Oral Questions

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

Yes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is she aware that the terms of trade have been higher in the last 12 months than any time in the previous nine years, and why does she think the terms of trade have been so strong under her Government?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, the member will know that there are multiple factors that contribute to that, including, of course, the exchange rate. But also more broadly, though, when it comes to our trading environment, of course, exporters are doing particularly well, and the dairy sector has seen some of those numbers go up. That, of course, accounts for a significant proportion. But also our horticultural sector is doing particularly well, as is lamb at present. But that doesn’t reduce the need for us to diversify our trading partners, particularly when we see what’s happening in China and the slow-down globally, which is why the EU agreement is so important to us.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Why, in her view, in light of the strong terms of trade and rising exports, has GDP per person been flat for the last six months?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I am going to bring it back to the relative status of GDP in New Zealand. When you look at what other countries are experiencing, particularly Australia, China, the EU, and the UK are in a particularly bad state. Of course, the member can talk individual price points, but there’s no doubt that the international trading environment is causing a change in investment confidence, and that impacts on us—undeniably, that impacts on us.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Why does she claim that it’s global conditions causing New Zealand’s economic slow-down, when our terms of trade is at historical highs, our exports have been rising, and there can therefore be no other explanation than domestic factors for the slowing economy?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because the member’s talking about export prices. Of course, though, as the member will well know, I’m not the only one reflecting the impact on growth; the IMF is the one forecasting the downturn globally. And because the member also knows that impacts on investment decisions and the uncertainty in the international environment are changing confidence levels and are changing investment decisions.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Supplementary, Mr Speaker.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Oh!

💬 SPEAKER: Oh dear. The Hon Grant Robertson.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Ha! Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the Prime Minister aware of the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research consensus forecasts released on 17 June, which indicate that the export growth outlook has been revised lower, reflecting uncertainty over the effects of the trade war between the US and China, but “However, the domestic growth outlook remains positive, with upward revisions to forecasts for household spending and residential investment.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes—a direct reflection of Budget decisions that have been made by this Government in 2018 and 2019, in particular those that focus on stimulating the economy, investing in infrastructure, and making sure that our population has more money in their back pocket through higher minimum wages and also through the Families Package.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Given she’s very keen to tell us about other countries slowing down, is she aware that the only reason our total growth is higher than those other countries she mentions is because of population growth, and on a per person basis, we are the sixth-lowest in the OECD over the last year?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, I reject the premise of that question.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she deny that on a per person or per capita basis, we are the sixth-lowest in the OECD for growth in the last year?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, I was rejecting the assertion that population growth is the only contributing factor to our GDP growth.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What was net migration in the last 12 months, and what proportion of total GDP growth does she think was driven by migration?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have a recollection of the raw numbers being higher by several thousand, from memory, from when I last looked at the statistics. But this is a Government that very openly has declared that it is not going to base its economic strategy on selling houses to one another and population growth. Yes, we need to make sure that our labour market—that people who need labour are able to find it, but our strategy is on lifting the value of the products that we export, broadening our export base, and making sure that we lift our investment in research and development.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry, can I just make it clear that all members have a right to ask a supplementary question in this House without derision.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: It was admiration.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you, Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry—Mr Brownlee, would you like to repeat that?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I said it was admiration.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I’ll take the member at his word. Some might think that he’s trying to mislead the House.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much; it was a very kind comment. Is New Zealand’s GDP growth now, and forecast into 2020, greater than the eurozone, the UK, Japan, and Australia?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is that true on a per-person basis?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I don’t have the breakdown on a per-person basis for all of those economies, but, again, it saddens me that in 18 months, this has gone from a member who was trumpeting the New Zealand economy to one who has become very negative on behalf of our exporters and our economy.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Prime Minister confirm that Budget 2019 shows that annual GDP per capita growth averages 1.3 percent over the forecast period, which is slightly above the 10-year average of 1 percent and just one percentage point below the five-year average of 1.4 percent?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What was GDP per capita for the last 12 months?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I don’t have the GDP per capita figure in front of me. I’m happy to provide it, but, toe to toe, relative to other nations, I am absolutely confident that we outperform major OECD nations.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Shouldn’t she be able to say what our per-person growth was, and isn’t the answer not much, if anything?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, and, again, 2.6 percent is our—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Sorry, there’s now been too much noise from both sides of the House. I have had, especially after yesterday, significant complaints that people in the gallery and in the wider television world are having trouble hearing the Government because of noise from the Opposition. Can I say that the sorts of interjections that we had from behind the Prime Minister on that occasion were loud and not helpful.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, 2.6 percent is where our GDP growth sits at. Wage growth is over 3 percent. We have the second-lowest unemployment that we have had in over 10 years, second only to, of course, the last quarter. I am confident with the economic indicators of this Government, because the proof is in the pudding.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is she satisfied that under her Government, per capita growth has more than halved despite a record high terms of trade and rising exports?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I am confident that, yes, we do have rising exports, that the prices for our exporters, although down in the last overnight figures for dairy, of course, will continue to improve. But our economic plan is not the same as the last Government’s. It is particularly focused on increasing wages, something that last Government did lose sight of.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Have exporters written to her thanking her for the dollar—around about US65c and stable, as opposed to the 70s, sometimes 80s, under the previous administration?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Certainly, the feedback I’ve had, particularly from primary producers at the Fieldays, was that, yes, they do see the conditions being particularly favourable to them at present. No one wants to rest on their laurels, though, and, of course, the investment we’re putting into research and development and moving from volume to value is incredibly important.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: In light of her mention just then of her economic plan, can she confirm it’s more tax, more cost, and more debt, and won’t that actually just make our economy worse?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is not our plan.

