Oral Questions

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

Xero recently released its Small Business Insights for September, showing 55.2 percent of Kiwi small business customers were cash-flow positive in the month. Xero said that this was a 10 percent jump from August—higher than the same month last year, and well above the annual average of 50 percent. There was more good news with payment times for small businesses, with times averaging a quarter of a day faster than in September 2018. The data also showed an increase in the total number of people employed in small businesses—up 0.8 percent in September. This is real data from real businesses showing that they continue to perform solidly amidst the challenging global conditions.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What reports has he seen on the outlook for the New Zealand economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Today, Westpac economists released their economic overview, saying that signs of spring were emerging in the New Zealand economy. Westpac chief economist Dominick Stephens said that while economic growth did likely slow in the September quarter—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: That Dominick Stephens is always glass half-full.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —more recent data suggests the economy will grow more strongly from here. He’s a good friend of yours, I’m sure, Mr Bridges. Obviously, the September quarter data will be released on 19 December, giving many people a chance to be negative about the past, but it is welcome to see more positive outlooks emerging about the future. Dominick Stephens went on to warn that Westpac expects the global situation to worsen as the US economy slows. That’s why we are managing the books carefully, and making important investments in the economy to boost growth, particularly in infrastructure, businesses, and wages.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What reports has he seen on the global context for the New Zealand economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealand is a small, open economy, meaning we always need to look at it in the global context. Last week, it was reported that the Australian unemployment rate rose from 5.2 percent to 5.3 percent in seasonally adjusted terms in October. The data showed that the number of unemployed people was up 8.6 percent over the past year, while the underemployment rate also rose in Australia. The Australian unemployment rate is more than 1 percentage point above New Zealand’s unemployment rate, at our third-lowest in a decade. This is another indication that the New Zealand economy is in good shape, particularly compared to the economies we traditionally compare ourselves to.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, and whilst there are many that I could focus on with plaudits today, I am going to single out Minister Kris Faafoi, who, on Sunday, announced the Government has delivered on its promise—

💬 Hon Member: Teacher’s pet.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —to take the over 1 million New Zealanders who rent a property to make it fairer and more secure by limiting rent increases to once every 12 months, banning the solicitation of rental bids by landlords, improving tenant security by removing a landlord’s right to use no-cause terminations to end a periodic tenancy, and making rental companies safer and more livable by letting tenants add minor fittings. I add that to the banning of letting fees and the healthy homes standards. We are making a difference for those who rent in this country. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Before we go for the next one, I will ask for the volume to be turned down a little bit, especially on my right. I’m not sure that describing a fellow Minister as a teacher’s pet is quite the appropriate thing to do.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she have confidence in her Deputy Prime Minister?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Why?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because he does a fantastic job on behalf of New Zealand.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she have confidence that he has been acting within the law at all times?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member, of course, is asking me questions in my capacity as the Prime Minister. What I would say, as a general statement—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! If the members want an answer, they will be quiet and not try and scream down the Prime Minister.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Up until this point, when a Minister has replied “Yes”, you’ve said that they’ve answered.

💬 SPEAKER: That could well be the case, and it’s generally been the tradition of this House to have a little bit more explanation for the reasons behind it. If members would prefer just to go to straight yes/no answers where that occurs and to have nothing else and to have the same strict interpretation on questions, I’m happy to go with that. Is that what the member wants?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: We seem to get the strict interpretation—

💬 SPEAKER: Does the member want that or not?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: You’re the Chair, not me.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m just trying to work out whether I have a request from the shadow Leader of the House for an absolutely strict interpretation of the Standing Orders with regard to questions and answers.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I can’t stand, because you are. [Speaker sits] I’m simply pointing out that rather than telling us to be quiet when the Prime Minister starts to elaborate on a “Yes”, perhaps it’s reasonable for us to assume that there would be grounds for questioning, or for some sort of reaction, given that it’s clearly a qualified “Yes”.

💬 SPEAKER: I think the problem with all of this is that there was so much noise at the beginning of the answer that the shadow Leader of the House didn’t hear it. A further—[Prime Minister stands] Well, no, I think the Prime Minister—well, if the member wants to ask it again.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she have confidence the Deputy Prime Minister has been acting within the law at all times?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m going to stick with the convention of this House and reply to questions that of course I have responsibility for. I did not have responsibility, for instance, for the National Party’s compliance or non-compliance with the electoral law, nor do I have responsibility for any other political party’s compliance beyond my own. We have independent agencies for that, and that’s where that responsibility, rightly, lies.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: So does she have confidence that he’s been acting within the law at all times?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, it would be wrong to have me, as the leader of a political party, inquire into the practices of any other political party. The member may well remember that, when it came to the National Party’s issues, I did not get into those issues. I left it for other agencies, and I will do the same here.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is there a Serious Fraud Office inquiry—going for the last eight months—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: No responsibility.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: —into a political party and its leader to do with $100,000?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, first of all, the member will apologise for interjecting.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. She doesn’t have responsibility for that.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I’m—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Don’t want to go there.

