Oral Questions

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

Yes, particularly my statement that “Our instinct was … that New Zealanders were being fleeced at the pump, now the Commerce Commission has confirmed that [it] is true.”, with the Commerce Commission finding that New Zealand has the third-highest petrol prices in the OECD before tax, and that “The core problem, in our view, is that an active wholesale market does not exist in New Zealand.” I note that the last Government could have acted but decided it wasn’t easy and decided to do nothing. It seems to me that was their general philosophy in Government.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Can she confirm, then, that her Government will be increasing fuel taxes by 24c by the end of their three-year term whereas petrol company margins have gone up by just 0.1c, and that, actually, it’s her Government that are doing the fleecing?

💬 SPEAKER: Any two of the three may be addressed.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I actually refute what the member has said in terms of the calculation of margins by the fuel companies. In fact, depending on where you look at the comparison, in some cases the margins made up as much as 40c at different points last year. In particular, long-term trends—and this is directly from the Commerce Commission—have seen margins for petrol increase 187 percent since 2008. That is significant. It outstrips what has been seen with just excise, and, as I note, it was something that started in 2008, and that Government—all they did was write a sternly worded letter.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Will petrol taxes in Auckland rise by over 20c by the time her Government has been in power for three years?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I find it interesting, given the last member oversaw an increase of 24c while in Government—24c while in Government. They also, remember, increased GST while they were in Government—24c. They’ve now abandoned the idea of excise altogether. I don’t know how they’ll build their roads. But the point is that, unlike that Government, we are not taking the side of fuel companies and allowing New Zealanders to be fleeced at the pump.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Before I ask the member to go on, I think, generally, I’ve been asking the members on my left to be quiet in order that Ministers can be heard. I am now going to apply that to the people on my right.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very short and specific question, which was “Would her Government be increasing fuel taxes by over 20c in Auckland within the three years of this Government?”, and she did not answer that at all.

💬 SPEAKER: I think she addressed it.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Ha! Does—sorry, sir, I just thought she would have to answer that. Can she acknowledge—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Well, I—OK. Can she acknowledge that more than 50 percent of the price of petrol is actually tax?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member is referring to the 24c that her Government increased it by as well, and the fact that excise has been a consistent part of fuel prices for decades, what has not been consistent is that in the last decade, margins that have been collected by fuel companies have moved 187 percent. This Government is not going to stand by and let that continue. The other Government of long past believed that that was OK and did nothing except write a sternly worded letter. We stand on the side of consumers. We are going to act, because we know it will make a big difference to them at the pump.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Can she confirm the facts, which are that after over nine years, the National Government actually increased it by 18c; her Government will be increasing it by 24c within three years, and if they were ever around that long—which they won’t be—that would be an increase of about 90c?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Right, does the member have a further supplementary?

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’ve taken three answers which have been about the National Government and not actually about the responsibility of the current Government. I think I have a right to actually ask that question.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the member then asked a question about a Government she asserted wouldn’t exist, and there can’t be responsibility for that.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: No, that’s very fair; it won’t be existing.

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree, then, with her commerce and consumer affairs Minister, Kris Faafoi, who said that “A lot of New Zealanders are struggling to make ends meet at the moment and if that money can be spent on making sure you can afford your rent or food on the table then I think that that’s what most Kiwis would prefer to do.”, and, if so, why doesn’t she reduce the taxes that she has implemented on New Zealanders and increased the price of petrol more than any fuel company has done?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member wishes to ignore that up to 40c is down to margins by fuel companies and wishes to ignore that the Commerce Commission has said New Zealanders aren’t getting a fair deal—if the member wishes to ignore that, that is the member’s prerogative. On this side of the House, we will not ignore that New Zealanders are being fleeced. We will not write a sternly worded letter. If required, we will change the law, because that is what an active Government who is not willing to ignore the hard issues does.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Will the Prime Minister then continue to ignore that it’s the increases in taxes that she has put on everyday New Zealanders that she could take off tomorrow if she really cared about the cost of living for them?