Question No. 2—Health

2. to the Minister of Health: Is he concerned about the potential health implications of nitrate levels in Canterbury’s aquifers, including in drinking-water sources?

No, not at this time. I’m advised that the Ministry of Health’s most recent review of drinking water, 2016-17, reports that there are eight water supplies in the Canterbury region, including South Canterbury, that monitor for nitrate: Ashburton, Burnham Camp, Darfield, Dunsandel & Sherwood Estate, Edendale and Sandy Knolls, Fairton, Hinds, and Poyntz Road. All eight water supply regions met the drinking-water standards. In addition, Christchurch City Council monitors nitrate levels every five years and reports levels well below the maximum accepted values. The next testing results are due in coming months. However, I am aware of the broader issues around nitrates and human health being raised internationally, including for pregnant women and babies. That’s why I’ve asked the Director-General of Health to ensure the ministry is actively monitoring developments.

💬 Marama Davidson: Does he share the concerns of the Canterbury medical officer of health, Dr Alistair Humphrey, that current levels of nitrates in Canterbury drinking-water may be high enough to create a risk of colorectal cancer, according to a recent Danish study?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Not at this time. I’m advised that the International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified nitrate as 2A—probably carcinogenic to humans—but advised that the weight of evidence is that there is unlikely to be a causal association between gastric cancer and nitrate in drinking water. I’m also advised that the study in question was a study from Aarhus University, Denmark. It found an increased risk of colon and rectal cancer at concentrations greater than 3.87 milligram nitrate per litre of water. Health officials asked the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) for advice on the research report, and ESR’s water chemist advised it is only one of several studies that need to be taken into consideration in deciding what adjustment, if any, should be made to drinking-water standards.

💬 Marama Davidson: Will he support further research to identify whether nitrate levels in some New Zealand drinking-water sources have potential long-term health effects, given Canterbury already has relatively high levels of nitrates in its groundwater and these are likely to increase?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Health research in New Zealand is funded by the Health Research Council (HRC). It allocates the majority of funds through an annual funding round to independent research projects, which are researcher initiated. A competitive process ensures that high-quality and relevant research is supported across a number of research investment streams, including public health. Should researchers wish to replicate the Danish study in New Zealand or conduct epidemiological studies of cancer and nitrates in drinking water, the HRC’s website provides detailed information about the funding available and how to apply.