💬 SPEAKER: I beg your pardon? I’m, frankly, getting sick of the interjections and the facial expressions from the Leader of the Opposition. He actually reminds me of Michael Cheika, and it’s just inappropriate for a Parliament.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she, as Prime Minister of New Zealand, have confidence that her Deputy Prime Minister has been acting within the law at all times?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have already expressed confidence in the Deputy Prime Minister. The member has been asking questions more broadly around issues of electoral law, and again, as I say, I am not the arbiter of that. We have independent agencies for that, for very good reason. I would say it would be an indictment on our democracy to have any other political party ever inquire into other political parties. We didn’t do that with the National Party. That would be wrong, and we won’t do it anywhere else.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Has she—as she told Mike Hosking yesterday morning she would—now sought “a bit more info” regarding allegations about the Deputy Prime Minister?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, at that time, of course, all I’d done is read newspaper reports, but it still doesn’t change the fact that this is best dealt with—as the leader of New Zealand First has already said—by the Electoral Commission, with whom New Zealand First is actively working.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: So did she make any further inquiries?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve just responded in my last question.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Has she had any direct conversations with her Deputy Prime Minister this week about the appropriateness and legality of his actions?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have conversations with the Deputy Prime Minister every other day.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. To be factual, has the Prime Minister heard any allegation that strictly concerns—

💬 SPEAKER: Is this a point of order or a question?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s a question.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I’m sorry. I thought the member was calling for a point of order. If it’s a supplementary question, he can have that.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s a supplementary question. To be factual, has the Prime Minister heard of any allegation that concerns the Deputy Prime Minister?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, obviously, in his role as Deputy Prime Minister.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: There you are, sunshine. I thought you were a lawyer.

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

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I apologise for saying that.

💬 SPEAKER: That’s right, and no one’s ever suggested that of me before.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Hang on. Is that how you do it—you put your own words on?

💬 SPEAKER: The proper wording—“I withdraw and apologise.”

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: Thank you.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she stand by her statement yesterday that “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.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will be referring to questions in the House yesterday. I’m sure that the Deputy Prime Minister, in speaking on my behalf, stands by all of those statements.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think this might be a moment for you to rule on whether or not someone in the House speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister speaks as the Prime Minister or not. We have put on new territory that’s—

💬 SPEAKER: No. I don’t think we’re on new territory at all. I think we’re on some pretty standard territory, and I think the Prime Minister will now answer the question.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The law is patently the law, and there’s no such thing as pretty legal, either.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: So does she no longer believe that there’s “the spirit of the law”, as she’s previously said?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I stand by my view that there is a reason to look into foreign donations and foreign interference in this country. That is why we specifically asked the select committee to look into the issue. It would be wonderful if that select committee were able, with the support of National Party members, to report back on that issue.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she have confidence that her Deputy Prime Minister has acted within the spirit of the law at all times?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I have clearly said, the issues at hand are being dealt with by the right agency—that is, the Electoral Commission—in the same way that the issues facing the Opposition are being dealt with independently by the right agency. I, again, point out that I didn’t interfere or inquire into that member’s matters, and I won’t in this case either. That would not be appropriate.

Question No. 3—Finance

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

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

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he square his statement yesterday that a by Māori for Māori solution is not a characterisation of the Government’s position in Ihumātao with the Prime Minister’s statement in September that the Government is “trying to find a by Māori for Māori solution to the issue.”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There was a longer statement that came before the by Māori for Māori statement that was in the question yesterday. I stand by my answer.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he interpret the Prime Minister’s statement that the Government is trying to find a by Māori for Māori solution to the issue at Ihumātao?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think, as the member will be well aware, the Kīngitanga movement came into this process working with the mana whenua. They, in turn, have asked the Government to take on a role in facilitating discussions, particularly with Fletcher’s. That’s the role that we are undertaking.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he’s considering a by Māori for Māori solution to this piece of land, where do the interests of the landowners and taxpayers fit in?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in the House yesterday, the principles with which the Government is approaching this issue are to ensure that we uphold the mana of the Treaty settlement process and that we understand the needs of mana whenua and the needs of Fletcher’s as the owners of the land, and at all times, I have the taxpayers’ interests in mind.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he said yesterday that Fletcher’s had “in fact asked us to be able to help them facilitate an enduring solution.”, was that request from Fletcher’s made before or after the Prime Minister vowed that no building would take place in Ihumātao?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t believe that’s an accurate description of what the Prime Minister said. On 26 July, the Prime Minister helped ensure that we got the parties together. Fletcher’s are one of those parties. They got in contact with me to help with some facilitation issues early on, and they continue to work with us.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Regarding his statement in a speech to the Debt Capital Markets Summit in August last year “We continue to sit near or at the top of Transparency International’s ratings for the absence of corruption.”, how does he think his Government is improving New Zealand’s reputation for transparency and an absence of corruption?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Every single day, the actions that this Government undertakes enhances New Zealand’s reputation in that regard, and I would say that the latest rankings for things like ease of doing business in New Zealand fulfil that, as do the Transparency International rankings as well. This Government prides itself on the approaches that we take.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he stand by his statement in an urgent debate relating to the Provincial Growth Fund that “the role that I have in this particular set of circumstances—which is the role I take, I might add, in most of the discussions about the Provincial Growth Fund—which is to ensure that issues like governance and the overall commercial arrangements that surround a project are ones that we can be satisfied with.”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, I stand by that statement.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can New Zealanders be sure that Ministers making decisions allocating sums from the Provincial Growth Fund don’t have undeclared conflicts of interest?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: All Ministers understand their roles and, from time to time, they will declare conflicts of interest and take advice about conflicts of interest. Ministers understand those roles.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he absolutely sure that every potential conflict of interest has been declared by Ministers making decisions allocating sums from the Provincial Growth Fund?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That would be my expectation, but it’s also not my responsibility.

