Oral Questions

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

Yes—particularly the passing of the zero carbon Act last week, which was a significant milestone for this Parliament and for New Zealand. I would add that that joins other initiatives like the Green Investment Fund, investment in public transport, the focus on renewables and just transitions, and work around, for instance, focusing on incentivising low-emissions vehicles. I look forward to the ongoing cooperation and commitment of the Opposition to support initiatives that will actually fulfil the obligations set out in the zero carbon Act.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she stand by her statement on Thursday in the House that the promise to add 1,800 net new police wasn’t a “commitment or promise that the Prime Minister or anybody over here made.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I refer the member to the coalition agreement, which states we’ll “strive to ensure that there are 1,800 new front-line police.” I’m very pleased to say that, as at last week, we have 1,765 graduates. We are doing very well in heading towards that commitment.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Was Stuart Nash wrong to answer multiple—in fact, I think dozens—of written and oral questions saying just that: that it was a commitment to 1,800 net new police, not just graduates?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I say, the coalition agreement was around 1,800 new front-line police. However, not to be outdone, the Minister of Police has always had the ambition of making sure that it’s also in addition. So we are, in fact, working towards both.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: On what date did the Government first consider two targets for adding 1,800 net new police?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, it’s all contained in the coalition agreement. I’ll quote it once more: “strive to ensure that there are 1,800 new front-line police.” I relish in the opportunity to again announce that, as of last week, we have 1,765 graduates. Given that there are more officers on the front line than ever before, I would have thought that that member opposite would celebrate that fact with us.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What happened between midday on 15 October, when Stuart Nash said their target was “1,800 more police over and above the current rate, not 1,800 more graduates” and 4 p.m. on 15 October when Winston Peters said it was only about 1,800 more graduates?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No matter what way you cut it, all the public hear are “more police—more front-line police”, so I welcome these questions. Not only will we have 1,800 new, we also have been factoring in attrition and are working—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I hope this is embarrassing her.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN:—to have them as additional, as well. The only thing that member should be embarrassed about is the reduction they had when he was in office. Police numbers are growing, and we are proud of that.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Just to be clear, Prime Minister: is it a fact that the Government is, in fact, ahead of schedule in providing these new 1,800 front-line police?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Indeed, as I say, 1,765 graduates—obviously, not far away from hitting that 1,800. But, again, at the same time we want overall growth in those numbers. There are, of course, police officers who will retire and leave the police force, so we have an aspiration to go beyond that as well.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: Has the Prime Minister seen reports that the previous Government had a target of 880 police over four years, and we have delivered that in under two?

💬 Brett Hudson: You haven’t.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I would have ruled the question out but for the inappropriate interjection.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I have said, we are making up for what we consider to be neglect when it comes to the resourcing of our front line, and there are more officers on the front line than ever before, which was clearly something that we aspired to in that coalition agreement—to increase those numbers.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she know why the police commissioner answered “No” to the following question: “Have you had any communications that there were two targets relating to the 1,800 target?”

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, you won’t hear any complaints from the police commissioner that we are both graduating 1,800 new police officers and working towards having an additional 1,800 as well. Again, no matter what way you cut it, this all adds up to more front-line police officers, which is only a good thing. And I am sad that the member opposite seems to disagree with that.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Are the words “no matter how you cut it” code for “Yes, we have broken this promise.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It’s code for “We’re ahead of schedule.”

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his policies and actions?