💬 Hon David Parker: Can the Minister confirm that he met with me, the Director-General of Health, and the Secretary for the Environment after Dr Humphrey raised these issues with us, and that the Government is alert to the issues as to whether more research is needed to ascertain whether these studies in Denmark are of relevance to New Zealand?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I can confirm that. Furthermore, I can confirm that, in passing, the honourable Minister and I had a further conversation on this matter just last night, as both of us are alert to the issue and keen to see how it develops and whether and in what role New Zealand might play in better understanding these issues.

💬 Marama Davidson: Does he agree the Ministry of Health should have a role in identifying and responding to environmental pollution which creates a risk to human health?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am advised that health officials do not have a lead role in identifying or responding to environmental pollution, because this is undertaken by local government. Local public health staff work with their local government colleagues to identify and manage public health risks in their regions. Regional councils and unitary authorities monitor air quality, freshwater quality, and identify and manage potentially contaminated land, among other things. These councils also manage discharges to air, land, and water under the Resource Management Act. When a council identifies a potential public health risk, it may seek advice from the local district health board public health unit to ensure the risk is managed appropriately and for assistance in providing advice to the public.

Question No. 3—GCSB

3. to the Minister responsible for the GCSB: Was he advised by the director of the GCSB on the evening of Tuesday, 28 May that what happened to the Treasury’s website “was not a hack in the commonly understood sense” and that “it would be best to refer to it as unauthorised access”, and was that same information provided to the Minister of Finance and the Treasury that evening?

Yes, I was advised by the Director-General of the GCSB on that evening that the member refers to in her question that, from the information available at that time, the GCSB could not characterise accurately what had happened as a hack in what they regarded as the commonly understood sense of the term, and that we agreed that the best description of what had happened at that point was there was unauthorised access. I passed that advice on to the Minister of Finance. I did not pass anything on to Treasury.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: When did GCSB advise Treasury that there had not been a hack; was it before Treasury put out their PR at around 8 p.m. on Tuesday evening?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What I know from my involvement in the events is that the GCSB did not become aware of Treasury’s characterisation of what had happened as a hack until after Treasury had issued its press release.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: So when did GCSB advise Treasury that there had not been a hack and that they should not be using that language?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I go back to my first answer, and that is when I spoke to the Director-General of the GCSB at roughly quarter to 10 that evening, he advised me that the GCSB’s assessment was that they could not characterise what had happened as a hack at that point, that they were yet to do a fulsome assessment of what had happened, and that did not happen until the following day.

💬 SPEAKER: No, I’m actually going to ask the Hon Paula Bennett to ask the question again and the Minister to answer it.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: My question was: when did GCSB advise Treasury that there had not been a hack, and was it before Treasury put out their PR?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I am not aware of direct contact between the GCSB and Treasury and, therefore, when the GCSB advised Treasury. I am aware that the GCSB did not provide personnel to assist Treasury to understand what had happened until the following day—that is, the Wednesday.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister, would he have answered those questions much earlier if he had been given the information that another political party in this House had?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I think, certainly, on the Tuesday, Government departments and Ministers were grappling with how to effectively deal with what at the very least was unethical conduct. We did not know by whom, but, clearly, there was a breach of Budget confidentiality, and it was important that Ministers and departments got on top of it.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Do you think that Treasury should have corrected their press release—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! “Does the Minister”.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Sorry. Does the Minister think that Treasury should have corrected their press release and not allowed the language of “hack” to continue all day Wednesday and into Thursday morning?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! That’s not something that this Minister has responsibility for.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Was he concerned that Treasury let the language of “hack” continue to be reported all day Wednesday and into Thursday morning, when GCSB had been specific with them that that was not what they had believed had happened to the systems?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That is a question that I understand falls squarely in the centre of the terms of reference of the State Services Commission inquiry into this matter, and it’s not in the public interest for me to provide an answer to that question.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Was there anybody at the GCSB who conclusively knew on the evening of Tuesday, 28 May how Budget information had become public?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No. The GCSB’s advice to me on the Tuesday evening was that they did not think that the incident could be characterised as a hack, but until they had closely examined what had happened—which did not happen until the Wednesday—they could not provide a definitive definition of what exactly it was.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: What specific contact was there between the Prime Minister’s communications staff and the GCSB on the evening of 28 May?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have no knowledge or awareness of direct contact between the GCSB and staff of the Prime Minister’s office, but I can confirm that I contacted a staff member in the Prime Minister’s office after I had spoken to the Director-General of the GCSB.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of the Government’s decisions, statements, and actions in relation to his portfolio?