Question No. 4—Education

4. to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to promote vocational training and career options that help address New Zealand’s skill needs?

More good news. The Government has put in place a range of measures to encourage more young Kiwis to take up trades and other vocational careers. This includes more gateway and trades academy places and initiatives to create stronger links between employers and the education system. Apprentices and trainees are also eligible for fees-free, making training much more affordable. In fact, the policy supports two years of industry training rather than one year for provider-based study, and since fees-free was introduced at the beginning of last year, 7,600 apprentices and trainees have benefited from it.

💬 Jan Tinetti: Has fees-free helped with the cost of training within the building and construction sector, and, if so, how?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Indeed, it has—a very good question—3,900 apprentices and trainees enrolled with industry training organisations this year benefited from fees-free, and they were training in the building and construction - related fields.

💬 Jan Tinetti: What is the Government doing to raise the profile of vocational training within senior secondary schools?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As of 20 November, 344 secondary schools have nominated students for the Prime Minister’s Vocational Excellence Award, and 208 of those schools have already presented the $2,000 award at their prize-giving ceremonies. The Prime Minister’s Vocational Excellence Award is helping to raise the status of trades and other vocational education and celebrate the success of young people already training in those areas.

💬 Jan Tinetti: What else is the Government doing to strengthen the pipeline from secondary school into vocational training?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Schools currently have the opportunity to apply for a $3,000 grant to showcase trade and service industry careers and earn and learn opportunities in intermediate and secondary schools, including families, whānau, and educators. Funding is also available to run events like the SpeedMeets, where employers get to meet with a range of students who might be interested in their industries and discuss the range of options that are available to them.

Question No. 5—Regional Economic Development

5. to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: When did he become aware of N.Z. Future Forest Products Ltd’s application to the Provincial Growth Fund, and what prompted him to get Cabinet Office advice relating to a potential conflict of interest?

on behalf of the Minister for Regional Economic Development: I have known about Mr David Henry and Brian Henry’s wood processing ambitions for several years. I first declared my association with Brian Henry as a potential conflict with the Cabinet Office in 2017, after becoming a Minister. Upon returning from a personal holiday in October 2019, I was informed by my office of an application involving Brian and David Henry that was soon to come to the regional economic development Ministers for consideration. On that same day—14 October—I wrote to the Cabinet Office declaring this conflict and recusing myself from any decisions about it. The decision by other Ministers to decline the application in accordance with the recommendation of the provincial development unit thereafter occurred on 7 November 2019.

💬 Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you to the Minister for that very informative reply, but the first part of the question is quite important, which was about when he became aware of the N.Z. Future Forest Products’ application to the Provincial Growth Fund. There was, I think, a reference to—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: He told you.

💬 Chris Bishop: No, no. There was a reference to an awareness of Mr Henry’s ambitions for a number of years, but not specifically about the application.

💬 SPEAKER: I think there was a date given, but can we just have it reinforced that that was the date the Minister became aware of it.

I think the relevant part there was “I first … declared my association with Brian Henry as [giving rise to] a potential conflict with the Cabinet Office in 2017, after becoming a Minister.”

💬 SPEAKER: No, that doesn’t address the question, and I think the second part of the answer may have.

In respect of the first date—that he was aware that there was an application coming for consideration by Ministers—it was on 14 October.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is he aware of whether he was the only Minister or Parliamentary Under-Secretary to declare a conflict of interest in relation to the application for provincial growth funding, and if there is another Minister or Parliamentary Under-Secretary who has declared a conflict, who is it?

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility for that matter.

💬 Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order, the Minister surely has responsibility for awareness of that fact. The Deputy Prime Minister, answering on behalf of the Prime Minister yesterday, made reference in two supplementary questions to more than one Minister declaring a conflict in relation to the applications. So I think it’s well within the—

💬 SPEAKER: And I think that is a responsibility of the Prime Minister. Matters to do with conflict and awareness of that are a matter for her department for advice and for the Cabinet Office, for which some might say “Thank goodness Mr Jones doesn’t have responsibility.”

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We seek leave for an urgent question to be asked now of the Prime Minister on the matter you’ve just suggested is her responsibility.

💬 SPEAKER: The normal approach for an urgent question is very well set out in the papers, and the member has until the end of question time to fulfil that.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I’ve sought leave.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, there is no question—I mean, you can’t seek leave to ask a non-existent question. If the member gets the question in in the appropriate way, it will be properly considered.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave of the House to ask the Prime Minister the question: was there other Ministers or Parliamentary Under-Secretaries—

💬 SPEAKER: “Were there other Ministers”.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: —were there—who declared a conflict of interest in this matter?

