Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about dialysis and cardiac facilities at Middlemore Hospital?

Earlier this month, I visited Middlemore Hospital to announce that the Government has approved the upgrade and expansion of its high-dependency dialysis unit and cardiac catheter laboratory. Counties Manukau District Health Board (DHB) has high health needs, particularly among Māori and Pacific communities, and the clinicians I spoke with during my visit told me of the significant pressure these services have been under and the effect that has had on their patients. They welcomed confirmation that the DHB’s self-funded $14.6 million project will now go ahead and increase capacity for both of these vital services.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: How much extra capacity will be added due to this development?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Last year, Counties Manukau DHB’s high-dependency dialysis service, which currently has 20 beds, treated up to 92 patients a week. This upgrade and expansion will deliver an extra six beds, which means an additional 24 patients can be treated each week. The investment also means a second cardiac catheter laboratory will be built at Middlemore, providing more specialist procedures for people with acute and long-term cardiac conditions. This long overdue expansion of services will make a huge difference to people in Counties Manukau.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: How important are these sorts of capital investments in our hospitals?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Modern, fit-for-purpose health facilities play a key role in ensuring that New Zealanders get the care they need to improve their health and wellbeing. As a Government, we are committed to improving the standards of our hospitals and health facilities, which have been neglected for far too long. The Wellbeing Budget included investment of $1.7 billion for capital works in health—more than the previous Government invested over all its nine Budgets in just our first Budget of this nature.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: He?

💬 SPEAKER: The Hon Grant Robertson—and that is exactly right.

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is it his Government’s policy to uphold private property rights in relation to Ihumātao?

As the member, I’m sure, will be well aware, the situation at Ihumātao is complex. We certainly are committed to ensuring that we support mana whenua, the relationships that they have built with, for example, Fletcher’s, but also to make sure that we come forward as a Government to play the role that a responsible Government does in helping to broker a solution.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Government considering buying land off Fletcher’s?

No such decision has been made.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he agree with then Acting Prime Minister Winston Peters, who said this morning that many of the protesters at Ihumātao are “imposters”?

The views of the Acting Prime Minister, Mr Peters, are his. What he was saying is that there are many people who are at Ihumātao who are not mana whenua. Equally, there are people at Ihumātao who are mana whenua. On this side of the House, we take our responsibilities as a Government seriously. That’s why the Prime Minister, on Friday, asked for a pause so that there could be discussions to find a way through. That’s what a constructive Government does.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he agree with his confidence and supply partner Marama Davidson, who said “colonisation is actually continuing with this land confiscation” in relation to Ihumātao?

Marama Davidson is perfectly entitled to her view. What the Government is doing is playing a responsible and constructive role in making sure that, in part, we clean up the mess Nick Smith left us.

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: Why has she undertaken a visit to—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member should listen to the earlier questions. The Acting Prime Minister is Mr Davis—certainly not a she.

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: Why has the Prime Minister undertaken a visit to Tokelau?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister believes that all New Zealanders deserve to see their Prime Minister once in a while. Unlike the previous Government, we’re not going to ignore the people of Tokelau, nor are we going to behave in such a disrespectful way as the Leader of the Opposition has by suggesting that Tokelauans are not everyday New Zealanders—what did you mean by that, Mr Bridges?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. Mr Robertson knew that that last comment was out of order. He will withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: When is the Prime Minister going to visit, say, the suburb of Te Atatū, or Mātua in Tauranga, where she hasn’t been, I think, as Prime Minister, and is she disrespecting them too as everyday New Zealanders?

The Prime Minister, as I think that member will know, is extremely busy and visits many parts of New Zealand. But one thing I can guarantee that she would never ever do is seek to divide New Zealanders against each other by suggesting that some people are everyday New Zealanders and other people are not everyday New Zealanders.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Prime Minister agree with the reported comments of the Leader of the Opposition that she shouldn’t be visiting the other Pacific Islands either?

No. The Prime Minister believes that we have a responsibility to the Pacific region but a particular one to the Realm countries of New Zealand: Niue, the Cook Islands, and Tokelau. Just because the previous National Government couldn’t be bothered going to Tokelau, doesn’t mean we’ll give up on our responsibilities.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Why didn’t the Prime Minister go to Tokelau during the one-, two-, three-week recess we just had?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition will ask that question in order. He doesn’t need to count in that way and he knows that.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Why didn’t the Prime Minister go to Tokelau during the three-week recess?