Yes, in the context in which they were made and undertaken.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Does he stand by his statement yesterday in relation to the Government’s decision to spend $7 million on Artists in Schools but not reinstate the $6.5 million for cochlear implants that “These things are not trade-offs, one against another.”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I do. The member is creating a series of false equivalences across the Budget. What I would note is that the baseline funding of $8.43 million for cochlear implants was maintained in this year’s Budget.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Does the Minister of Finance, responsible for allocating billions of dollars in tax revenue each year, seriously not understand the basic economic concept that there are trade-offs when you spend taxpayers’ money, and that $1 spent on Artists in Schools, for example, is a dollar that cannot be spent elsewhere?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have a great deal of awareness of the process of putting together Budgets, having now done it twice, and one of the things I know is that the trade-off that the National Party made to give tax cuts to people who didn’t need them versus not investing in the health system of New Zealand was clearly a decision of their priorities.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: So does he understand that if a household, for example, spends $50 a week extra in rent, then that’s $50 it doesn’t have to spend on things like groceries, and why does he think it’s any different for this Government?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, clearly, rents do go up from time to time. They did under the last Government; they have gone up under this Government. The good news is that for 384,000 low and middle income New Zealand families, they’re going to be better off by $75 a week as a result of the changes that this Government has made.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: What responsibility will the Minister take for New Zealand being in “a period of slow-down”, as he told the select committee this morning, when our terms of trade have been enjoying a period of considerable strength, or will he continue to point to future forecasts to explain our already happened slow-down?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We did traverse this material in the select committee. The New Zealand economy is still growing. The rate of growth of that is slower than it was. That is a result of the fact that New Zealand, as a country that trades into the world, is not immune from what happens in the world. But the good news is—the good news is—that net debt’s under control, we’ve got a Budget surplus, unemployment’s low, and, yes, exports have been growing. The member needs to be just a little bit more glass half-full.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Why? There’s nothing to be cheerful about.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is so true where you are!

💬 Hon Amy Adams: You’re breaking the economy, Grant. It’s no reason to cheer.

💬 SPEAKER: I think that shows the point of not interjecting at that particular point of time.

Question No. 5—Corrections

5. to the Minister of Corrections: What recent announcements has he made about improving mental health services inside prisons?

More good news: Wellbeing Budget has provided a $128.3 million boost in mental health and addiction services for offenders. This shows the Government’s commitment to doing things differently, to break the cycle of offending, and to keep communities safe. The investment will enable more people to access better mental health and alcohol and other drug services, both in prisons and in the community.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: How many additional offenders will receive mental health services because of this wellbeing investment?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Once fully implemented, the expanded mental health services will support up to 2,310 additional offenders with mild to moderate mental health needs, per year. If we support people struggling with mental health or addiction issues, we make it easier for them to engage in education, employment, and rehabilitation activities, and develop positive relationships with whānau and support networks. That means they can get their lives back on the right track.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: How will this increase in mental health services help offenders successfully transition from prison back into communities?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: This funding reaches out beyond the wire to help prisoners successfully transition back into their communities. It will provide supported living accommodation for up to 30 offenders with intensive mental health needs, as well as provide extra aftercare support services for those dealing with alcohol and drug addictions. This funding also looks to provide support to the whānau of offenders. A whānau service will support 275 families of offenders who need mental health services. Expanded social worker and trauma counselling services will help up to 800 whānau and children reconnect with prisoners. All of these wellbeing initiatives will help ensure those that leave prison will get the support they need to never come back.