Yes, in the context in which they were made and taken.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: What involvement, if any, has he had with the decision due on 5 December on capital requirements for banks?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Sorry, could the member repeat the question? I just lost the middle bit of it.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: What involvement, if any, has he had with the decision due on 5 December on capital requirements for banks?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is an independent decision of the Reserve Bank. I’ve had a variety of meetings, over the last two years that I’ve been in office, with representatives of trading banks, discussions with the Reserve Bank, and decisions with Treasury about it, but the decision is one for the Reserve Bank.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is it his policy that the Reserve Bank’s independence in setting interest rates extends equally to complete independence on regulatory decisions?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s not a matter of my policy about that; it’s a matter of what the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act actually says. Over the years, there’s been an evolution in the responsibilities of the Reserve Bank beyond those that were there in 1989, as the member knows. We’ve got a review of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act under way, and I would welcome a submission from him if he intends to break a 30-year consensus on the independence of the bank.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he not see a difference between independence on setting interest rates and on all the regulatory functions that have been recently added?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s not a matter, again, of whether I see a difference in that; the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act sees no difference in that.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he have an opinion on the appropriate level of risk the Crown should take on behalf of New Zealanders in relation to a potential bank collapse?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe that it is the responsibility of our central bank to ensure that we have a safe and effective banking system. They play a very important role in terms of regulation of our banking system. The Government will have opinions on that from time to time, but, I repeat, the decision is in the hands of the Reserve Bank. I think it is very interesting that the member opposite is now deciding that he might like to intervene in the independence of our central bank—an interesting change of tune.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has Treasury provided him with its best estimate of the effect that the new capital requirements, to be released on 5 December, will have on the cost of capital and access to capital?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve had a range of advice from Treasury on that. They continue to give me that advice. We continue to communicate with the Reserve Bank and, indeed, with other trading banks about those matters, but these are decisions that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act mandate has been for them to take, not for politicians to take.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has the Reserve Bank provided him with its best estimate of the effect of the new capital requirements on economic growth in New Zealand?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Reserve Bank has provided a wide range of information, including to the member, I believe.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Minister have an estimate he believes for how many basis points the new Reserve Bank capital requirements will add to the average mortgage?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Personally, I don’t make those judgments; the Reserve Bank has published its judgments on those matters.

💬 David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was whether he had a figure that he believed—not who made the judgments.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the Minister has indicated that guessing at that is not his responsibility.

💬 David Seymour: What preparations can the Minister possibly make for the impacts of the Reserve Bank’s new capital requirements if he has no idea what those impacts will be on the average mortgagee?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is not what I said in my answer.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: He aha ngā rīpoata hou kua kitea e ia mō te ōhanga o Aotearoa?

[What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?]

Atu kōrero pai—more good news. Last week, Stats NZ released labour market statistics which showed that wage growth, as measured by the labour cost index, reached its fastest annual growth in a decade in the September quarter. On a separate measure, average ordinary time hourly earnings rose by 4.2 percent in the September year. With annual inflation at 1.5 percent across the same period, it’s clear that Kiwi workers are finally starting to see a real increase in wages after missing out for years under the previous Government.

💬 Tamati Coffey: What did the labour market report say about the scale of wage increases?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: According to the Stats New Zealand data, 59 percent of workers received an increase in salary and ordinary-time wage rates over the year to September. The last time the proportion was higher than this was over a decade ago. The proportion of workers that did not get a pay rise was at its lowest level in over a decade, and the proportion of workers who received a pay increase of more than 3 percent reached its highest in a decade. What this shows is that not only are average wages going up but wages are also going up for more people and by higher amounts.

💬 Tamati Coffey: How does wage growth in New Zealand compare with international counterparts?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The latest OECD data shows that New Zealand’s wage growth this year has outstripped the UK, the US, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and the European Union average. This is yet another indication of the strength of the New Zealand economy compared to our international peers. Despite international headwinds and a slowing global economy, businesses are continuing to invest in their workers, meaning more money in the pockets of New Zealanders.

Question No. 4—Education

4. to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?

Absolutely. I particularly stand by the largest investment by a New Zealand Government in school property and the first national plan for managing school growth in classrooms: 2,000 more teachers being supported into teaching after inheriting a 40 percent decline in teacher training enrolments. I stand by the largest pay rise for teachers in a decade. I stand by the decision to make New Zealand history taught in all schools and kura by 2020, and I particularly stand by the decision to abolish NCEA fees for 168,000 young New Zealanders.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: What is the total cost of today’s Government announcements on Tomorrow’s Schools, given his statement in April that the final Tomorrow’s Schools task force report would be subject to rigorous cost-benefit analysis?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The cost of actually producing the report is 0.03 percent of the $9.5 billion a year that we spend on schooling.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was: what is the total cost of the Government’s announcements, not the task force report.

💬 SPEAKER: You mean the policies announced, not the cost of the announcement?

