Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Education: What actions has the Government taken to increase the number of New Zealanders participating in vocational education?

Earlier this month, the Government announced a new award for vocational education, including the trades, which is open to all secondary school students. The Prime Minister’s Vocational Excellence Award celebrates young people training to be our future creators, innovators, crafters, and tradespeople. It’s available to every secondary school and wharekura in the country for their top student in vocational education. We want to recognise and encourage a new generation of builders, plumbers, software developers, agricultural trainees, designers, and many others on to further study or on-the-job training.

💬 Jan Tinetti: How will the Prime Minister’s Vocational Excellence Awards lift the status of the trades and other vocational training?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government is committed to raising the status of vocational education. The Prime Minister’s award in vocational excellence sends a strong message about the value that we place on trades training. Trades training and on-the-job skills training has too often taken a back seat to university in terms of the school leavers’ desired career choices, even when this isn’t necessarily the best choice. We want to show students through this award that the trades provide exciting opportunities that are an equally important career pathway. The award is part of a wider package of vocational education reforms so that we see more people training on the job and training to meet the skill needs of employers.

💬 Jan Tinetti: When can schools apply for the award?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m pleased to say that right now, every public secondary school and wharekura across the country can apply for the $2,000 cash prize for their top vocational student. The Prime Minister’s Vocational Excellence Awards will be available for prize-givings in 2019—this year—and the Government is providing funding for every public secondary school and wharekura to participate in the programme.

💬 Jan Tinetti: How does the Prime Minister’s award recognising vocational excellence complement the greater reform of the system and work in this area?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The award sits alongside a number of other initiatives, including activities that are taking place right now to promote trades training, such as speed meets, where, across the country, students are meeting with an employer from a range of industries that offer on-the-job training for six minutes to find out about each other. In addition to this, we’ve put more money into the Telford polytechnic to ensure that it can be revitalised for the primary industries, and, of course, we are undertaking a very comprehensive set of reforms in vocational education and training to expand the range of skills options available in all parts of the country.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: What measures, if any, does he have in place to ensure New Zealanders receive good value for money from the Government’s major spending initiatives?

The 2019 Wellbeing Budget made use for the first time of a wellbeing analysis and Treasury’s Living Standards Framework. Initiatives that sought new funding were assessed for their impact against the Living Standards Framework domains and for their intergenerational wellbeing outcomes. As the Wellbeing Budget states, “This meant [that] the Wellbeing Budget was developed with an understanding of the impacts it would have across the range of areas that matter to New Zealanders.” The wellbeing analysis allows for a more robust and developed understanding of value for money than a simple understanding of the costs. As Tim Ng, who is the chief economist at Treasury, said, this is the most rigorous approach we have ever seen to a Budget. Within major spending programmes, there are, of course, various benchmarks, measures, and indicators. To give the member just one example of our work, in child poverty, not only are we committed to tackling one of our biggest long-term issues after nine years of neglect; we are also hitting the targets that are outlined in the Budget to address the shameful legacy left behind.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Halfway through the three years of the Provincial Growth Fund, what hard data has he seen on the outcomes from the investment in terms of jobs so far?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m not sure if I would regard Minister Jones’ interviews on Newshub Nation as hard data, but I would certainly describe it as data of a sort. In that interview, I heard him talk about a figure of a thousand jobs over two years. We are continuing to see fantastic outcomes. Just this morning, I was in Rotorua at the Building Nations Symposium. Representatives of city councils and industry bodies across the country were praising the Provincial Growth Fund for the fact that finally we have a Government taking a long-term issue for New Zealand seriously.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did ask about jobs so far. He referred to jobs in the future. Are you happy with that?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I’m not sure that I could tell that was in the future or the current or whatever. I think it was more in the time of Matua Shane.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he have a system in place to keep a measure on how much the Government is spending for each KiwiBuild house delivered so far; and, if so, what is the figure?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: All initiatives funded in the Budget are there after the subject of the review process that the member participates in but are also reported against by each Government agency. No doubt, in the fullness of time, the member will find time to read the reports that come through from the KiwiBuild unit.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: What has he got to show for the $317 million so far allocated to working groups?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I would strongly—strongly—question the number that the member is using, and, in particular, the use of the phrase “working groups.” I know that the Minister for Sport and Recreation frequently gets questions from the Opposition about the International Working Group on Women in Sport, which is actually an international group—and they ask us how much it’s costing us; so I actually would question that. What I would say is that one of the significant working groups we had was the one into mental health and addition. That is a serious, long-term issue which will take many years to solve, but we have made a very good start with the significant mental health package in the Budget.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: So what is the figure that he would give to deal with the amount of money being invested in working groups so far by his Government?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It would be a significantly smaller number than the one that the member gave. But it is an interesting contrast between people who like to base their policy on evidence—as we do on this side of the House—and people who would rather base it on some preconceived prejudice.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Which has created more jobs so far: the Provincial Growth Fund or his Government working groups?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I am quite sure that the Provincial Growth Fund right around this region is seen as a job-generation scheme. What I do know is it probably outstripped the big idea from the last Government of the nine-day fortnight, which I know was their big idea and has clearly been taken on by this Opposition as their mode of working.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think taxpayers are getting good value for money for the 2,500 extra bureaucrats this Government has taken on in its first year of Government; and, if so, is he aware that that’s the biggest increase in the number of bureaucrats since 2005 under the previous—