Question No. 6—Transport

6. to the Minister of Transport: What are the major cost pressures on the National Land Transport Fund for the period 2018–2021, which have led to councils in Auckland, Christchurch, and Selwyn all facing reduced expectations on the level of funding available from the fund for roading improvements?

on behalf of the Minister of Transport: The Transport Agency advises me that while there is more money than ever before in the National Land Transport Fund (NLTP)—including $700 million more for local roads than under the previous Government’s last NLTP—the agency has received an unprecedented number of funding requests for new transport projects. I’d like to assure that member that Auckland, Canterbury, and Selwyn are all receiving higher levels of funding for transport under this Government. However, given that under the last Government, 40 percent of the transport budget was spent on just seven motorways—primarily in urban areas—it’s not surprising that we have a backlog of local road, public transport, and safety upgrades that need funding right across the country.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: So how can he have got the figures so wrong in August last year, when he announced the current three-year funding plan, that he and his colleagues are back-pedalling less than 10 months later?

On behalf of the Minister, I didn’t get any figures wrong. We’re putting more money into local roads, regional roads, and local road and State highway maintenance than the previous Government would have. It’s just that for the first time in 10 years, local councils now had some confidence they might get central government funding for local road projects, safety projects, and regional improvements, and so they enthusiastically brought forward a huge number of transport projects—hundreds and hundreds of transport projects—of which we are funding a much larger number than would have been able to be funded under the previous Government’s transport budget. So I just want to reassure the member that more local roads will be funded and more safety projects will be funded under this NLTP than would have been the case if National had still been in power.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, what does he say to Christchurch City Council chairwoman Pauline Cotter, who, facing New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) delays and recalibration said, “We are all set to go. We’re shovel ready. They [NZTA] have gone out and made these promises and then pulled out the rug from under us … it’s pretty gutting, really.”?

On behalf of the Minister, I can understand the disappointment, because for 10 years, under the last Government, there was a huge infrastructure deficit opened up because there wasn’t enough money put into local road projects, cycling projects, and safety projects. So it’s going to take more than two years for this Government to catch up with the many projects that need to be funded. But I can reassure the member that Canterbury is receiving $1.7 billion in investment from the NLTP, which is more than ever before. In fact, the Selwyn District will receive 33 percent more funding than it did under the last NLTP.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with Auckland mayor, Phil Goff, who said that Auckland can’t afford to wait around for the New Zealand Transport Agency to make funding decisions and the city needs to see more action from the Government organisation?

On behalf of the Minister, yes, and that’s why we’ve made it such a priority to work with Auckland to ensure that the Auckland Transport Alignment Project is fully funded. Under that last Government, there was more than a $5 billion funding gap, so it really is curious how that member thinks that any of these projects could be going ahead under his Government, when they’re questioning nominal increases to petrol tax and they’re questioning investments in safety, public transport, walking and cycling, and local roads. Simply, I have to say that local councils have told us they’re very happy with this Government’s new focus on a balanced investment, but it will take some years for us to make up for that 10 years of underfunding of local roads and safety under the previous Government.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Minister of Health: How is the wellbeing of cancer patients in New Zealand affected by Budget 2019?

