Oral Questions

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Has she or any member of her staff had conversations with Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter regarding the letter she sent to transport Minister Phil Twyford about the Let’s Get Wellington Moving transport plan?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, I can’t answer that question, but if the member would like to put it down in writing so we could get it prepared, we would be able to answer the question. But to imagine that 20-plus busy Cabinet Ministers are able to record all these conversations, whether they arose or not, is somewhat fanciful, but I’m happy to help the member out. If she puts the written question to us, we’ll find out for her.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Did she, her office, or any of her other Ministers or staff advise Julie Anne Genter to refuse to release the letter under the Official Information Act?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, it’s not my wont to behave in illegal behaviour, and we’d never think to do that.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree with her Deputy Prime Minister that the abortion legislation “came out of left field”?

With respect, on behalf of the Prime Minister, it came from the Law Commission, not from left field. It came from the Law Commission.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, it didn’t.

Yes, it did, actually. It was a report from the Law Commission. I know that the amateur wouldn’t know, but every legally trained person here does know that fact. And, that being the case, it’s now before the Parliament, which it is quite entitled to be. But “out of left field”? No.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Was Andrew Little correct when he said, in the media, that he discussed the possibility of different referenda with New Zealand First, their coalition partner, last year, and that, when the abortion issue came up, all the indications were that this wasn’t going to be called for by anybody?

At the time Andrew Little said that, he was being precisely correct.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Is she managing her relationships with confidence and supply partners now via the media?

No. On behalf of the Prime Minister, I am handling these relationships with a great deal of assurance and aplomb, and everybody’s getting on just fine. We’re not a wrecking ball of diffidence and egotism, like the other side is.

💬 SPEAKER: Again, I’m not sure that that’s the Prime Minister’s voice, but we’ll carry on.

Question No. 2—Education

2. to the Minister of Education: What response has he seen to the decisions about the Reform of Vocational Education that he announced on 1 August 2019?

The response has been pragmatic and constructive. The building and construction industry, for example, has said that they are pleased that the Government has taken on sector and industry views on how to manage the transition. They also went on to say that “We are looking forward to working proactively with the Government to ensure a smooth transition.” They went on to say, “It is essential [that] employers and apprentices understand it is business as usual and they should not hold off entering into an apprenticeship for fear of not completing or [for] what the changes might mean.” That is a critical message that all employers and apprentices need to hear.

💬 Jo Luxton: Is that consistent with responses from other industry training organisations?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. For example, Careerforce called it “a generational change in vocational education”, but noted that “we should all continue with business as usual” in the meantime. Similarly, Connexus said, “We’ll continue to promote trainee enrolments and ensure industry do not stop training and gaining qualified people as we move through the transition to a new system.” Skills Active, who have been opposed to the reform, said they are looking at how to work within vocational pathways, to best serve the interests of our industries.

💬 Jo Luxton: What have industry organisations had to say about the announcement?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There have been some very positive responses from industry organisations. To name just three, Horticulture New Zealand said that “We think it is great … the Government ‘is putting industry in charge’ through initiatives like … Workforce Development Councils and Centres of Vocational Excellence”, and congratulated the Government on having a bold vision and for listening to horticulture. DairyNZ said the announcement presents a unique opportunity to reshape the system, while the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) said it was pleased to hear of the focus on workplace learning and apprenticeships, and that the future of work has been considered.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: What’s been the reaction to the announcement from Clutha-Southland?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m very pleased to say that the Clutha District Mayor, Bryan Cadogan, applauded it as a bold move to restructure a broken system. I will quote directly from him: “At the moment we should be working to discuss the positives and what we can do to position us for the future.” Mr Cadogan went on to say that the focus should centre on working with the establishment board for a positive outcome for the lower South Island. I completely agree with the mayor.

💬 Jo Luxton: What has been feedback from staff and students?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The feedback from staff and students has, again, been positive. For example, Otago Polytechnic Students’ Association President Nathan Laurie has said that he believes the reforms will change people’s lives for the better. Mr Laurie said he’d been in touch with his counterparts in areas like Nelson and the Hawke’s Bay, and said that the mood was completely positive. The New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations called it a positive step for students, the Tertiary Institutes Allied Staff Association called it a far-sighted, important change that preserves and expands the very best of our sector, while the Tertiary Education Union welcomed an end to a decade of uncertainty and underfunding.