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the average increase in fuel excise duty proposed by this Government is in fact just less than the average increase that happened under the National Party?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In fact, I can. The average increase under National was 5.76 percent. The average increase under this Government is 5.6 percent. I might take that side of the House a little more seriously if they weren’t being hypocritical on the use of excise.

💬 SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the last time a regional fuel tax was cancelled in New Zealand was under the National Government in 2009, and New Zealanders are going to be relying on us to be cancelling it again next year when we’re in Government?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, there’s just not a question that’s the responsibility of the Prime Minister in that.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Can the Prime Minister outline actually what she will be doing to the petrol fuel companies, since it won’t be just writing a letter and she’s at the moment got such strong convictions about how she’s going to stop them from fleecing New Zealanders?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the member is demonstrating that she would prefer to defend the fuel companies on this rather than actually listen to the Commerce Commission. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Minister has already spoken about greater contractual freedom. If the member opposite was aware that there were options beyond writing a sternly worded letter, she might have looked at the market constraints. She might have also looked at access to the joint infrastructure and terminal access. There are things that could be done; it’s just a matter of having a Government willing to do it. That member’s Government—in particular, the Leader of the Opposition, proved all that he could do was write a sternly worded letter.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s fascinating to get an answer from the Prime Minister telling the Opposition what they could or could have done. The question was “What will she do?”, and I think it’s only reasonable that you require that she gives an answer along those lines rather than having a free go at the Opposition.

💬 SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. He interrupted the answer. You cannot complain about having an incomplete answer when one interrupts it. He knows that.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Mr Speaker. [Speaker sighs] It won’t be that bad.

💬 SPEAKER: Well—the Hon Grant Robertson.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: What is her response to the statement from the former Minister of Transport the Hon Simon Bridges that the reason nothing was done on fuel prices under the previous Government was “There was nothing easy.”, and does she think that only looking for easy things to do is the way to approach an issue like this?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do not, but that kind of philosophy would probably give rise to the idea of simply writing a sternly worded letter instead of doing something actually about the issue at hand.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: What’s the Government going to do?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: While the Commerce Commission is still finalising its report, we’re already stood at the ready and—as I pointed out, Mr Brownlee—there are options available.

💬 Hon Member: Tell us what you’re going to do.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I just did. We are a Government who stands ready to deal with access to infrastructure, the lack of a wholesale market, and contractual freedom. Those are issues that would make a difference.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Since the Prime Minister has outlined that she won’t be writing a stern letter, can she tell the House what she will do to reduce petrol company profits in New Zealand?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member reads the Commerce Commission report, she’ll see that there isn’t a decent wholesale market operating in New Zealand. As I’ve already said, access to the infrastructure is part of the issue. Contractual freedom for retailers is part of the issue. Ask anyone who lives in the Hutt whether or not having competition in the market makes a difference and they’ll tell you it does. We are waiting for the final report from the Commerce Commission. Once they do that, we are ready to act. We’re not sitting back and saying it’s too hard.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Is the Government looking to nationalise the infrastructure?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member may wish to simply sit back and then say there are no options. There are options, and I’ve outlined them three times now. But, equally, the Commerce Commission will give a steer of exactly how that last Government failed New Zealanders.

💬 SPEAKER: Mark Mitchell, supplementary.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: No. It’s the next question.

💬 SPEAKER: It’s question three. The member is far too premature—far too premature.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: Does he think that an independent Parliamentary Budget Office will improve the standard of democratic debate?

I do. Having an independent referee who can provide clarity to the public about policy costings and the success of the Government’s fiscal strategy will indeed support a transparent and an informed debate.

