Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in all of her Ministers?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, particularly the foreign Minister, who has just come back from an extremely constructive dialogue with his American counterparts in Washington DC.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does she have confidence in Grant Robertson to end the occupation at Ihumātao?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think the member has to establish some ministerial responsibility.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Finance, who is negotiating on the Government’s behalf to end the occupation of Ihumātao?

💬 SPEAKER: “It was reported as being”—carry on.

On behalf of the Prime Minister, that was reported as being—can I just use a quote here. This person is saying, “The owner of that property is Fletcher Residential. They have indicated that they are happy to sit down and … talk with some of the Māori groups that are concerned. The member has made representations to me along those lines; I would be happy to facilitate that, because I think there is the capacity on that site to come to a common-sense solution.”—Nick Smith, 18 February 2016, on the subject.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: What mandate did she or Cabinet give Grant Robertson, if any, in relation to ending the occupation of Ihumātao?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Government’s focus is on supporting a resolution that respects all parties, including the Crown, mana whenua—that’s the Māori people—and Fletcher’s, and we are continuing to work on finding that resolution.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am just very keen, on behalf of the public, to know if a mandate was given by the Prime Minister or Cabinet, if any.

💬 SPEAKER: And the Government and Cabinet are, in New Zealand, terms that can be used interchangeably. The Government is Cabinet, or at least the ministry, and I think that most of us understand that.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Did any paper go to Cabinet on the mandate for the negotiations around Ihumātao?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, to use the word “mandate” is totally erroneous.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: What advice has her Government received regarding Treaty claims in relation to the Government loaning to Auckland Council to buy Ihumātao off Fletcher’s?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, this sort of speculation is getting way ahead of even that member, and I can say that, until we are much further down the track in a common-sense discussion, we have nothing further to report.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does she have confidence that all her Ministers are acting within the spirit of the law at all times?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, the law is the law, and it has no reservation or codicil such as “the spirit of”. It’s either the law or it’s not; get some legal advice over there.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m not going to take that as an offer from the member, but I think I am going to remind the Minister that he is acting for the Prime Minister. He is speaking as the Prime Minister.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Then why did she, earlier this year, make a statement that she felt that donations may have been outside the spirit of the law, and does she consider that as part of her Cabinet members?

Well, can I say, on behalf of the Prime Minister, on this matter the Prime Minister has no responsibility.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does she have confidence in her Deputy Prime Minister that he has acted at all times within the spirit of the law?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, I do—and I do too.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: What does she think the spirit of the law is in relation to the Electoral Act 1993?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, again, why is someone resorting to the phrase “the spirit of the law”? Is it because the allegations are going to fail and, therefore, they’re trying to talk about perceptions? Next time that member is in a hospital seeking an operation, try one that is about perceptions and not reality. [Interruption] I suppose you have, Gerry, already!

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: So does she believe it’s appropriate for the Deputy Prime Minister to call journalists “psychos” for asking questions and doing their job?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, when a journalist asks about an application to the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF), which was treated only by the independent PGF fund managers and never went to Ministers, and where both Ministers declared a potential conflict of interest and the application did not succeed and failed, one has to ask oneself what sort of mind is it that thinks that the Ministers are so useless that they failed to get the application approved in the first place. That’s what a psycho looks like.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: So does she believe calling journalists “psychos” and pointing out that other members have had operations fits in with her Government’s ambition to be kinder and more caring?

On behalf of the Prime Minister—and this is probably an independent comment—the Prime Minister is notorious for being fair-minded and reasonable.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: So on the day that the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill gets its first reading, does she believe that calling journalists “psychos” promotes better or worse mental health outcomes?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, when a journalist alleges that two Ministers have acted improperly when one Minister knew nothing about any application and the application failed—it never even got to be in front of the Ministers—it’s around about then that one can responsibly call for decent journalism and not allegations.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: Is he currently involved in negotiations with Auckland Council to end the land occupation at Ihumātao?

