Oral Questions

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, particularly the Government’s Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy, which was released today, and which will help New Zealand be the best place in the world to be a child. As part of that package, children in 30 primary and intermediate schools who are among the most vulnerable will receive a free lunch every day, from term 1 next year, which will make a real difference to reducing hardship.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Is the Crown, through officials, nominees, or any other third party, in any way involved in the negotiations to reach a deal on Ihumātao?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Kīngitanga is leading a process with mana whenua on that matter.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I fully accept that they are leading a discussion. The question was: is the Crown involved in it?

💬 SPEAKER: And that was not addressed.

Could you repeat it?

💬 SPEAKER: Could the member repeat the question.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Is the Crown, through officials, nominees, or any other third party, in any way involved in the negotiations to reach a deal on Ihumātao?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, to the best of my knowledge, no.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Is the Crown in negotiations to provide a taxpayer-funded loan to either party to purchase private land at Ihumātao?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, the process that is being led by the Kīngitanga with mana whenua is an important process to find a resolution there. I do not want to engage in any speculation that would undermine that.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does she understand that our questions are not about negotiations between Kīngitanga and mana whenua, but between the Government and Kīngitanga, and will she answer those?

I do understand the member’s questions.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: When she said the Crown is “not a party to the conversations happening at present, but, from our perspective, we know we have obligations”, is one of those obligations to provide taxpayer money to purchase private land at Ihumātao?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, the obligations the Prime Minister was referring to were the ones she said yesterday. They are the obligations as a Treaty partner, they are commercial obligations, and they are the obligations to do the right thing on behalf of New Zealanders to bring us together, not seek to divide New Zealanders against each other.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: What are those commercial obligations?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, as I said in answer to earlier questions, I am not going to engage in speculation that undermines the process that the Kīngitanga is leading.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does she accept that there is a very real public interest in knowing whether taxpayer money is being used to settle the dispute at Ihumātao?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, I believe that the public interest is in letting the Kīngitanga play the leadership role that they are playing with mana whenua to resolve this settlement. The Government understands that real leadership comes from knowing where the public interest lies.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does she think there is public interest in taxpayers being entitled to know if their money is being looked at to be spent on buying private land through the Kīngitanga?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, I repeat my previous answer. The public interest lies here in letting Kīngitanga get on with the process of working with mana whenua to deal with an issue that is of great significance to the people in that area. I do not want to do anything that undermines that process.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Will she rule out any transfer of taxpayers’ money on any terms whatsoever as part of the deal at Ihumātao?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, that is a very similar question to one asked both yesterday and today. The answer to that question is that I do not want to do anything that undermines the process that the Kīngitanga is leading with mana whenua. On this side of the House, we take seriously our responsibilities to draw New Zealanders together, not to seek to divide them against one another. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Before the member asks her question, can I ask for just a little bit more volume turned down while the Minister is answering. I’m having some trouble hearing him because of the interjections from my left.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does she take seriously her promise to be the most open and transparent Government ever, when she will not even let the public know whether or not taxpayer funds are being negotiated to buy private land that people are currently illegally occupying?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: Is he satisfied with the quality of advice he has received, including from the Treasury?

In general, yes. From time to time I will receive advice that I don’t agree with, but that is the nature of the relationship between the Public Service and the executive.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he satisfied with the advice Treasury gave his Government a year ago, when the Prime Minister was attempting to address the elephant in the room that was low business confidence, now that it has got so much bigger?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On matters to do with business confidence, I do get reports from Treasury. I do note that we have seen advice just in recent days from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER), outside of the Public Service, that says that the New Zealand economy is well positioned to deal with the global headwinds we’re facing.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was: is he satisfied with the advice? He said that he’d received advice, but what I wanted to know was: was he satisfied with the advice?

💬 SPEAKER: The member lost me at the introduction of his question. The way that he asked his question, he opened himself right up for any sort of reply. He referred to elephants in rooms, and I think that can be addressed in a number of ways.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has Treasury advised him that his Government’s actions, in adding cost to businesses and families, creating uncertainty around policy, and demonstrating incompetence, particularly in regard to KiwiBuild, have all contributed to the continued collapse in business confidence?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Treasury provide us advice on the nature of our policy proposals from time to time. I don’t believe I’ve heard that specific language that the member is raising in his question there. What I do know is that Treasury advises the Government on the range of economic development proposals we’ve got, and, just as they would have done for the previous Government, they express free and frank opinions from time to time.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he regard the business sentiment figures released today, particularly the decline in business expectations of their own activity into negative territory for the first time, as an indictment on his Government’s economic management?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Is that relevant to the primary question?