The Prime Minister was busy through the three-week recess working—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: On holiday!

Well, the member can’t have it both ways. The Prime Minister was visiting Christchurch and Hamilton. She was in Melbourne meeting Scott—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Photo shoot.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. Mr Brownlee, turn the volume down.

The Prime Minister was busy in the recess. She was visiting Christchurch and Hamilton, she was in Australia meeting with Scott Morrison, and, yes, she took a one-week break, I think, not unlike the Opposition leader did. Every Prime Minister in New Zealand’s history has been a full-time Prime Minister. All Prime Ministers work hard. The Leader of the Opposition is showing himself to be both desperate and disrespectful.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he agree with the former Treaty negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson, who said Ihumātao was fully and finally settled in 2014; if so, what effect does Jacinda Ardern’s intervention have on that settlement?

There are a number of cross-cutting claims in this particular area. Yes, there were settled Treaty settlements that covered this particular area as well, but, on this side of the House, we don’t wash our hands of relationships between Māori and the Crown the moment that a Treaty settlement is signed. We are doing the right thing here to try to broker a deal.

💬 David Seymour: What exactly is the Government’s strategy to uphold the legitimate property rights of those who have settlements over Ihumātao?

Along with the mana whenua, Fletcher’s was involved in meetings on Friday that led to the conclusion that there should be a pause. This is about dialogue. This is about taking a constructive approach, one which Fletcher’s are part of.

💬 David Seymour: How does it help and how is it constructive to reward those who have illegally occupied the land with a seat at the table?

I reject the premise of that question.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Whose voice is more important in relation to Ihumātao: the private property owners or the Labour Māori caucus?

That kind of question betrays the divisive, disrespectful, and desperate way that the Opposition leader is approaching this. What Mr Bridges needs to do is apologise to the Prime Minister.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is he going to adopt a different approach to discussing Ihumātao openly with the media than Jacinda Ardern, who, according to Newshub, “personally [prevented] media from asking about the Ihumātao dispute while on a charm offensive in the Pacific.”?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will ask the question again, in a straight way, without unnecessary comment.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is he going to adopt a different approach to discussing Ihumātao openly with media than Jacinda Ardern, who, according to Newshub, “personally [prevented] media” from asking about the Ihumātao dispute while in the Pacific?

I’m finding it difficult to follow the Opposition’s line here. Do they want the Government to be involved at Ihumātao, or don’t they want the Government to be involved at Ihumātao? He’s taken both positions today. What I can say is that we continue to be involved in constructive dialogue, because that’s what leadership looks like. The member might want to learn something from that.

Question No. 3—Health

3. to the Minister of Health: Does the Interim Cancer Action Plan he is finalising, include the establishment of a national cancer agency; if not, why not?

It is great to see the National Party adopting Labour policy from 2017. As Minister of Health, I am committed to fixing the legacy—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Because you’ve broken your promise.

💬 SPEAKER: Dr Nick Smith: stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise—what the hell for, I’m not sure.

💬 SPEAKER: Start the answer again.

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It is great to see the National Party adopting Labour policy from 2017. [Interruption] As Minister of Health, I’m committed to fixing the legacy of underfunding we inherited—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m now going to require the Minister to be less provocative, but for the answer to be heard in silence.

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As Minister of Health, I’m committed to fixing the legacy of underfunding we inherited. We’re determined to ensure the same high quality of cancer care across New Zealand no matter who you are, no matter where you live. It is important to remember the history; that in 2015, Cancer Control New Zealand was scrapped, which was the one agency at the time with the mandate to provide strong central leadership on cancer control, and I do welcome the National Party’s announcement that it’s had a change of heart. The Interim Cancer Action Plan is currently being finalised, and I don’t intend to make announcements about it today.

