Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What steps, if any, has he taken to ensure the integrity of ministerial decisions in the major spending programmes announced in the previous two Budgets?

To ensure the integrity of ministerial decisions in the funding of major spending programmes announced through the Budgets, I direct Treasury to prepare the financial recommendations for the Budget Cabinet paper. This involves the recommendations being drafted by responsible agencies in line with the decisions made by Budget Ministers. It involves them being checked by Treasury vote teams to ensure decisions are accurately reflected and that the recommendations are correct. These recommendations are then checked and QA’d by a central team within Treasury, along with a separate review by experienced Treasury staff members who are not involved in developing the Budget. This is exactly the same process as when the member was in Government under Bill English and Steven Joyce as finance Ministers. The responsibility for the integrity of individual ministerial decisions rests with Ministers themselves on advice from the Cabinet Office as appropriate.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree that two critical ways the public can be sure of the integrity of ministerial decisions are the register for pecuniary interests and the declarations of donations to respective political parties, so that the public can weigh up perceived or real conflicts of interest?

💬 SPEAKER: This Minister is not responsible for conflicts of interest. I’m going to invite the member to rephrase his question.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am putting to the Minister of Finance a proposition that relates directly to the question, which is about the integrity of ministerial decisions—

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, and I’ve heard enough. I listened very carefully to the question as to whether all of it was within ministerial responsibility, and I ruled that it was not all within this Minister’s responsibility.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has anything he has seen in the past three days caused him to question or doubt that the integrity of ministerial decision-making about major spending projects has been maintained?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. I continue, as all Ministers do, to comply with the decisions that have been made by Cabinet around elements of the Budget process, and with respect to that, and the matters for which I am responsible, no.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is he telling the House he has seen nothing in the past three days that causes him to question or doubt the integrity of ministerial decision-making about major projects for which he is responsible?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my previous answer, for the matters for which I am responsible, no.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has he spoken directly to the Deputy Prime Minister in the past three days about real or perceived threats or questions about the integrity of ministerial decision-making?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, in respect of the matters that I am responsible for.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has he considered putting on hold major spending decisions involving New Zealand First Ministers until the serious allegations involving donations are investigated or resolved?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why not?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because I am doing my job, following through on the recommendations agreed to by Cabinet with respect to the Budget. For the matters for which I’m responsible, I continue to work closely with all of my ministerial colleagues.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he have any concern about public perceptions about the integrity of ministerial decision-making on major spending projects in his Government?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said, with respect to the matters for which I am responsible, I continue to keep an eye on those. I do not have any specific concerns. I can say one thing for sure: I’m not going to take advice from the National Party about transparency of political donations.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: Will he issue a direction to ACC to divest the $920 million currently invested in fossil fuels?

The responsibility for managing ACC’s investment funds does lie with the ACC board, which through its investment subcommittee regularly reviews and approves its investment guidelines, including its ethical investment policy. This independence is an important feature of the Crown entity model, which creates an arm’s-length relationship between Ministers and Crown entities as set out under the Crown Entities Act. While I am not intending to issue a ministerial direction, I have recently written to all Government investment funds to outline my expectations around investment practices. This includes regular reviews, reflecting best practice, and ensuring that we meet the highest ethical standards as New Zealanders would want us to.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he think ACC, as New Zealand’s largest Crown entity investor, should follow the lead of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, who in 2017 divested $950 million from fossil fuels?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my primary answer, those decisions are indeed for the ACC and the super fund and their investment committees to make. I think we can agree that this Government is taking climate change seriously, using our regulatory role on the emissions trading scheme to influence investment behaviours, and I’m sure all of the Government’s investment institutions will be well aware of the direction of travel.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Well, given that ACC has said they base their ethical investment decisions on Government direction and perception of the public, in his view is bipartisan support for climate change legislation strong enough a signal that the Government and the public would like to see ACC divest from fossil fuels?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: To repeat for the third time the answer, it is the responsibility of ACC to make their investment decisions. I do understand the point that the member is making—that the direction of travel around climate change policy, as we saw in the House, had bipartisan support. We have seen what the super fund has done, and I’m sure the ACC will also be aware of my letter that I have written to them as well.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Minister aware of his powers to direct ACC to divest under the Crown Entities Act?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my answer to the primary question, I’m aware of the power of ministerial direction. I’m also aware of the power of the letter of expectations that was written to our investment agencies. That is the approach that I took, and I wrote to them as recently as last month on these matters.