💬 SPEAKER: I think it related to one of the answers.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. What I know is that New Zealand businesses, actually, in large part, in an open export economy, are subject to the headwinds of the global economy—all around the world that is occurring. The good news for New Zealand is that, as the NZIER said yesterday, we’re well positioned to deal with that. The other good news is that although growth in New Zealand is slower than it has been, it is still faster than in Japan, Canada, the UK, the eurozone, and Australia. We still have the lowest unemployment in 11 years. So, yes, there are challenging conditions, but we’re well positioned to deal with them.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Was associate transport Minister Julie Anne Genter right when she said the advice Treasury provided the Government in relation to a Government car tax is “wrong”, “totally untenable”, and Treasury is “sceptical of whatever we propose.”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m sure those are indeed the views of Ms Genter. I certainly agree with her that the advice around the “feebate” scheme is not something I would agree with, but it is not uncommon for Governments to disagree with the advice of Treasury: Bill English on 13 September 2013 “defends ignoring Treasury advice on smelter”; 23 July 2015, “Government ignores Treasury climate advice”; 16 June 2016, “Joyce disagrees with Treasury’s per capita GDP forecast”; 17 June 2016, “John Key dismisses research that finds 90-day trial doesn’t boost employment.”

💬 SPEAKER: OK. I think that the Minister’s made his point.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he satisfied with any advice he’s received from Treasury on how to structure a loan to the Kīngitanga or Tainui so that either could purchase land at Ihumātao?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is asking a hypothetical question.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has he requested or received any advice on the impact of events at Ihumātao on the confidence of landowners and developers?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he seen on approaches to Government fiscal management?

Mr Speaker?

💬 SPEAKER: It’s an unchanged Minister, so he can keep going.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That’s why you’re not going to call me. That’s fair enough too. I’ve seen a number of reports over recent days about how the Government manages its accounts. One report said that the Government books look set to remain in surplus and leave the country in good shape to wear the global headwinds. That’s because we are keeping debt low, at around 20 percent of GDP, with the books in surplus, and we’re investing in infrastructure. I saw another report suggesting that debt was currently at 25 percent of GDP. This is, of course, absolutely wrong, and would indicate the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t know how to read the Crown accounts.

💬 Greg O’Connor: What reports has he seen on approaches to managing public debt?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve seen a number of reports on different approaches and views on managing debt. Yesterday’s Dominion Post editorial said that the Government and the Opposition were on the same page when it came to what was an appropriate debt target. They based this view on the Opposition spokesperson’s statement that the fiscal approach was “about right”. However, I also heard a different view from the Leader of the Opposition—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member knows what the rules are about cheap shots on supplementaries.

💬 Greg O’Connor: What views has he heard about the alternative approaches to fiscal management?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve heard a wide range of views about fiscal management this week. I’ve heard that our debt is too high, too low, and about right. This is not the “Goldilocks approach” but rather the “Goldsmith approach”. To quote one commentator, “With the greatest respect, I’m entitled to my views. I’ve read the stories.” This is the response, I might say, from the Leader of the Opposition to Mr Goldsmith.

💬 SPEAKER: All right. OK, that’s—thank you.

Question No. 4—Health

4. to the Minister of Health: How many of the 100 measures of the five reported health targets in the 2018/19 Quarter Three Health Target data file recently loaded on the Ministry of Health web page entitled “How is my DHB performing?” show an improvement on the equivalent measure for quarter one 2017/18, and how many show a reduction in performance?

For context, I note that the measures do not cover mental health, primary care, acute surgery, workforce issues, or the state of our hospitals, all of which are long-term challenges we’ve inherited. The premise of the member’s question is in fact incorrect, as only 99 measures were loaded—as the member may know, since the information has been publicly available for several weeks. None the less, I am advised that the answer to the first leg of his question is 27, and the answer to the second leg is 61. The remainder are unchanged.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he believe that the fact that 17 of 20 DHBs have poorer immunisation rates than they had when he became Minister is linked to the serious measles outbreak currently being experienced?

💬 SPEAKER: Or vice versa, possibly, yes.