💬 SPEAKER: That matter is a question of leave. Is there any objection to that process? No, there’s not.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: To the Prime Minister: were there other Ministers or Parliamentary Under-Secretaries who declared a conflict of interest in the matter being discussed, as mentioned by the acting Prime Minister yesterday?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member will well know through questions that are being asked through written questions and through the House, Ministers with decision-making power who have conflicts of interest transfer that decision-making power, as is appropriate. Any other Ministers, of course, I would just expect to deal with the Cabinet Manual responsibilities in declaring conflicts of interest in the appropriate manner.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was an outline of process, not an answer to the question. The question was: were there other Ministers or Parliamentary Under-Secretaries?

💬 SPEAKER: And the Prime Minister—leave having been given—should address that. It might be that the Prime Minister is not aware of anyone else who did it, but—

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: To the best of my knowledge, the only Minister with a conflict of interest transferred decision making to another Minister.

💬 SPEAKER: Thank you. The member wants to go back now?

💬 Chris Bishop: Well, that was a sort of—

💬 SPEAKER: Does the member want to continue the previous question?

💬 Chris Bishop: Yeah, that’s right. That was a sort of interregnum, right? We’re still on the—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: It was an extra.

💬 SPEAKER: It’s a novel approach, but I’m being exceptionally flexible with the Opposition today.

💬 Chris Bishop: Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. Did he advocate to decision-making Ministers about the merits or otherwise of N.Z. Future Forest Products Ltd’s application to the Provincial Growth Fund?

No. Further, in preparation for this question, I also inquired whether the Minister had any discussions with the provincial development unit regarding the application, and I can also confirm that the Minister had none of them, either.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister confirm that the request for the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to conduct an investigation would mean the SFO would have to be investigating into why the application failed—surely a comedic outcome?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! That may or may not be an appropriate question for a Minister with responsibility for the SFO—[Interruption]—but it is certainly—[Interruption] Oh, for goodness’ sake! But it is certainly not a responsibility of Mr Jones.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think, on reflection, that question raises quite a concern, because the Deputy Prime Minister has just suggested that there has been a request for a Serious Fraud Office investigation into this matter. Now, if that’s the case, then it’s not known to us, and I think it should be known to the House. So can we get a clarification on that?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think some of us just need to read the paper, but Mr—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order. The person that suggested that was Mr Bishop himself.

💬 Chris Bishop: I did not.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, you did.

💬 Chris Bishop: Completely wrong—completely wrong.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Showing how dumb you are.

💬 Chris Bishop: Completely wrong.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Mr Bishop has made it clear to the House that he has made no such request, and that is the end of the matter.

💬 Chris Bishop: Did someone say to him that there may be a potential conflict of interest in him considering the application from Future Forest Products Ltd; if so, who was that person?

As I said in the primary answer, the Minister, or I—speaking on behalf of him—was aware from the start of our term in Government that the potential for a conflict of interest arose, which was why notice was given for that in 2017. I further said that when I returned from holiday on 14 October, my office advised me that an application was pending and that that meant that there was perhaps a real conflict of interest. That was declared, I recused myself from the decision, and the decision was taken thereafter by other Ministers, who turned the application down.

💬 Chris Bishop: Did officials recommend to the regional economic development Ministers considering the Future Forest Products’ application that the company should receive funding?

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister answering the question is not actually David Parker; it is Shane Jones. David Parker is answering on his behalf, and it’s very clear that the Minister has recused himself from consideration of the matter. He, therefore, cannot answer the question about what advice the Ministers who did make the decision received.

💬 Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order, the Minister has recused himself—as I understand it, based on Dr David Clark’s answers yesterday and written questions—from considering the application to the Provincial Growth Fund, but he still has responsibility for the advice provided by officials to the wider regional economic development Ministers’ meeting. It’s true that Mr Jones recused himself from that meeting, but he must still have advice for the provincial development unit’s recommendations to that committee.

💬 SPEAKER: OK, OK. I don’t want to litigate a question by a way of point of order, but I think that the Minister answering on behalf of Mr Jones had already indicated, by way of his research, something which might help us clear up this point of order.

As I said in response to an earlier question, in preparation for question time on behalf of the Minister, I did inquire whether the Minister had any discussions with the provincial development unit regarding the application, and I repeat that I can advise the House that he had none.

💬 SPEAKER: Right. So I think—

💬 Chris Bishop: Mr—

💬 SPEAKER: Well, is this to the point of order, or what are we doing?

💬 Chris Bishop: Well, it’s just a point of order to point out that that doesn’t address or answer the question, which is about what the officials’ recommendation to the ministerial group was.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, no, I think we’ve dealt with that as well. I think there’s a basic problem here, sometimes, with members not listening to answers. I mean, I heard the Minister acting on behalf of Mr Jones say that the officials recommended that it not be approved. Is that—did I hear that correctly?

Yes.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, that’s the end of it, really, isn’t it?

💬 Chris Bishop: Is he aware of why Dr David Clark said yesterday in question time, in relation to this matter, that he declined the Provincial Growth Fund application when, in reality, it was declined by the regional economic development Ministers’ group?

