Oral Questions

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

Following the three-week recess, yes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: In light of the median rent increasing by $50 under her watch, does she now agree with the advice of her officials that her Government’s policies, such as higher taxes and regulations on landlords, would drive up rents?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Why has her Government legislated for 23.5c of petrol tax increases in Auckland and 12c of petrol tax increases across the rest of New Zealand while at the same time stalling, postponing, or cancelling 12 major roading projects?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will be talking about the unfunded roading projects that he had as a Government, and, of course, our policy on excise was not too dissimilar to the last Government. Excise is what allows us to make record investment into regional roads, road safety initiatives, and public transport to try and deal with the congestion that you’ll see many Aucklanders are complaining about because there’s been a lack of decent infrastructure investment.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept there are more New Zealand families struggling to keep up with the cost of living since she became Prime Minister?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, I’ll fall back on what some of the numbers tell us. Under National’s first term, wages rose around 2.1 percent a year; under our first term, wages are projected to rise to 3.2 percent. Also, add to that the increase in the minimum wage that we’ve made, up to $17.70 an hour. Add to that the changes to the family tax credit, the changes with the winter energy payment, the Best Start payment, and paid parental leave that, on average, mean that families are $75 a week better off for over 380,000 families. We absolutely acknowledge cost of living pressure issues, which is why we’ve targeted low and middle income families. We’ve also done things through education to, for instance, remove NCEA fees and school donations for decile 7 and below, and make it cheaper to go to the doctor.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: In light of her numbers, does she accept the number of hardship grants are up 71 percent since she became Prime Minister?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely acknowledge those numbers. What we won’t do, unlike the last Government, is do anything to try and hide that. In fact, one of the statements we made when we first came in was that we absolutely believed we weren’t seeing the actual need. So we made a very public statement that those in need should come forward, and we made a very clear instruction to Work and Income: meet the need that you see. That is exactly what the numbers are demonstrating.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Isn’t the real reason those hardship grants are up 71 percent because under her Government’s policies the costs of living, such as rent and petrol, have increased, and the economy is sharply weakening meaning there are more people without jobs?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she agree with Andrew Little who, in 2017, after a 14 percent rise in hardship grants, said it’s “A sad commentary for the Government’s handling of the economy and how it prioritises the wellbeing of the poorest in New Zealand. Kiwis are doing it tougher and this Government has no plan to help.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: There was no plan to help them.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Well, if she agrees, does she think her Government is much more deserving of criticism, given hardship grants haven’t increased 14 percent but 71 percent in just 20 or so months under her watch?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How many more people are on the dole now compared to this time last year?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: When you look at the proportion of people on a benefit relative to the working-age population, from memory it’s around 9.7 percent. It was up over 10 percent five years ago, so we’re still lower than we were under the last member being in office.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: No. How many—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to remind the deputy Leader of the Opposition of Speaker’s ruling 174/7 and tell her that she’s not responsible for ensuring proper answers.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Why are there 14,000 more people on the dole now than this time last year?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I could ask the member why there were more under his Government as well. Again, I can also tell the member that one of the reasons, of course, is we believe that there hasn’t been the investment in case management, the kind of support that supports people into work. We’ve invested in more than 200 case managers to support individual applicants into work. We’ve also, I have to say, acknowledged that the Ministry of Social Development has seen over 17,000 people in that period go into work as well. But in order to make sure we’re comparing apples with apples, it’s always important to measure against the number of people who are available for work, and on that measure, as I’ve already said, there are still fewer people on main benefits than there were five years ago under the National Government.

Question No. 2—Regional Economic Development

2. to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent Provincial Growth Fund announcements has he made?