No, as is quite obvious, I’m currently answering questions from the member.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the Minister capable of only doing one thing at once?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: When it comes to answering questions from the member, I am focused solely on him.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is he considering using taxpayer money to settle the land occupation at Ihumātao?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is indulging in speculation, and I think he should take some time to breathe deeply and listen, as we heard earlier, to what his colleague Nick Smith has said in the past about the role that Governments have in facilitating discussions from time to time. That’s what we’re doing. That’s what a responsible Government does.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: What does the Government mean when it says to landowners, “When someone occupies your land, we will focus on a ‘by Māori, for Māori solution.’ ”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That’s not a characterisation of the Government’s position.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that widespread public support for the Treaty settlement process would be undermined if the next generation succeeded in opening them up again?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: One of the principles that we are using in helping to facilitate discussions about Ihumātao is to protect the mana of the Treaty settlement process, along with ensuring that we understand the concerns of mana whenua and, indeed, of Fletcher’s as the owners of the land. It is balancing all of those things together that means that the Government is involved to help facilitate discussions.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he surprised that investor confidence is so low in this country when one company trying to build houses has been kept in limbo for months on end after his Government intervened to stop the law being upheld?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’ve been working closely with Fletcher’s, and they in fact asked us to be able to help them facilitate an enduring solution.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

The latest BNZ - BusinessNZ Performance of Manufacturing Index (PMI) released on Friday showed New Zealand’s manufacturing sector expanded in October, recording a reading of 52.6, back to the levels of April this year. The result was off the back of strong new orders, the highest since May 2018, and solid production. We know that there was a softening of the economy in the September quarter as global headwinds intensified and impacted. However, BNZ economists said that the October PMI expansion raises the prospect of the manufacturing sector’s recent negative influence on economic growth coming to an end in the final quarter of this year.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: What reports has he seen on the performance of the services sector of the New Zealand economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Atu kōrero pai—more good news. Yesterday, the BNZ - BusinessNZ Performance of Services Index (PSI) reported faster expansion in October. The October PSI was 55.4, up 0.9 points from September, one point above its long-term average and the highest result since January this year. The key sub-indices behind this result were new orders and sales, both recording solid gains in the month. This represents a positive result for the services sector, in what BNZ economists have described as “[shaking] off a mid-year slow patch” and bodes well for the economic growth as we head into the new year.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: Has he seen reports on how New Zealand’s results compare with international peers?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Strangely enough, I have. According to the BNZ - BusinessNZ reports, both New Zealand’s services and manufacturing sectors expanded at faster rates than our international counterparts. New Zealand’s manufacturing sector expanded faster than those of Australia, the US, and China, at the same time as the UK, the eurozone, and Japan all saw manufacturing contract. Our services sector expanded faster than those of Australia, the US, China, the eurozone, and the UK, while Japan saw its services sector also contract. What this shows is that New Zealand’s solid economic fundamentals are surviving in a difficult global environment. Despite global headwinds, we remain resilient and continue to outperform many of our international peers.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Associate Minister of Finance: How much money did NZ Future Forest Products Ltd apply for from the Provincial Growth Fund and what was the application for?

I can confirm that N.Z. Future Forest Products Ltd applied for a $15 million loan from the Provincial Growth Fund. As the information is already in the public domain, I can tell the member that the loan was to carry out a feasibility study for a new engineered timber operation in Gisborne. It’s worth noting that the application has been declined by Ministers.

💬 Chris Bishop: On what date was responsibility for N.Z. Future Forest Products’ applications to the Government for funding through the Provincial Growth Fund transferred from the Hon Shane Jones to him because Mr Jones had identified a conflict of interest?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The transfer occurred on 4 November.