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has declared a conflict of interest. He is not responsible for the answers given by Dr David Clark, who does have ministerial responsibility. The Minister now answering the question does not have responsibility for that. He’s recused himself from it.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think we might—I mean, the member’s absolutely right. I mean, it is, again—as I’ve now said, I think, for about the fourth time this week—sometimes really important that people listen to the answers if they want to stay within the bounds of order. Where there are some relatively complicated matters which go to the ethics and integrity of Ministers, I think I am pretty flexible in allowing appropriate questions to be asked, but where it’s been made clear that Ministers were not involved in decisions and not involved in meetings, they can’t be asked about why those decisions were made.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. One of the problems that we face here is that—firstly, can I just concede that you are right. It is an important issue. It is a complex issue. There is potential for significant reputational damage if it is perceived in a particular way. But the House is not helped in trying to clarify matters by successive Ministers acting on behalf of a Minister. Now, I accept that in this case, matters pertaining to the decision were transferred to another Minister—that’s fine. But when the other Minister is further transferring responsibility for answering questions on a particular day to another Minister again, then I think it’s very hard to keep a consistency on who said what. The point that was just made by Mr Bishop was that Dr David Clark yesterday, presumably acting as the Minister to whom the responsibility was transferred, said that he made the decision. Now, asking the Minister David Parker today, answering, presumably, on behalf of Dr Clark, the same question—

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: He’s answering on behalf of Shane Jones.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: —we get a different answer. Now, that’s not reasonable.

💬 SPEAKER: No. I think I’m ready to deal with it, and I don’t think I need the help of the Minister of Finance. I think it was clear to all of the House yesterday that the request went to a group of Ministers which Dr Clark was a member of and that group was the group responsible for turning it down, and that Mr Jones was not part of that. If members want to look at Speaker’s ruling 156/3, they’ll be able to work out why Mr Jones has no responsibility for Dr Clark.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

6. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s policies?

Yes, and while there are so many to choose from, I’m going to particularly single out the Government’s Families Package today, which, it was confirmed today, has seen 1 million New Zealanders warmed by the winter energy payment, 36,000 families bank the Best Start payment in the first year, and 6,000 more families receive the family tax credit. This shows that we are focused particularly on those families who need support the most and we are making a difference on significant long-term challenges like child poverty.

💬 David Seymour: Does she stand by her Government’s policy, as expressed in the Arms Legislation Bill, that a person who provides incorrect information to the proposed register, such as by filling out a form wrong or failing to provide correct information when asked, is liable for a $10,000 fine or two years’ imprisonment?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I stand by the action we’re taking around gun legislation and reform. The member will know there are two parts to that. The first is the buy-back, which has had a significant impact: 38,000 prohibited and unlawful firearms have been handed in as a result, and 142,000 prohibited parts. The second tranche, of course, relates to our wider system and includes bringing in a registry. That’s a part of our system that we are now consulting widely on and giving the public full say over.

💬 David Seymour: Could a person accused of entering incorrect information into the proposed firearm register use as a defence that, actually, their firearm was registered through a foundation and anybody claiming otherwise was psycho?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I think the member is asking for legal advice, which is something he will ask for elsewhere.

💬 David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m asking about the Government’s policy.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, that’s not what the member said.

💬 David Seymour: Well, it is what I said.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Has she received an update on the impact of the Government’s Families Package on the wellbeing of children?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, indeed. As I pointed out, we’ve already seen a huge number of families benefit, but, in particular, this demonstrates that we are on track to lift between 50,000 and 74,000 children out of poverty. We are also a House that, as members will recall, voted in favour of a child poverty reduction Act, which only a handful of countries in the world have. It is still disappointing to me that I cannot say that that was with unanimous support. I do say to Mr Seymour, I would welcome his support of future action around reducing child poverty in Aotearoa.

💬 David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Am I to take it that any question around how the Government intends its laws to work could be interpreted as requesting legal advice?

💬 SPEAKER: No, and Standing Order 23 also applies.

Question No. 7—Social Development

7. to the Minister for Social Development: What reports has she seen on the Government’s Families Package?

The Families Package monitoring reports monitoring the Government’s Families Package were publicly released today. The $5.5 billion Families Package was announced within the Government’s first 100 days and kicked in on 1 July last year. The Families Package monitoring report shows that working New Zealanders with children are getting more support from this Government and parents on benefit are getting more support from this Government. It shows that senior citizens are getting more support from this Government. It shows that Māori are getting more support from this Government. We are on track to lift 50,000 to 74,000 children out of poverty and to ensure that New Zealand really is the best place in the world to be a child.

💬 Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Just how much of a difference has the Families Package made to low and middle income New Zealanders?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The $5.5 billion Families Package puts more money in the pockets of New Zealanders that need it the most and gives targeted support by boosting incomes with the Working for Families tax credits: 6,000 more families received the family tax credit—220,600 in total—and they got more money, taking the pressure off for families in their child’s early years, with the Best Start payment, which is $60 per week. We increased paid parental leave to 26 weeks so that parents have more time to bond with their babies. We’re helping older New Zealanders and people on a main benefit to heat their homes with the winter energy payment, people receiving the accommodation supplement got, on average, an increase from $71 to $98 a week, and we increased the rate of orphans benefit, unsupported child’s benefit, and foster care allowance because we value the people that are caring for our children.