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again, I would want to look at the numbers that the member is putting forward, to analyse them pretty closely. I do know that the statistics the previous Government used to use around numbers of public servants were created so that whole chunks of them were taken out so that they weren’t counted. On this side of the House, there are programmes that this Government has had to bring in to fix up the mess that we were left by the last Government. The hard-working public servants of New Zealand will remember how they’re being described, I’m sure.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that within the definition of “bureaucrats” there are people such as educational psychologists and teacher-aides that work directly with children, people that work at the border, and people that provide other front-line services directly to New Zealanders?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Quite clearly that is the case, given the definition that the member opposite has just used. On this side of the House, we have a great deal of respect for people who, in some cases, put their lives on the line for New Zealanders every single day. I do recall being in this House and hearing public servants previously called “useless bureaucrats” by people across the aisle there. It’s not a term I choose to use.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Does he agree, given the stellar figures of economic growth—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m going to ask the member to ask a question, and not do a self-promotion.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: I started with “Does he agree,”. That is an interrogative. Does he agree, given there have been significant economic activity upgrades in those provinces that have enjoyed the fiscal leadership and attention from the Provincial Growth Fund, that the two are connected?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Sit down. Are there any further supplementaries—in order?

💬 Hon Shane Jones: I want to make a point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I’m going to be very strict if the member’s not careful.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to make an important point here. We are drawing on publicly available, economically robust data. I am inviting the Minister of Finance to draw an obvious conclusion: my good work and the good news.

💬 SPEAKER: No. The member will resume his seat. That was not a point of order. While the member has only ever shown a passing interest in the rules of the House, he has been here long enough to know that that was not a point of order and, in fact, was disorderly. He will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: I withdraw and apologise.

Question No. 3—Housing

3. to the Minister of Housing: Will there be any further delays to the conclusion of the KiwiBuild reset, including due to the resignation of the KiwiBuild head of delivery?

No.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: When was the KiwiBuild head of delivery’s six-month contract due to be concluded?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The head of delivery’s contract was due to be concluded at the end of September. She started work on 5 February, from memory, which meant that it could have gone through to the end of October. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank Helen O’Sullivan for the wonderful work that she has done in this role.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: When does she expect a replacement head of delivery will be appointed?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The intention is—given that Kāinga Ora is coming into existence—that there will be a temporary head of delivery. Once the new agency is in place, then that role will be filled.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: How will it impact the success of the $2 billion programme to have first a head of KiwiBuild resign, then an interim appointed for four months, then a new head leave after five months, and now another interim lead while yet another replacement can be found?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think the member is trying to cause mischief where there is none. There has been significant progress this year with KiwiBuild under Helen O’Sullivan’s leadership. There has been significant reform, and we are confident that when we announce the reset, we will have made a number of improvements. We are the first people, on this side of the House, to acknowledge that KiwiBuild has not delivered in the way that we wanted it to.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: How is it possible that this Government has, after only two years, a housing policy in full reset for seven months, looking for its third KiwiBuild head, a State—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s had two now.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Oh. OK then. That’s enough. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: That is possible, and, actually, we’ve made a number of achievements. We had a target of delivering 1,600 additional public housing houses; we have delivered 2,100 because of changes we made in Government. I would like to remind that member that this stuff is difficult, and that member should know it. She was a member of a Government that aimed to deliver 39,000 houses through the special housing areas, and they only delivered 3,900—100 of which were deemed affordable.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: If that is so, then how is it that the State waiting list has now doubled in 18 months?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’m very glad the member asked me that question. That member was a member of a Government that not only sold off State houses; they ended their term of Government with 1,500 fewer public housing spots. But, added to that, there was the opportunity cost of them not building. If that party, when in Government, had built 1,600 houses a year like we are planning to, we would have 14,500 more public housing spots, which is more than the number of people on the waiting list.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: And how many of those 1,600 new State houses were consented under the National Government?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Obviously, some of them were, but what we can tell—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I’m warning Nikki Kaye.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: I was clapping.