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Yes, that was what my question was.

💬 SPEAKER: Did the member say the “policy announcements” or the “announcement”?

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: I said the Government’s announcements on Tomorrow’s Schools.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think it has been answered.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he stand by his statement that this is not about more centralisation and smothering of boards, given that he today has transferred all decision-making powers around enrolment schemes from boards to officials?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The decisions around enrolment schemes replicate the approach taken by the previous National Government with regard to enrolment schemes in Christchurch.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he guarantee that it will not be mandatory for all of the 19,000 school boards of trustees in New Zealand to undertake training?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government has not decided to make training mandatory for school boards, and that’s clear in the documentation we released today.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he consider reversing some of his Tomorrow’s Schools decisions today, given that there will be less parental choice in New Zealand as a result of enrolment decisions and too much power for officials?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I completely reject the premise of the member’s question.

Question No. 5—Health

5. to the Minister of Health: Does he believe the financial performance of DHBs has improved since he wrote to all DHB chairs at the end of last year expressing “disappointment with their collective financial performance”?

Financial performance varies from DHB to DHB. Nine DHBs ended their 2018-19 year with a result close to budget or an improved result, if we exclude one-off costs. However, overall deficits have increased, due overwhelmingly to the historical underpayment of staff under the Holidays Act, which dates back as far as 2010. Just last month, that was estimated to cost DHBs $590 million, causing more than half of the overall deficit. But following audit work, I’ve been advised this week that that figure, relating to the previous Government’s neglect, has now climbed to $756.8 million. I make no apology for cleaning up the mess I inherited with the historical underpayment of staff.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, what has led to the $500 million deterioration of DHB finances that isn’t related to the Holidays Act?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: A good question. It is indeed the neglect of the previous Government when balance sheets started to run out in 2013, and the trend since that time has been clear. We make no apology for hiring additional staff: 1,500 more nurses in the system than when I became Minister, nearly 600 more doctors, and over 500 more allied health workers. We are cleaning up the mess that we inherited.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, if money is the solution, why did he increase cost pressure funding for DHBs by just $20 million in Budget 2019 and reduce equity support for DHB deficits?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’d have to check the member’s numbers on the former, but in terms of equity support, of course, equity support is what Governments past and present do to ensure liquidity to make sure staff are paid. It’s business as usual.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will he admit that despite his rhetoric of funding increases, funding increases have not kept pace with cost increases, especially in staff costs, and that has led to the dramatic deterioration in DHBs’ financial position?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: What I can confirm is that the $2.3 billion that they stripped out when they were in Government is something that I have inherited to clean up, and so we have put in a record amount in the 2018 Budget. The member’s right. We have increased funding to the health sector. We put even more in in 2019. We make no apology for dealing with the mess that we inherited.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he received a report on DHBs’ combined financial performance for the period 1 July to 30 September 2019, and does that indicate an improvement or deterioration in their financial situation compared with the same period in the previous year?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I don’t have all of those details in front of me. If the member wants to put down a more detailed question like that, I’d happily make sure it’s answered.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, if he’s so worried about financial performance, why does he not know whether the last-quarter performance has improved or deteriorated?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Each quarter has different, of course, details across all the DHBs. DHB performance varies. As I said at the outset, some DHBs have met their budget in the past financial year—for example, once those one-offs that relate to historical neglect are taken into account. Different DHBs have different outcomes. We make no apology for intervening in those DHBs that are not performing. We’ve put Crown monitors into three DHBs; we’ve put a commissioner in in the Waikato. DHBs have to continue to deliver services even though they’re dealing with historical neglect. We make no apology for dealing with the mess that we’ve inherited.

Question No. 6—Children

6. to the Minister for Children: What are the findings of the Oranga Tamariki Practice Review into the Hastings Case?