💬 Jo Luxton: How have institutes of technology and polytechnics reacted?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Again, the reactions from the institutes of technology and polytechnics have been, by and large, very positive. The Western Institute of Technology in Taranaki said it is the most significant move in the sector for a generation and went on to say the Government had done what polytechs should’ve done years ago. Otago polytech said of the revamp proposals, “We are now in the first stages of moving into an entirely new vocational education system—and one that has picked up on the key points that [the] Otago Polytechnic put forward in [its] submission.” The Universal College of Learning called it a step forward for vocational education, Ara said the announcement holds a number of positives, and the Eastern Institute of Technology welcomed the Government’s commitment to ensuring strong and effective regional and local leadership.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What was the most frenetic, unreasonable, and idiotic submission he got on this matter, and where did it come from?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It would be fair to say that there were a variety of submissions, some of which were not based on any fact whatsoever. I’ve seen reports in recent days of people claiming that this will be the end of their local polytechnics. Most of those claims have come from people who should know better.

💬 Sarah Dowie: What did the Minister think of Mayor Sir Tim Shadbolt’s comments about the Southern Institute of Technology and the future of Invercargill’s polytechnic?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I respectfully disagree with Mayor Shadbolt’s comments on the proposal and suggest that he talk to every other mayor in his region, who have urged him to work constructively with them for the best interests of the lower South Island.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of the Government’s policies, statements, and actions in relation to the economy?

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes, in the context they were delivered, made, and undertaken.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he reconcile a statement yesterday that “the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy remains strong” with the Reserve Bank’s key policy judgment yesterday that “Economic growth has slowed over the past year and is likely to remain soft in the near term.”?

Because unemployment is down to the lowest rate in many years; wages are up; exports are up; the Government Budget is in surplus; growth rates are higher than in Australia, Japan, Europe, the UK, USA, and Canada; and whilst the Governor of the Reserve Bank is right to say that heightened uncertainty and declining international trade have contributed to lower trading partner growth, it is also true that the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy are strong.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can he say the Government is ramping up infrastructure spending, when Budget 2019 actually showed Government capital spending forecasts were trimmed back by $3.3 billion over the next five years?

In fact, the Wellbeing Budget announced a capital investment package of $10.4 billion over the next four years, including billions for schools, billions for hospitals, $1 billion into KiwiBuild, and a record land transport fund focused particularly on the regions.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does he stand by his statement that the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy are strong?

Because unlike the current Leader of the Opposition, who said one person’s misinformation is another person’s fact—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he concerned at all by the prospect of negative interest rates and the effect that they will have on New Zealanders who have worked hard their entire lives to build up savings for retirement?

Negative interest rates aren’t a prospect for New Zealand in the near future. I would also note that whilst the member decries a decrease in interest rates—which, of course, have reduced the cost of living for everyone with a floating mortgage rate—in 2016, the then Government claimed that interest rates coming down were a sign of a Government responsibly managing the country’s finances and that government by this side of the House would lead to rising interest rates and fewer jobs. The outcome has been the opposite: we’ve got more jobs, higher wages, and lower interest rates.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Did he not hear the Reserve Bank Governor’s mention of the possibility of negative interest rates being not far off?

No, I wasn’t there.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: What growth policies has he got in place to avoid such a thing coming to pass?

We have the stimulus provided by increased income supports to low-income people, we’ve got the massive increase in capital expenditure, and we’ve got the very increases in spending in the Government Budget that that member criticised when the Budget was passed.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank Governor’s assertion this morning that the banks are “scaring the public” about the possible effects of the Reserve Bank’s proposed capital requirements?

Again, I haven’t read those comments in detail, but I do have confidence in the Governor of the Reserve Bank.

Question No. 4—Health

4. to the Minister of Health: Was the $114.2 million increase in the Combined Pharmaceutical Budget in Budget 2018 a new appropriation, or was it a transfer of purchasing responsibility that did not constitute an increase in overall Crown funding for medicines?