Over the past three weeks, from Foveaux Strait to Kaitāia, the first citizen of the provinces has been active. Each region is different. Each requires a particular mix of policy and intervention to boost productivity, but the announcements have covered manufacturing, tourism, forestry, mineral extraction, roading, horticulture, and, for the edification of the Opposition, biogas.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: What are some specific projects that were supported?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: The Invercargill Airport air cargo—a neglected part of New Zealand over the last nine years—terminal development. We have turned it around so that “terminal” only applies to the physical infrastructure, not the aspirations of that region as they’ve been saddled with over the last nine years; $500,000 to upgrade the first direct-check connection between Auckland and Invercargill; and, one other—just to show that we have our eye on the more forgotten parts of New Zealand—the one billion trees investment of $5 million to address a promise made by the former Treaty Minister to that tribe to deal with the Waiapū catchment challenges, showing that we fly high and we also deal with things on the ground.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: What progress did he observe on some Provincial Growth Fund projects already under way?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. There’s a very fundamental requirement for supplementary questions, and that is that they have to relate to the primary question, and that one didn’t.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she agree with the Automobile Association Auckland congestion report that “Action is urgently needed beyond what’s planned in the current project.” and there are “serious question marks around whether the Auckland Transport programme can deliver predicted decongestion outcomes.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Look, we absolutely acknowledge that we have a congestion issue in Auckland that is due to a significant level of under-investment. It took five years, for instance, for the last Government to decide that the City Rail Link was a necessary piece of infrastructure, which will take tens of thousands of Aucklanders off the road and would represent the equivalent of quite a significant piece of motorway investment. We are having to play catch-up.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How can she say that when, in the last small number of weeks, Phil Twyford himself has said that the former National Government “significantly over-invested” in roading around Auckland?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I was obviously talking about our transport infrastructure—including public transport, which, obviously, the member didn’t invest in.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Why has the Government cancelled investment in Auckland projects such as the East-West Link, Mill Road, and Warkworth to Wellsford?

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: We haven’t.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the Minister of Transport is indicating, that’s not an entirely accurate statement. But, also, we have, of course, applied a decent cost-benefit analysis for some of those projects as well—something that we long encouraged the last Government to do. If we’re going to be talking, though, about transport, I would be very encouraged to hear whether or not any of the member’s plans around transport investment also factor in our obligations under the Paris Agreement that he signed us up to, because he seems quite fixated on roads rather than public transport or, for instance, fuel-efficient vehicles, which I’d be happy to debate with him.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Will she, then, be explicit and make clear to this House that the Government’s unstated policy is that roads are bad for climate change?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What transport projects has her Government started to replace the many roading projects that they cancelled of National’s?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think you use the word “cancelled” loosely; they were ghost roads and they were not funded.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What transport projects has her Government started?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, we are well under way with the planning around rail to the airport, which is something that member never did.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: When will construction start on that project?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member wants specific details for our projects, he may as well ask the Minister of Transport. But, again, if the member is now telling me, though, that with his last 10 years when he was the Minister that he holds no responsibility for those currently sitting in congestion in Auckland, then I find that laughable.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question.

💬 SPEAKER: The Hon Chris Hipkins.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, here we go.