💬 Hon James Shaw: What are the proposed functions of the Parliamentary Budget Office, and how will they assist Parliament as a whole, and the Opposition in particular, to carry out their constitutional roles?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The proposed Parliamentary Budget Office will enhance fiscal responsibility, accountability, and transparency, and promote better-informed public debate and strengthen parliamentary scrutiny. It will do this through its proposed functions to provide financial costings of party political policies on a voluntary basis and to assess compliance of the Government with its fiscal strategy. We believe that having such an independent entity will assist Parliament and parties, in particular Opposition parties, to carry out their constitutional roles and avoid falling into any holes of their own making.

💬 Hon James Shaw: Why did the Government decide that an Officer of Parliament was the best organisational structure for the Parliamentary Budget Office?

💬 SPEAKER: A very good question.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I encourage all members of the Officers of Parliament Committee to enter this debate with an open mind, because being an Officer of Parliament is the highest level of independence from Government that is offered in our system. It would mean that the Parliamentary Budget Office would be overseen by Parliament, the same as the Ombudsman, the Auditor-General, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. This would mean being independent from Government, accountable to Parliament, and in the best position to give New Zealanders confidence about the accuracy of party policy costings.

💬 Hon James Shaw: Are there other countries with an independent Parliamentary Budget Office, or is New Zealand an outlier?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I am advised that there are 41 countries with independent fiscal institutions like the proposed Parliamentary Budget Office at a national level, and some countries—for example, Australia and Canada—also have them at state levels. Of OECD countries, 28 out of 36 have an independent fiscal institution, so it would mean that New Zealand was an outlier if we continued with the situation we now have, but we now have the opportunity to catch up and create a truly independent Parliamentary Budget Office.

💬 Hon James Shaw: What reports has he seen about the response to the proposal for an independent, objective Parliamentary Budget Office?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve seen reports of support for the Government’s proposal for an independent Parliamentary Budget Office from The New Zealand Initiative and the Taxpayers’ Union. I thank this well-known bunch of socialists for their support. I have also seen wildly negative and inaccurate comments which don’t appear to relate to this proposal but are, rather, being negative for the sake of being negative. I encourage the Leader of the Opposition and all members of Parliament to get on board with an initiative that will enhance our democracy.

Question No. 3—Immigration

3. to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his statements and actions in relation to Karel Sroubek?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In the context they were given and made, yes. This includes my decision of 28 November to make Mr Sroubek liable for deportation. This decision, of course, is subject to the usual appeal process.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Has he seen correspondence from Immigration New Zealand officials that confirms there is a possibility that the board may look to releasing him on parole when Karel Sroubek appears before the Parole Board in the week of 16 September?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That’s a matter for the Parole Board.

💬 SPEAKER: No. Order! I think the member should actually address the question.

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Have I seen any reports? Not that I can think of, specifically—no.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: When he granted Karel Sroubek residency, did he take into account community safety?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes, and I did so when I made him liable for deportation, as well.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Is it still his opinion that a convicted drug smuggler with a history of fraud, identity theft, and serious assault poses a low risk to public safety in New Zealand, as he said in November?

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that we do have to take care that from the member’s question—and I don’t have any first-hand knowledge of this—there is a matter that the Parole Board is going to be asked to consider. The member’s question invites the Minister of Immigration to express a view on a matter that the Parole Board is going to have to make a decision on.

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, I have a lot of confidence in the Parole Board that they can see past comments of that sort from both sides of the House.

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Could the member ask the question again?

💬 SPEAKER: Could you repeat the question, please.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Is it still his opinion that a convicted drug smuggler with a history of fraud, identity theft, and serious assault poses a low risk to public safety in New Zealand, as he said back in November?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I think I expressed my opinion when I made that person liable for deportation.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Can he confirm that as long as Karel Sroubek is in the middle of an active appeal process, he cannot be deported from New Zealand, so if he is released from prison on parole, he will be back on our streets?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, whether he is released on parole from prison is a matter for the Parole Board.

Question No. 4—Corrections

4. to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his statement “We have never had to manage a prisoner like this before”, in relation to the alleged Christchurch gunman?