💬 SPEAKER: I think it’s fair to say that my intervention was not quiet. She continued her disorderly behaviour afterwards.

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Some of them were, but what I can tell that member is that many of the developments were added to the business cases by us when we came into Government, because that was a Government that was intent on selling off State houses—not building them, and not providing affordable houses. We are proud of our record. That member and the party she belongs to should be ashamed of their record on public housing.

Question No. 4—Courts

Oh, thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Courts: what recent reports has the Minister seen regarding the Canterbury Earthquakes—

Now, the member has a very good qualification, including literacy. He should read the question as it’s written down.

4. to the Minister for Courts: What recent reports has he seen regarding the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal?

On Friday, it was reported that after less than 50 days of operation, the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal has already resolved its first case. The case that’s been resolved was referred from the Greater Christchurch Claims Resolution Service and dated back to the first earthquake on 4 September 2010. It’s pleasing to see such rapid progress under the changes introduced by this Government, and the progress made by the tribunal so far represents another win for the Wellbeing Budget.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: How many cases have been lodged with the tribunal so far?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Since the tribunal came into operation roughly 50 days ago, 21 cases have been lodged from affected Canterbury homeowners, as of last Friday. Two of these had been transferred to the tribunal from the High Court. The number of cases already received shows just why the Government created the tribunal in the first place, which is to be a circuit breaker for people who have waited far too long to move on with their lives from botched repairs and damage to their homes. It’s about tackling the big, long-term issues in Canterbury.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Why has the coalition Government set up the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The coalition Government set up the tribunal to give Canterbury homeowners a fair, flexible, and cost-effective way to resolve their outstanding insurance claims relating to the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes, including claims with Southern Response and the Earthquake Commission. The delay to resolve residential insurance claims has had a significant effect on many Cantabrians’ wellbeing. They need another opportunity for closure, and the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal will go a long way to meeting this need.

Question No. 5—Education

I seek leave to hold my question over for the next question time so that the Hon Tracey Martin can answer the question directly.

Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes, there is. Does the member want to ask it anyway?

5. to the Associate Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement regarding learning support coordinator allocations, “I’m pleased, I’m really pleased. I know there are people complaining, and that’s OK. We seem to live in a world where somebody’s got to complain about everything”?

on behalf of the Associate Minister of Education: In the context of the six minutes of my 6 August video blog where I outline the intentions of the role in detail, yes.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Is Greerton Village School board chairperson and parent Erika Harvey wrong when she says, “There’s really no rhyme or reason why we were left out. We have 140 children on our learning registry. I’m getting emails to say that I’ve got to stop or cut staff, and I’m going to have to choose between health and safety or following the law of inclusion. It’s ridiculous.”

I would say to the person who made that comment that the Government has committed to 600 learning support coordinators in the first tranche of rolling out learning support coordinators into every school. Not every school can have one of those 600, obviously, but we do acknowledge that this is one of the areas of need that schools are really struggling with. It’s why we agreed to establish the roles, and we’ll continue to expand the number of learning support coordinators available in the future.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Is New Zealand Education Institute (NZEI) president, Lynda Stuart, wrong when she says that the learning support coordinator allocation failed the test of whether it would get to the children who needed it first and putting arbitrary system requirements ahead of what schools have said they want and need to meet the needs of children is disgraceful?

I disagree with Lynda Stuart’s comment on that. When the NZEI first started campaigning for these roles, they said that they wanted them to be a dedicated role specifically for this purpose. They have subsequently argued that, in fact, it should be an increase to the staffing entitlement for schools. We don’t agree with that. We are honouring the commitment that we made originally, which was that these would be dedicated roles and they cannot be used as part of the school’s staffing entitlement for something else.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: How many dedicated learning support coordinator roles were in place when the Minister took office?

There were no dedicated learning support coordinators in place when we became the Government. We have acknowledged that this is a gap in the system, and we’re committed to addressing that.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Will she listen to the comments of principal Gaye Turner, who said, “I very rarely get gutted. I very rarely get angry, but that’s how I felt.” and change the learning—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Shorter quotes.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: —support coordinator allocation so there is greater fairness and equity for children with complex needs?