The review says that there were legitimate reasons to be concerned about the safety of the baby, and so Oranga Tamariki were right to be involved with the family. However, practice standards and actions both before and during the events of May show significant failings. The events in May should not have happened, and the trauma caused to all involved could have been avoided if there had been more effort placed on building good relationships with both the parents and the whānau, as well as the NGO workers and midwives who were also supporting this family. Too much reliance was placed on historical information, without acknowledging changes the family had made to minimise safety concerns for baby, and the systems in place to check decisions didn’t work. The findings are extremely disappointing, but I do want to commend the review and the reviewers for their honesty. It confirms the need to press on with the changes that began under the previous Government, and all the changes under this Government, to look after children better and to stop them coming into care in the first place.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: What changes have been made in light of the review?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: All of the recommendations of the review have been accepted by Oranga Tamariki, and it has put five changes in place immediately. These are: unless there is a clear need for action to protect a child from immediate and imminent danger, all interim custody order applications will now be made on notice, to ensure the family is given the opportunity to have their say before a judge makes a final decision; when staff need to act faster to keep a child safe, every section 78 without notice application will go through additional checks, with a regional legal manager, a site manager, and a practice manager all signing off; additional investment will be made into staff training nationwide and greater supervision for family group conferences; practice leaders on every site will look at all reports of concern for unborn and newborn babies, and check that we put the right planning and assessment around vulnerable mothers at the earliest opportunity; and in Hastings, more resources and training will be provided to staff, and a new regional supervisor has been appointed.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: What further changes do you see as necessary as a result of the findings of this review?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I don’t find any necessary, but the Minister may answer the question.

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: In addition to the changes already announced, I have informed Oranga Tamariki of my expectations to review the subsequent child provisions to make sure there are no unintended consequences from these. I also want to ensure there is a path back for those parents who have turned their lives around, to improve the internal complaints process, and to drive the culture change and better support the front line. I also expect them to improve relationships with, and devolve over time, the delivery of services to hapū, iwi, and Māori organisations, especially in the area of prevention and early intervention. The staff I meet are absolutely committed to caring for children, and they have a really difficult job doing just that, but front-line practice has to reflect the bigger changes we want to make. We need to do better for all our children, but our focus must be to partner with Māori to turn results around for Māori. Strategic partnerships, real partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations so they are involved in helping families and children much earlier and at every stage—these are vital to achieve these outcomes.

Question No. 7—Social Development

7. to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by all her policies and statements?

Yes, in particular the statement I made in the House last week during question time that the previous Government had budgeted for 300 less case managers during their time from 2015. This was despite a growing demand for hardship assistance, housing support, and an increasing number of senior citizens requiring support. I therefore stand by this Government’s policy to fund an additional 263 work-focused case managers through the 2019 Budget. This Government is focused on ensuring that those New Zealanders who need support with both financial assistance and support into upskilling, training, and employment are able to get the help that they need.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Why has her department only helped 147 young people to secure a driver’s licence in the past four months, out of the Prime Minister’s commitment of 2,500?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The MSD has significant programmes running across the country now to support New Zealanders to get a driver’s licence. I don’t know the figures that that member is speaking to, but there are a number of programmes and I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s only alluding to one.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that this is—and I quote—“a small investment that can go a long way”; and, if so, would she say the current figures show this is a small investment that’s barely going anywhere?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I would question the figures that the member has come to the House with. There are a range of programmes that are being run across the country to support New Zealanders to get a licence, because we see that as an important way to support them into employment. What I will refer to is actually a statement made by the principal of Manurewa High School on breakfast TV last week, where he thanked MSD. He thanked the Auckland regional commissioner for the work that we’re doing on driver licensing and cited the important role that it’s playing in the lives of Manurewa High School students.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Is the Government still intending to deliver their promise to provide driver licensing to every high school student when they’re struggling to support two and a half thousand?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Again, I would question the numbers that that member has come to the House with. We are being very deliberate with our support towards young people, and it’s a pity that the previous Government didn’t see fit to invest in drivers’ licences for young people and for New Zealanders. For the young people I’ve spoken to who have already benefited from, say, the programme that’s run between MSD and the Auckland chamber of commerce, I’ve had very, very positive feedback.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister to outline the substance—the huge platform of achievement—that she inherited from the previous administration on this subject?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Very little investment by the other side of the House with respect to supporting young people to get their drivers’ licences—in fact, supporting young people at all. I think all of us in this House can recall the former leader of the National Party saying that young people in New Zealand were “pretty damned hopeless”. We don’t feel that way on this side of the House.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Is this driver-licensing policy an example, like KiwiBuild and Mana in Mahi, where the Government simply has over-promised and under-delivered?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’m very proud of the investment that we are making into young people. There is a lot of effort that’s been put into making sure that young people get access to drivers’ licences, but not just that. When you look at the entire programme that has been rolled out from this side of the House, then you see that, actually, we’re taking young people very seriously and we’re taking their potential very seriously. We know the role that they have to play in ensuring that New Zealand is the very best New Zealand moving forward, which is why we invested in things like Mana in Mahi and which is why we will continue to invest in drivers’ licences for young people in New Zealand as well.