Most, if not all, New Zealanders’ lives will have been touched by cancer, whether they’ve had cancer themselves or a loved one diagnosed. The Wellbeing Budget will help them avoid, treat, live with, or recover from cancer in many, many ways. First, we are extending the National Bowel Screening Programme across another four district health boards (DHBs), an investment of $36 million in detecting an all too common cancer. Second, the $2.8 billion uplift in funding for our DHBs will sustain the prevention, screening, diagnosis, and cancer treatment services New Zealanders deserve. We’re moving to make these services better and more consistent through our new cancer action plan. Third, in Budget 2019, we’ve also set aside $1.7 billion in capital spending, possibly the largest allocation to health capital ever, and, of course, some of that will support better and more advanced cancer treatment. And, let’s not forget also the terrible mental toll a cancer diagnosis can have on people in families. The Wellbeing Budget recognises this reality through a massive expansion in access to primary mental health services.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: How has the wellbeing of patients waiting on funding decisions for the more than 20 cancer drugs, the subject of petitions, improved, given a funding cut to Pharmac when population growth is factored in?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The member knows how the Pharmac model works. In the previous financial year, 331,000 more patients benefited from access to medicines through the decisions of Pharmac—13 new drugs were funded, and 39 drugs had broadened access. I completely understand the calls for funding of more and more drugs; of course people who are suffering and their families want access to the latest pharmaceuticals. The Prime Minister has asked me to accelerate work on early access, and that is exactly what is happening. I would also note that the previous Government had nine years to consider early access and it did not.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: If the wellbeing of cancer patients is such a priority, why is the word “cancer” hardly mentioned in the Vote Health Estimates of Appropriations, and when it is mentioned it is to signal a 39 percent reduction in the cancer control appropriation on page 94?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Because the member raised this in the Estimates hearing, about page 94, I can inform him that some of that apparent drop in the figures is due to devolution to DHBs of palliative care and cancer control nursing, if memory serves me correctly. But the Budget overall, of course, is a record Budget after a long period of underinvestment in our health services. In order to ensure that we are delivering the care that New Zealanders would expect and deserve, we are putting more money into health than previously has been done. It will take more than one or two Budgets to address nine years of consistent underfunding of our health sector by the previous Government, but we are getting on with it. We’re making sure there are more nurses, more doctors; and we’re improving the buildings in which people are treated, and improving the capital equipment which supports cancer care. This is a Government that is actually doing something about improving our health system rather than those nine long years of neglect.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, what does he say to Lung Foundation chief executive Philip Hope, who said “Budget 2019 is not a Wellbeing Budget but rather an instrument of more suffering, financial crisis, and premature death for cancer patients most in need of care and support”?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I respectfully disagree with Mr Hope.

Question No. 8—Sport and Recreation

8. to the Minister for Sport and Recreation: What will be delivered through the Healthy Active Learning initiative in Budget 2019, and how is its development representative of the Wellbeing Budget process?

The Healthy Active Learning initiative provides $47.6 million of funding for targeted school physical activity advisers, health promotion staff, and new curriculum resources and guidance for all schools, early learning services, and kura. This is an excellent example of the wellbeing approach taken in Budget 2019. The initiative was developed together between the Minister of Health, the Minister of Education, and the Minister for Sport and Recreation, with wise advice from the Minister of Finance to support the Budget’s priority to improve child wellbeing.

💬 Jamie Strange: What evidence was used to inform the development of this initiative?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Evidence shows that physically active children are more likely to have better physical and mental health, engage more in the classroom with better attention and ability to stay on task, stay in school longer, and achieve better academically. Sport New Zealand’s latest Active New Zealand Survey found that only 7 percent of young people aged five to 18 were meeting the New Zealand guidelines for physical activity through sport, exercise, and active recreation. Giving teachers the tools to turn this around will help improve child wellbeing and promote healthy development.

💬 Jamie Strange: How will the Healthy Active Learning initiative be rolled out?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The physical activity workforce will be supported by Sport New Zealand and delivered through the network of regional sports trusts. The health promotion workforce will be employed and trained by December 2019 to commence work with schools and early learning services in December 2019. The ministries of health and education will produce a range of resources and tools across the programme for use in schools.

Question No. 9—Health

9. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statements and actions around the Northland meningococcal outbreak and vaccination campaign?