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the supposed cancelled roads that the Leader of the Opposition mentions in his question amounted to $12 billion worth of roading projects, none of which were budgeted for?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely. I also have to say that I don’t know how he would pay for it, given that he stands opposed to excise tax as well. So not only was he promoting ghost roads, he had no plans to fund them. In fact, the Ministry of Transport, if my recollection is clear, said that he would need to introduce an 8c per litre excise tax to pay for his ghost roads.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: In light of her talk of planning of light rail to the airport, and also benefit-cost ratios, given all the planning on that project, what is the benefit-cost ratio of light rail to the airport?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Look, if the member wants to put a question on notice, I would be happy to duel over whether or not we should have light rail to the airport. But I think if you canvassed Aucklanders about whether or not there is enough investment in public transport, the resounding answer would be “No.” If we want an international city, if we want to increase productivity, we need to invest in projects like the City Rail Link, which the member was very slow to come to the party on—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Will it go to the airport?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —and rail to the airport.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Prime Minister tell the country how many dollars were set aside by the previous Minister of Transport for the Whangarei to Warkworth—much lauded—superhighway?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I don’t believe there was any.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Isn’t the reality of that that the Transport Agency had done all the planning required, effectively, for a Whangarei Northport but the transport Minister cancelled that $450 million project at the start of 2018?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: A plan is very different to actually having funded the road. I note that many National Party members around the country are putting up billboards about ghost roads, which never ever, ever had the funding to deliver.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she agree with the Road to Zero discussion document Julie Anne Genter launched last week, which states that 87 percent of New Zealand roads have speed limits presently set too high?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, if the member takes the time to talk to some of the local councils, he’ll find that there are mayors up and down the country where there are areas of road where they feel that their local populations are not being well served. We’re not going to see large-scale road speed limit reductions, but we are going to listen to people locally who raise issues around particular spots where people have lost their lives.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can she confirm that identifying areas where roads need to be engineered up is just as important in identifying where speed limits are inappropriate as it is to identifying places where speeds might drop in some places, and the Government has no plan to drop speed limits on wide swathes of New Zealand’s network, but to make it safer?

💬 SPEAKER: The Prime Minister may answer one of those five questions.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I can confirm that, and that is why, of course, as part of our transport investment we are looking at investing $1.4 billion over the next three years in targeted road safety upgrades. By 2021, we plan to upgrade 3,300 kilometres of high-risk highway and, of course, that is through upgrade work rather than speed limit changes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is the sum total of the Government’s work in transport to date to stop National’s projects, not start any new ones, and slow New Zealand down?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Last week’s BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index showed that the New Zealand services sector continued to grow and expand in the month of June. While its expansion was slightly slower than in May, it is important to note that our services sector—particularly relating to tourism and trade—is connected to the global economy. The uncertain economic backdrop and slowing global growth will have an impact on this sector. But it is encouraging to see that New Zealand’s expansionary services index of 52.7 for June was higher than in Australia, the UK, China, Japan, and the United States—demonstrating the continued strong performance of the New Zealand economy compared with our peers.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: What reports has he seen on the manufacturing sector?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The recess also saw the release of the BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index (PMI) showing the manufacturing sector expanded faster in June than in May. The June PMI reading of 51.3 was up from 15.4 in May. This stands in contrast to manufacturing sectors in other countries, which contracted in June—that being in Australia, the UK, Japan, China, and the eurozone. And even while the United States expanded at 50.6 percent, it was lower than New Zealand’s reading. This data represents more evidence that the New Zealand economy continues to grow solidly and outperform our international peers.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: What reports has he seen on inflation?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Last week, Stats New Zealand released Consumers Price Index data for the June quarter showing inflation at 0.6 percent in the quarter and 1.7 percent annually in line with Treasury’s forecast. This compares favourably with the latest data, showing hourly wage growth of 3.4 percent in the March quarter, and Treasury’s forecast showing wage growth around this level over the forecast period. This is good news for New Zealand households and workers at a time when the economy is growing solidly compared to the rest of the world and the unemployment is at record lows. The Government is keeping the cost of living under control on this measure.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. to the Minister of Finance: Are the Government’s economic policies delivering a “stable and growing economy which is fair for all New Zealanders”?