There is no appropriation for the Combined Pharmaceutical Budget (CPB) in Budget 2018; therefore, I cannot answer the first leg of the member’s question. In respect of the second part of the question, no.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why, then, in light of that answer, did Pharmac issue a press release saying, “The Combined Pharmaceutical Budget will be increased to a record level of $985 million in 2018/19—an increase of just under $114.2 million on the 2017 … level.”?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Because the combined pharmaceutical budget increased.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: He just said it didn’t exist. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Everyone.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: By how much did medicines funding increase on an overall basis in Budget 2018?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Combined Pharmaceutical Budget increased from $870.8 million in 2017-18 to $985 million in 2018-19. I have always been clear that the CPB was expanded in Budget 2018 to take account of the expansion of Pharmac’s role to include the purchase of all district health board pharmaceuticals. I’m advised that of the $114.2 million uplift, $100.7 million related to the expansion of Pharmac’s role. The remaining $13.5 million was an increase to the funding available for medicines. That is reflected in the fact that in the most recent year we have figures for, an estimated 331,000 more people benefited from increased access to medicines, including drugs for cancer, HIV, and hepatitis.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: How can he take credit for the 331,000 extra patients he just referred to, when that is mentioned in the 2017-18 Pharmac annual report and was funded by the previous Government’s $60 million boost in medicines funding in Budget 2017?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am celebrating the increase in access to medicines. I thought the member believed in the Pharmac model.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Hear, hear—negative.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can I just say to the Hon Shane Jones that quite a few of us have heard in the media recently about the discovery of a large parrot—extinct. I am a believer in de-extinction, but it’s a bit soon for that to occur here, and I would like him just to stop repeating words that other members are saying.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Speaking, sir, to your point of order, with the greatest spirit of comity, am I at a disadvantage because I’m close to your good ear?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, actually, relatively, the member is advantaged since I’ve had hearing aids because I now, unfortunately, can hear far too much from my left as well.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Isn’t it the case that the $10 million increase in medicines funding this year is the only increase by this Government, comprising an average annual increase of just 0.5 percent?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Again, the member is incorrect. The last time there was no increase in funding was under his Government.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does that answer the question?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think the first few words did—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: It does?

💬 SPEAKER: Yep.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why, in the face of such strong demand for proven new and innovative medicines, was his Government so miserly on medicines funding even this year?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think the member needs to look in the mirror on that one. We have had a significant increase in access to medicines in the last few years. Of course, as a Government, we are ambitious to do more—there is no question about that—and I am absolutely delighted that just yesterday, Pharmac announced that it is consulting on three new drugs to bring out for people suffering: Alectinib to treat non - small cell lung cancer, Ocrevus for multiple sclerosis, and Kadcyla for advanced breast cancer. This is the strength of the Pharmac model: it means more medicines for more New Zealanders. This Government is determined to invest more in healthcare because we’ve inherited nine years of neglect, and, as a Government, we are committed to making sure New Zealanders get the healthcare that they need and, I believe, deserve.

Question No. 5—Housing

5. to the Associate Minister of Housing: How many complaints has the Tenancy Tribunal received from tenants in response to the new insulation laws that require landlords to install underfloor and ceiling insulation?

Kia orana, Mr Speaker. For the month of July 2019, I’m advised that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has received and assessed 119 Tenancy Tribunal applications claiming a breach in relation to insulation. During July, the tenancy compliance and investigation team at MBIE also received 77 emails on potential non-compliance issues related to insulation in rental properties. It is encouraging to see tenants so engaged in taking cases to the tribunal. Since 1 July, the Tenancy Services call centre has also received over 1,500 calls from landlords and tenants seeking advice on insulation.

💬 Marama Davidson: Is the Minister satisfied that enough is being done to prevent situations like that experienced by the Gamman family, whose youngest child was hospitalised with respiratory issues two years ago and had pneumonia this winter, and who had to take their landlord to court in order to get a warm home and keep their kids healthy?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As the member noted in her general debate speech yesterday, a purely market-driven approach to rental housing has failed a great many New Zealanders, as it created a tolerance for unhealthy homes, leading to unnecessary hospitalisations of children and older people, and avoidable lost school and work days. The Government is very pleased to see that the Gamman family were aware of their rights and have successfully taken their landlord to the tribunal to ensure that their property meets the minimum standards for rental properties. The Healthy Homes Guarantee Act strengthens these standards by ensuring rental properties are heated, insulated, and ventilated.

💬 Marama Davidson: What is being done to proactively work with tenants and landlords to get the estimated 100,000 rental properties that were not insulated by 1 July, when the new rules came into force?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Kia orana, Mr Speaker. A number of advertising campaigns and a range of supporting activity and initiatives have been completed to ensure that both tenants and landlords were aware of the insulation requirements in advance of the 1 July deadline. These included nationwide seminars, working with sector and community groups, a range of ads on a number of platforms, regular communications with landlords on MBIE’s bond database, and communicating campaign materials in 15 different languages.