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Obviously, questions on immunisation are best directed to the Associate Minister of Health who has responsibility for that portfolio. I will speak to the targets question, though. It is true that our immunisation rates as a country have remained stubbornly around the 90 percent mark since the previous Government introduced a target of 95 percent. It has never been achieved, unfortunately. We do need to immunise more children, and I want to congratulate the Associate Minister of Health Julie Anne Genter, who has recognised that targets don’t immunise children; health professionals do. She’s put more nurses and other health professionals on the ground in South Auckland to do just that.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: In light of that answer, is he not then accepting that fewer health professionals are immunising children than when he came to office?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: What I would note is that as a result of the targeted measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine campaign that is being run over the period of February to July this year, I’m advised that more than 20,000 more immunisations were dished out than in the same period last year. There is much more work to do in this area. There are big challenges and, unfortunately, some people will not accept the science. But I would encourage everybody who is able to get immunised to get immunised for the sake of those vulnerable people around them, and because it is the right thing to do.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he believe that the fact that 13 of 20 DHBs have poorer performance against the faster cancer treatment target since he became Minister is connected to the lack of a cancer plan on his watch?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No. What I know is that we do need to do better, of course, in cancer care, and I do look forward to putting out a comprehensive plan. There are, of course, factors that have played into that, including workforce issues. Our plan will cover the whole spectrum of cancer care, including prevention, screening, treatment, and palliative care. It will be a well-thought-through plan that has been worked through with the sector.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the reason the Government no longer bothers to report the elective surgery measure in the “How is my DHB Performing?” reports a sign that they’ve given up trying to match the previous Government’s excellent record on elective surgery?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I will allow the question, but only just. The expression of opinion in the tail end of the question should’ve ruled it out.

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yeah, Mr Speaker, that’s right. That does border on irony.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! And the member doesn’t comment on my rulings.

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would note that under this Government, there has been more acute surgery and there have been more non-admitted procedures. So more people are getting treatment where it is more appropriate for them, more convenient for them, and, indeed, more cost-effective. We’re determined to do better with taxpayer resources than the previous Government.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Doesn’t the latest data show that in the absence of clear targets, performance in key measures of Kiwis’ health is going backwards at an alarming rate?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Absolutely not—absolutely not. Despite nine years of neglect and under-funding by the previous Government, we are determined to tackle the long-term challenges we have inherited. As I noted for the member, we are focused on mental health: rolling out a programme of free front-line care for 325,000 New Zealanders by year five, making sure that people with mild to moderate mental health needs can see a person to support them when they need it. We are the first Government that has really taken mental health seriously. We’ve invested in primary care, making sure that 600,000 New Zealanders now have cheaper doctors’ visits—for many of them, $20 to $30 cheaper. We’re tackling the capital issue, because in our last Budget, we put aside $1.7 billion in capital for our health system; by contrast, the previous Government put aside less than that in the whole nine years they were in office. We’re tackling the workforce issues—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Question No. 5.

Question No. 5—Social Development

5. to the Minister for Social Development: What sanctions, if any, is the Government proposing to remove as part of its welfare overhaul?

💬 SPEAKER: The Hon Grant Robertson.

on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: How did you know, Mr Speaker?

💬 SPEAKER: Because the member stood up.

Barely moved. On behalf of the Minister for Social Development, reviewing the sanctions regime to improve child wellbeing is a priority for this Government. We have already passed legislation to repeal section 192 so that children in sole parent households where the other parent isn’t named aren’t penalised and driven into further poverty. We are also reviewing the subsequent child policy and seeking further advice on the other sanctions suggested for removal by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Which statement about sanctions for drug testing is correct: Jacinda Ardern, member of Parliament, who said cutting support for drug users would reduce their chances of rehabilitation, or Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. This Minister has no responsibility for the first statement.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Does the Minister agree with the statement from Jacinda Ardern, member of Parliament, who said cutting support for drug users would reduce their chances of rehabilitation, or Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister, who said, “it’s all about making sure it’s appropriate use [of sanctions]”?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, I find it’s always important to agree with the Prime Minister—

💬 SPEAKER: No, in this case it’s on behalf of the Minister for Social Development.

On behalf of the Minister for Social Development, I find it’s always a good idea to agree with the Prime Minister.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Does she agree with the statement “Drug sanctions have a negative impact on the unemployed.”; if so, why is she not removing the sanction for failing to pass a drug test?