Yes, after nine years of the Government failing to deliver an economy that is fair for all New Zealanders, over the last 20 months we are making good progress on turning that around.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think a 70 percent increase in hardship grants under this Government to almost 500,000 is a sign of an economy that is fair to all New Zealanders?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, one of the things that the Prime Minister’s already mentioned is that we as a Government over here are not hiding away figures like that. We’ve actually encouraged staff within Work and Income to give people what they’re entitled to while we turn around the economy to deliver the jobs that they so desperately want.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is it a sign that things are getting better under this Government or worse?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There are many, many signs that things are getting better under this Government, and I include in that the fact that I’m happy to purchase for the member a pair of cufflinks.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has his Cabinet colleague Andrew Little told him that the 70 percent increase in hardship grants is a “damning indictment” on their Government?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think the Leader of the Opposition must have handed Mr Goldsmith his notes, since he’s now repeating all of his questions. What I would say to that member is that on this side of the House—if we get to the end of Mr Little’s quote, which we heard before—we actually have a plan to make this economy not only stronger but fairer, unlike the last Government.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: He is aware that Mr Little—Andrew Little—thought a 40 percent increase under National was an indictment. Does he now accept that judgment against his Government, now that it’s much, much worse?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. What I do think is that on this side of the House, we have actually got a plan to build an economy that’s fairer for New Zealand. So when we lift the minimum wage to $17.70 an hour and that party opposes it, does that make it fair? When on this side of the House we index main benefits to the average wage and that side of the House oppose it—we know what’s fair on this side of the House.

Question No. 6—Housing

To the Minister of housing and urban development—

💬 SPEAKER: Just for future reference, the name of the Minister has changed.

6. to the Minister of Housing: Is she confident that the implementation of the KiwiBuild Buying off the Plans programme has been consistent with Cabinet decisions?

Yes. I’m advised every Buying off the Plans deal has met the requirements of the business case as assessed by Treasury as per Cabinet requirements. I do note that although the member’s concerns expressed to the Auditor-General have not resulted in a specific inquiry, the Auditor-General has passed the member’s complaint to the appropriate agency, Audit New Zealand, which has been conducting a regular audit of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development since before the member made her complaint.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: How does the Government define what are “new homes off the plan”?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Sorry—could the member please repeat the question?

💬 Hon Judith Collins: How does the Government define what are “new homes off the plan”?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: This differs from deal to deal, but the main point of how it is—the primary objective—is to increase the supply of dwellings at affordable price points for entry-level buyers. One of the main objectives strategically is to free up the market so that more developments can proceed.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: How can 10 apartments in Ōtāhuhu be considered to be in a planning stage when they were already built, already had a code of compliance certificate, and had already been unsuccessfully marketed prior to being signed up for a Buying off the Plans initiative?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Some of the homes were already under construction or built, but what this has done is enabled developers to move on more rapidly to building other homes. For instance, Shane Brealey of New Zealand Living said the outright purchase of homes at Mason Square and the underwrite at 340 Onehunga allowed him to get building at least six months earlier at 340 Onehunga and start his development in Northcote, which he said would have been just a twinkle in his eye without KiwiBuild. I note that in only a few days, 102 apartments, 72 of which will be KiwiBuild, at Northcote will be available. This is the impact that this scheme can have.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked about apartments in Ōtāhuhu, not about Onehunga or Northcote.

💬 SPEAKER: I’ll let the Minister have another crack at it.

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think the member must have missed the point in my answer when I said that, actually, the deal that was done in Ōtāhuhu allowed the Onehunga and the Northcote developments to proceed.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So is she aware that KiwiBuild houses in Canterbury, Huapai, and Ōtāhuhu now do not qualify as new houses under the Government’s HomeStart grant because the code of compliance certificates for these houses were issued by the council more than six months before they were able to be purchased by KiwiBuild buyers?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In the course of resetting KiwiBuild, there will be a number of very practical and pragmatic issues that I’ll be looking at—that along with the fact that banks give a three-month pre-approval rating to new homebuyers, which makes it very hard for a new homebuyer to buy a new property off the plans. I’m more than happy to look at these kinds of things. We on this side of the House are not afraid to admit that this is difficult. That member should know that her Government made a commitment to deliver 39,000 houses over three years under the special housing area. They delivered 3,157, 100 of which were affordable. We don’t pretend this is easy.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: I seek leave to table some documents. The first is a KiwiBuild pipeline, showing the Ōtāhuhu properties were contracted for KiwiBuild—

💬 SPEAKER: The source of the document?

💬 Hon Judith Collins: This is from an Official Information Act request that I have received some information back on from the Minister’s office.