I do accept that for principals up and down the country, who for a decade now have had to fight tooth and nail to get support for the kids who have additional learning needs, who have been frustrated that they haven’t been able to get that support, there is a degree of impatience in them wanting to see more resources in that area. I point out to all of them that the introduction of learning support coordinators is not the only thing this Government is doing. We’ve also expanded the number of Ongoing Resourcing Scheme funded spaces that are available to the kids with the highest and most complex needs. We’ve put more money into early intervention in early childhood education. We’ve expanded a range of other areas of learning support. We know that there is significant unmet demand for learning support across the country, and, unlike the previous Government, we are actually going to work towards meeting that.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was actually, after I made the quote from the principal: will they change the learning support coordinator allocation? That was the question. That’s the question that thousands of principals want to know—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. If the member precedes her question with a long quote, then any part of the quote can be addressed.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Has she analysed the amount of time that she’s spent on making decisions on learning support coordinator allocation versus the amount of time she’s spent trolling Opposition MPs and principals on social media?

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to seek a point of clarification as to why you moved on, because, as I understand it, the word “troll” or “trolling” has been used in this House on many occasions. In fact, I believe it’s been used by the honourable—

💬 SPEAKER: Not by way of question, and, if I missed it, I was wrong, and, if my predecessors missed it, they were wrong. Accusing a member of this House of being a troll is something which I consider to be disorderly.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it would be a valuable exercise for the Clerk’s Office to look through Hansards, particularly to answers to questions, to see if that word has been used alongside—well, not alongside but also the word “fascist”.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, if they find another of my errors, then I’m sure I will be reminded of it, but assigning that title to a member of Parliament is, in my opinion, disorderly.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, if it’s about this—if the member’s trying to reiterate that point, she will be being disorderly, and it will be treated very seriously.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What you said in your comments—and I ask you to reflect on the footage—is that I have called the member a troll. I didn’t; I used the term “trolling”, which in the Oxford Dictionary, I think, is making comments that are inflammatory. It is a very different—

💬 SPEAKER: The member will stand—she will now sit—and now she’s going to stand, withdraw, and apologise. She has deliberately—she has deliberately—defied my ruling. The member said another member was trolling. To troll means that you are a troll. Stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: I mean, it’s pretty basic English.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Doesn’t even know what “troll” means.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Kieran McAnulty will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: And this is now a more general warning to members on both sides of the House: when I make a ruling, I do not expect comment on it, whether it is oppositional or supportive—both are disorderly.

Question No. 6—Pike River Re-entry

6. to the Minister responsible for Pike River Re-entry: Does he stand by all his statements, policies, and actions on the Pike River Mine?

Yes. In particular, I stand by all the actions taken to date in fulfilment of this Government’s commitment to re-enter the Pike River mine to better understand that avoidable tragedy. I stand by the approvals I have given and my support for the project, which has proceeded in strict compliance with underground mining best practice and New Zealand’s health and safety laws and regulations, and which has enjoyed possibly the most stringent oversight by WorkSafe New Zealand, New Zealand’s health and safety regulator.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Will any exemptions from the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 or any of its regulations be sought in relation to the Pike River mine re-entry?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes, and the conditions on which an exemption can be given require conditions to be met, and the principal condition is that any standards applied in order to achieve an exemption have to be equal to, or better than, the standards provided for in the regulations. Any exemption sought by the Pike River Recovery Agency will be because their standards they are applying will be better than, or equal to, the standards provided for in the regulations.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Why would the Government want to exempt itself at Pike River from the very law that was put in place following this tragedy to strengthen miners’ safety?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I might, if I could, assist that member because I think he’s fallen under the influence of an erroneous and misleading article produced by Mr Gerry Morris from the West Coast when he talks about regulation 170 of the Health and Safety at Work (Mining Operations and Quarrying Operations) Regulations 2016. If I just take a moment to talk about two parts of regulation 170. One is subclause (1); the other is subclause (4). Subclause (1) is a regulation requiring a second means of egress; it is one of the issues that was examined by the royal commission of inquiry into the original tragedy at Pike River. Subclause (1) of regulation 170 does not apply to existing mining operations, and the Pike River mine—because we picked up all the old consents—is an existing mining operation until December 2024. So that regulation doesn’t apply. There is another regulation in subclause (4) of regulation 170, and that requires that the mine operator must ensure that “at least 1 of the escapeways at the underground coal mining operation is designated as the primary escapeway and is—(a) an intake airway or a combination of adjacent intake airways;”. That is the issue that the agency is working on with WorkSafe and a number of local and international experts to achieve world’s best practice for that standard, and they will apply for an exemption to that part of the regulation on the basis that what the agency does with the mine in order to get access to the drift will be equal to, or better than, the standard required in that regulation.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Will the miners, or workers, have access to two exits from the mine, as required by the regulations?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I have just tried to point out to that member, and, unfortunately, he’s fallen under the influence of Mr Morris—I should point out Mr Morris wrote to my office today and he pointed out—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Answer the question.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —his credentials, which included, amongst other things, that he organised Norman Kirk’s visit to the West Coast—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: No, the member will resume his seat. This is a serious matter. It has involved a number of deaths. It is a matter of safety. The House is interested in the answer, even if people don’t like it, and, especially, Dr Nick Smith will not interject again while Mr Little is answering this set of questions.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a breach of the Standing Orders to suggest that anyone in this House is under the influence of someone from outside this House. Andrew Little has done that twice now, at least, in his answers today. If he wants this House to treat his answers seriously on what is a serious matter, then he should show this House the respect it deserves.