💬 Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How has the Families Package supported people on benefits?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Parents on benefit receiving family tax credits from the Ministry of Social Development have seen an average increase of $41 per week. This is the largest increase since Working for Families began in 2005. On top of this, people on main benefits, along with superannuitants, receive the winter energy payment, which has helped over 1 million New Zealanders keep warm in winter. The Families Package is just part of the Government’s plan to lift the wellbeing of all New Zealanders, including those in the welfare system. We have committed to indexing benefits to wages. We repealed section 192, increased abatement thresholds, and funded an extra 263 work-focused case managers to get people into sustainable work. We’ve made it free for every child under 14 to go to the doctor, and increased school funding so parents don’t have to pay for school donations, which will help 416,000 families. By the time the Families Package is rolled out in 2020-21, 385,000 families with children will be better off by an average of $75 per week.

Question No. 8—Justice

8. to the Minister of Justice: How many donations over $15,000 were disclosed to the Electoral Commission in the 2017 electoral returns, and, of these, how many were disclosed by each political party?

I am advised that a total of 124 party donations were made at the 2017 general election above the $15,000 threshold. This includes 59 donations to the National Party, 28 to the Labour Party, 12 to the Green Party, and seven to ACT. I should point out that all of this information is available on elections.nz.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealand First declared no donations above the threshold?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not responsible for New Zealand First. I am accountable to the House for the work of the Electoral Commission, and the advice I’ve had from the Electoral Commission—indeed, from their website—is as I have already adumbrated in my previous answer.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is he satisfied that the law and regulations of political donation is working as intended when, at the 2017 election, the party that was pivotal to the election outcome was able to avoid over $500,000 of donations through a foundation?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not aware of any discrepancies that have led to law enforcement action. I am, however, aware of one active law enforcement investigation in relation to the Electoral Act. That is a complaint to the Serious Fraud Office about the National Party.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: So, in respect to that last answer, was a $100,000 donation to the National Party disclosed?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question’s very specifically about the 2017 electoral returns—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! All round—that’s enough.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: You’ve been very strict that supplementary questions need to be within the scope of the primary question. The primary question was about the 2017 general election. The issues the member refers to were well after that.

💬 SPEAKER: The member might be more aware of the specific detail of that and the timing of that donation than I am, and if I can have an assurance from the member that the donation that was so—I’m trying to think of the right word—received and disguised happened after the 2017 election—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Well, I’m being asked to rule something out, and I need a level of assurance before I do that that I can.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order, I have no knowledge other than that which is in the public arena, and the information in the public arena is quite clearly that it was not associated with the 2017 general election.

💬 SPEAKER: All right, I accept the member’s word.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he have any concerns in respect of the reports that anonymous donations at the 2017 election of $342,000, or 85 percent of them, were from one party and were more than 10 times the amount for any other party?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I rely—as indeed this House does and the country does—on the Electoral Commission, which is the independent body charged with overseeing and applying and enforcing our electoral regulations. The last thing we want is politicians interfering in that process. I would no sooner do that as Minister of Justice than I would see the Minister of Police interfering in a Serious Fraud Office investigation into the National Party.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister aware of the distinction between anonymous donations, and donations that are not required, because they are below a certain limit, to be declared?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes. The term “anonymous donation” has two applications. One is where they don’t meet a disclosure threshold, and may well be known to the party but are not required to be disclosed in accordance with the disclosure requirements of the Electoral Act. The other definition is that they are genuinely anonymous in that the recipient doesn’t know the origin of them.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he share the concerns of Professor Andrew Geddis that the lack of disclosure of electoral donations at election 2017 by the party that was pivotal to the election outcome is a serious risk to New Zealand’s reputation as the second-least corrupt country in the world?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I would be concerned about anybody, including a law professor, who made conclusions without knowing what the facts were and tried to engender a public debate about something that is properly the province of our independent Electoral Commission.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Government believe that New Zealanders have a right to know who were the major financial backers of the party that was pivotal to the outcome of the 2017 election and which everybody—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It would be clear, and it has been for some time, that these questions verge on a responsibility that’s not in the province of the Minister answering.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order—

💬 SPEAKER: No. I think in this case what I am going to ask the member asking the question is to ask a straight question without the phrase of embellishment in the middle of it, because I think the responsibility for the Act and the responsibility to this House for the work of the Electoral Commission is a responsibility of this Minister. Please ask the question again, without the embellishment.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Government, as a matter of policy, believe that New Zealanders have a right to know who are the major financial donors and backers of the parties in Government and those that have been pivotal to the outcome of election 2017?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think the public has a right to know, in accordance with the obligations on political parties in the Electoral Act, who is financing them, and at the moment there is serious doubt about who has backed the National Party, which is why they’re the subject of a Serious Fraud Office complaint.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the advice from the Parliamentary Library provided both yesterday and today on both anonymous and declared donations to the Electoral Commission.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I will put it to the House because it’s a rather novel seeking of the leave. Is there any—

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

💬 SPEAKER: No, no, no. I am going to put it. Is there any objection—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: You have inferred that the information is not publicly available, when I can assure the Speaker that it is not.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I am going to put it to the House on the basis that the information that is contained in the advice from the Parliamentary Library is not otherwise publicly available, and we’ll see whether the House wants to see it or not. Is there any objection to those two pieces of advice being tabled? There is objection.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was going to seek leave to be able to give a legal explanation to Mr Smith about what the law says.