Question No. 8—Transport

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

on behalf of the Associate Minister of Transport: On behalf of the Minister, yes, in the context they were made and taken, and I particularly stand by our record investment in walking and cycling: $390 million in the last three years. That’s $96 million more than the previous Government spent. We’ve already built 194 kilometres of walking and cycling paths, and there’s a lot more to come. And our record investment in safety—an example of that is $1.4 billion upgrading 3,300 kilometres of the country’s highest-risk roads, that is expected to prevent 160 deaths and serious injuries each year.

💬 Chris Bishop: Has she asked the New Zealand Transport Agency why the draft board minutes for 23 August 2019 say that management has raised with Ministers the desire to not apply the “feebate” for electric cars to one- and two-star safety-rated cars, when she said last week that didn’t happen?

On behalf of the Minister, as I said in the House last week, I disagree with the characterisation in those draft board minutes, and I raised those concerns with the Ministry of Transport. I’ve asked the Ministry of Transport to work through those points with the transport agency.

💬 Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was a very direct one about whether or not she’s asked the New Zealand Transport Agency why the draft board minutes say that, and I don’t think that was addressed at all in the answer.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m going to ask the Minister to answer it again. I think, on behalf of the Minister, he came quite close in that he said that he asked the ministry to work it through, I think, with the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). But I think the question was about direct contact, and, therefore, if the Minister who is acting for the Minister at the moment has the fact, he should give it, and if he doesn’t have that fact, he should indicate that he doesn’t. He doesn’t.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why did she say the Opposition was desperately scaremongering over criticism of the Government’s proposal to subsidise one- and two-star safety-rated cars, when the Transport Agency reportedly warned her of their concern over that exact same thing?

On behalf of the Minister, because they clearly are.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: In answering that supplementary, did he just repeat what Grant Robertson told him to say, word for word?

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: You’re the puppet master.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I am certainly no such thing. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why does her ministerial diary for July 2019 say that her meeting on 25 July 2019 with Patrick Reynolds and Minister Twyford finished at 7.30 p.m., when a recent written question to me says it finished at 8 p.m.?

On behalf of the Minister, because that’s what the diary says.

💬 Chris Bishop: Did she discuss the composition of, or possible appointments to, the New Zealand Transport Agency board at her 25 July meeting with Patrick Reynolds and Minister Phil Twyford?

On behalf of the Minister, no.

Question No. 9—Education

9. to the Minister of Education: What changes, if any, is the Government making to strengthen the system of governance, management, and administration of schools?

The Government’s reform of the Tomorrow’s Schools system will put more front-line support closer to schools so that they can give every child the best chance to succeed. We’re making pragmatic and workable improvements that we believe will gain broad support. Our changes will influence how the Government’s $9.5 billion schooling budget is spent, and it will result in better targeted and earlier support for boards, stronger leadership support structures for school principals and leaders, and a reset of the relationship between schools and the Ministry of Education.

💬 Jan Tinetti: What, if anything, will these changes mean for school leaders?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One of the key pieces of feedback that we’ve had from school leaders for some time is that the role of the principal in particular can be very isolated and isolating. Through the reform announced today, we’ll be providing a leadership centre and support for local leadership advisors to better support school principals; there’ll be new minimum principal eligibility requirements; and we’ll be giving stronger incentives to school principals to lead schools that are underperforming or isolated.