On behalf of the Minister, the position has been made clear by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Development that, on this side of the House, we believe there are a range of ways of making sure that people look after their children and their family by supporting those families through training, into work, and by getting them into medical facilities. Sanctions are part of a picture for the Government but they are a last resort, as they should be.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Of the sanctions applied for people failing drug tests, how many have children in their households?

I believe in the last year, the number is nine, with 16 children involved.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Does she agree with Phil Twyford, who said cutting people’s benefits by 50 percent when they have children will “ultimately do severe damage to the child[ren].”?

We’ve been clear that the punitive approach to sanctions used by the previous Government is not something that we would follow. We have never said that there won’t be sanctions in the system, but they are a last resort.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Why is it OK to cut someone’s benefit for failing a drug test but not for refusing to name the father?

As was made clear during the Budget debate this year, we do not believe that the sanctions that were being applied around the non-disclosure of a parent were actually achieving the goal that they had. We, actually, are very proud of the fact that those children now live in households where they’ll be $34 a week better off than they were, as a result of this. The member opposite knows that sanctions should be used as a last resort. On this side of the House, we’re putting money into case managers at the Ministry of Social Development, to active labour market policies, to supporting people to getting referrals to health services. We believe that sanctions are a last resort.

Question No. 6—Education

6. to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to support children’s wellbeing in schools?

Today, the coalition Government announced a prototype school lunch programme for 30 primary and intermediate schools, who will receive a free lunch every school day for every student in years 1 to 8, from term 1 next year. This is just one of the 75 initiatives that are in the Government’s Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy that was launched today. The Government is committed to reducing child poverty and its impact on learning. Providing a healthy and nutritious lunch for children is something that we can start doing now, while we tackle the long-term challenges.

💬 Jan Tinetti: What makes this school lunch programme different from other Government food in schools initiatives in the past?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This prototype services a different need when compared to a lot of the breakfast programmes that exist currently. We’re going to be working with providers in schools to test different ways of delivering nutritious, safe, and appealing lunches that are packaged sustainably and that represent value for money for students and for the Government. The programme’s initially being run in Hawke’s Bay - Tairāwhiti, the Bay of Plenty - Waiariki—

💬 Kiritapu Allan: Hear, hear!

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —and Otago and Southland will follow. These regions are chosen because they collectively represent a range of different school types, sizes, urban and rural locations, and different student needs across the whole of New Zealand. Up to 21,000 students across 120 schools will benefit from the prototype.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Before we go any further, I’m going to indicate to Kiritapu Allan that she is not going to interject again during this question time.

💬 Jan Tinetti: Why has the Government taken a prototype approach to the Food in Schools programme?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We recognise that there will be a lot of schools that will be interested in accessing a programme like this. However, we’ve decided to implement it on a limited scale initially, because providing a lunch to thousands of students is actually a complex and expensive undertaking, and we would rather do it well for a few, as we scale that programme up, than do it poorly for many, by rushing it. We want to get this right for schools and make it work for them so that the programme is manageable and sustainable.

💬 Jan Tinetti: What are the benefits of starting a food in schools programme for the children in those schools?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Being hungry is an impediment to concentration and to learning. Children themselves told us, during the Education Conversation, that they want the basics, including a free and healthy lunch in school, to ensure that they are able and well and can learn. This prototype starts to ensure that they’re fed and that they have the best chance to succeed. These are just some of the reasons why we’re working with the 20 percent of schools with the highest concentrations of students from socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. The evidence suggests that food insecurity will be a bigger problem for the students in these schools.

💬 Jan Tinetti: What other actions has the Government taken to improve child wellbeing?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government’s made a significant investment in our children’s and families’ wellbeing, investing over a billion dollars into improving the care system, supporting families, and better care for those children and young people. Reducing child poverty is a key goal of this Government, and $5.5 billion put in through the Families Package and initiatives in the Wellbeing Budget will raise 50,000 to 74,000 children out of poverty. And, of course, we put extra funding into schools that don’t ask parents for donations—something that we know has been a driver of inequality in our school system.

Question No. 7—Transport

7. to the Associate Minister of Transport: Does she stand by all of her statements, policies, and actions?

Yes.