Yes.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Can he confirm that he knew in advance that the most rigorous procedures would be needed to manage this high-risk prisoner?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, of course the most rigorous procedures would be necessary to manage this offender, and that’s exactly what corrections did, although we know that the letter that was sent out should not have been sent out under the law as it stands. That was a failure of corrections. They have acknowledged that, they have apologised, and they have set out to fix that problem.

💬 Hon David Bennett: What steps did he take when this high-risk prisoner entered the system, to ensure the most rigorous procedures were both available and in place?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I met regularly with corrections and sought assurances from them around the management of this offender.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Does he stand by his statements that it’s a system failure, when he has responsibility for the system?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Absolutely, it was a failure of the system. As I said, that letter should have been withheld. It wasn’t. The chief executive of corrections has admitted that it was a mistake—a failure of the system—and that it shouldn’t have happened, and we’re now reviewing the mail system, not just for this offender but for the whole mail system across the prisons.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Has he apologised to the victims for his failure to ensure that the system worked to keep them safe?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes. I’ve spoken directly to representatives of the community that was affected, and the chief executive of corrections will be heading down to Christchurch herself to have a conversation with that community.

Question No. 5—Earthquake Commission

5. to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What recent announcement has he made regarding quake-damaged homes in Canterbury?

Last week, Minister Woods and I announced a solution for people with over-cap onsold properties in Canterbury. This will provide relief for the last major group of people affected by botched or missed repairs following the Canterbury earthquakes. The Earthquake Commission (EQC) estimates that there could be up to 1,000 homes in Canterbury whose homeowners will benefit from this announcement—people who have been trapped living in damaged homes in Canterbury where the cost of repairs is over the EQC cap and they have no recourse to private insurers. They are now eligible for a Government payment so that they can get on with repairing their homes and get on with their lives. I am proud of the work that this Government is doing to fix the mess that we inherited and that Canterbury homeowners were left with after these botched repairs.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: How do homeowners access this payment?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Any Canterbury homeowner who suspects that the house they have purchased may have defective repairs or botched or missed damage should have the property independently inspected and assessed. If, as a result of that inspection, damage is found, the homeowner should contact EQC directly to discuss the specifics of their property. They will then work with EQC to establish what it will cost to repair the faulty or missed damage, and an ex gratia payment will be made so that they can get on with their lives. All homeowners in Canterbury have 12 months to apply to EQC for the onsold over-cap payment. This payment is important because homeowners do need the chance to move on with their lives after so many years of uncertainty.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: How can Canterbury homebuyers find out if there have been earthquake claims on a property?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: People do need to know if the house they’re buying has had a claim for earthquake damage and whether it has been fixed. The house may have actually been sold two or three times since the earthquakes, so sometimes this information can be hard to come by. We have now made claim numbers associated with a property available on the Environment Canterbury property viewer. This means that, as part of their due diligence before buying a home, homeowners can now quickly find out the claim history of a property and ensure they get the details through their real estate agent or their lawyer.

Question No. 6—Justice

6. to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all his statements, policies, and actions on electoral law and referenda?

Yes, and I should point out that the accepted plural of “referendum” these days is “referendums”.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I note the Clerk’s Office has a different view.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, and so does the Speaker.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he stand by his statement last week that prisoners should be able to vote; if so, does he believe that the Christchurch mosque killer, if convicted, should be entitled to vote in future elections?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I made no such statement.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he stand by his statement last week that the removal of prisoners’ voting rights was “fascist”; if so, is his coalition partner, New Zealand First, fascist for supporting the policy?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I made no such statement.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister deny the report in Newshub on 12 August last week in which he said the policy of removing the right of prisoners to vote was a “fascist sort of policy”?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member has taken a small number of words out of a longer quote. What I said was that the National Party Government of 2010 had followed what was then, I think, a fascistic sort of ACT Party—no reflection on today’s single member representing that party—in passing the law, and in order to do so, they had defied the advice of their own Attorney-General, who had said that doing so was inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, something that I know is very important to that member.