💬 Marama Davidson: Ka pai. Does the Minister plan to introduce a warrant of fitness scheme to provide better enforcement of these law changes and take the burden off tenants themselves having to take their landlords to the Tenancy Tribunal?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Kia orana, Mr Speaker. The Government considered several enforcement measures to limit non-compliance with the standards. Cabinet allocated $15.14 million in April 2018 to support the successful implementation of the standards. The approach that we agreed to in the first instance will focus on informing landlords and tenants about their rights and responsibilities. A comprehensive information and education campaign is currently being developed to raise awareness about the healthy homes standards that will assist compliance. Through this additional funding, we have built up both the capacity and powers of the Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Team. It has expanded its regional presence and now has offices in Manukau, Hamilton, Porirua, Christchurch, and Dunedin, and the team is funded to support the most vulnerable tenants who do not have the ability or resources to take action against non-compliance.

💬 Marama Davidson: Does that Minister agree that people who are looking for a home to rent shouldn’t have to worry about whether or not it is warm, dry, and safe; and wouldn’t a warrant of fitness provide that guarantee?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Kia orana, Mr Speaker. The Government agrees tenants should not have to worry about whether their home is warm and dry. That’s why the Government has introduced the healthy homes standards, which provide minimum standards for heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture ingress, and drainage. Landlords need to be aware of their health and safety responsibilities under the legislation, and we will be monitoring compliance rates to see if the regime is working as intended and whether further changes are needed.

Question No. 6—Social Development

6. to the Minister for Social Development: What changes, if any, to sanctions and obligations for sole parents is she considering that were proposed by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report?

Reviewing key sanctions to improve child wellbeing is a priority for this Government. This is clearly outlined in the Cabinet paper Welfare Overhaul: Advice from the Welfare Expert Advisory Groups and Next Steps, available online. That’s why we’ve already passed legislation to repeal the sanction for not naming the other parent, in section 192 of the Social Security Act. We are also reviewing the subsequent child policy and seeking further advice on the other sanctions suggested by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group. It is important to note that recent research has highlighted that policies that reduce income—for example, through sanctions—are associated with negative child behavioural and developmental outcomes.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: What is the cost to the Crown of the removal of the sanction where the liable parent is not named?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Removing section 192, which will mean that women and children are not bearing the cost or thrown further into hardship, is $113 million over four years. There are approximately 24,000 children living in those households. Those households will be better-off because of repealing that section 192 by $34 per week, and this Government is proud of the fact that we have made the decision to repeal section 192.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: How much child support won’t now be collected from liable parents as a result of that change?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The advice that I was given by the Ministry of Social Development, and the advice that the previous Government was given in 2016, was that there was no evidence to support that the intention of the policy had been reached. The estimates are out there, as is always the case. It really is a matter of making sure that these families are better-off.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Does she believe sole parents should have obligations to ensure their children are attending school?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Under the previous Government, social obligations were implemented through the welfare system. In the Cabinet paper that I spoke about before, that is not something that we are initially looking at; however, I would like to mention that, actually, no sanctions have had to be imposed because of breaches of social obligations. I do think that the other side of the House and the previous Government underestimate the parents who are in the welfare system and the fact that they care for their children as well.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Will she be removing the subsequent child rule which means that sole parents have obligations to look for part-time work when a subsequent child is one?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We are reviewing that policy because where children are punished through the welfare system, we have concerns, and our objective here is to make sure that child wellbeing is at the heart of everything that we do. We do want to review that policy to check that that is the case, and we have concerns that the previous Government didn’t have their best intention at heart.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: How many more children does she think is acceptable for someone already on the sole parent benefit to have, or does she think there should be no limit?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I never fail to be shocked by the judgment and the stigmatisation of women in the welfare system that the previous Government and the National Party continue to purport. We have a much more positive view of women in the welfare system. We’re investing in upskilling and training. We’re investing in opportunities for employment. We’ve put more money into front-line case managers to support work focus in Work and Income offices. We believe in the potential of these women. We want to support them into employment where they are able to work. We also want to be able to support them to care for their children.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: How many more children living in benefit-dependent homes, and, therefore, hardship, is she projecting based on the changes she’s considering?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Under this Government—and it’s not just through the welfare system; it’s across all of Government—we have an absolute focus on child wellbeing and child poverty reduction. Our absolute aspiration is that these children are able to reach their potential and that they’re supported to do so. That’s what we are focused on. We’re not going to be taken down the negative track that that side of the House would like us to go down.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Minister of Health: How is the $40 million funding increase for Pharmac announced in Budget 2019 set to benefit New Zealanders?