💬 Chris Bishop: Does she stand by her statement, “Treasury is wrong. It looks like they’re just default sceptical of whatever we propose.”, and has she considered altering her default instincts to tax and ban things?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: In answer to the first part, yes, it is Treasury’s role to be sceptical, and I think that’s important.

💬 Chris Bishop: Who made the decisions to alter the recommended programme of investment devised by the Let’s Get Wellington Moving governance group, and do those decisions explain why the second Terrace tunnel and State Highway 1 undergrounding are not part of the final package?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the member to ask his question without an assertion in it at the beginning.

💬 Chris Bishop: Well, sorry, Mr Speaker, what—

💬 SPEAKER: Who made the decision to make the changes.

💬 Chris Bishop: Are you saying that’s an assertion?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I have not seen any evidence, as part of this question series, that that occurred, so the member could probably add “if any” in there, and he’d get there.

Chris Bishop Who made the decisions to alter the recommended programme of investment devised by the Let’s Get Wellington Moving governance group, if any, and do those decisions explain why the second Terrace tunnel and State Highway 1 undergrounding are not part of the final Let’s Get Wellington Moving package?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to ask for your advice on this about the relationship to the primary question. It does seem to be a substantial question that’s unrelated to statements that I’ve made.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think there’s a—

💬 Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: No, I don’t need it—I think there’s certainly a suggestion that there’s a Government policy, or an action of a Government agency involved. The member hasn’t—when I gave him a hand with the question—made an assertion that it had actually happened. It was a question about whether it happened or not, and, if so—I mean, it’s relatively easy for the Minister, I think, to deal with.

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The final Let’s Get Wellington Moving Cabinet paper was informed by official advice, cross-party and ministerial consultation, as is the case with all Cabinet decisions. There’s nothing unusual about that. Cabinet made the final decision in order to support the aspirations of Wellingtonians to have a functional public transport, which the previous Government failed to deliver.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is it correct, as the New Zealand Transport Agency said to select committee this morning, that they had no involvement in writing the Cabinet paper relating to the final Let’s Get Wellington Moving package, and, if that is correct, why was the Transport Agency not involved?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It would be highly unusual for the Transport Agency to be involved in writing a Cabinet paper.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, and there is also a responsibility question which I should’ve picked the member up on, but keep going—I won’t rule it out subsequently, retrospectively.

💬 Chris Bishop: Well, OK—

💬 SPEAKER: It’s not this Minister’s Cabinet paper, is it?

💬 Chris Bishop: Well, the announcement about the Let’s Get Wellington Moving package was a joint announcement by both Ministers.

💬 SPEAKER: But the member asked specifically about the writing of the Cabinet paper, which isn’t this member’s responsibility.

💬 Chris Bishop: Well, I’m not sure that’s correct, but OK. Supplementary—

💬 SPEAKER: I beg your pardon? The member asked about the Cabinet paper, which, my understanding is—because, you know, we have had the Cabinet paper floating around on a number of occasions; it was a paper in the name of Mr Twyford.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Shall we just carry on?

💬 SPEAKER: We’ll keep going, shall we?

💬 Chris Bishop: Has she written any letters, in her capacity as Associate Minister of Transport, as well as the Green Party transport spokesperson, in relation to the idea of banning petrol and diesel cars from being imported into New Zealand?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: No.

Question No. 8—Police

8. to the Minister of Police: My question is to the Minister of Police, whom I’d intended to wish a very happy birthday. How many prohibited firearms have been handed in per collection event on average as part of the gun buy-back scheme, and how many prohibited firearms does he expect will be handed in at the remaining 81 collection events currently scheduled?

on behalf of the Minister of Police: On behalf of the Minister, I thank that member for his birthday wishes, but he won’t be invited to the party. To the first part of the question—

💬 Hon Members: Aww!

💬 SPEAKER: I do want to remind the member that he is answering on behalf of the Minister of Police, who sometimes has a different view on these matters.

I think I was fully in the spirit of my colleague’s feelings on this matter. To the first part of the question, police have advised that, since the buy-back events began six weeks ago, 9,800 firearm owners have handed in more than 15,700 firearms and 58,500 prohibited parts. That means that, on average, it is more than 100 firearms per event. It should be noted, however, that it’s not just the collection events where firearms are making their way into the hands of the police; there are dealer collections; there are permanent firearm modifications, which makes them legal; bulk pickups and station drops as well—they are all channels by which firearms are being collected. To the second part of the question, from the beginning we have said that we don’t know how many firearms there are in circulation, which is why we need a register. We do know there are 14,300 registered military-style semi-automatics. There are an estimated 1.2 million to 1.5 million firearms in circulation, but the vast majority are not prohibited. There are four months to go on the buy-back scheme and the amnesty, and it is early days.