💬 SPEAKER: No, that was not helpful. It was designed to disrupt, and I’m not going to put it.

Question No. 9—Social Development

9. to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by the numbers contained in her ministry’s publications?

Yes, particularly the ministry’s publications released today, the Families Package monitoring reports. It shows that the Government’s $5.5 billion Families Package has put more money into the pockets of New Zealanders that needed it the most. Given that we’ve traversed all of the different initiatives and the number of New Zealanders that have been touched by the Families Package, I won’t go into the detail again, but what I will say is that we are on track to lift 50,000 to 74,000 children out of poverty, and I acknowledge our Prime Minister in leading the charge with respect to reducing child poverty in New Zealand.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: How many more children are in benefit-dependent homes since that Government took office?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I don’t have the numbers for that in front of me. If she would like—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat. If members are going to shout down a Minister when she’s asked a supplementary which is a very specific supplementary from a general question, it’s not going to continue.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Does she believe that the numbers provide an important context, and, if so, why are the numbers missing from the graphs on page 10 of the Families Package Monitoring Report, that was published today?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I will never have all the figures to specific questions that that member might like to ask in the House, particularly when the primary question is general. However, any specific question that she’d like to put in writing, she is more than welcome to do so. I do think that that member is fully aware that the next update with respect to the number of children in New Zealand living in poverty that we can expect is in February, and we’ve made very clear that that is when we can expect that report.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: What is the total budget for social development?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think in the last Budget it was around $27 billion, and a large proportion of that, I do want to remind the House, is actually superannuation. So despite the fact that that side of the House likes to refer to benefit numbers and beneficiaries in a negative way with respect to the spend that comes out of Vote Social Development, we do need to keep in mind that, actually, the vast majority goes towards a universal superannuation scheme that I think all of us, as New Zealanders, are very proud of.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Is the rushed release of this Families Package report that doesn’t include all the numbers—isn’t that just a desperate attempt to deflect from the criticism this Government has received from the Child Poverty Action Group that the numbers prove this Government’s not delivering?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This is not a rushed release, nor did I push the Ministry of Social Development to bring these figures to me. The timing is such that I was able to release it this week. The member is fully aware that the numbers with regards to children living in poverty in this country and experiencing hardship will be released in February, and I will say that I’m really proud of what this Government decided to prioritise when we first came into Government. I do need to remind this House that the alternative from that side of the House was tax cuts that would have seen $400 million going to the top 10 percent of income earners in this country, and, actually, we don’t think anyone in this House needs an additional $1,000 a year.

Question No. 10—Agriculture

10. to the Minister of Agriculture: What actions is the Government taking to help farmers in financial distress?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the member for his question. We’ve worked closely with our coalition partners, especially in New Zealand First, to develop the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2). We’re focused on helping farmers get more value for their work, and although they are seeing record commodity prices at present, we’re committed to ensuring there is a safety net for them and their families should they get into financial strife. Beyond the farm debt scheme, we’ve more than doubled funding for rural support trusts. We’re working with farmers at catchment level to help them get most from their land while protecting the environment. There’ll be more announcements about that. We are doing a huge amount to help the farmers and the farming sector across this country.

💬 Mark Patterson: Why is the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2) required at a time when our farmers and growers are receiving record prices?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Farm debt has climbed over the past 20 years to now be at more than $62 billion. This bill has been talked about for a long time and, finally, a Government has taken action on this. We know that farming is vital for New Zealand’s growth and wellbeing, accounting for $46.4 billion in exports last year. We know farmers are especially vulnerable to business downturns as a result of conditions that are often outside their control: the weather, market price volatility, pests and diseases—things like Mycoplasma bovis. We’re taking a measured approach, and by providing this mediation safety net, we’re making sure farmers and their families have dignity when they’re in times of financial stress.

💬 Mark Patterson: What support have you seen for the farm debt mediation scheme?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: There has been widespread support for the scheme from farmers, from the industry organisations, from the banks themselves, and even from the National Party. There are people like Janette Walker, who have seen first-hand the effects of farmers getting into financial difficulty and who have said how much this scheme will mean to them, because it creates a clear path for farmers and it offers them protections at a terribly stressful time. I’d encourage people to listen to the podcast on Radio New Zealand to get an insight into what can happen at a time of foreclosure by a bank. People like the sharemilkers section of Federated Farmers—they support the farm debt mediation scheme, and, as I said, the banks do as well. This is a good piece of legislation. I thank New Zealand First for their initiative.

Question No. 11—Child Poverty Reduction

11. to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: Does she have confidence in her ability to deliver on her child poverty reduction targets?