Pharmac is the reason New Zealanders pay some of the lowest prices in the world for pharmaceuticals, and every year, more people get access to more medicines. Yesterday, Pharmac announced it is looking to fund three new medicines: two for treating cancer and one for treating multiple sclerosis. I’m advised that, if approved, these new drugs will be paid for out of the extra funding we put into Pharmac in the Wellbeing Budget.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: So which new medicines is Pharmac looking to make publicly funded?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Decisions on which medicines are publicly funded are made independently by Pharmac, based on expert advice and evidence. Pharmac is currently consulting on three new drugs: Alectinib to treat non - small cell lung cancer, Ocrevus for multiple sclerosis, and Kadcyla for advanced breast cancer. It is great to see Pharmac making the most of the Government’s investment in it by funding more new medicines for more people who need them.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: When will these new medicines become available to the public?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Pharmac is currently conducting a two-week consultation on funding the three new medicines, as well as widening access to an existing treatment for respiratory disease. Following that, the board of Pharmac will make its formal decision. If it approves their funding, these medicines will be fully publicly available from 1 December.

Question No. 8—Transport

8. to the Associate Minister of Transport: Does she agree with the statement of Hon Phil Twyford regarding her 26 March 2019 letter, “She was writing as the associate minister but expressing a view on behalf of the Green Party so it’s not all that easy to separate those things out”; if not, why not?

Yes.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is she confident her conduct regarding her 26 March letter to the Hon Phil Twyford is consistent with the Cabinet Manual, particularly paragraph 8.25, that says, “Ministers should always be clear about the capacity in which they are creating or using information.”; if so, how?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: No. Members are absolutely aware, and all members are aware, that when two legs are asked in a supplementary question, there’s no obligation to answer both of them. Members should structure their questions appropriately. Chris Bishop.

💬 Chris Bishop: How can she have adhered to paragraph 8.25 of the Cabinet Manual, when, by her own admission, she signed the letter as Associate Minister of Transport, wrote it on ministerial letterhead, but also now claims the letter expressed her view as the Green Party transport spokesperson?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: As the member knows, the content of the letter detailed the views of the Green Party and political consultation, and that’s why I don’t consider it to be in the public interest to release the details of the letter. But as the Cabinet Manual also notes—and that member will be well aware of Cabinet Manual paragraph 2.55—“A Minister of the Crown, while holding a ministerial warrant, acts in a number of different capacities: (a) in a ministerial capacity, making decisions and determining and promoting policy within particular portfolios; (b) in a political capacity as [an MP], representing a constituency or particular community of interest;—

💬 Matt King: Heard it all—I’ve heard it all.

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —and (c) in a personal capacity.”

💬 SPEAKER: Mr King, zip it.

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: So it is not as inconsistent as the member is implying, and that’s the reason why I do not consider it to be in the public interest.

💬 Nicola Willis: Is she concerned by reports that threats of her resignation were used by the Mayor of Wellington to leverage councillors into supporting the Let’s Get Wellington Moving package, and, if so, what steps has she taken to address those concerns?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: No, and I certainly can’t take responsibility for those councillors’ decision to vote unanimously in favour of the package.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why won’t she end the swirl of speculation about her role in Let’s Get Wellington Moving by fronting up and releasing her 26 March letter?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: As I’ve said on numerous occasions, I do not consider it to be in the public interest, because it concerns political consultation. But what I can note, if the member is concerned—

💬 SPEAKER: No. Order! Order! The member has answered the question.

💬 Chris Bishop: Did a member of her staff assist her in any way with writing the 26 March 2019 letter to the Hon Phil Twyford; if so, were any of those staff members secondees to her office from the New Zealand Transport Agency or the Ministry of Transport?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I can confirm that I wrote the letter; and no.

💬 Chris Bishop: When she said in question time on 7 August 2019 “we have accepted advice that we should not release the letter”, who gave her that advice, and when?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: We were determining that on the basis of advice that had been released by the Ombudsman, which I quoted in the House at that time, and advice from my staff.

💬 Hon Members: Staff?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: My political staff.