💬 SPEAKER: Can I just say to the Minister, if his entire answer was the last sentence, there’d be a lot less disorder in the House.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he stand by his statement, “One of the downsides of looking at an agency is having a separate organisation that’s not as well connected to Central Government and not able to be as directed.”, and wasn’t the whole idea of an independent agency so they could guide and direct the sector, and not the other way around?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: There were a number of criticisms in 2017 of the policy that the then Labour Party had. One was, and I quote, “This is a bureaucracy that is proposed that will not actually achieve anything, just chew up more money that could be spent on patients.” That’s a quote, of course, from the former finance Minister Steven Joyce. The strengths and weaknesses of different agency models are something that one has the privilege of working through in Government to ensure that, together with the sector’s input, we develop the best possible response to cancer control, acknowledging the nine years of neglect that we’ve inherited and the uneven provision of services that we’ve inherited. As Minister, I’m determined to own those problems and get on and fix them.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, does he agree with Labour MP David Clark, who said in July 2017 that a new agency was needed and that it “seems to be the international best practice”?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am glad that the member and his party have caught up to where Labour were in 2017. Since that time, I’ve taken the time to build further relationships with those who deliver the care in the sector, and I look forward to the member’s support when he catches up to where we are in 2019.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Did the Ministry of Health provide advice to him that led to his determination that an agency could not be directed?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I reject the member’s phrasing of that question, and I am not about to make announcements today on the nature of the framework that will support our Interim Cancer Action Plan. We are determined to deliver a higher quality of cancer care to all New Zealanders, to ensure that that high standard of care is in place across the country. Strong central direction; that’s the principle we’re working to, and that’s what we’ll deliver.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: What is the definition of “interim”?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think, if the member looks in the dictionary, he’ll find something along the lines of “until it’s been finalised by the sector”. [Interruption] So it’s a plan that is being consulted with the sector on. The interim plan, because it—the member smirks, but he may not realise that it’s actually doctors and nurses and others that provide the care, and it’s important that, when we put an interim plan out, they have a say before it is finalised as the final action plan. We’re a Government that consults and works with others to deliver cancer care, not one that makes up arbitrary decisions on the hoof for political gain.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, can we take it that “until it has been finalised” could be construed as what has happened with the mental health and addiction plan, which took two years to frame and is now back on the road so the Government can be advised what they should be doing?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The member mischaracterises that deliberately. We are getting on in the mental health area—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Start again.

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I don’t wish to provoke the member, so let me rephrase that. The member does mischaracterise that, in my view. The fact is that, with the mental health and addiction plan, we’re getting on and delivering services now. We’ll be supporting services that are already working, but we take the feedback from He Ara Oranga, the inquiry into mental health and addiction, which said that those that are missing out need to be a part of designing services so that we actually have full provision of services for the people that have been missing out under his Government’s watch, because we know that the majority of New Zealanders have not been able to access the services they need in the mental health and addiction area. This is the first Government to take mental health seriously. We don’t apologise for that. We’re doing it once. We’re getting it right.

Question No. 4—Social Development

4. to the Minister for Social Development: What recent initiatives has she announced about supporting young people towards employment?

On Friday, I announced an initiative led by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to help young people in Auckland to gain their driver’s licence. The partners in this scheme include the Ministry of Justice, New Zealand Police, the Auckland Business Chamber, Vehicle Testing New Zealand, and low-decile secondary schools across the Auckland region. This initiative is a three-year commitment and over the next financial year will help more than 3,000 people gain their driver’s licence. We know that not having a licence can be a major barrier to finding a job. Removing this barrier will increase the employment opportunities available to young people.

💬 Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What other initiatives from MSD will help support people to get their driver’s licence?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: In June, we launched a national scheme for youth involving a partnership between MSD, Oranga Tamariki, and the New Zealand Transport Agency. Over the next two years, the youth scheme is expected to support up to 2,500 people in the Youth Service or Oranga Tamariki care to get their driver’s licence. On top of that, across New Zealand, MSD clients can also get help with getting or renewing a licence. In the six months to March 2019, MSD helped 5,500 people from all over the country to get a driver’s licence.

💬 Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Why are these initiatives important?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We recognise how important it is for people to have a driver’s licence. Job seekers have an advantage if they have a licence, and in some cases it can be the deciding factor on whether or not they get the job. We’re committed to investing in people in Auckland and across the country to help them gain this important qualification and reduce this potential barrier to meaningful and sustainable employment. Supporting young people to get a driver’s licence will make the roads safer for everyone and will enable them to access more opportunities for work and training.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

5. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements, policies, and actions?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Is it appropriate that, under the Referendums Framework Bill, due to be read on Thursday, the only people able to consider the question of a referendum will be Cabinet, side-stepping the important democratic process of the whole of Parliament being able to scrutinise the question?