💬 Chris Bishop: Does that mean that the Hon Shane Jones was the Minister in charge of the Provincial Growth Fund from March 2019, when N.Z. Future Forest Products’ application was made, up until 4 November, when the responsibility was transferred to him?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I wouldn’t characterise it as the member has. I’m not responsible for the period where Mr Jones—prior to the transfer on 4 November. Obviously, it was transferred to my office on 4 November. I received advice, and declined the application on 7 November.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is he aware on what date the Hon Shane Jones became aware of the N.Z. Future Forest Products’ application to the Provincial Growth Fund?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is he aware of what the conflict of interest is that meant the Hon Shane Jones transferred responsibility to him as Associate Minister of Finance?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’m advised that Minister Jones took advice from the Cabinet Office and acted appropriately in transferring the matter to me for my responsibility to make the decision.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I am going to ask the member to—I mean, he can say no if he—

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Mr Speaker, I don’t have that detail. If the member does wish to put it down in writing, I’m sure we can find an appropriate answer.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is he aware of whether the Hon Shane Jones wrote to the Prime Minister advising of the conflict of interest, as required by section 2.72 of the Cabinet Manual?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’m not responsible for that. I can confirm that the responsibility was transferred to me, obviously, on 4 November, and then, on 7 November, I declined the application.

Question No. 5—Justice

5. to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions on electoral law?

Yes, and, in particular, I stand by this Government’s action in introducing a bill that will make it easier for people to vote in a general election during the voting period and will make it possible for people to enrol on election day.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: What action will the Minister take, noting his previous statements of concern about political donations being concealed, about the revelations that New Zealand First concealed hundreds of thousands of dollars—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: —of donations—

💬 SPEAKER: A point of order—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: —in the New Zealand First—

💬 SPEAKER: A point of order—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: —Foundation—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member has been here for quite a while. He knows that when a point of order is taken, he sits down.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member should be asked to desist from that line of allegation, seeing as that he himself, in his own writing, has referred to New Zealand First reporting $342,000 in donations, whereas his party declared $28,000. This is a disgrace, and he should not be allowed to bring it up in the House.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I was listening very carefully to the question and, while I can’t be totally responsible for the authentication behind it, generally, we’re pretty liberal on that in the House, including both with himself and a couple of his colleagues. I think that the question, notwithstanding the lack of authentication for the allegation in it, can be satisfactorily answered by the Minister.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Thank you, Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. The member had finished. He kept on going.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well, you interrupted me.

💬 SPEAKER: No, the member had finished his questions. He’d had at least two.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think most members of the House, and many members of the public, are concerned enough about issues in our donations regime, which is why the Justice Committee, in conducting its inquiry into the last general election, considered that issue specifically. It’s just disappointing that members opposite blocked that committee from reporting their report—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Now, that is out of order because that is a matter which is currently before the committee, and, you know, we’re now having some pretty senior and experienced members sailing very close to the wind.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is he satisfied that the Government is living up to its statement of being the most open, transparent Government ever, in respect of Electoral Act disclosure requirements?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes. The regime that we have on our statute book at the moment is a good one, but I’m awaiting the Justice Committee’s report of their inquiry into the last general election. It’s taking a long time, but I eagerly await that report.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Was he involved in any discussions or actions with Labour members of the Justice Committee in their decision on 1 October to block the Electoral Commission and justice officials reporting on the unusually high level of anonymous donations to New Zealand First?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! That is outside, again, for the very same reason. It is something that the Minister cannot answer.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific as to whether the Minister had had any discussions.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, and what the member did at the tail end of it was that he made public, or purported to make public, a decision of a committee which has not yet been reported.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has he taken the action of requesting information from the Ministry of Justice or the Electoral Commission on the serious allegations of electoral law breaches—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility for the enforcement of the electoral laws in this country. That’s over to the Electoral Commission and the courts of law, and he should be stopped from pursuing this line of questioning.

💬 SPEAKER: And, probably, if he had got a few more words out, we would have got to the point of being out of order. Because that hadn’t occurred, I am going to listen to the question, but I’m going to warn the Hon Dr Nick Smith that asking a Minister if he has inappropriately interfered in an Electoral Commission matter would be serious.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has he taken the action of requesting information from his ministry or the Electoral Commission on the serious allegations of electoral law breaches, and what implications they may have for preventing people working around the disclosure requirements?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: None.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that political donations need to comply with the spirit, as well as the intent, of our electoral laws?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes, and that’s why I remain concerned about those who as Ministers have travelled overseas to solicit overseas support for their political purposes.