💬 David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: A point of order—David Seymour. Sorry, I was going to call him “Hon” for a second there.

💬 David Seymour: I’d turn that down on point of principle, but, look, while I’m very grateful for the Minister’s concession that I don’t happen to be a fascist, I actually take offence at referring to past members of this House from any party as being fascists. It’s a very serious claim, and historically inaccurate and very insensitive.

💬 SPEAKER: The problem I have is that the word was introduced by the questioner, allegedly as a direct quote from the member outside the House, and the Minister was, essentially, being required to answer that. I think it is a different context to making an allegation, a more general allegation, that doesn’t flow from a question. I was listening carefully. I know that some of the members concerned or former members concerned will not be happy with it, but I did let it run.

💬 David Seymour: Well, can I add that this House has the names of battles where—

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, yes—[Interruption] The member will resume his seat—the member will resume his seat when I tell him to.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister accept that in the Newshub interview he used the word “fascist” in respect of the ACT Party and the National Party, and does he now regret that, noting that his own coalition partner, New Zealand First, supports the policy—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s done two questions.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Sorry, I heard at least three questions there, and I think probably the most accurate one is no.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Is the Ministry of Justice undertaking policy work relating to potential changes to electoral law relating to donations, and, if so, is a ban on overseas donations part of that policy work?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Sorry, I didn’t hear the very beginning of the question. I wonder if the member might—

💬 SPEAKER: Please repeat.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Is the Ministry of Justice undertaking policy work on potential changes to electoral law relating to donations, and, if so, is a ban on overseas donations part of that work?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes, the Ministry of Justice is doing some policy work on electoral changes, and the work that the ministry has done is reflected in the electoral reform bill that went into the House a couple of weeks ago. In relation to foreign donations, I’ve made it clear I’m very keen to see the conclusion of the work by the Justice Committee that’s currently looking at that issue and await their recommendations on that issue before embarking on any legislative change.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements, policies, and actions around vaccination?

Yes, in their full context. In particular, I stand by my many comments encouraging people to get immunised, where clinically advised, and also my statement that further questions about vaccinations are best directed to the Associate Minister of Health Julie Anne Genter, who now holds the relevant delegation.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Was there a shortage of flu vaccines from mid-May to mid-June this year?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I don’t believe that I have made recent statements on that. I would advise the member to direct his questions better to the Associate Minister of Health Julie Anne Genter, who holds the relevant delegation.

💬 SPEAKER: I let that question sort of slip, but it is important that there is a relationship between a supplementary question and a primary question or the answer, and I couldn’t see it, on reflection.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just confirm: the written questions I have around the flu vaccine shortage are from the Minister in his capacity before the delegation was passed across—so is it still appropriate to address the questions?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, actually, technically no, because he no longer has responsibility. There was a discussion as to whether the question should be transferred to the Associate Minister, but it was my view, having been an Opposition member when similar changes had occurred, that it led to very convoluted answers where the Associate Minister was being asked to stand by comments of a Minister who was formerly responsible for it. It makes it very hard to ask useful supplementaries. My view is that where the Minister still holds the primary portfolio, notwithstanding the delegations, he should be held responsible for the statements he made in relation to that portfolio.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Thank you. During the flu vaccine shortage, was it official advice that members of the public under 64 and without medical conditions should not be prioritised for the flu vaccine; if so, why?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I was not expecting, necessarily, questions on the flu vaccine today. The member’s questions in recent times have focused on the meningococcal W vaccine—indeed, dozens of them to my office in recent weeks. What I would say to the member is that I’m very happy to answer those questions, or ensure that the relevant member does, if he wants to put them in writing.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Why were provisions not made for more vaccines sooner, when written questions in his name show that in November last year, Pharmac told the contracted supplier that they needed 1.3 million doses of flu vaccine for New Zealand but was told only 1 million could be delivered from that supplier?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: What I’m happy to tell the member is that there have been a record number of flu vaccines issued this year, and that is because the Government got a record number the year before. When they were approaching expiry—in terms of having all been used up, rather than approaching the date of termination—more were ordered and secured, and I want to congratulate all who were involved for being so responsive to ensure that we’ve had a record number of flu vaccines issued this year, and I want to thank and encourage New Zealanders who’ve taken them up. But, probably, more detailed questions on this into the future should be directed to the Associate Minister of Health Julie Anne Genter, who now holds the relevant delegation.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Why were previously free flu vaccines for all children under 18 in Kaikōura, Seddon, and Hurunui stopped in April this year?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I don’t have that detail in front of me. I suggest that the member puts those questions to the Associate Minister of Health Julie Anne Genter, who now holds the relevant delegation.