💬 SPEAKER: I understand the point that he is making. My view is that Mr Little did not breach the Standing Orders in the way that they were intended.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point—

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry, the member will resume his seat. They are generally intended in that way to say that members are acting improperly, generally for financial reward or other of that sort of influence. The idea that a member can’t suggest that someone’s read an article and been influenced by it is not what that Standing Order and Speakers’ rulings have been aimed at.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, with respect, I disagree with you. The term that was used—

💬 SPEAKER: Lovely!

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: The term that was used was “under the erroneous influence”. Now, that’s expressing an opinion, which is also, frankly, not allowed in the Standing Orders for answering of questions—

💬 SPEAKER: What!

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Read your Standing Orders. It’ll probably be quite instructive.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member’s now going to resume his seat. He’ll have an early shower if he keeps that one up. To suggest that Ministers can’t suggest that other people are in error, or even questioners are allowed to suggest that people are in error—if we ruled all of that out, we wouldn’t bother coming here.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: No—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, while you’re still on your feet.

💬 SPEAKER: Mr Brownlee, last chance, and—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, my point is that the statement “under the erroneous influence” is too strong—far too strong. It’s quite reasonable that any member might read an article and want to ask questions about it, but then to have it thrown back at them as if to say that “Actually, you’re simply wrong because what you’ve read is wrong.” is not a Minister answering a question. It’s a Minister dodging his obligations to answer strictly the question.

💬 SPEAKER: All right, OK. The member is erroneous.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. You’ve been pretty tough on the Opposition in ensuring that we do not add material that is irrelevant to the question and answer. In both the primary question and in the supplementary, the Minister has chosen to have a go at a journalist on the West Coast, rather than answer my colleague’s question.

💬 SPEAKER: And I am now getting the impression that the member is arguing with my decision earlier that I made very clear to him about not intervening further during this question, where he was absolutely and deliberately reflecting on my chairing, and he will withdraw and apologise now.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I’d like some clarification of what I’m withdrawing and—

💬 SPEAKER: No, the member can’t. If the member wants to stay, he will withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I’d just love to know what offence I’ve committed.

💬 SPEAKER: Right. The member will withdraw from the Chamber.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Mr Speaker, I have to get kicked out for not even knowing what you’ve done wrong.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I just want to make it very clear that there are some things that I’ll take responsibility for. The member not knowing what he’s done is not one of them.

Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Speakers’ Rulings is the guide that guides most members of Parliament in the way in which they conduct themselves in the House. You moved to tell Dr Smith that he couldn’t participate in any further points of order on this; he then did. He got upset and went out. I don’t believe that it’s the role of the Chair just to deny the right of members of Parliament to raise points of order.

💬 SPEAKER: Question No. 7, Angie Warren-Clark—

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Oh, the member has a further supplementary?

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Sorry, Mr Speaker, do you mind if I ask that question again? It was interrupted.