Ultimately, in our system, Cabinet takes responsibility for decisions such as this. Cabinet will, no doubt, as it always does, listen carefully to advice.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: When previously has Cabinet alone decided the question of a referendum when it hasn’t gone to Parliament?

I don’t have that information with me, but if the member would like to put a question down on notice, I’m sure I can answer it for her. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Members have been warned previously that, when non-specific questions are placed, that sort of response is absolutely appropriate. The two Speakers who preceded me made that very clear, and I’m not going to have disorder occurring when such a response happens.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Oh, we’re still allowed to interject.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Supplementary. Is—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. Amy Adams, you are a senior member and a retiring member and one who generally behaves very well. Having commentaries on my rulings from you is not helpful.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: A Paula Bennett—sorry, a point of order. [Interruption] That’s a mistake I shouldn’t have made.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s going to be pretty hard for me to get over too, I’ve got to say. But my point of order is this: in his answer to that question, the acting Prime Minister said that Cabinet had always taken responsibility for the questions that were asked in referendums, and then was asked the question, “Well, when has it happened before?” and said, “I don’t know.” Well, how could the first answer stand if the second one is correct? The reality is it’s never happened before.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the member is now disputing an answer to a question, and he does know that that is not in order.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No; no, sir. I’m concerned that you made a statement that it was unreasonable to ask the question that was asked when, in fact, the question that was asked by the Hon Paula Bennett was a follow-up to the answer given by the acting Prime Minister.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I—[Interruption] No, the member will resume his seat. I’ll apologise for my lack of clarity. I wasn’t indicating that the question was inappropriate but that the very noisy response to the answer was inappropriate.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Is a referendum question being considered by Cabinet, and not the Parliament, in line with the self-proclaimed most open and transparent Government ever?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does he believe it is acceptable for Government websites to instruct the public on how to take synthetic drugs, given that up to an estimated 80 people have died from these drugs in the last two years?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, I simply don’t know what specific instances the member is referring to. Obviously, if she has examples of that, she probably is about to raise them, and we will look into them at that time.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Would she be concerned, then, to learn that the Wellington Regional Public Health website gives clear instructions on how people should take synthetic substances, and what messages does she think this sends?

I’m sure the member will be well aware that the Government does not control the many websites of public health authorities or even DHBs. Clearly, we can take a look at that. The approach taken by those public health authorities will no doubt be based on their best clinical judgment.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister confirm whether or not the Opposition’s drug law reform spokesperson, the Hon Paula Bennett, has yet accepted the invitation of a Minister of this Government to be involved in a cross-party group on the cannabis referendum?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, I’m not aware that that invitation has been accepted. If the Opposition was more interested in being constructive than playing politics on this issue, that would be helpful for all New Zealanders.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. to the Minister of Finance: Does he accept that Government spending decisions involve trade-offs; if so, does he stand by his statement “these things are not trade-offs against one another”, in relation to the Government spending $7 million on Artists in Schools and not reinstating $6.5 million for cochlear implants?

In the broadest possible sense, in Government spending, as in life, there are decisions that need to be taken to take one action or another—so in that sense, yes. In response to the second part of the question, yes, in the context of the full statement I gave.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: So why in Budget 2019 did the Government allocate $1 billion to the Provincial Growth Fund and just an extra $10 million a year to Pharmac to buy lifesaving drugs?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The $1 billion was granted in accordance with the coalition agreement between the Labour Party and New Zealand First. In response to the second part of the question, the amount of money that goes into Pharmac varies from Budget to Budget. An extra $114 million went in in Budget 2018, $10 million went in in this Budget, and I note, I think it was between the years 2014 and 2015, absolutely no new money went into the Budget for Pharmac.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept there’s a trade-off between giving a baby bonus to high-income families and putting more money into cancer drugs?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We put together a Families Package that will leave 380,000 families $75 a week better off. That is a very important investment. When it comes to our investment in Pharmac, that is part of a health budget that has increased, I believe, in this latest Budget by around 11.5 percent. We are taking the time now to rebuild a health sector completely undermined by the under-investment of the previous Government.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: So does he accept that there’s a trade-off between providing free fees at university and tertiary to students from high-income families and putting more money into cancer drugs?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Once again, the member, as with previous finance spokespeople on the Opposition side, has mischaracterised that policy. I think it’s an interesting insight into the mind of the member that he doesn’t think that policy is actually for apprenticeships and industry training and people who are already in the workforce who haven’t studied beyond school. It is a policy that is about investing in the future skills of a range of New Zealanders.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is the Government indexing benefit rates to inflation but not indexing tax brackets to inflation, and what message does that send?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We were responding, in the case of the indexation to, in part, the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s call, and, actually, to undo a massive injustice done to those on benefits, dating all the way back to the “mother of all Budgets.”