💬 SPEAKER: Question No. 8—

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to my colleagues. I’m just going to seek some guidance from you here which you might want to reflect on in the future. You’ve made rulings previously about the kinds of answers that are given to the very general “statements and actions” type of question. Have you any ability to deal with what happens to coverage of those questions when they perhaps are edited? Is that an issue that is in your area, and, if so, what is the method we would take that up with you by?

💬 Hon Member: Well, we know what this is about.

💬 SPEAKER: Right, well, that was a loss of two supplementaries from the comments that were made then. No, I do not have responsibility for the use of material taken from the House. Filming from the House is a matter of review at the moment, and I do want to indicate that I was looking at some liberalisation in that area. From some recent feedback that I’ve had, I think it’s fair to say that it may be the trend—the wish of the House might be in the opposite direction.

Question No. 8—Health

8. to the Minister of Health: What progress, if any, has been made in modernising New Zealand’s fleet of air ambulances?

More good news. Last week, I was in Christchurch to see first-hand the latest additions to our air ambulance fleet: two brand new Airbus H145 helicopters. These twin-engine helicopters are based one each in Christchurch and Dunedin and provide lifesaving emergency response and patient transfers. They will be used by Helicopter Emergency Medical Services, which is contracted to provide air ambulance services across the southern region. This is part of our plan to modernise our air ambulance services, which is why we invested an extra $83 million in these services in our first Budget.

💬 Rino Tirikatene: How will the new helicopters be better for patients?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: These state-of-the-art helicopters are fitted out with the latest lifesaving equipment, including ventilators and a heart monitor. Importantly, they also have more space to provide critical patient care than older helicopters, and they can fly further and faster than the machines they are replacing. I can put it no better than the chief executive of Helicopter Emergency Medical Services, Ken Franklin, who said that this set-up is the “gold standard of clinical care”.

💬 Rino Tirikatene: Will more new helicopters be required to bring the rest of our air ambulance fleet up to standard?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: There’s no question that we will need sustained investment in these services, and that will include further new helicopters in coming years. Prior to this new air ambulance helicopter service being implemented, one in three helicopters were single engine, which is not suitable. Now only one remains in service, and is scheduled to be replaced by a twin-engine helicopter later this year. Before these new helicopters entered service last week, the average age of our air ambulances was almost 30 years old. While this has reduced to 22 years, further renewal in the fleet will be needed over time. We owe it to our communities to ensure that our dedicated air ambulance staff and providers have the right tools for the job.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