Question No. 9—Justice

9. to the Minister of Justice: What referenda will be held at the 2020 general election, and who will decide the wording of each of the referendum questions?

To the first part of the question, one referendum is certain. I’ve already announced that there will be a referendum on the legalisation of cannabis. As the member will be aware, Parliament is currently considering the End of Life Choice Bill, and I understand that there is a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) which will amend the commencement date to that bill, to make it subject to a referendum. It is, however, a matter for Parliament to decide whether or not that happens. I also understand there is a similar SOP seeking to amend the Abortion Legislation Bill, which is yet to have its first reading, but what happens there is also a matter for Parliament to decide. In respect of the second part of the question, there is an extensive process to set a referendum question, which concludes with a review by the Regulations Review Committee.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement to the New Zealand Herald by the Deputy Prime Minister that he has not acted in good faith on the question of a referendum on abortion; if so—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, that member should know that the Minister being asked the question is not responsible for my comments.

💬 SPEAKER: The member will repeat the question exactly as he asked it.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I certainly will: does he agree with the statement to the New Zealand Herald by the Deputy Prime Minister that he has not acted in good faith on the question of a referendum on abortion; if so, will he apologise?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: No, well, I think I can anticipate the point of order. My understanding—and I’m prepared to have it corrected by the leader of New Zealand First and the Deputy Prime Minister—is that the comment was made by the leader of New Zealand First. Therefore, it is not something for which Andrew Little has responsibility.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I’ve noted many rulings from yourself on questions asking whether a Minister agrees with a statement on a matter for which he has responsibility. Would it satisfy the Speaker if I used the phrase “the leader of New Zealand First”, to enable the question?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, let’s adjust it in that way, because it is a statement in an area for which the member has responsibility. We don’t need to repeat the question; Mr Little understands it.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I regard the leader of the New Zealand First Party as always acting in good faith.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with his ministerial colleague Tracey Martin on the Government’s referendum bill that the reason for the legislation is that Parliament cannot be trusted on setting questions around referendum?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not fully aware of the full context, though, of that statement that was made in the context of a 10-minute speech. Now, I’m familiar with the member who asked the question repeatedly taking things right out of context and making mountains out of molehills. I have no further comment to make on it.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise this matter now, at the first opportunity, because it is my belief, and, indeed, the belief of my colleague, that she never said that. We are asking that member over there, not today, but he better have been telling the House the truth, otherwise we’re going to make a serious claim against that sort of behaviour.

💬 SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, Dr Nick Smith.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I know this is unusual, but I’ve been challenged. I seek leave to table the exact quote from Minister Tracey Martin.

💬 SPEAKER: I think the member’s seeking leave to table a document, rather than a quote.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Would you like me to clarify?

💬 SPEAKER: Yes. I want to know where it’s from and the date.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the parliamentary Hansard of the quote from Tracey Martin on her statement that Parliament could not be trusted on setting questions on referenda.

💬 SPEAKER: This is most unusual, but because the veracity of a member has been challenged, I am going to put that to the House. Is there any objection?

💬 Hon Shane Jones: No. Yes. We don’t want to see it. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: That sounded to me like a “Yeah, nah” which ended up “No”. Is that right?

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Speaking to my remarks, sir, unless the member is going to place whatever he seeks to table in its rightful context, I object.

💬 SPEAKER: Objection has been raised; it will not be tabled.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did the Minister ask at his meetings with New Zealand First Ministers whether they wanted a referendum on abortion, given their clearly, publicly stated position; if not, why not?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, this member is offending—he’s imputing things as a fact. He used the word “Ministers”—plural. To the best of my knowledge, the Minister of Justice met with only one New Zealand First Minister, and that’s a fact that’s been confirmed by the Minister now. So he’s misleading the House again.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, it’s a matter of public record that there was more than one meeting, and with more than one Minister, on the question of the referendum legislation. It went to a Cabinet committee at which there were multiple Ministers, the Minister himself has said that there were multiple meetings, and it is also true that the paper went through Cabinet, at which there were multiple Ministers.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, the facts are, as he put that question out, it was a meeting that was apposite to the presence of the Minister of Justice; not a meeting with the Minister of Justice who was at Cabinet—no, a meeting between the Minister of Justice and New Zealand First Ministers. In that sense, he’s again misleading the House. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: I’ve got about three people having a go, but before I do any of that the Hon Michael Woodhouse will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can I repeat the question, Mr Speaker?