💬 SPEAKER: If the member wants a further supplementary, he can ask it. I think we had an answer which—we certainly had an answer to the question that he asked.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We did not. I interrupted his answer because of the offence—

💬 SPEAKER: The member interrupted well after the question had been answered. I mean, frankly, we had a conflict: we had the member saying he wanted more, the member behind him saying that he wanted more, and other people saying that they wanted less.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Will the miners, the workers, and the police officers that are asked to re-enter the Pike River mine have two points of exit, as required by the regulations?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It’s unfortunate that that member did not listen to the previous answer. It is not a regulatory requirement that there be two points of egress. That regulation doesn’t come into force until 2024. That member knows members of the agency. He knows the leadership of the agency. He knows the level of technical and expert advice that the agency has been drawing on for all of the 18 months of its existence, and it certainly has a lot more than a journalist or a part-time historian from the West Coast whose credentials, according to a letter he sent to my office this morning, are that he organised Norman Kirk’s visit to the West Coast in 1971 and that his mother worked at Paddy’s Bakery.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: If the miners, workers, and police officers asked to re-enter the Pike River mine are going to have only one point of exit, and if that point of exit is blocked, how are they going to get out?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As that member well knows, in all the planning that has gone into this exercise, the highest standards of health and safety have been applied. No person who works for the agency, no miner, no experienced miner, and no technical expert will enter the mine if it is unsafe to do so.

Question No. 7—Environment

7. to the Minister for the Environment: What action is the Government taking to enhance urban development and protect elite soils?

The Government has proposed national policy statements on urban development and on highly productive land. These will improve the provision of housing in our major cities while protecting our most fertile and versatile land used for growing food. Through the combination of the two, we get the balance right, which is the development we need, in the right place. We need to both house our people and feed them.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: Why is the Government protecting elite soils?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Only around 5 percent of our land is classified as class 1 or 2 highly productive land which is suitable for growing a wide range of fruits, vegetables, or fibre, and we can’t afford to lose these. These bring significant economic benefits as well as food, obviously. Our productive land, once it’s either built on or chopped up for lifestyle blocks, can’t then generally be used efficiently for food production, so we need to act now to protect our most productive land for future generations.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: How will the national policy statement on urban development allow our cities to make room for growth?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: To have enough affordable homes, we need planning that allows our cities to grow up, especially in city centres and around transport connections. We also have to allow cities with fast-growing populations to expand in a way that protects our special areas like our highly productive land. This combination enables more affordable homes in quality urban environments. Combined with the protection of productive land, we’ll be helping local authorities to make room for growth whilst ensuring that this doesn’t come at the expense of the natural environment.

💬 Hon James Shaw: Does he agree that the national policy statement on urban development needs to promote low-emissions urban design and ensure that our towns and cities are planning for higher density development, with better public transport?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I agree with that statement, especially around transport nodes, and enabling people to live in more dense living patterns around public transportation nodes increases their transport choices, reduces their costs, and also reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

Question No. 8—Agriculture

8. to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he have confidence in New Zealand’s agricultural sector?

Absolutely.

💬 Todd Muller: What actions is the Government taking to improve agricultural business confidence, which is at a 14-year low?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I’m proud to announce that New Zealand farmer confidence has risen for the second quarter in a row. I will acknowledge that farmer confidence did take a hit when we first came into Government, but what we have seen is that since more and more farmers started not attending National Party meetings, their confidence has lifted consistently, particularly in the last two quarters.

💬 Todd Muller: What does he say, then, to the agribusiness sector survey which says the level of agriculture sentiment is minus 80 percent, the worst in 14 years?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I’m not quite sure how that member refers to sentiment. Can I say that for the second straight year, there has been an over $7 billion increase in gross exports, a 7 percent return. Dairy exports in May this year were up 15 percent. The measures of confidence across the sector are numerous. I acknowledge that there are some sectors that are less confident, the dairy sector in particular, and anyone who has been listening to the reports from Fonterra would be concerned, as are their farmers, and it would be fair to say that since 2011, 2017-18, Fonterra made many, many mistakes, both at governance and at senior management level. I have to—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Damien O’Connor will resume his seat. I mean, the member’s mike goes off when I stand up, so he should work out that it’s not worth going on afterwards.

💬 Todd Muller: What assurances can he give New Zealanders that the wider economy will not be put at risk by the Government’s proposed introduction of a suite of new environmental policies, when confidence is already so low in a sector that represents 56 percent of this country’s exports?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: In 2015, a KPMG report said there are some hard things that need to be done. The previous National Government buried their head in the sand and did nothing. This Government is proud to stand up and say that in the area of animal welfare, in the areas of traceability and biosecurity, and in the areas of water management and soil protection we are moving to lift the standards and to protect the long-term opportunities for farmers and for this country’s economy. That Government did nothing, was not prepared to take the hard calls, and we are stepping up to the task.