💬 David Seymour: How does the Minister intend to increase the number of firearms collected at each collection event by a factor of 20, which is what will be required, given the credible estimates of numbers out there?

On behalf of the Minister, that member’s version of a credible estimate is his view. The reality is that firearms are being surrendered. Prices being offered are being accepted. Of those 9,800 firearm owners who have surrendered firearms, 40 have challenged the price offered to them in exchange for their firearms. So all the indicators are that the buy-back scheme is going well. The indications from those participating in the large-scale collection events are that the mood is good and people are satisfied with the way they are being treated.

💬 David Seymour: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act request response from customs, dated February 2018, showing 136,000 firearms imported in one five-year period alone.

💬 SPEAKER: Fair enough. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There appears to be none. But I will remind the member—I should have pulled him up earlier on his maths—I think it was a factor of five, not 40. But keep going.

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

💬 David Seymour: I said 20, but, as a supplementary question, will this Government consider extending the amnesty period past 20 December if the numbers of firearms being handed in at events don’t improve on what they are now?

Again, on behalf of the Minister, no, because all the indications are that the buy-back scheme is going according to plan. Firearms are also being surrendered by way of the amnesty scheme. They are firearms that are not prohibited; they are firearms that have made their way into people’s hands who may not have a licence or are just people who are saying, “I don’t want to have a firearm any more, and I’m not looking for a payment back for it. I just want to surrender it.” So all of those things are happening, and things are going, largely, according to plan.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What reports has the Minister seen about how the buy-back events are being run?

On behalf of the Minister, the buy-back scheme has been described by the Nelson Mail as “the best thing”, and Mr Ian Robinson, who handed in his two firearms—an AK-47 and a pump-action .22 calibre rifle—said, and he was referring to the weapons that he had, “It’s the most barbaric thing on earth. They’re only there to kill people. So the best thing for it is for it to go through the bender.”—that’s the firearms to go through the bender, not him, obviously; he’s not going to the pub. From The Timaru Herald, somebody else, who preferred to remain anonymous, said, “I’ve got some Muslim friends and it’s not something you’d think would happen here.” And about the buy-back, he said, “It’s the right thing to do. It’s the only thing to do.” And The Northland Age described the turnout at the event up there as “a phenomenal response from Northlanders”. Law-abiding firearms owners know that this is the right thing to do, and they are participating accordingly.

💬 Brett Hudson: How many firearms does the Minister believe were made prohibited by the 2019 Arms Act amendments?

On behalf of the Minister, that is, of course, an absurd question because we just don’t know. We know that 14,300 military-style semi-automatics were registered, and we are going through the buy-back scheme—15,800 firearms have been surrendered and paid for as part of that buy-back. But the whole objective of this exercise is to remove dangerous firearms, when they are not needed, to make our communities safer. That member should stop getting lines out of the National Rifle Association playbook and do what’s in the interests of all New Zealanders.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: In reference to the previous member’s supplementary question, would it be significantly easier to give an accurate assessment on the number of weapons if, for instance, there was a register of weapons?

On behalf of the Minister, well, that is why the Government has foreshadowed that it intends to introduce legislation to provide exactly for that—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Both of you.

—so that the police—and they are the ones who every day are turning up to events where their lives are at risk because they simply don’t know whether some of the people they’re dealing with have firearms or not. A register would help enormously.

💬 Brett Hudson: Did he receive advice from the New Zealand Police that it could be 240,000 or more firearms that are now made illegal?

On—

💬 Brett Hudson: Yes, you did.

—behalf of the Minister—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Who interjected that? Well, the member’s lost his question.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Minister seen suggestions that the Government should have gone further in the first firearms amendment bill and included a firearms register in that bill, and, if so, who made that suggestion?

On behalf of the Minister, I understand that it was Judith Collins who had made that suggestion.

💬 Brett Hudson: Is he concerned that on current hand-in numbers, he is likely to see fewer than 50,000 firearms handed in?