Question No. 7—Revenue

7. to the Minister of Revenue: What advice has he seen in relation to the auto-calculation of tax refunds for individuals?

Since the end of May, Inland Revenue has automatically refunded $572,223,260 in cold hard cash.

💬 Hon Members: Wow!

💬 Hon STUART NASH: It’s a good amount.

💬 SPEAKER: And 91c.

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Yes, sorry. This has landed in the bank accounts of over 1.3 million hard-working Kiwis. It’s $188 million more than was refunded last year, at an average of $430 per taxpayer. Taxpayers are now getting refunds faster and direct to their accounts, without the need to pay a middleman or woman. This Government is committed to ensuring that taxpayers pay their fair share of tax—nothing more, nothing less. That’s why we are delivering on our promises for a fairer tax system, and we are making progress.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: How many taxpayers will have a bill to pay as a result of the auto-calculation, and how will the changes to secondary tax codes help mitigate this in future?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Inland revenue has completed or initiated almost 2.9 million tax assessments. Of these assessments, 271,000 people will have a bill to pay, averaging around $353. But these are not due until 7 February 2020. The good news, though, is that the changes this Government made to pay-day reporting, in removing unnecessary secondary tax codes, means that Inland Revenue will have better information throughout the year to actively contact taxpayers to ensure they don’t end up with a huge tax bill at the end of the year.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: How will the auto-calculation of assessments and pay-day reporting help families with children?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Almost 330,000 families, with 400,000 children, will now receive more accurate Working for Families payments during the year. This means that families will get the money they are entitled to to help with everyday living costs and reduce the risk of finding themselves with a debt at the end of the year.

💬 Hon Members: Well done.

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Thank you. These refunds and more accurate payments are only possible because of the Government legislation we have passed in the last 18 months. Gone are the bad old days when one had to go cap in hand and apply for a refund, and one could cherry-pick the years to pay the tax bill, but those with families could not. Somewhat surprisingly, the National Party stood in the way of hard-working Kiwis and families and voted—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member knows that he is not allowed to use a Government supplementary—well, maybe he doesn’t know. But I’m telling him now: he’s not allowed to use a Government supplementary in order to attack the Opposition. It’s a longstanding rule; the member’s been round here for a long time, and it wouldn’t do much harm for him to listen every now and again to a ruling.

Question No. 8—Housing

8. to the Minister of Housing: Is this Government acting with urgency to address housing issues; if so, is she aware today is the six-month anniversary of the announcement of a KiwiBuild recalibration that would take a few weeks?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes. Since taking office, this Government has announced a wide range of practical ways to tackle the housing crisis and help more New Zealanders into homes. We’ve stopped National’s sell-off of State houses, and we’ve started adding more public housing places. In the 12 months to June, we’ve added 1,600 new public houses. We’ve banned non-resident speculators, we’re tackling homelessness by allocating around $500 million in the Wellbeing Budget, we’ve banned letting fees, and we’re modernising residential tenancy laws to make life better for renters. We’ve passed a healthy homes guarantee for warm, dry, healthy homes, we’re providing insulation and heating grants to low-income homeowners, and, just last week, Minister Parker announced the process for amending the Resource Management Act (RMA). In answer to the second part of the question, yes, but, as I already explained, we do not consider that the KiwiBuild element of our housing policy has been delivering the way we wanted. We are currently resetting the policy, and, as I told the member in the House last week, I’ll be taking a paper through the Cabinet process later next month.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Why has this Government gone more than halfway through its term without having finalised its housing policy?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We are determined to get this right. This is too important. What I would like to point out to that member opposite is that she should know that. She was a member of a Government that promised 39,000 houses through the special housing areas, but delivered only 3,157 houses—100 of which were affordable. On 21 August 2007, John Key announced an affordability crisis. It took until September 2014—

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Seven years.

