration permits, considering the NZIER report says the ban’s contribution to the global reduction of emissions is undetectable?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Seven million tonnes. That gas, roughly, makes up 9.8 percent of our total emissions inventory in 2016, so, by rough, back-of-the-envelope calculations, that’s roughly 7 million tonnes.

Question No. 11—Māori Development

11. to the Minister for Māori Development: How does Matatini reflect the coalition Government’s priorities for Māori and the cultural identity of Aotearoa?

on behalf of the Minister for Māori Development: Te Matatini is the biggest showcase of Te Ao Māori to the world: approximately 1,840 performers and 46 groups who represent the very best of kapa haka from across Australasia. It is the premier cultural event in Aotearoa, with an estimated audience, over the four days, of 60,000. Our coalition Government is committed to the well-being of Māori and the revitalisation of Te Reo Māori. What better event to give expression to the value and importance of Te Reo Māori and to Aotearoa’s identity. I encourage all members of the House to attend. This is a true celebration of our identity.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: How can the Government support the growth of Matatini?

The Government is already a significant funder of Te Matatini, and the event has grown from strength to strength over the years. The Government is committed to Matatini not just at the biannual event but also with the many regional competitions that happen across the motu every year. Te Matatini Kapa Haka Festival reflects many of the Government’s priorities for Māori and New Zealand. It’s a platform for the revitalisation of Te Reo Māori and a path to improve well-being, reconnect with hapū and iwi, and create space for young Māori to express and show their pride for our culture.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What role does Te Matatini play in the Government’s goals for Te Reo Māori revitalisation?

Te Matatini is such an important vehicle for Māori aspirations that we will make an announcement on the Maihi Karauna policy there tomorrow. We’ll be talking about how we can ensure how a million Kiwis can speak basic Te Reo Māori by the year 2040. Te Matatini is a key part of that as a vehicle for Te Reo use and cultural expression.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister enlighten the House with a very brief but scintillating history of Matatini and its formation?

I think it’s probably appropriate to say that it’s well-known in the House that the Rt Hon Winston Peters is a great supporter of Māori issues and Māori kaupapa. New Zealand First, back, I think, in 1997—it was reported on Radio Waatea today—were the first supporters and public funders of Te Matatini.

Question No. 12—Education

12. to the Minister of Education: Will he guarantee that his proposed changes for home-based early childhood education will not reduce children’s participation in early childhood education, limit labour market participation, or increase costs for parents?

The purpose of today’s changes is to ensure that parents can be confident in the quality of education provided for their children. One consequence is that once they are fully implemented, it could be that some of the least educationally robust services may no longer be counted as formal early childhood education (ECE). This may technically reduce ECE participation, even though the same children could continue to be in the same arrangements with the same carers; just no longer receiving a Government subsidy for it. As I noted earlier, we’ll be working with the sector on the timing and other details of the changes. They do represent a substantial shift, and it’s important that we minimise disruption for parents, whānau, and children.

💬 Nicola Willis: How will these proposals promote access to high-quality early childhood education when his own Cabinet paper says the changes may result in families being “pushed into informal care arrangements, where the Government’s levers to improve policy are limited.”?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because the Government will no longer be subsidising substandard early childhood education.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does the Minister understand that right now, parents choose home-based educators because they already believe they provide high-quality care and education for their children, and, if so, why is he telling parents they are wrong?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m not telling parents that they are wrong. In fact, the Government’s been very clear. We see huge value in home-based early childhood education. We do respect and acknowledge the very close relationship between the home-based educator and the child, which is very important for the child’s development. What we do not want to see is Government subsidies—significant Government subsidies—continuing to go into a sector where the quality controls simply have not been there. In fact, dare I say it, some of the money that’s been going into the sector has not been particularly well accounted for. To give the member a typical example in home-based early childhood education, most parents will be paying between $6 and $7 per hour for their child’s care in home-based ECE. That will then be attracting, if the child’s under the age of two, between $7 and $8 an hour in additional Government subsidy, though the person who is caring for the child may be receiving as little as $1 per hour of that subsidy. Money is not going to the place that it is intended to go to.

💬 Nicola Willis: Can he confirm that he received advice that his policy may reduce the availability of home-based education, preventing some women from being able to work, such as shift workers, who may struggle to find affordable early childhood education with the flexibility they need?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The labour market implications of the shift in policy are one of the reasons we’ve not set a specific deadline for the qualification requirements to be implemented. We will have a deadline in due course, but we want to step through that very carefully to ensure that the sector and those who are doing the home-based educating have time to keep up.

💬 Jan Tinetti: What impact will the changes to home-based early childhood education have on the 98 percent participation target for early childhood education, which was one of the Better Public Services goals?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated previously, these changes might technically reduce early childhood education participation as previously measured because some of the least educationally robust services might carry on but will no longer receive taxpayer funding and no longer be counted as formal early childhood education. According to the 98 percent target, this would be seen as a bad thing, even if the same children were in the same arrangements with the same carers and even if taxpayers had not been getting a good educational return from the taxpayer investment. This is a classic case in point of the risks of trying to reduce our aims in public policy to a simplistic numeric target.