💬 SPEAKER: Right, we’ll do them one at a time. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There appears to be none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a letter from Auckland Council confirming completion of the Ōtāhuhu properties, dated 6 September 2018.

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

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: I seek leave to table a code of compliance certificate confirming that the Ōtāhuhu properties were consented on 20 September 2017, before the last election.

💬 SPEAKER: And the member’s going to confirm that that is not available on the web.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Mr Speaker, I couldn’t tell you if it’s available on the web, but it’s certainly been received from Auckland Council.

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

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Minister of Health: What progress, if any, is being made on the design and development of new front-line mental health and addiction services?

The Wellbeing Budget included investment of $455 million to create new front-line services for people with mild to moderate mental health and addiction needs. These free services must be easy to access, easy to navigate, and they must work for the people that need them. To make sure that they do just that, we need to listen to those with lived experience and those who work in the sector. We took an important step in that process today, with the first of five Ministry of Health workshops with mental health and addiction leaders, NGOs, and community organisations.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: How will the Government ensure that these new front-line services meet the needs of different communities?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: One of the clear messages out of the inquiry into mental health and addiction was the importance of working with communities when developing these services. We can’t assume that a service designed in Wellington will necessarily work in the Far North or rural Canterbury. We need a range of services—kaupapa Māori services, youth services, Pacific peoples services, and programmes for rural communities. The best way to design those services is alongside those communities, and that’s why today’s workshop and the four others around the country are so important.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: So how long will it take to develop these services?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Transforming our approach to mental health and addiction will take time. We know we need more trained mental health workers and peer support people—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: He can’t even answer a patsy.

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —and have invested $80.1 million in workforce development over the next four years. That’s a pretty desperate interjection from the Leader of the Opposition. The new front-line service is being rolled out over five years, but now—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. I’m just going to ask the Minister to focus on his answer and not be diverted by the quality of interjections.

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The new front-line service is being rolled out over five years, but there are already services that are doing good work and can be expanded in relatively short order. I expect to have further announcements about this in coming months.

Question No. 8—Health

8. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that National Health Targets created “perverse incentives”?

The previous Government’s narrow set of targets produced perverse incentives and resulted in what were traditionally cheaper surgeries being performed in more expensive environments. I do not want the numbers pumped up by counting Avastin injections and skin lesion removals that could’ve been done in primary care as surgeries only if they’re done in the most expensive environment possible. The answer to the member’s question is yes.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Could the experience of Winton farmer Blair Vining, who was told he would wait eight weeks with his cancer diagnosis for his first appointment and then spent 13 hours in Christchurch Hospital’s emergency department, be described as “perverse”?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think the care Mr Vining has received has fallen short, and I have made that clear.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the dramatic drop in childhood immunisation rates to as low as 61 percent for Māori babies an example of a “perverse” outcome?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Our immunisation rates for children have been hovering just above 90 percent for a long time, and it’s proved difficult to reach that last few percent of the population. I know that our clinicians and public health staff understand full well the importance of immunisation and are working hard to ensure that more people benefit from the protection offered by immunisation. Unfortunately, that target set by the previous Government has never been achieved, and it’s incredibly important that people do get immunised and appreciate the importance, not only to protecting themselves from potentially deadly diseases like the measles but also to protect their loved ones, elderly, children, and other vulnerable members of society. So I encourage all who are able and fit to please get immunised.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he expect the final figure for elective surgery, excluding Avastin injections and skin lesion treatments, in 2018-19 to be higher or lower than the previous year?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The important point here is that electives are not the only form of planned care. I would remind the member, again, that we are seeing more acute surgery and more non-admitted procedures completed, which means more people are getting care that they need in the most appropriate, cost-effective, and convenient setting. I have been advised that as at the end of May, district health boards were reported to be at 99.4 percent of planned levels.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Isn’t it the case, though, that de-emphasising the very targets that are so important to New Zealanders has resulted in those important health outputs going backwards on his watch?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No.