Yes.

💬 Hon Alfred Ngaro: Does she accept that the report out today does not allow us to say what difference the Families Package made directly to child poverty, children’s outcomes, and other measures of wellbeing, and, if so, will she stop claiming that it does?

💬 SPEAKER: Any one of the four questions.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will well recall from the debate around the Child Poverty Reduction Bill that one of the issues this House has is that there is a lag in the measurement of all of our statistical data, and it is something that all of us in this House have had to grapple with, including the last Government. So we haven’t been able to see the full impact through the survey work that’s done. The partial impact of the Families Package will be illustrated in figures released by Stats New Zealand in February 2020. Till then, we’re reliant on modelling by Treasury and, of course, then the stats around the uptake of the package.

💬 Hon Alfred Ngaro: Does she agree with the Children’s Commissioner that the Government response to the Welfare Expert Advisory Group has been—and I quote—“inadequate” and that the action has to follow words?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do agree that action has to follow words, which is why in the last Budget we did what a Children’s Commissioner has called one of the biggest things that you can do to make a difference to child poverty, and that was index benefits to wages. That came in in our last Budget. It will have a huge impact for families, and the Children’s Commissioner themselves recognised that.

💬 Hon Alfred Ngaro: Does she believe that the Child Poverty Action Group’s criticism of the Government inaction is valid, given that seven of the nine child poverty indicator targets have got worse under her Government, and will this become just another broken promise?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I suggest the member may wish to exercise caution. I can only assume that the reference to the seven out of nine indicators would be the reference to the Child Poverty Reduction Act and the last data release, which substantively, actually, covered household incomes in late 2017. We don’t have the full data under this Government’s Families Package in changes we have made, but if the member wishes to criticise his own Government’s record, he’s obviously welcome to.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: What advice has she received in regard to the number of children likely to be lifted out of poverty as a result of the Government’s Families Package?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said, we’re reliant on modelling that’s being undertaken as a result of both our Families Package and the changes that were made in the last Budget, and that has suggested that we will lift between 50,000 and 74,000 children out of poverty. Because of the $5.5 billion package, that included paid parental leave and an increase to the family tax credit, which is the biggest jump we’ve seen since 2005. It included the winter energy payment, which went to families who are on benefits, and it included the introduction of the Best Start payment, which targets children both in the first year but also extends around income testing to years two and three. Added to that—and this isn’t included in the modelling—are the changes that we made removing the sole parent sanction; expanding employment support; of course, delivering extra public housing places; increases to the minimum wage; regulating housing quality; reducing the cost of GP visits; and, of course, the work we’re doing on predatory lending. I am proud of this Government’s legacy on addressing child poverty. It’s one of the reasons so many of us are here, and I think we can stand proud on the action we’ve taken in 24 short months.

Question No. 12—Revenue

12. to the Minister of Revenue: What measures, if any, has he taken to ensure Inland Revenue is able to respond promptly to all incoming inquiries, specifically those received through Inland Revenue call centres?

on behalf of the Minister of Revenue: I expect the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to ensure that phone calls are answered as efficiently as is practicable, correspondence is dealt with as efficiently as practicable, and customers calling into the Inland Revenue public counters are dealt with efficiently and fairly. I’m advised that at peak times, some phone calls fall into a queue and are not dealt with, and I’m also advised that Inland Revenue customers, since the latest upgrade, are increasingly transacting their business via the Inland Revenue website and personalised myIR pages.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Is it acceptable to him that as of yesterday morning, the IRD website specified that there was a 75-minute wait time on its call centre, and today it says IRD is unable to accept calls at all?

I’m not aware of those particular messages on the website. I am aware that the amount of call traffic to Inland Revenue tripled between January and I forget whether it was 7 March or May, I’m sorry. As a consequence, numbers of calls went from some 200,000 to some 700,000. That was because the upgrade to the IRD system went live, which affected every taxpayer who was an employer or an employee, everyone who gets interest income, and every Working for Families recipient, and, as a consequence, the system has had difficulty answering all calls, notwithstanding the fact that call centre staff were increased by around 300 people to 900 people at peak.

💬 Andrew Bayly: What reason has he been given for the 695,388 callers who have hung up after phoning the IRD call centre in the last four months to September 2019, as stated in his response to written question No. 36904?

The reasons that I have been given were outlined in an earlier answer, in that the upgrade to the system, which is the largest IT project in the history of the State sector and which came in on time and under budget—nevertheless, because some people were surprised by receiving unrequested refunds, the number of calls spiked from some 200,000 to 700,000. The number of calls that weren’t answered peaked at the same period, and the number of calls that are unanswered has progressively decreased since.

💬 Andrew Bayly: How can 695,388 callers have their IRD issues addressed if he does not require IRD to deliver an accessible service?

People have a number of choices as to how they deal with that situation. Of course we would prefer that every call was answered; sometimes it cannot be. The choices that people have that they most commonly choose are either to call back, which many people do, or to use the web-based services. As I have said, the number of unanswered calls has decreased dramatically. In terms of whether it would have been practicable to properly train more than 900 call centre staff, the decision of those with operational responsibility was that 900 was the appropriate number.