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

💬 SPEAKER: No, because Mr Brownlee has a point of order.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I do have a point of order, and that is: why are you entertaining the dancing on a pin being presented by the Deputy Prime Minister? If he had listened to the question, it is quite in order to have used the plural. If they’re upset by the use of plural Ministers, or plural for Minister, in this particular question, that’s inexplicable.

💬 SPEAKER: The member’s made an assumption in his point of order that I’m—well, maybe I’m entertaining it by listening to it, but generally there’s an obligation to do that, especially when there are senior Ministers who generally know what they’re talking about to do with points of order. In this particular case, I think there’s an assertion that’s been made as part of the question, which can be dealt with by the Minister. What we’re going to do is we’re going to have the question read out, starting the same, and, hopefully, finishing.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Did he ask, at his meetings with New Zealand First Ministers, whether they wanted a referendum on abortion, given their publicly and clearly stated position; if not, why not?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I met consistently with one New Zealand First Minister, Tracey Martin, and we had a discussion on every aspect of the legislation. At one point, when we were having those discussions, it was in the context of public debate about multiple referendums happening in 2020, and the statement was made that no referendum was being sought in relation to abortion. In the end, the bill, as it is, has been introduced to the House. It was signed off by Cabinet—that is the bill that is up for debate this afternoon.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What approaches is the Minister aware of that establish a referendum question?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m aware of two pieces of legislation which set out options for referendum questions to be set: the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 and the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act 2000. I’d like to draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act sets out a referendum question to be set by Order in Council, therefore by Cabinet. Indeed, that legislation, which was introduced by a former member the Hon Tony Ryall, received the full support of the whole House, through every stage, even after a change of Government. No one raised any issue with it; no one even asked for a referendum about it.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why has the Government argued that decisions on referendum held at general elections should be made by Cabinet, and introduced a bill to do so, but then argued that the decision on a referendum on abortion should be made by Parliament?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No such argument has been mounted.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why does he support a referendum on euthanasia, a sensitive issue, at the—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will ask his question without caveats or qualifications.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well, I think saying it’s a sensitive issue is a matter of fact.

💬 SPEAKER: Right. The member will resume his seat.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Mr Speaker, the question of whether we have—

💬 SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Covering for the Government again.

💬 SPEAKER: Now, all I’m trying to decide is for how long and on what basis the member is going. He has already been named for a similar comment. To name him again now will remove him from a vote which many people think is very important. The member’s comment, because he is an experienced member, a member who acts deliberately, indicates to me that it is his wish to be named. I am not going to grant him his wish, but he will leave the Chamber and he will not return today.

Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You were very quick to engage with Dr Smith on the use of the words “very sensitive” in a question. We have had very long answers to questions today—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I’ve dealt with that matter.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is not about your decision around Dr Smith. It’s a request for consistency in the way in which the requirements—

💬 SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.

Question No. 10—Employment

10. to the Minister of Employment: What did the recent Household Labour Force Survey show regarding labour market outcomes for youth?

Kia orana. The household labour force survey shows that in the last quarter, the not in employment, education, or training (NEETs) rate for both young men and young women dropped to 9.5 percent and 11.1 percent respectively. This is reflected in more young men who are both now earning and learning, and more young women who have gone into paid employment.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What is significant about the drop in the rates for those previously classified as not in education, employment, or training?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: This is significant as people always focus on the percentages, but I want to share with the House today the actual numbers that these percentages represent. In the June quarter, there are now 19,000 fewer young people classified as not in education, employment, or training. This Government is very proud of that fact. Despite all the predictions of doom and gloom, we’ve been able to reduce our NEETs.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What other indicators did the recent household labour force survey reveal for youth?

💬 Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’d like to inform the House that of the 19,000 referred to in my previous answer, we are seeking increases in young people entering some form of training, education, or employment—specifically, around 14,000 more young people moving into employment and 5,000 into some form of training or education. This is 19,000 young people who are active and engaged in their future and contributing to their community. I’ve seen examples of this all across the country in communities that were not invested in before by the previous Government: Ōpōtiki, Whakatāne, Tolaga Bay, alongside Shane Jones’ Provincial Growth Fund—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Well, Mr Speaker, you can just hear, in the answer being given by Willie Jackson, the extensive amount of extraneous material relevant to the necessary answer that appears to be going completely unchecked.

💬 SPEAKER: I think it is fair to say that the question had been adequately answered some time before the point of order. I don’t think the member was out of order with his extra material, but he had finished.