Question No. 6—Education

6. to the Minister of Education: What response has he seen to the Government’s policy to provide funding to replace parental donations to schools?

More good news. I’m very pleased to say there has been a fantastic response to the Government’s school donations scheme, with 90 percent of eligible decile 1 to 7 schools opting into the scheme. That means that at the beginning of term 1 next year, 1,563 schools are guaranteed extra funding, and the parents of the students at those schools will not be under pressure to pay donations. The beginning of the school year can be a challenging time financially for parents, and this will go some way to easing some of that financial pressure.

💬 Jan Tinetti: How many students are in the 90 percent of eligible schools who have opted in to the donations scheme?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A very good question. There are 416,000 students whose parents will now not be asked for a donation, because the Government will be providing their school with an additional $150 per student next year and every year thereafter that they continue to be in the scheme. This amounts to an extra $62.5 million in funding going to those schools next year to spend on providing kids with a high-quality education.

💬 Hon Peeni Henare: How many eligible schools in the Tai Tokerau region opted in to the Government’s school donation scheme?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A very good question. I’m pleased to say that 134 schools in the Tai Tokerau region have opted in to the scheme—that’s 96 percent of eligible schools in that area.

💬 Ginny Andersen: How many eligible schools in the Wellington region opted in to the Government’s school donation scheme?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m very pleased to say that 163 schools in the Wellington region—or around 94 percent of all eligible schools in the Wellington region—have opted in to the school donations scheme.

💬 SPEAKER: I thought it was all a test for me to recognise the members. I got two out of two; I did pretty well.

Question No. 7—Education

7. to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statements and actions in response to the Tomorrow’s Schools Independent Taskforce Report?

Absolutely—yes, I stand by the Government’s set of reforms that are going to put more front-line support closer to schools to give every child the best possible chance to succeed in their learning, including providing better and more targeted support to schools that need it; a reset of the relationship between schools and the Ministry of Education; free local complaints and dispute resolution panels; and a raising of the standards of criteria for the eligibility for school principals.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Can he confirm he intends to introduce legislation shifting the responsibility for developing and consulting on enrolment schemes from boards of trustees to the new Education Service Agency by May 2020 of next year?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he anticipate that he will make any decisions, or introduce any legislation, that could lead to out-of-zone caps prior to October of next year?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Can I just get the member to repeat the question?

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he anticipate that he will make any decisions, or introduce legislation, that could lead to out-of-zone caps in schools prior to October of next year?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t intend to change the current policy and practice around the acceptance of out-of-zone students. The legislative change will be around how the boundaries for zoning are set, not the way they are applied.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Can he absolutely rule out that, via legislation that he intends to put before Parliament, it will be easier to have out-of-zone caps in New Zealand?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: From my memory—and I’m happy to come back to the member if this is incorrect—the legislative change that we’re currently having drafted makes no change to the acceptance of out-of-zone students. Under the current law, schools can only accept out-of-zone students if they have space for those students, and there’s a very clear process that’s put in place for how they do that; we’re not proposing to change that process.

Question No. 8—Education

8. to the Associate Minister of Education: Does she agree with the Prime Minister, who said in May 2018 that the average wait time for a child seeking an early intervention appointment was 74 days “and in the life of a little 3- or 4-year-old child who’s hungry to learn, that’s 74 days too long”; if so, what is the average waiting time for a child seeking early intervention support today?

As per my answer from 1 May this year, when the member asked the same question, yes. I also agree with the Prime Minister’s press release on that same day that outlined that the context was that this was a four-year budget and a four-year reduction target, which is why, with more than two years to reach this target, we are trialling new ways of delivering support. Currently, the average waiting time to receive support from early intervention services has reduced to 103 days.