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —for that party in Government to do anything; seven long years. So I stand by the 642 days since we took office, stacked up against the 2,130 days it took for that party in Government to do anything about housing.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: When she says that the previous Government did nothing for first-home buyers, does she realise that, under the previous Government, first-home buyers as a percentage of the market increased from 18 percent in 2014 to 22 percent just before the last election?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I would remind that member of is the fact that we still do have a shortage of houses in this country. That party did not solve it. We are not pretending that we have solved it. We know there is more work to be done, and there are too many people that are shut out of the housing market. That member might be satisfied that their intervention with the special housing areas not only delivered 10 percent of the properties they said they would but only 100 of them were classed as affordable. We don’t think that is good enough and we are determined to do better.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: If this Government’s done so much and the previous so little, then why are more people homeless this winter than they were two winters ago?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think that member should look behind her, at the colleague she has sitting there. We had nine years of inaction, and a Government that took five years to get the first houses under way and allowed a housing crisis to develop. We have inherited an issue where we have a shortage of houses, and we are determined to address that. I think that party should admit they didn’t do well. We are willing to admit that we didn’t get the KiwiBuild element of our policy right in our first few months and we’re willing to address that, but the difference is we’re determined to keep trying on behalf of New Zealanders.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Is the Government acting with urgency on housing when, after 20 months—and now an acknowledgment that planning and the RMA need to be overhauled—the only action so far has been to announce a review?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’d like to remind that member of the answer to my primary question—of all the urgent action we have taken on housing and the suite of policies that we have introduced, from stopping the sell-off of State housing under that Government, through to the fact that, actually, we have got an RMA process under way. That is something I would note that that member’s party, when they were in Government, failed to get over the line in the nine years they were in Government and, in fact, their leader Simon Bridges has said it’s one of the things they failed on.

Question No. 9—Economic Development

9. to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he believe that job creation is an important indicator of the Government’s economic development performance; if so, did the latest household labour force survey show an increase or decrease in the number of jobs?

Yes. The household labour force survey doesn’t show the number of jobs in the economy. The March 2019 survey showed that the number of employed persons increased by 70,000 compared to when the Government came to office, and for a small exporting nation facing global headwinds, I note that New Zealand’s employment rate is higher than the UK and Australia.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Well, how does he explain job growth declining from 10,000 per month on average across 2015 to 2017 under the National Government to minus 1,300 per month in the first quarter of this year?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, those numbers that he cited under the previous Government also coincided with a Government that allowed unemployment to rise to 6.7 percent at its peak. This Government’s dealing with a very different time in the economic cycle. We have full employment under this Government, and firms are dealing with skills shortages and the legacy of the failure of that party’s Government to invest in the workforce and the skills that our businesses so desperately need now.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Well, what Government policies does he believe are most responsible for the reduction in job growth from 10,000 jobs per month under National to minus 1,300 jobs per month under this Government?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The policies that were pursued up until the election at the end of 2017.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Does that, therefore, include policies like the oil and gas ban, greater powers for unions—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Not a long list—one example.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He said “policies”, and it’s not for me to choose one. It is not a long list.

💬 SPEAKER: We’ve had a discussion last week about lists as precursors. Members have been warned. He can give a couple but not a long list.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Isn’t it actually Government policies like the oil and gas ban, greater powers for unions, and industrial law reform that are the reasons businesses have lost confidence to create new jobs?

💬 SPEAKER: I’m not sure the member’s counting skills don’t need a bit of improvement. He was probably at school when I was the Minister of Education, so I’ll take some responsibility.

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I reject the premise of that question. This Government has inherited a failure to invest in the workforce, but we are working with industry to improve productivity, to reorient the economy away from a dependency on housing speculation and immigration, and we’ve got a suite of policies that are in place to create a much stronger platform for New Zealand businesses to grow: Industry Transformation Plans. We are reforming the skills and vocational training sector that that Government allowed to fall into disarray; R & D tax credits; the manufacturing industry Skills Shift project—the list goes on.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Well, isn’t it Government policies that increase costs, like higher fuel taxes or increased workforce levies, or threatened new taxes, like on cars and capital gains, that are responsible for businesses losing confidence to create new jobs?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the member raised the question of fuel taxes. The fuel tax increase that we made in 2018 was exactly the percentage increase made by the National Government in 2013. The percentage increase this year is exactly the same percentage increase that the National Government made in 2014, and the percentage increase next year is exactly the same as the National Government made in 2015. The way that we pay for our roads and our transport system hasn’t changed since the 1920s. Every single Government, including this Government and the former Government, has done it.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, would the Minister be surprised to learn that the Opposition have ruled out having any future fuel tax increases, and how on earth does he think they would pay for their roads?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member might have started off close to being in order; he finished way outside, and I’m going to rule the question out.