Question No. 9—Social Development

9. to the Minister for Social Development: Why are there 15,507 more people on the jobseeker support benefit than there were in September 2017?

The recent increase is primarily driven by population growth and a reduction in growth for some industries where, historically, Ministry of Social Development (MSD) clients have often gone into. We have very low levels of unemployment, and in a tight labour market, employers want skilled workers. That’s why we’re focused on training and upskilling people on benefit. For those that may need help, MSD is committed to giving them support, both financially and through assistance into appropriate upskilling and employment, so they can achieve the best long-term outcomes for them and their whānau.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Why has there been a 17 percent increase in people aged 18 to 24 on the jobseeker benefit in the last year?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Putting it into context, there’s also been a reduction of young people coming in on the youth payment. What we need to put in perspective here is that young people are as affected as others. So, therefore, if population growth is a factor, and the softening in some particular industries is a factor, then that, of course, is going to have an impact on their employment rate as well.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Why are there 710 people in Tauranga who’ve been on a jobseeker benefit for more than 12 months when there are 841 jobs currently advertised on TradeMe?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Many of the jobs being promoted are requiring upskilled people, and that is why we as a Government are focused on upskilling and training. It’s unfortunate that there wasn’t as much of a focus under the previous Government, otherwise we wouldn’t have been in this situation. Programmes like Mana in Mahi that are targeted towards young people, that will support them into employment opportunities that are meaningful for them, will provide them with the opportunities that they need to go into employment.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Does she agree that there’s a clear link between the increase in jobseeker beneficiaries and the decrease in sanctions her Government has applied for unfulfilled work obligations?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’ve been advised that there is no link, that the two reasons that I gave at the beginning are the primary reasons, with regards to the fact that population growth is a factor and, also, the softening in some areas where our people would’ve traditionally gone into. We are focused on upskilling and training people who come through the welfare system and making sure that they are matched up with meaningful and sustainable job opportunities for them. We don’t want to see the churn of people going off and then back on benefit that was experienced under the previous Government.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: When is she changing the name of the jobseeker benefit if her Government isn’t requiring people to turn up for interviews?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We are working hard with New Zealanders who come through the welfare system. It is disappointing that under the previous Government, there was a diminishing amount of support for people who were unemployed to be able to take up work opportunities. In fact, at the last Budget, New Zealand would be aware that we invested so that we have 263 more front-line staff focused on work so that we can support New Zealanders into employment. That’s alongside other initiatives like the Oranga Mahi programme, where we’ve injected an additional $26 million to particularly support disabled people into employment. I want to make a note of that, given that we know that 53 percent of those that are in the welfare system either have a health condition or a disability of some sort or are caring for a person with a health condition or disability of some sort. We want to support them into employment, and that’s what this Government’s doing.

Question No. 10—Police

10. to the Minister of Police: Will the proposed changes to the Arms Act 1983 improve public safety in New Zealand; if so, how?

Our gun laws date from 1983 and are dangerously out of date. Since then, the firearms industry, the market place, and the threat environment have changed considerably. Successive Governments have known, since the Thorp review of 1997, that our gun laws were too weak. Further attempts to change the system in 2005 and 2016 both failed. A firearms register, a tighter licensing system for gun owners, and a new emphasis on safety and personal responsibility is the focus of upcoming legislation that we announced yesterday. In April, we acted to take the most dangerous weapons out of circulation by prohibiting assault rifles and military-style semi-automatics. We are now moving to stop other firearms falling into the wrong hands.