💬 Jan Tinetti: What, if anything, will these changes mean for boards of trustees?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The board of trustees model—the idea of self-governing schools—will continue. Boards of trustees will have more support and guidance, they’ll have access to more training and support needs for their identified areas of improvement, a code of conduct will be put in place for school boards of trustees, and they’ll have a more balanced set of objectives. Enrolment zone decisions will also now be made on a local or regional basis, rather than on an individual school basis.

💬 Jan Tinetti: What, if anything, will these changes mean for parents and learners?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One of the most visible things that will change is that parents and students will have access to free local complaints and dispute resolution panels where they have serious disputes with a school. This is something I know school boards of trustees will also welcome. School communities will have a stronger voice in how school rules are set. Schools currently have a significant regulation-making power but no duty or obligation to consult with their local communities on how they use that. It’s a bit of an aberration in that regard in the regulatory space, and the reforms will address that. Overall, this will provide more support to parents, to learners, to school leaders, to school boards, and to school communities.

Question No. 10—Public Housing

10. to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): Does he stand by all his policies and statements?

Yes. In particular, I stand by my statement to the Kapi-Mana News when I warned that National’s plan to sell State houses in a fire sale would not lead to good outcomes for any of those tenants. At the time, I underlined that—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I want an assurance that that was a statement as a Minister.

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: No, it was four years ago.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the member will resume his seat.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Does the Minister agree with the Government’s removal of upfront funding for community housing providers and that it’s meant 500 property developments are sitting idly, “gathering dust,” as put forward by the Monte Cecilia Housing Trust?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I agree with the policy. That policy change has meant that community housing providers around the country now have access to deal with the increasing demand that this Government inherited and the increasing waiting list. That has meant that not just in Auckland, community housing providers can get access to that funding. Also, areas like Northland, like the Hawke’s Bay, like Rotorua, and like Wellington, that have extremely high demand for that housing, get access to it too. It’s meant we’ve been more flexible to more community housing providers.

💬 Simon O’Connor: How does the Minister make that statement when community housing providers such as Monte Cecilia are saying they do not have the funding to build the homes?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: It’s quite easy, because we’ve changed our policy in order to use that money to make it more available to housing providers not just in Auckland. We are making that money more available to help community housing providers—again, nice and slowly—in the likes of Northland, in the likes of Rotorua, in the likes of Hawke’s Bay, and in the likes of Wellington, where there is increasing need for demand, as there is also in Auckland.

💬 Simon O’Connor: How does the Minister reconcile the claim of former housing Minister Phil Twyford that he wanted community housing groups to build 30 percent of new public houses planned by 2022 and the Government now withdrawing the funds to do so?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I disagree that we’ve withdrawn the funds to do so. We’ve just made it more available to community housing providers across the country, and I’m quite happy to give that member a list of 18 community housing providers up and down New Zealand who are making sure that they can provide for the increasing demand in areas other than Auckland.

💬 Simon O’Connor: What does the Minister have to say to 500 or more families stuck in motels and transitional housing who could have been tenanted if funding was not removed, as put forward by community housing providers?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I’d say to those people that we have put 3,381 more community housing places in place since we’ve come into Government, as opposed to the 1,400 fewer public housing places that came about under the previous Government. I’m also proud that this Government, in Budget 2018, committed to the building of 6,400 more community housing places to deal with the increasing demand and the waiting lists that we inherited from a Government that sat on its hands and did nothing for nine years.

Question No. 11—Police

11. to the Minister of Police: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement regarding the 1,800 police target that the Commissioner of Police “got it wrong”?

I agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that the target for 1,800 is not net. It is new police, as per the coalition agreement. I also agree with the Commissioner of Police, who, in this year’s annual review, stood by his statements he made for the 2018 annual review that police are recruiting to account for attrition and that Budget 2018 funded them for this and that they are on track to achieve this under the current funding envelope. In the select committee last week, members of that party were glowing in their praise for the work of the commissioner and thanked him for his service to his face, but no sooner had he left the room than they stabbed him in the back, and I find that extremely disappointing and disrespectful.

💬 Brett Hudson: Is he aware that in response to an annual review question prior to October of this year—“have you had any communications that there were two targets related to the 1,800 target?”—the Commissioner of Police said “No.”?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: I wasn’t at the select committee, but I do look forward to seeing a transcript and to getting a reliable and contextual version of what was said. I will also note that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are the only two who have control over the coalition agreement.