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

Yes.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Is she involved or not involved in Ihumātao, as she’s happy to halt the building work that’s going on there but not to help it come to a conclusion?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m going to ask the member to rephrase the question without the assertion.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Is her involvement in halting the building work that is going on at Ihumātao also in line with her now not helping it come to a conclusion?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I reject the premise of both of those questions.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does she stand by her statements at Tūrangawaewae yesterday that “Where there are hard issues … be it Ihumātao, I will be there. I will have those conversations.”; and, if so, will she have those conversations with the protesters in person?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: To give context to the full statement, I also said this will be a Government that will be there to talk about the hard issues around overrepresentation of Māori in prison and around the overrepresentation of Māori children in State care. There are hard conversations to be had in this country. My point on Ihumātao was that leadership also requires identifying when it’s important to create a space where a process can occur. Kīngitanga has stepped forward and created a process that we have supported. We respect that they wish to lead that process, but we have also been there alongside supporting them as they go in their talks with mana whenua.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: If leadership, as she has said today repeatedly, is about dealing with hard issues, does she believe that leadership and accountability starts at the top when dealing with allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: What, then, would she say in response to allegations from sexual assault victims that feel they are not being heard by those in positions of leadership, who have a responsibility to protect them?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I would say exactly what I’ve said in the past, which is that we can only deal with the complaints that have come to us. A complaint was made by a group of complainants to the Labour Party. I consistently asked that members of my team check whether or not there have been any complaints made to Parliamentary Service, any to Ministerial Services, or any through any of our line managers. If they are made, we will act on those. But, again, in those checks, those have not been produced. Again, if those complainants wish to take the member as a support person to go and make complaints to any of those entities, I would encourage them to do so, but until they do, we simply have nothing to act on.

Question No. 10—Education

To the Minister of Education: does he stand by all his statements, policies, and actions around—[Interruption]

Order! No, I just want to say to members on both sides that this is a serious matter. I thought of not allowing the question because it’s my responsibility, not the Prime Minister’s, and I don’t want it continuing across the House while Dr Reti’s asking his question. Dr Shane Reti, start again.

10. to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all his statements, policies, and actions around the Reform of Vocational Education?

Yes, in the context in which they were made.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Does he agree with officials at the Primary Industry Training Organisation meeting in Wellington yesterday who indicated that regional polytechnics will be told how, where, and what they will teach?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I haven’t seen those comments directly. The response that I received when I went to that meeting yesterday was that the reforms were long overdue and that they were welcomed. I didn’t receive that particular feedback at the meeting.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: When the programme business case for his reforms states that there will be 18,000 fewer learners, is that 18,000 fewer learners over the whole establishment period or 18,000 fewer learners per year?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think the member seems to be having some difficulty understanding all of the answers to the written questions that I have given him about the business case, which is that the business case talks through a range of different scenarios. It’s very clear in the business case that at this early point in the process, any numbers in the business case are very rough, because until the process goes further, it’s impossible to get them more precise. So I think the member continuing to cherry-pick numbers out of the business case is incredibly misleading.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: How does he respond to an article in the Otago Daily Times last Friday, stating, “The Government, including Dunedin North MP David Clark, can talk all it likes about local committees or advisory boards and the need for flexibility to meet local needs. But the reality is a centralised model”—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Too long.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Shall I reduce it or—

💬 SPEAKER: The member should just wind his question up.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: —“will over time degrade flexibility … and innovation”?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I completely disagree that the new model would degrade flexibility and innovation.

Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

11. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What reports has he seen about responses to the draft report of the Commerce Commission on the New Zealand fuel market?

I have seen several, and I’m happy to give the House a flavour of some of those. Firstly, the Motor Trade Association, or MTA, said the report’s findings confirm the concerns raised by the association and said that they were “pumped” with what they saw yesterday. The AA said they agree with the report’s recommendations to make changes at the wholesale end of the market. The chief executive of Gull agreed that the wholesale fuel market in New Zealand is not working. But I was surprised to see a report from this morning of a former Minister of Transport taking responsibility for 50 reports into this issue when he was a Minister, and when asked why he didn’t do anything about it, he said, “I’ll tell you why—I’ll tell you why. Because there’s nothing easy.” On this side of the House, we will tackle the hard issues that are going to make a difference to hard-working New Zealanders.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When a Minister is asked a question, shouldn’t they be answering a question on their own behalf rather than parroting a comment from the Leader of the Opposition as somehow part of their answer. That would seem to me to come into the category that you have previously ruled against, which is using a question to bring the Opposition into some kind of question, which is not reasonable. We’ve seen a lot of it today, as it happens, and we’ll certainly want to come and see you about the Hansard from the previous questions answered by the Prime Minister.