💬 Nicola Willis: Have average waiting times for early intervention support increased or decreased in the 18 months since the Prime Minister promised to halve them?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The Minister just answered that question. I mean, the member can answer if she likes, but it was just answered.

💬 Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that in the 18 months since the Prime Minister promised to halve early intervention waiting times, those waiting times have instead increased?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The last time I answered this question, the answer I gave was that 106 days was the average waiting time at that time. Now the average waiting time is 103 days. I would note that there are certain areas around New Zealand where the waiting times have decreased, and that is like the wait times in the Wellington region, for example, or the wait times in Tai Tokerau. So I’m answering the question to the best of my ability in this moment.

💬 Nicola Willis: Is the Minister aware that under the previous Government, early intervention times reduced from an average of 94 days in 2013 to 71 days by 2017; if so, why does she continue to blame the previous Government for her failures as Minister?

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Mr Speaker?

💬 SPEAKER: The member can answer the question, but please—the member knows how to tighten up questions.

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: In answer to that question, I can confirm that between 2017 and 2018, which was the last year of the previous Government, early intervention wait times had increased.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister confirm that in the 2016-17 financial year, the wait time was 73.35, and by 2017-18, which would have been the last year the Budget was set by the then National Government, the wait time had increased to 98.81?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Yes, I can confirm that. I can also confirm that in the 2018-19 year, there was an increase of children being seen by the early intervention services of another 3,200, and this was a 4.8 percent increase of children being seen. The waiting lists have increased, and it has taken us more time, which is why we have two years to go to reach that target, and we are changing the way that we are providing delivery services. Hence, in some areas of New Zealand, wait times have reduced.

💬 Nicola Willis: Will the Minister specify a date by which early intervention waiting times will be lower than they were when the Government came to office, or does she think it will be sufficient to just keep blaming the previous Government?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: A date was given—not a specific date, but a four-year period was given—in the statement that the member keeps referring to when she keeps asking this same question. I would have to say that the Ministry of Education did underestimate the incredible shortage of skilled individuals we needed in this area due to the lack of workforce planning by the previous Government. So I cannot rewrite history just to try and assuage the member’s angst about the fact that the previous Government did not train and do the workforce planning required so that we would have the services to support these children. However, we are changing the way that we deliver the service, which is why we have reductions in wait times in certain parts of New Zealand.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister confirm that most of the specialist staff required to do this work require qualifications that take between three and four years to gain the qualification, and this Government’s only been in office for two?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Yes, I can.

Question No. 9—Finance

9. to the Associate Minister of Finance: What actions is the Government taking to reform the Overseas Investment Act 2005?

The Government is delivering on its promise to protect New Zealanders’ interests by enabling a new national interest test to be applied to the sale of important assets to overseas buyers. The new national interest discretion is consistent with global best practice and would give the Government a discretion to decline approval for purchases above the relevant screening threshold, which ranges from $100 million to $500 million depending on the applicant country. A separate call-in power will apply to the sale of firms that sell military technology or are direct suppliers to our defence and security agencies. This power would only be used to stop investments that pose a significant risk to our national security or public order. These powers will be rarely used but are necessary to ensure our country’s national interest and national security can be protected. The new discretions will be exercised by a senior Minister, normally the Minister of Finance, rather than the Ministers who take day-to-day decisions under the Act. This will bring New Zealand into line with other developed economies, like Australia, that already have a national interest discretion.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: What actions is the Government taking to cut red tape under the Overseas Investment Act?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: We’re making a number of changes to reduce the waste of time and money by overseas investors and by the Overseas Investment Office. We’re doing this by better ensuring that the investor test focuses on material risks, by simplifying the benefit tests, and we’re also removing screening requirements for transactions that pose little or no risk—for example, commercial leases under 10 years or transactions involving companies that are majority owned and controlled by New Zealanders. For the first time, we will also impose time frames for decisions to be made on applications. This was the most requested change by investors, which we’re also delivering on. Overall, the changes will provide greater certainty for investors and New Zealanders while ensuring that our most critical assets are protected.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: What other changes is the Government making to the Overseas Investment Act?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The provisions of the last Ministerial Directive Letter, which tightened up the sale of farms, will be written into the primary Act. This will ensure that any future Government that wishes to change these rules will require the mandate of Parliament, not the stroke of a ministerial pen. In response to public concerns about overseas investment in water bottling, the Government will also require consideration of the impact on water quality and sustainability of a water-bottling enterprise when assessing an investment in sensitive land. Overall, we believe that we’ve delivered a package that’s balanced—cutting red tape whilst protecting critical assets. As a country, we continue to welcome high-quality investments that support our plan for a productive, sustainable, and inclusive economy.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why does he think it’s OK for foreign investors to buy farmland to convert to forestry, but not OK to buy farmland to farm or to convert to horticulture or many other things?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: It depends on the circumstances of each case, but I would make the point that until we changed the overseas investment regime, shortly after we came into Government, there was no effective screening regime for forestry assets because forest registration rights were an unscreened class of investment and could be used to purchase any freehold or leasehold interest in a forest via a forest registration right. We closed that loophole.