💬 Greg O’Connor: Why will a firearms register help keep New Zealanders safe?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: The majority of firearms licence holders are law-abiding citizens, and we have seen this through the initial stages of the buy-back scheme and amnesty. Based on the experience in some Australian states, we expect the registry will make it more difficult for firearms to fall into the hands of people who intend to use them to cause significant harm. The ability to track possession of a firearm over time will provide police with information to better manage the risks to personal and public safety from firearms. We know that firearms are increasingly being used in the commission of violent offences, and increasing numbers are being seized by police. For example, 950 firearms have been seized since March this year. Police, in their line of duty, also have to face firearms every day, and as the Police Association has stated, “A register will also provide valuable intelligence on the number of firearms registered to an address, and this should help police officers turning up to volatile family harm incidents, which account for a huge percentage of an officer’s daily work.”

💬 Greg O’Connor: What reports has he seen in favour of the Government’s reforms?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: These changes have been decades in the making, and I have seen numerous reports in favour of the changes, but if there is one report I would like to share with the House today, it is a letter I received from an individual in Waipukurau who wrote to me on 15 July about Constable Len Snee, who was fatally shot 10 years ago in Napier: “I am an old school friend of the late Constable Len Snee. We were at Takapau Primary School. With that, I would like to see a gun register of weapons and their owners, as we had back then in our school days. Len might still be here if we had the old register going.” As the Minister of Police, it is my responsibility to ensure that police have the resources to keep our community safe and be able to go home to their families after their shift. We as a House need to work together to make changes to our outdated firearms laws. We owe it to Constable Len Snee, the 51 people in Christchurch, and their families and friends to ensure that we do all that we can to find the right balance.

Question No. 11—Police

11. to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by all the Government’s statements, policies, and actions in relation to firearm law reform?

Yes, apart from a mistaken comment when I said you need to be a New Zealand citizen to apply for a firearms licence under the proposed law. You don’t, but I will be interested in hearing public submissions on the topic.

💬 Brett Hudson: What specific changes announced yesterday target illegal firearm use by gangs and violent offenders?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: The aim of this legislation is to make it a lot more difficult for guns to fall into the hands of those who would use them to create harm.

💬 Brett Hudson: Will being gang-affiliated be a warning flag the police take into account to intervene if they have concerns about a licence holder’s behaviour?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Yes.

💬 Brett Hudson: Why is the Government rushing to impose more costs and red tape on law-abiding firearms owners yet doing more consultation on stopping violent gang members using guns?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: These changes should not come as a surprise. The Arms Act has not seen substantial reform in the last 36 years, and it is no longer fit for purpose. The changes proposed will establish a system that strikes a better balance with the safe use of firearms and the need to manage the risk to personal and public safety. We want to make it harder for firearms to fall into the wrong hands. The changes establish that possessing a firearm is a privilege and not a right, and will better reflect the harm that firearms can cause.

Question No. 12—Police

12. to the Minister of Police: Would the proposed changes to gun laws announced yesterday have prevented the Christchurch terror attacks; if so, how?

We cannot turn back time, but we can act to lessen the risk of similar events happening again. We have already moved to remove the most dangerous weapons from our communities. We are now moving to lessen the risk of other firearms falling into the wrong hands.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Minister acknowledge that the answer he just gave did not in any way directly answer the primary question?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: As I said, we can’t turn back time. What I will say is the royal commission will examine events leading up to the attack. I will not pre-empt its work, but what I will also say is it’s public knowledge that we are introducing flags around warning behaviour. For example, encouraging or promoting extreme or violent behaviour would be a warning flag, and a register would allow us to track the accumulation of large volumes of weapons and ammunition over a short period of time, as occurred prior to the Christchurch attack.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Minister agree that this legislation—again, with a shortened public consultation—is not about public safety but is about providing a distraction for a Government that is failing in every other area of policy?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! That—

💬 David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a question. Normally, they answer.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, and I didn’t call the Minister to answer it because it was out of order.

💬 David Seymour: Well, I don’t understand why.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I’m not going to be responsible for the member’s failure to understand.

💬 David Seymour: Well, you could help by explaining, for the public watching, why that question is not in order.

💬 SPEAKER: The member might, in fact, like to look at Speakers’ Rulings and the Standing Orders and understand it for himself so that he doesn’t make errors like that in the future.