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Speaking to the point of order, I’m not sure if you’re going to give me leave to table the transcript, but it wasn’t parroting; it was absolutely verbatim.

💬 SPEAKER: As I’ve said to the Hon Shane Jones recently about parrots and giant parrots and rediscovered ones, saying exactly what someone has said is parroting. So I don’t think there’s any problem with the use of that word. The problem that I have is that right up till the last comment, and even then, the Minister was within order. I mean, he was asked about responses. He quoted a response, or a few responses. He indicated that he disagreed with one of them and why. I’ll be watching carefully further supplementaries, but I think he didn’t go over the line on this occasion.

💬 Ginny Andersen: How will the Government respond to the draft report?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: We are already laying the groundwork for a quick and effective response once the final report is received in December. As I have been saying, it is our firm intention to back Kiwi consumers, and we will watch closely the consultation process. We are already considering options to fix the retail fuel market so that it is competitive and to get Kiwis a fairer deal.

💬 Ginny Andersen: Why won’t the Government reduce fuel taxes?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: We believe that Kiwis appreciate our investment in core infrastructure. What Kiwis don’t appreciate is being fleeced by a broken market. This investment is sorely needed after many years of neglect. Our fuel taxes are low by OECD standards, and the Commerce Commission report found that New Zealand had the third-highest pre-tax premium petrol and diesel prices. We are very concerned about the margins that petrol companies are making, and we’re happy to make a difference for hard-working New Zealanders who are feeling the pain at the pump after nine years of neglect.

Question No. 12—Transport

12. to the Associate Minister of Transport: What is the petrol price exclusive of taxes and carbon charges assumed in the reference scenario in the preliminary cost-benefit analysis of the Clean Car Discount for August 2019, and how does this compare to the actual present petrol price exclusive of taxes and carbon charges?

The fuel price used in the reference scenario in the preliminary cost-benefit analysis for the clean car discount ranged from $1.47 to $2.58 over the lifetime of the policy evaluation period out to 2042. The latest available fuel price, excluding taxes and carbon charges, for August 2019 shows the average price per litre of petrol, exclusive of taxes and carbon charges, was $1.03 and $1.11 for diesel. As the member will be aware, fuel price projections 20 years into the future cannot be compared with the single price of fuel sold today. That is particularly important in this piece of analysis, where the benefits associated with fuel savings do not occur in the initial years of the implementation period but rather in later years, with the estimated fuel-reduction benefit peaking around 2030.

💬 Brett Hudson: Does she have confidence the pre-tax petrol price will double by 2030, as assumed in the cost-benefit analysis?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I’m not sure the member’s assertion in that question is correct. The same range of petrol prices is used for the evaluation over the entire period, and it’s based on the most recently published official forecast for fuel prices over that period.

💬 Brett Hudson: Is she concerned that the lowest estimate for the price of petrol overestimated the cost in 2019 by almost 50 percent, and if not, why not?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The officials who undertook the analysis explained to me that the majority of the benefits of the policy are accruing in the later years of the policy, mainly peaking around 2030. If that member thinks that he can more correctly forecast prices 10 to 20 years in the future than the International Energy Agency and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, then perhaps he’s in the wrong line of work. I recommend he take up work as a trader.

💬 Brett Hudson: Will the Minister seek an increase in petrol prices to better match the increase in price published as part of her consultation?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: If the member is interested in a full briefing on the cost-benefit analysis, I’m sure that officials would be happy to provide him with that. But, again, I think the assertion in the question actually is incorrect. There is a wide range of retail petrol prices pre-tax and pre-carbon charges that is used to evaluate the benefits. I’m confident that the analysis done by the Ministry of Transport gives us a realistic, if conservative, estimate of the overall benefits to New Zealanders of this policy.

💬 Brett Hudson: Supplementary.

💬 SPEAKER: No way.