Question No. 10—Research, Science and Innovation

10. to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: Has she met with any National Science Challenges panel members to discuss alternatives to 1080?

on behalf of the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: On behalf of the Minister, I have met with the chairs of the National Science Challenges, but alternatives to 1080 were not on the agenda.

💬 Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Is she committed to providing more support to the biological heritage National Science Challenge for piloting alternatives to 1080, as promised in the Speech from the Throne?

The alternatives to 1080 include biological controls; the uses of organisms that are natural predators, parasites, or pathogens to control pests by disrupting their ecological status; chemical disruptors; hormones to interfere with reproductive systems to limit or prevent breeding success over time; and new killing or barrier techniques to rid ourselves of these pests.

💬 Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Is she aware that the biological heritage National Science Challenge has funded Landcare Research for their efforts to eradicate invasive pests using gene technology?

On behalf of the Minister, I’m not aware of that particular application of those resources, but if the member desires more information, she could put down a specific question in that regard.

💬 Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Does she agree with the advice provided to her that gene technology is the only option that can work at the scale required to replace 1080?

I would recall the advice of the Royal Society of New Zealand this year, who said “the development of gene drives is still very much in its infancy, and the possible implementation of a gene drive approach in New Zealand is still a long way off.”

💬 Dr Parmjeet Parmar: I would like to table a document—the document number is 34 and the title is “Future directions for alternatives to 1080: the advice provided to the Minister.”

💬 SPEAKER: Advice provided to the Minister?

💬 Dr Parmjeet Parmar: This was obtained under the Official Information Act by Newshub.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think at that point we could well say that it is in the public domain, so I won’t put it.

Question No. 11—Housing

11. to the Associate Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has he made about reforming residential tenancies?

On Sunday, I announced that the Government was delivering on its promise to over 1 million New Zealanders who now rent, to make it more fair and secure. We’re delivering balance in our changes, so both renters and landlords will benefit from the suite of practical changes to the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA). Our proposed changes to the RTA include achieving greater security of tenure for tenants who are meeting their obligations through ending no-cause terminations and specifying the reasons that a landlord can use to end a tenancy, improving the Act’s enforcement and compliance regime, clarifying what minor improvements a tenant can make in consultation with their landlord, limiting rent increases to once every 12 months, and preventing landlords from soliciting rental bids.

💬 Paul Eagle: Why is the Government reforming the Residential Tenancies Act?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The RTA is over 30 years old now, and the rental market is much different to what it was back in 1986. Renting used to be a temporary stage for many New Zealanders until they bought a home. In 1986, about 25 percent of households were renting, and now it’s nearly a third—32 percent. People are also renting later in life, and more children are living in rented homes than ever before, with an estimated 43 percent of all children growing up in a home that is rented. In recognition of this new reality, it’s critical to ensure our law governing residential tenancies reflects the modern context, and in this context it’s essential for people’s wellbeing that they have stability whether they rent or own.