💬 Hon James Shaw: What reports has he seen of farmers and agribusinesses moving to both enhance value, increase profitability, and restore environmental integrity to New Zealand and its brand?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: At virtually every forum I go to around the country talking to farmers and farm leaders, they acknowledge that we need to move ahead in these areas of water quality, of animal welfare, and of traceability, because if we don’t, then the brand value that generations before us have built up in this country to sell quality exports will be undermined. The absence of any leadership and action from the previous National Government means that we have to do—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

💬 Todd Muller: Does he agree with the comments made by the Hon Shane Jones that many dairy farmers will find themselves struggling when they have to meet the new Government environmental requirements?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: What I do agree with the Minister the Hon Shane Jones on is that Fonterra shareholders are bitterly disappointed with the performance of their company. From 2011 until 2017, that company has failed—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat when I stand. The member will now start to address the question asked, not another random statement.

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I agree with many things the Hon Shane Jones says, and his objective analysis of the dairy industry is one that I respect. He’s from a dairy farm; I’m from a dairy farm. We understand what the dairy farmers are concerned about. Yes, they want to know what the changing water standards will mean, but they’re more concerned with the performance of their own cooperative companies, and, because of the poor leadership—[Speaker gestures member to sit]

Question No. 9—Corrections

9. 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?

on behalf of the Minister of Corrections: Yes.

💬 Hon David Bennett: What steps has the Minister taken to ensure the remaining four letters that the high-profile prisoner sent do not contain objectionable material?

On behalf of the Minister, the prisoner is now not allowed to have any mail received or heading out of the prison.

💬 SPEAKER: No, can the member address—I mean, it might be that the answer is that, on behalf of the Minister, the Minister answering the question doesn’t know, but it was quite a different question that was asked. Repeat the question, Mr Bennett, please.

💬 Hon David Bennett: What steps has the Minister taken to ensure the remaining four letters that the high-profile prisoner sent do not contain objectionable material?

On behalf of the Minister, I do not have an answer to that question.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Did corrections record to whom the remaining four letters were sent by that high-profile prisoner?

I’m not aware of an answer to that question, but what I do know is that the letters sent by the prisoner were checked by corrections.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Has corrections monitored all telephone calls, except those that are exempt, made by this high-profile prisoner?

On behalf of the Minister, my understanding is yes.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Has corrections recorded all monitored calls made by this high-risk - profile prisoner?

On behalf of the Minister, I do not have an answer to that question.

Question No. 10—Infrastructure

10. to the Minister for Infrastructure: What recent announcements has he made regarding the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission - Te Waihanga?

I will show due moderation, and I shall read their names out, the members of this entity, for fear of being sent to join the hīkoi. Yesterday, I announced, on behalf of the Government, the chair and the fellow board members of the independent Infrastructure Commission. It is to be led by Dr Alan Bollard, no stranger to this House, and assisted by Mr David Cochrane, a very senior lawyer from Simpson Grierson; Raveen Jaduram, chief executive of Watercare; Sue Tindal, an experienced chief financial officer and banker; Sarah Sinclair, partner at Minter Ellison Rudd Watts; and Stephen Selwood, a well-known advocate and leader of infrastructure thinking. I think it’s important that when all members are dealing with such a professional group, we don’t indulge in a passion of name-calling, and treat them respectfully all the time.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: Why were these people chosen?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Helping our country meet the infrastructure deficit is something that should not divide our parties. This body of people will bring together significant expertise in financial, legal, regulatory, and practical on-the-ground experience. It is likely that this organisation from time to time will provide analysis that these parliamentarians or other parliamentarians will not fully agree with, but such are the virtues of having an independent source of expert advice.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: What has been the reaction to these announcements?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: A number of positive remarks from the other side of the House, and I want to acknowledge the other side of the House and the role that they have played in bringing the bill through the select committee, although I did think it was disappointing that the Opposition finance spokesperson launched an ad hominem attack on a leading Northland businessman, Wayne Brown, yesterday at the infrastructure conference. Such intemperate outbursts are unbecoming of parliamentary life.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will he refer all consideration of the Northport infrastructure decisions to this independent commission before making any major investments on rail in Northland?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, the Budget made an overdue allocation in terms of rail for New Zealand—$300 million of that pūtea announced in the Budget came from the Provincial Growth Fund. The legislation related to this body has not been passed. However, the trains are already on the move.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: So that’s a no?

💬 SPEAKER: I think that’s a fairly clear one, yes.