Question No. 10—Building and Construction

10. to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does she think there is a role for innovative, sustainable housing options such as tiny houses to address the housing shortage in New Zealand and promote better use of available land?

Yes, I agree that there is a role for innovative, sustainable housing options such as tiny houses in addressing the supply of housing in Aotearoa New Zealand.

💬 Gareth Hughes: Does she think that in a housing crisis local authorities should be supporting tiny houses instead of punishing people who live in them and threatening to demolish their home?

💬 Hon JENNY SALESA: Local authorities are required to interpret the building code and whether or not buildings comply with the code. I acknowledge that there can be some differences in interpretation of the code between local authorities, which is why the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is able to settle disputes by way of determination under the Building Act of 2004.

💬 Gareth Hughes: Is it within the scope of the next building code system consultation, which begins on 5 August, to create standards for tiny houses and small apartments?

💬 Hon JENNY SALESA: I’m open to considering all options regarding the kinds of buildings that the member has described. I agree that the Government should investigate all options for innovative solutions to the housing crisis. Since 2018, I’ve instructed MBIE to look at the building code twice a year. These updates provide a clear, repeatable pathway to ensuring that the building code is updated on a regular rather than an ad hoc basis.

💬 Gareth Hughes: Will the Minister commit to investigating a New Zealand standard for small living spaces, including tiny houses and apartments, to provide the guidance local authorities and the building industry need to deliver this innovative sustainable type of housing?

💬 Hon JENNY SALESA: I’m happy to look into it further. I’m currently working on a significant legislative reform programme to the Building Act 2004 to ensure that we futureproof New Zealand’s building regulatory system. I’m seeking further advice on this from MBIE and we are also in the process of analysing this Building Act 2004. I welcome the member’s involvement in that.

Question No. 11—Social Development

11. to the Minister for Social Development: Does she agree that there has been a 155 percent increase in the number of Emergency Housing Special Needs Grants as a direct result of her Government’s policies?

No, it comes as a direct result of a Government who, for nine years, denied there was a housing crisis and were guilty of underinvesting in housing and infrastructure. The housing need existed well before we got into Government—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You’ve been very clear today that there shouldn’t be any extraneous material placed in the questions that are asked in the House. The mirror of the Standing Orders would make the same apply to answers. We’ve had various answers from Mr Nash, for example, and also from Mr Clark that relied heavily on extraneous material, and now we’ve got more, following on from Dr Woods, from Carmel Sepuloni. Now, at what point do you start to separate out the fairness in the way in which questions and answers are asked and then replied to in the House?

💬 SPEAKER: I think the member, if he reflects carefully, will remember that I did interrupt the Hon Dr David Clark in his answer because I thought that he was putting extraneous material into it. In fact, it might have happened twice. I stopped the Hon Stuart Nash when he started attacking the Opposition off the basis of a patsy Government question. In this particular case, the Minister was asked a pretty direct question about her views on the responsibility for, or what caused, a particular set of circumstances, and she was giving, I think, a robust but in order reply. Had the Minister finished when she was interrupted?

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Is she satisfied with the fact that there were 23,754 emergency housing special needs grants in the year to June 2019 compared to 9,245 in the year to June 2017?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Can the member repeat the question please?