On behalf of the Minister, I’m not quite sure how meaningful that question is. The whole thing is, we know the number of registered military-style semi-automatics that there are and we’ve now exceeded that number in terms of firearms that have been handed in as part of the collection. We just don’t know how many there might be. We made a best estimate. We took a stab in the dark—no pun intended—with what we had, but when you look at those who are turning up to the events and you look at the throughput of firearms that are being surrendered, as well as those that have been dropped off at police stations, as well as those who are contacting the police for pickups of multiple firearms, as well as those who are surrendering firearms as part of the amnesty, we are very pleased with the progress that is being made.

💬 David Seymour: I seek leave to ask an additional supplementary question for a very specific reason. I think a lot of people in the House—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member seeks leave to ask another supplementary question. Is there any objection to that? Yes, there is. The member has had four this week.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I realise this isn’t a normal convention, but the National Party is prepared to transfer one of its supplementaries—

💬 SPEAKER: And the rules are that if the National Party is going to transfer to Mr Seymour, they do it before question time, as they did today—two questions.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I seek leave to transfer one of the remaining supplementary questions the National Party has to the ACT Party.

💬 SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that process? No there’s not.

💬 David Seymour: Has the Minister received advice from the police that there may be as many as 240,000 firearms prohibited under April’s legislation?

On behalf of the Minister I can’t recall that advice, and as I’m answering on behalf, I simply have not seen that advice.

Question No. 9—Education

9. to the Minister of Education: Will student, staff, and Māori representation be guaranteed in the governing arrangements for the new unified vocational education and training system; if so, how?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes, and I do want to acknowledge the member’s advocacy in this area. The Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill requires that the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology will establish three advisory committees representing staff, students, and Māori, and each of these committees will then elect a member to the governing council of the institute.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How will this ensure that the voices of students and staff around the regions of this country are heard?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The staff and student committees will be elected from students and staff of the institute respectively, and the law will require that each committee consists of people representing a minimum of each of the substantial regional divisions of the institute.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will Māori-Crown relationships be reflected in the oversight of the vocational education reforms more generally?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, absolutely. We heard pretty clearly through the consultation that Māori want to be more involved in the Crown’s work to redesign our education system so that it does better meet the needs of Māori, and that’s the reason that the Government is currently seeking nominations for Te Taumata Aronui, which will be a group that will help us to develop tertiary education policy, including the reform of vocational education, and ensure that Māori community and employer perspectives are better considered.

Question No. 10—Education

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

Yes.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm that the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill, the RoVE bill, states, more than once, “This clause overrides—(a) Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act”, a clause that offers job protection to vulnerable workers?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, in so far as it relates to people who are offered employment in the new institute or in the new arrangements. It’s a relatively common provision that was included in several pieces of legislation passed under the last Government as well, that says that people should not get redundancy where they’re offered—if it’s the clause that I think the member’s referring to, that suggests they shouldn’t be offered redundancy if they’re offered a comparable job.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: If polytechnic subsidiary workers are not offered new jobs in the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology, will they have no remedy under Part 6A?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: They’d be made redundant.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm that the RoVE bill states that specific parts override “any employment protection provision in any relevant employment agreement.”?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Sorry, can the member repeat the question?

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Sure. Can he confirm that the RoVE bill states that specific parts override “any employment protection provision in any relevant employment agreement.”?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think the bit that the member is referring to, I think I addressed in my answer to the last question. These provisions have been used in other legislation as well to ensure that where there is a restructuring and someone is offered the same job—they’re basically offered their job back but under a different employer—then, actually, their employment relationship is, basically, deemed to be continuous.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: In reference to the previous supplementary question from the member opposite, can the member confirm who voted for and who voted against Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do believe that the members opposite voted against that particular provision in the Employment Relations Act, and that the members on this side of the House, of course, voted in favour of it.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: What are some examples of employment protection provisions that this bill can override for workers who are made redundant?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think I addressed that in my earlier answers.

Question No. 11—Environment

11. to the Minister for the Environment: Why has he declined Westpower’s application to construct a run-of-river hydro scheme on the Waitaha River, and is he aware that the Department of Conservation supported it?

on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: On behalf of Minister, the decision was made in accordance with section 17U(3) and section 17W(1) of the Conservation Act. The Minister carefully considered all relevant material, including submissions and reports, before making the decision. The Minister notes, for the benefit of the member, that the Department of Conservation did not back the proposal, nor did they have the legal authority to decide whether the concession should be approved or declined. In fact, as the record shows, the hearing commissioner who heard submissions on behalf of the Director-General of Conservation recommended that the application be declined. In declining the application, the Minister said, “The area has near pristine levels of natural character and has a general lack of human modification, and I believe the presence of the weir and intake structure above or within Morgan Gorge would significantly change the recreational experience of those who use the area, and diminish the intrinsic value of the area.”