Question No. 11—Transport

11. to the Minister of Transport: Can he rule out any further increases in transport taxes or charges under this Government?

on behalf of the Minister of Transport: On behalf of the Minister, what I can say is that this Government has been very transparent about planned increases to road-user charges and fuel excise duties. The Government has announced an increase in petrol excise duty of 3.5c per litre to take effect from 30 September 2018 and further 3.5c increases in 2019 and 2020. Road-user charges will increase by an equivalent amount. All fuel excise duty and road-user charges contribute to building our transport system, and every responsible Government plans and lets the public know about how they’re going to fund investments in infrastructure.

💬 Brett Hudson: Supplementary.

💬 SPEAKER: No, we’re not even up to that yet. I realise the member’s delivering an answer on behalf of another Minister, but she does have responsibility to have the question asked addressed. Have another go.

I cannot rule it out, because, as I said, we’ve been very transparent about—

💬 SPEAKER: That’s all right; that’s clear. The member’s done it now.

💬 Brett Hudson: Why is the Government exploring additional funding tools to raise money for transport projects?

On behalf of the Minister, because we have a massive infrastructure deficit in this country. On this side of the House, we believe in investing in infrastructure that benefits New Zealand society and business. Over the three-year period of this National Land Transport Programme, we will invest over $8.5 billion on highways, local roads, safety improvements, and maintenance, including an increase to road policing—all of which languished and, actually, had a reduction in funding under that previous National Government.

💬 Brett Hudson: Will the additional funding tools Treasury reports the Ministry of Transport is exploring add to the costs being faced by New Zealand motorists?

That is a hypothetical question.

💬 Brett Hudson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the Budget documents released by Treasury, Treasury makes it clear that the Ministry of Transport is actively considering these things. It’s a fair question.

💬 SPEAKER: I think all the member’s doing is disagreeing with an answer, which is not a point of order. I think he actually knows that, doesn’t he.

💬 Brett Hudson: Why, when the Government increases to fuel taxes will bring in over $1 billion in new tax revenue, is he looking at new funding tools to raise even more money?

On behalf of the Minister, we have in New Zealand an infrastructure deficit, and I’m sure that most people would agree with that. We have a need to invest in the quality and safety of our roads right across the country, and the previous Government failed to sufficiently invest in safety, failed to invest in the type of maintenance we needed for our local roads and our State highways, and failed to plan to increase rail and public transport, which is vitally important, and this Government is committed to investing in the future of transport in New Zealand.

💬 Brett Hudson: Does he agree with the New Zealand Transport Agency that the National Land Transport Fund is nearly fully committed; and, if so, does that mean that there is no money available for new projects?

I would have to see that quote. It doesn’t sound correct to me.

Question No. 12—Women

12. to the Minister for Women: Why did she say yesterday that the equal pay legislation was in select committee when it was reported back on 13 May, and has been sitting on the Order Paper for three months?

It was a mistake in the press release. The select committee has reported back. Minister Lees-Galloway and I are considering feedback on some aspects of the bill, and the officials at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Ministry for Women are working very hard on this.

💬 Denise Lee: Is she disappointed it is taking so long to make progress on pay equity, or is it not a priority for her?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It absolutely is a priority for this Government. This legislation is a world first to ensure a pathway for pay equity for women. We want to ensure that we get it right. This work is parallel to approximately 80,000 women progressing pay equity claims—increases to the minimum wage, which predominantly benefit women. So we’re making good progress and we want to make sure the legislation is right.

💬 Denise Lee: Why does she think women in New Zealand should have to wait until it fits the Government’s PR schedule for progress on the equal pay bill?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m going to—because the member’s a new member, I’ll allow her to rephrase that question to bring it into order.

💬 Denise Lee: Does she think women in New Zealand should have to wait until it fits the Government’s PR schedule for progress on the equal pay bill?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I have no idea what the member’s referring to in terms of PR. What I can say is that the previous Government’s equal pay bill had its first reading three sitting days before the end of the last Parliament—that’s after nine years in power. This Government made it a priority and is continuing to make it a priority, and we certainly have not slowed down progress; we’ve accelerated progress on pay equity claims for over 80,000 women.

💬 Denise Lee: Will the Equal Pay Amendment Bill receive its second reading on 19 September, Women’s Suffrage Day?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I have no idea.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: What are the points of concern mentioned by the Leader of the House this afternoon that are holding up this bill’s progress?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: There are a number of areas that we have received feedback on from a range of submitters and stakeholders, and we’re working hard to ensure that we can get this right in the legislation.