💬 Paul Eagle: How does the reform fit within the Government’s housing programme?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The Government has a comprehensive plan of initiatives to fix the housing crisis that we inherited. This includes banning letting fees; introducing the healthy homes standards to keep people living in rentals safe, warm, and dry; banning foreign speculation from buying existing New Zealand homes, to ensure that Kiwi families are not priced out of the market; committing significant new funding through Budget 2018 to build more State homes, more than any since the Governments of the 1970s; and providing first-home buyers—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! That list’s gone on for too long.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does he still stand by statements made in the Cabinet papers regarding these changes and regarding risk that “This risk includes landlords exiting or not entering the rental market, raising rents to price in risk, or becoming more stringent about offering a rental to a prospective tenant.”?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Yes, that is a common refrain from the Opposition when we’ve announced many of our changes, and it isn’t actually supported with evidence. Evidence shows that since September 2017 and September 2019, the number of rental properties available to be rented has actually increased by nearly 20,000.

💬 SPEAKER: No, I think I’m going to ask the member to ask the question again so the core of the question is addressed, “Does he stand by”.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Thank you. Does he stand by his statements in a Cabinet paper regarding these changes that “This risk includes landlords exiting or not entering the rental market, raising rents to price in risk, or becoming more stringent about offering a rental to a prospective tenant.”?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: In conjunction with the earlier part of my answer, yes, it’s a low risk, but it actually hasn’t been borne out by the evidence to suggest that the number of rental properties has gone down. In fact, official statistics from Stats New Zealand suggest that rental numbers have actually gone up.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So does the Minister also stand by his statement in the same Cabinet paper that “This risk could also lead to increased Government spending on housing initiatives such as IRRS, AS, and TAS. It could also create further demand and pressure on public and transitional housing.”, and, if not, why does he no longer believe that?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I stand by the comments in the Cabinet paper. I think it’s imperative that we point out risks, even though they may be low, and we’ll be watching those risks very closely. But we’re not going to sit here and sit on our hands like the previous nine Governments, as the number of New Zealanders who are renting their accommodation increased to nearly a third of the population, and do nothing to ensure that those tenancies are secure.

💬 Paul Eagle: How do the reforms balance the interests of landlords and tenants?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: We have taken a balanced approach and sought ways to improve the security of tenure for tenants who are meeting their obligations. The proposals also provide for landlords, with new tools to manage their assets where there are low-level breaches for either antisocial behaviour or rent arrears. These are complementary to the existing provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act that deal with more serious or egregious breaches in tenants’ obligations. I am confident that there is a clear majority of tenants and landlords who are motivated to do the right thing by each other, and that in these cases they will be largely unaffected by what is being proposed.

💬 Paul Eagle: What evidence, if any, has the Minister seen of landlords leaving the market because of the introduction of higher standards?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: There has been no such evidence. It is a refrain that is thrown again from the Opposition, but I would reiterate that between September 2017 and September 2019, there has actually been an increase in the number of rental properties available.

Question No. 12—Housing

12. to the Associate Minister of Housing: Will the recently announced changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 help ensure that every New Zealander has a warm, dry, secure home; if so, how?

Our announcement on Sunday did deliver on our promise to those over 1 million New Zealanders who now rent, to make renting fairer and more secure. It also delivered on our Government’s commitment to ensure that every New Zealander has a warm, dry, secure home, whether they rent or own it. We’re doing this by limiting rent increases to once every 12 months and banning the solicitation of rental bids by landlords. I could go on, Mr Speaker, but I fear I’ve been pulled up once already, so I’ll stop and use other supplementary answers to deal with those issues.