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Is she satisfied with the fact that there were 23,754 emergency housing special needs grants in the year to June 2019 compared to 9,245 in the year to June 2017?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I don’t think any Government should be satisfied with the idea that we even need an emergency special needs grant for housing. But we need to reflect back and remember that this particular special needs grant was introduced in 2016, under the previous Government. It was unfortunate, at the time, that it came on the back of Jenny Salesa taking media out to South Auckland and shining a light on the homelessness problem that we were experiencing as a country.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Does she agree with Statistics New Zealand that beneficiary households were the most affected by rising rent prices in the June 2019 quarter; and, if yes, what is she doing about it?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I am not the housing Minister. However, we’re very aware of the fact that housing puts pressure on the overall budget of households where there are beneficiaries. That is why I’m very relieved that this Government is finally responding to the needs of beneficiaries in low-income households by investing in things like public housing—we’ve seen 2,300-plus additional public housing spaces—the investment in things like transitional housing, and the investment in Housing First. Thank goodness this side of the House is doing something, because nothing was done for nine years, which led us to this point.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: How much of the 808 percent increase in emergency housing special needs grants in Rotorua—257 to 2,334—is a direct result of her Government’s assault on the cost of living?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: That member is being disingenuous. We came in at a time when there was a housing crisis—a housing crisis that had been denied by the previous Government—and we’re responding, but it’s taking us a while to fix up the damage that was done under that Government, but we’re committed to doing so. That’s why we’ve invested in public housing, that’s why we’ve invested in transitional housing, that’s why we’ve invested in Housing First, and that’s why we put $5.5 billion into the pockets of people that needed it through the Families Package. This side of the House is doing something, and we’re not going to apologise for giving help to people that need it through the welfare system.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: How many of the 23,754 emergency housing special needs grants are repayable?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: What we’ve seen under this side of the House is a reduction with regards to the amount of the special needs grants that is actually recoverable. Under the previous Government, with emergency housing special needs grants, 11 percent was recoverable; under our side, it’s 4 percent. We don’t want to throw families who are already on low incomes or already suffering from financial hardship into further debt, and so this side of the House is making sure that that doesn’t happen, unlike the other.

Question No. 12—Corrections

12. to the Minister of Corrections: What is the current prison population, and how does that compare to July 2017?

on behalf of the Minister of Corrections: The current prison population is 10,034. In July 2017, it was 10,335, and that number continued to increase steadily, peaking in March 2018, at 10,820. This Government has safely reduced the prison population and will continue to work—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has answered the question.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Can he confirm that under his watch there has been over a 100 percent increase in the electronically monitored bail approvals, from 614 approvals in the first six months of 2017 to 1,235 in 2019, resulting in a lower than forecasted prison population?

I can’t confirm those figures off the top of my head, but what I can say is we’re looking for innovative solutions to make sure that prisoners are rehabilitated.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Can he confirm that under his watch there has been an increase in 474 prisoners on home detention in the last year due to the High Impact Innovation Project (HIIP), resulting in a lower than forecasted prison population?

Again, I can’t confirm those questions, but, also, I would never criticise the judiciary for the sentences that they hand out.

💬 Hon David Bennett: How can the Minister guarantee public safety when 30 percent of home detention approvals and 36 percent of electronically monitored approvals under the HIIP scheme result in reimprisonment within a year of release, when the average is 6.6 percent for normal home detention?

Increasing the police force by 1,800—I think that’s a great start towards helping community safety.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Is it correct that there is a reduced prison population due to a lower than expected 1 percent increase in prosecutions for category 3 offences, despite a forecast increase of 4.5 percent, as a result of what the Ministry of Justice called a “system response to the current Government signalling that significant reform of the criminal justice system is a key priority for them.”?

I will reiterate: I’m not going to criticise the judiciary and the sentences they hand out.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! That I don’t think even addressed the question. Will the member read the question again?

💬 Hon David Bennett: Is it correct that there is a reduced prison population due to a lower than expected 1 percent increase in prosecutions for category 3 offences, despite a forecast increase of 4.5 percent, as a result of what the Ministry of Justice called a “system response to the current Government signalling that significant reform of the criminal justice system is a key priority for them.”?

💬 SPEAKER: The Minister will answer the question, which doesn’t relate to judicial decisions.

The prison system, the judicial system, and the justice system do need reform. It’s why the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Police, and the Minister of Corrections are working very closely to reform the system in a way that meets the 21st century expectations of New Zealanders.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d just like to thank you for your help earlier to get the Minister to answer the first part of the question, which I think you clarified for him. Is it correct that there has been a reduced prison population because of—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. I think, when a member does a supplementary question with more than one leg, he has no right to have more than one answered—and, actually, it was answered this time, as opposed to ignored.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Minister agree with the statement that the rate of incarceration in New Zealand prisons is a moral and fiscal failure, as asserted by the Rt Hon Bill English?

I do, and it was such a shame to see that the former Prime Minister didn’t act on that and reduce the prison population in a way that this Government is.