Question No. 11—Immigration

11. to the Minister of Immigration: Is Immigration New Zealand taking any steps to improve visa processing delays, and what impact is the fact more applications were made under the New Zealand Residency Programme than the current planning range allows having on delays?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In relation to the first part of the question, yes; in relation to the second part, we have seen an increase in the number of applicants under the New Zealand Residence Programme in the last few months. This is unsurprising, given that we have the lowest rate of unemployment in 10 years and our wage rates are growing strongly. This may mean that resident visa applications are queued for a longer period of time.

💬 Stuart Smith: Can he confirm official advice which shows visa processing delays are expected to get worse?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No.

💬 Stuart Smith: Are visa applicants informed of the lengthy delays for processing times when they apply, and, if not, does he think that officials should be upfront about the delay, given that applicants are paying for that service?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Visa processing times are published on the Immigration New Zealand website.

💬 Marja Lubeck: Can the Minister provide an example of the importance of Immigration New Zealand’s greater focus on risk management and verification?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes. An example is the case of 47 cases of fraudulent financial documentation relating to a number of Vietnamese visa applications, where Immigration New Zealand is currently taking action. In relation to Vietnam, Immigration New Zealand and Education New Zealand have agreed to an industry agent engagement programme to grow high-quality student enrolments and deter fraud.

💬 Stuart Smith: Does the Minister think it’s satisfactory for essential skills visa processing times to have almost doubled, to 76 days, since the current Government took office, and, if so, how will he fix it?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I am concerned at the increase in visa processing times, and I have asked Immigration New Zealand to keep me up to date on the work that they are doing to deal with those. Immigration New Zealand has advised me that they have embarked on a comprehensive project to reduce processing times, including significant staff recruitment; office expansions in Henderson, Hamilton, and Mumbai; and stakeholder engagement to explain the current state in how to provide visa applications that are decision-ready and, therefore, move much more quickly through the system. I am being regularly updated by officials, and significant progress has been made—members opposite may like to listen to this—with a 22 percent reduction in essential skills visa applications on hand in the past seven weeks, and a 10 percent reduction in student visa applications on hand over the same period of time.

💬 Stuart Smith: Does the Minister consider that visa processing delays are negatively impacting businesses and the overall economy?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: As I have already said, I am concerned about current processing times, and I expect Immigration New Zealand to focus all their attention on reducing those times.

💬 Stuart Smith: Can he confirm that Immigration New Zealand is actively seeking to recruit overseas workers to help with visa processing in New Zealand, and, if so, how long will it take to process their work visas?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No.

Question No. 12—Pacific Peoples

12. to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: What progress, if any, has been made regarding opportunities for Pacific people in the regions?

Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Recently, I announced that seven expert providers had been selected by the Ministry for Pacific Peoples for Tupu Aotearoa, a programme to help young Pacific people towards employment, education, and training pathways so that we can assist them to turn their potential into success and create prosperity in their local communities in the Bay of Plenty, Waikato, Whanganui, and Manawatū regions. Tupu Aotearoa is made possible with the support of my coalition partner the Hon Shane Jones, first citizen of the regions, and father of the Provincial Growth Fund.

💬 Jan Tinetti: What is the point of difference with this new regional approach?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If a bill can’t be described as “sensitive”, then I’m sure it’s not appropriate to describe a Minister, particularly Mr Jones, as being any sort of “champion”.

💬 SPEAKER: Aupito William Sio.

💬 Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Again, we’re looking ahead 30 years, and not just three. Tupu Aotearoa is a new name that young Pacific people can relate to as new beginnings or new opportunities, which will empower young Pacific people aged 15 to 39 years to grow new life skills, kick-start their career prospects, earn a good living, and provide employers with the skilled, motivated talent pool they need. Each of the seven providers brings with them local knowledge and experience that will enable them to tailor support to back the needs of young Pacific people, local communities, and businesses.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: What other regions will benefit from the Tupu Aotearoa programme?

💬 Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: In addition to the providers announced for the Bay of Plenty, Waikato, and Whanganui-Manawatū areas, work is currently under way to identify providers for the Hawke’s Bay, Southland, and Otago regions. In addition to the focus on the regions, the Wellbeing Budget allocated another $14.5 million to extend Tupu Aotearoa further to cover wider Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch. This approach will allow us to look long term and tackle the long-term issues facing Pacific Aotearoa.