Question No. 3—Social Development

3. to the Minister for Social Development: Is the Government’s Families Package supporting Māori; if so, how?

We know that Māori disproportionately experience lower incomes than non-Māori. Under the Families Package, low and medium income households have benefited significantly through a winter energy payment to help heat their homes over winter, a Best Start payment for families with a baby, a boost in Working for Families family tax credit payments, and increases to the accommodation supplement and accommodation benefit—action this Government is taking is helping to lift Māori whānau and tamariki out of poverty.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What is the impact of the Families Package on Māori whānau and tamariki?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I can report that the Families Package monitoring report released yesterday has shown us that 138,928 Māori main beneficiaries and superannuitants received the winter energy payment at the end of June 2019, giving them up to $31.82 extra per week over the winter months to warm their homes. Almost half of the 11,490 unsupported child carers are Māori and received the increase of $20.31 per week, as well as receiving up to $33.84 per week through the clothing allowance; and 91,240 Māori receiving the accommodation supplement received an increase, on average, of about $24 per week.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! That answer has now gone on for too long.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: Why is this important?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We know that Māori are a much more youthful population, with huge potential. The median age for Māori is 23.9 years compared to 38 for New Zealanders overall. We also know that Māori have higher birth rates compared to the general population, particularly in urban centres. This means Māori will make up an important part of our future workforce, so ensuring that they have the best start in life is a priority for this Government, and we are heading in the right direction.

Question No. 4—Housing

4. to the Minister of Housing: Are there any plans to sell unsold KiwiBuild homes to Kāinga Ora for State housing?

I have not been advised that Kāinga Ora are currently assessing any unsold KiwiBuild homes for purchase for State housing. If the member is referring to former KiwiBuild houses in Wānaka, Te Kauwhata, and Canterbury that were released to the open market at the KiwiBuild reset, the first broad assessment of Te Kauwhata and Wānaka was that they weren’t suitable as State houses. However, we continue to take a pragmatic approach in Canterbury, and, if the demand is matched with the specific needs of people on the State house waiting list, then they would and could be considered. I’d like to point out to the member that this Government is building a record number of State houses, with 2,178 extra houses added in the last financial year. Our Government is committed to increasing State house supply and ensuring that houses meet people’s needs. In fact, we’re a Government that’s built more houses than any Government since the 1970s.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: How many current or former KiwiBuild homes have been built but not sold?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Of the current KiwiBuild homes, there are 75 that are not currently sold. Some of those have conditional sales attached to them. The number that have been on the market for longer than six months is around 18, and four of those have conditional sales. In terms of the former KiwiBuild homes, that was all released at the time of the reset.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: What is the longest amount of time a KiwiBuild home or former KiwiBuild home has been unsold since the programme began?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: If the member wants to put that question in writing, I’ll happily answer it, but, as I intimated in my previous answer, there are currently around 18 houses that are unsold and have been unsold for longer than six months, and four of those have conditional offers attached to them.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: When she wrote in the Resetting the Government Build Programme Cabinet paper “Any development carries some risk and we may find we cannot sell some homes.”, what does she propose doing with those homes that cannot be sold even on the open market?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: If the member had read through the Cabinet paper, not just that paragraph, what she would have seen is there is a clear process for the disposal of unsold KiwiBuild homes that was built into the reset—that is, they will not have the conditions of KiwiBuild first-home buyers or second-chance buyers attached to them; they will be open market sales.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Sold at fire-sale prices.

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s fair.

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We have not had to see any former KiwiBuild homes fall into—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Fire-sale prices.

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —the category of unsellable at this stage.