💬 Marama Davidson: Under the proposed reforms, will tenants have confidence that their tenancies will not be terminated without cause?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Yes, because under the proposed reforms, landlords will need to give specified reasons before ending a periodic tenancy agreement. This is an important change to give tenants a greater sense of security in their own homes. Consultation on this proposed change told us that no-cause terminations have a chilling effect on tenants taking legitimate concerns to either their landlord or to the Tenancy Tribunal, for fear they’ll be kicked out just for speaking up, and we’re putting this to an end. Landlords can still end a periodic tenancy if they or a family member need to move into the property or they are selling or renovating the property, and we have established a fair process for ending a tenancy if there are antisocial or rent arrears issues, because we have taken a balanced approach.

💬 Marama Davidson: What changes have been announced in relation to rental bidding, and how will these changes help people who are looking for a home to rent?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Under the proposed changes, landlords would not be able to solicit rental bids—for example, by holding an auction for a rental property or listing it with no rental price listed. Rental bidding can exploit vulnerable tenants and exacerbate affordability issues, especially in a tight rental market, because it leads to higher rents being paid for properties than originally advertised.

💬 Marama Davidson: Is the Minister confident that restricting rental increases to once every 12 months will reduce the risk of out-of-control rent increases, and is he open to further steps to dampen down rental prices?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Yes. Frequent rent increases have been found to leave tenants vulnerable to rent stress, particularly low-income tenants or tenants who have experienced change in their financial circumstances. We have limited rent increases to once every 12 months, to give tenants more certainty over their costs but continuing to allow landlords to make reasonable adjustments to rent. This reflects the balanced approach we have taken to improve the tenant’s security in their own home while recognising the business needs of landlords. I’m advised that this will not change the overall cost of rental accommodation or impact adversely on landlords’ income, but it will insulate tenants from shocks. I’m always happy to discuss future issues with Government partners.

Questions Nos 1, 2, and 5 to Ministers

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to ask three things for you to consider on our behalf. The first relates to question No. 1 today, and the question is: what process would the Prime Minister use if she does not wish to stand by answers that were given on her behalf in the House today?

The second one relates to question No. 2, where, although it was quite a humorous response, the Hon Grant Robertson said he was currently involved in answering the question. If that were to become a standard way of answering a question that might otherwise pose a difficulty, I think that’s a real problem for the House, because when you talk of a Minister being currently involved in the context of question time, it almost definitely will refer—and must refer, as you’ve repeatedly pointed out today—to the Minister’s wider ministerial responsibilities.

The third thing is the Hon Andrew Little, in responding, referenced his opinion about an activity in a select committee which is still under consideration. You did pull him up on that, and thank you for that. But there was no withdrawal or apology, which means that the accusation that was made, which is not one he could sustain, remains in the Hansard record.

I’ll deal with them in the reverse order. I decided not to exacerbate either the comments of Mr Little or Dr Smith—sorry, the Hon Mr Little and the Hon Dr Smith—both of which were out of order, because I thought it was probably not helpful for me to facilitate in the House something which was clearly out of order, and, therefore, I don’t propose to take any more comment on that.

On the question of the answer given by the Hon Mr Robertson, I think it’s just a matter of drafting. [Interruption] Mr Goldsmith will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I withdraw and apologise.

I think it is a matter of drafting. I saw the question and I knew exactly, if I was a Minister, how I would have answered it and it was a lot shorter than the way Mr Robertson did. I would have just said no. It was a badly drafted question.

On the question of whether the Prime Minister—if the Prime Minister has a view that answers given in the House today were not answers that she can stand by, then she does have the choice, if she wishes to, of issuing a correction. That is her responsibility to do. It, of course, remains open to members to ask the Prime Minister direct questions about that if they feel that that is appropriate.

Question No. 5 to Minister

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: I hope the member’s not going to refer to a matter before a select committee, because if he does—

Sure—no, I can assure the Speaker absolutely of that. The House is, ultimately, in control of its own destiny, so I seek the leave of the House to table the minutes of the Justice Committee of 1 October, that are very pertinent to the public discussion.

OK, I’m not going to put that to the House. The member knows they are available on the website.