💬 Maureen Pugh: What does he say to West Coast residents, who pay some of the highest electricity prices in the country, that this opportunity to produce clean, renewable, cheaper energy has gone and they will need to continue using coal and gas?

On behalf of the Minister, I would tell the residents of the West Coast that they shouldn’t listen to such ridiculous scaremongering, that this is a Government that is committed to a 100 percent renewable strategy, and I would remind that member we’re talking about a 20 megawatt run-of-river dam. There is currently 3 gigawatts of consented but unbuilt renewable generation in this country.

💬 Maureen Pugh: Has he had any discussion with the Minister of Energy—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think the member might like to start rephrasing that question.

💬 Maureen Pugh: Has the Minister had any discussion with the Minister of Energy and Resources on the ability for New Zealand to double electricity generation over the next 30 years, as forecast by Transpower, if all of this increased generation is required to have less conservation impact than the Waitaha River proposal?

On behalf of the Minister, I can categorically assure that member that in regard to this decision, I did not have any discussions with the Minister of Energy and Resources. I have, however, had many discussions more broadly around the ambitious and necessary work that this Government is undertaking in terms of 100 percent renewable energy. I will note for the member’s benefit that I did have a conversation today with the Minister of Energy and Resources in preparing for this question.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Was it worthwhile?

It’s always a worthwhile conversation but it was not in her capacity as the Minister of Energy and Resources.

💬 Maureen Pugh: How can New Zealand transition to 100 percent renewable electricity if proposals—that, in the words of Westpower chair, Mike Newcombe, “We put up a proposal that ticks all the boxes: renewable, sustainable energy, long-term regional economic development boost, careful environmental stewardship”—are declined?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Too long.

On behalf of the Minister, yes, we do want more renewables, and that is why this Government has a commitment to 100 percent renewable energy by 2035. The National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation, that was brought in by the last Labour Government but promulgated by National in 2011, does not mean that every application needs to be accepted. I would also note for that member’s benefit that, actually, the economic benefits that the member is talking about are explicitly excluded from the things that the Minister could take into account when making this statutory decision.

Question No. 12—Health

12. to the Minister of Health: What progress is the Government making on cancer care and control?

Every day, on average, 66 people are diagnosed with cancer. They deserve world-class cancer care, no matter who they are or no matter where they live. Currently, we know that that is not always the case. There are regional variations in the standard of care, and Māori and Pacific people experience poorer outcomes. We won’t address those issues without strong central leadership and action across the full spectrum of cancer control, from screening and prevention to treatment and palliative care. On Sunday, we will be releasing a comprehensive cancer action plan that delivers just that. At the same time, we will be announcing several immediate actions to improve cancer care and control.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: How will the cancer action plan build on the recent announcement of funding for new linear accelerators?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The announcement earlier this month regarding 12 replacement linear accelerators (LINACs) shows clearly this Government’s approach to cancer. By putting LINACs into Hawke’s Bay, Taranaki, and Northland for the first time, we are making radiation treatment more accessible and more convenient. I’d also note that the recent announcement from Pharmac that it is looking to fund two new cancer medicines, Kadcyla and Alectinib, will also increase access to cancer treatment.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: So what progress is the Government making in screening for cancers?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Screening programmes save lives by detecting cancers early, improving the chances of successful treatment. Since coming into Government, we have pushed ahead with the roll-out of the National Bowel Screening Programme, which is now operating in eight DHBs, covering 323,000 people aged 60 to 74 years, nationwide. In the last two years, more than 320 New Zealanders have had their bowel cancers detected early, thanks to this important programme, and hundreds more have had potentially cancerous polyps removed. The Government is also committed to progressively increasing the upper age limit for free breast cancer - screening from 70 to 74—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can I just say that some people regard this as a relatively serious matter, and having fatuous comments across the House doesn’t help.

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Just to finish, the Government is also committed to progressively increasing the upper age limit for free breast cancer - screening from 70 to 74.