💬 Brett Hudson: When had he previously had discussions directly with the Commissioner of Police, prior to October 2019, about the fact that there are two targets for 1,800 police?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Let me make this very clear once again—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just answer the question.

💬 Hon STUART NASH: I’m about to answer the question, Dr Smith. Listen and you might learn something.

💬 SPEAKER: And Dr Smith will stay in order.

💬 Hon STUART NASH: In the coalition agreement—

💬 Brett Hudson: Answer the question.

Hon STUART NASH:—it states—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat.

💬 Brett Hudson: Why is the Commissioner of Police saying that the target for 1,800 new police includes attrition, when the Prime Minister is saying that the target does not mean 1,800 additional police?

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Listen up, Brett.

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Look, listen up. In the coalition agreement, it talks about 1,800 new police. That is the coalition agreement that we signed with New Zealand First. It is what this Government has said that we will deliver, and we were about a year ahead of target. However, what the Minister of Finance has funded is 1,800 over and above. So there are two targets. There have always been, and I have always reported on these two targets.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

💬 Brett Hudson: Supplementary. Can he confirm—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member doesn’t have the call.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: why does he not just refer this matter to the Minister of Education, who could give an explanation of what words mean and get rid of this nonsense in the House every day?

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon STUART NASH: I’m happy to answer that.

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. I think, at any stretch, that’s not this Minister’s responsibility. It might be my wish, but it’s not this Minister’s responsibility.

💬 Brett Hudson: Can he confirm that the Government will not have added 1,800 new police, inclusive of attrition, by the end of this parliamentary term?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: I can confirm that this Government will have added 1,800 new police on 21 November, almost a year ahead of schedule.

Question No. 12—Police

12. to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has he made about improving public safety by restricting unlawful access to firearms?

Yesterday, I announced the release of a public consultation document on firearm prohibition orders, or FPOs. The FPOs seek to target our country’s most violent and despicable criminals, and the FPO regime will make sure that we further mitigate the risk of these people having any opportunity to be around, or get access to, firearms. FPOs would stop violent criminals from being around those who have firearms, from using them under supervision, or from having access to them. FPOs set conditions that these people have to follow and allows police to monitor the conditions and create penalties for the breaches. FPOs would come at a potential cost to the human rights protections, such as the right to be secure against unreasonable search. That’s why any such regime would need to be carefully balanced, and that’s why we want to hear from the public about where they think the line should be drawn. The consultation document is on the Police’s website and submissions are open until Monday, 13 January.

💬 Greg O’Connor: What reaction has he seen from those who work with victims of family harm?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Police attend a family harm incident once every four minutes. In the year to September, police responded to 128,000 family harm incidents—an increase of 19 percent on the previous year. It is also estimated that police turn up to over 200 events a month where a firearm is involved. Rob McCann, the manager of the White Ribbon campaign against violence to women, said, “Firearm prohibition orders could make a real difference if guns are kept out of the hands of people with a history of family harm. … Firearm prohibition orders might also provide the peace of mind to help a victim leave a violent relationship. … Knowing that a partner was not able to possess or own a weapon might give someone the courage to get out, and it might even save a life.”

💬 Greg O’Connor: What advice has the Minister seen about previous proposals for firearm prohibition orders?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: I have seen some criticism that we are sitting on our hands and that we should not consult and that we should have supported a member’s bill that would have introduced FPOs. However, I quote from advice received from Police about the National Party member’s bill: “The provisions in the bill are insufficient to meet its objectives of preventing gang members from possessing firearms.” The Attorney-General at the time was also concerned that the bill included no explicit link between gang membership and relevant offences. The proposals we are consulting on would target people who are at most risk of causing significant harm through the criminal use of firearms. This applies whether a person is a member of a gang or not. Not all serious violent criminals wear patches.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Minister if he was quoting from an official document, and, if so, could that be tabled please?

💬 SPEAKER: Was the Minister quoting from an official document?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: No. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! It might surprise some members, but some members prepare before they come to the House and come with briefing notes—you know, it’s not a bad habit.