I have said many times that the response to the outbreak of meningococcal W disease in Northland has been driven by advice from medical experts at every point. As I’ve also noted, with just one case since the targeted immunisation campaign was rolled out, every indication is that this campaign has succeeded in its aim of stopping the spread of the disease. I stand by these statements.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Why did the Minister and officials not reveal there were extra meningitis vaccines available when the Director of Public Health, in select committee today, said, “We at the ministry did not have any formal advice that there was additional supply. So we had the 20,000 confirmed to us by Pharmac, and that’s what we used to roll out the campaign.”?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I do reject the characterisation by Mr Reti of the way in which I might have suppressed knowledge of something about which I did not know the detail at the time that he claims I knew. So I’d make that point to start with. I would also say that I’m advised the primary issues considered by the director-general when deciding on the approach to Northland were how best to halt the spread of the disease and to minimise the impact on the most vulnerable Northlanders. That campaign appears, at this stage, to have been successful.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Why was the campaign not extended to other Northland children, when we heard today that pick up wasn’t what was expected during the campaign and there are now thousands of expiring vaccines left over?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think this has been explained to the member many times, but I will explain it again: when there is a limited number of clinicians available to provide the vaccination, it’s important to stop the spread of the disease, by focusing on those who are most likely to spread it. So that’s why there was a focus on the teenage age group as the vectors frequently of this infectious disease, and then also to focus, as a next priority, on those who are most vulnerable, which was young children.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: After the Institute of Environmental Science and Research notified the ministry that two children had died in October and the formal definition for an outbreak had been reached, why was an urgent meeting of the National Immunisation Programme Coordination Committee not convened, instead of leaving it six days for a regular meeting that had been arranged months previously?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am not aware exactly of the detail of how that meeting came to be put in place, but by any international comparison I think the response was very quick. The group convened, they declared the conditions for an outbreak had been triggered, and a response was put in place very quickly because they knew that the school year was running out and that, in order to address those people who were most likely to spread the infectious disease, they had to get moving quickly. Mr Reti can’t have it both ways.

💬 Hon Members: Doctor!

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Sorry. Dr Reti—I apologise—can’t have it both ways. He can’t claim now that that very prompt response was too slow and then that they also should have gathered more information, as he keeps seeming to say.

Question No. 10—Police

10. to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by all his statements, policies, and actions?

Yes, including calling that member out when he publicly disrespects the fine men and women of the New Zealand Police service and then misleads Parliament on such matters.

💬 Chris Bishop: Feeling the heat. Why have only 472—

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, during question time, a member made a remark at the beginning of their question on this side of the House, with an open microphone, and you prevented them from asking any more than one further supplementary question as a result of that.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I missed it; probably because of the interjections that were coming from my left. I’ll get the member to start again.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why have only 472 new police been added to the force in the last two years, and does he accept that he will not reach his target of 1,800 new police in three years?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: What I can report is that this year a record number of officers have graduated from the Royal New Zealand Police College—831. That is a record that surpassed the 683 who graduated in 1997-98. This financial year, we’ll be graduating 900 officers, and since we have been in Government, there have been 1,367 new officers heading out into communities.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is it still his target to have 1,800 new police in the force by the end of next year, and given that only 472 have been added so far, is he getting ready to reset the target?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: It’s more than 472, but what I would like to inform the House is I remember reading an official police document in 2016, which highlighted there would be no more police under that Government until 2020.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why does he think he’s on track to meet the 1,800 new police in three years target when, according to the Police News, the number of new police has actually gone backwards in the last three months?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: That’s not correct. As mentioned, there have been 1,367 more police headed out into our communities under this Government. Next year, we are planning on training 900 more police into our communities. One thing I can say is we have no control over attrition. But the other thing I can say is that there are a hell of a lot more police heading out into communities than there ever would’ve been under that Government.

Question No. 11—Justice

11. to the Minister of Justice: What reports has he seen on trends in the Family Court since 2014?

I have seen reports on trends in the family justice system that show that the number of without notice applications, in relation to Care of Children Act claims, has increased from 30 percent, before the Judith Collins reforms were enacted in 2014, to now 70 percent, that number being achieved shortly after the implementation of the reforms and has been sustained ever since. What that means is that more families trying to get their disputes resolved are waiting longer, and it’s becoming more complex as a result.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Did the 2014 reforms reduce the time taken to dispose of applications?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No; in fact, quite the opposite. The effect of the reforms championed by Judith Collins now means that the average time it takes for a care of children claim to be resolved is just shy of one year. That is a considerable growth in time compared to the period before Judith Collins enacted her reforms.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Did the 2014 reforms reduce lawyer for the child costs?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Regrettably, I have to report to the House, no. There was a slight reduction in costs just after Judith Collins enacted her reforms, but that has not been sustained, and, in fact, we are now meeting the same costs as was the situation before those reforms were implemented. What that means now is the taxpayer is paying for a family justice system that is slower for families, costing the same, with more distress for families. It simply is not working.

Question No. 12—Forestry

12. to the Minister of Forestry: Does he stand by all his statements, policies, and actions?

Āe.

💬 Todd Muller: At his media briefing yesterday, when he said that “If tweaks are required to the policy settings that are driving pasture to forests, then they would be considered”, what tweaks does he have in mind?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Before one tweaks, one has to have facts—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tweaks by a twit.

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: —and facts are informed by science. So once we’ve taken the right level—did I hear something from a fugitive? Thank you very much.

💬 Todd Muller: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What on earth was that?

💬 SPEAKER: Is that a supplementary question?

💬 Todd Muller: No, it’s a point of order. Sorry, Mr Speaker, I’m still recovering. I put a very simple question, and he did not address it.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I actually think at least the first part of the flow did address the question.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. One of the reasons why my colleague wasn’t able to end his answer was that he was being abused by a member of the Opposition over there. That member knows what he said, and yet his colleague, who wasn’t given the opportunity to get his question answered, is not blaming him; he’s blaming my colleague over here, and that’s wrong.

💬 SPEAKER: Right, what I want now is every person who interjected during that point of order to stand up. [Members stand up] There’s at least one from this side as well. Right, we’ll carry on.

💬 Todd Muller: Does he really think he does himself any credit—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Mr Robertson. Thank you. Just behave yourself. I mightn’t be able to hear very well, but I can see.

💬 Todd Muller: May I start again, Mr Speaker?

💬 SPEAKER: Yes you may.

💬 Todd Muller: Does he really think he does himself any credit or add to a sensible conversation on climate change and land use change by calling farmers involved in 50 Shades of Green “partisan foes”?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I think the member has raised a very good point. Language should be moderate, but if people want to represent rural New Zealand, I don’t think it’s reasonable that they should be a proxy for my competence on the other side of the House. ANZ puts up with National Party valets on their board. I don’t see why I should tolerate it in forestry.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Rather than ask you to rule on this now, I’d ask you to have a look at the Hansard and consider whether or not the comment that’s just been made by the Hon Shane Jones is a contravention of the Standing Orders and whether or not the person who is clearly identified in that albeit veiled comment has been wronged by the privilege the member is claiming.

💬 SPEAKER: I will have a look at it. I must say, on first blush, it didn’t go nearly as far as many comments I’ve heard from both sides of the House about political opponents and former political opponents.

💬 Todd Muller: Is he concerned that the regulatory impact statement for the zero carbon bill assumes 20 percent of New Zealand pasture land is converted to forestry?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I would advise the House that over the last 20 years, 150,000 hectares—60 percent of which was forest land—has been converted to dairy; the remainder from low-productivity farming land into high-productivity dairy land. Land-use redistribution is a common feature of our modern economy. Now, in the case of whether or not large areas of rural New Zealand are disappearing into trees, I think that the exaggeration will be conquered by the facts.