💬 SPEAKER: I indicated to the shadow Leader of the House that he should be quiet, and he defied me. He won’t again—at least over the next 10 minutes, I hope.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: When she wrote in the same Cabinet paper “The homes are not generally suitable for HNZ as they have not been built to the public housing design standard and community housing providers have not expressed interest.”, does that mean that Kāinga Ora State tenants are not expected to live in former KiwiBuild homes?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think the member is getting quite confused around different typologies. There are homes that are built for first-home sale, which are KiwiBuild homes. When it comes to the provision of State housing, there are quite different design standards, and I’ll talk through that. The bedroom size, for instance, is quite different in a house that is built for public housing needs. These are built with the intention of two or three beds being put in children’s bedrooms. This is not what the first-home buyer market is demanding. The fixtures also have a focus on durability so that maximum flexibility can be provided to the landlord. I understand very well that members on the other side of the House probably don’t understand what it takes to build a State house, given that they finished their last term of Government with fewer than they started with.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she not understand that there is a cohort of elderly people who need a State home that does not necessarily have three or four or five bedrooms; and, if she does, then why cannot they be considered as people who can be housed in these brand new and unused KiwiBuild homes?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Quite simply because they’re not the houses that are currently being offered on the open market. For example, if we look at demand in Canterbury, the majority of the demand is for one-bedroom units. These are not the former KiwiBuild homes that are being offered. We have looked very carefully at the demand of the public housing waiting list and register against the stock that is for sale, and they simply do not match.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does the proposal to dispose of unsold KiwiBuild and former KiwiBuild houses mean a possible fire sale at a discount price on the build cost?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No.

Question No. 5—Health

5. to the Minister of Health: What progress has been made rolling out the National Bowel Screening Programme?

More good news: last week, I joined the Prime Minister at Palmerston North Hospital to mark the start of the National Bowel Screening Programme at MidCentral District Health Board. That means the roll-out has reached the halfway mark with 10 out of 20 district health boards now part of the programme. The programme now covers a population of around 360,000 people aged 60 to 74, who are being offered screening every two years. The screening test itself is simple and can be done in the privacy of your own home, and it can save your life.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: So what are the benefits of bowel screening?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: People who are diagnosed with early-stage bowel cancer and who receive treatment early have a 90 percent chance of long-term survival. Since it started just over two years ago, the National Bowel Screening Programme has screened more than 194,000 people. As a result, 434 cancers have been detected earlier than they otherwise would have been, giving those individuals a better chance of survival, and on top of that, hundreds of pre-cancerous polyps have also been removed.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: So how does the National Bowel Screening Programme relate to the Government’s overall approach to cancer care and control?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This Government has a comprehensive plan to modernise our approach to cancer. A key part of that is prevention and early detection through screening programmes such as the bowel screening programme. At the same time, we’re funding more cancer medicines and we’re purchasing 12 new linear accelerators, including plans to put machines into Hawke’s Bay, Taranaki, and Northland for the first time ever. We’ve appointed an interim Director of Cancer Control and we’re establishing a Cancer Control Agency to provide the strong, central leadership the sector has been crying out for. Improved cancer outcomes is a long-term challenge, but we are making real progress.

Question No. 6—Children

6. to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her statements and actions regarding the Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy?

Yes, in the context in which they were given.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Can she confirm that schools have not opted into the free school lunches programme as part of their strategy because they are concerned about losing KidsCan and KickStart support?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I think it would be helpful to refer to page 67 of the strategy to help the House to understand my ministerial responsibilities: “There are legal and operational arrangements in place to ensure collective Ministerial and agency-level governance and accountability for developing and implementing the strategy ... The Minister Responsible for Child Poverty Reduction and the Minister for Children have shared overall responsibility for developing the Strategy with specific policy areas and actions co-led by other Ministers and their agencies.” As Minister for Children, I am responsible for the policy areas related to the work being progressed by Oranga Tamariki. The school lunches programme is being progressed by the Minister of Education.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Well, actually, I have got information which indicates not only that the briefings are jointly in the name of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Children but that development of the strategy is certainly the responsibility of this Minister.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, that’s exactly what the Minister just said.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Can she confirm that in the development of the strategy, she considered that Ministry for Primary Industries officials were consulted only several days before the announcement and that a lack of funding for kitchen infrastructure was included as part of that development?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: That is correct. As part of the development of the lunches in schools programme, there needed to be consideration and advice received around the capacity of schools to deliver the lunches in schools programme, and also we like to do rural-proofing on all of the policies that this Government does to make sure that we acknowledge rural communities need different solutions than urban communities.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Can she confirm that her child and wellbeing strategy is not on track to be delivered, given that a number of schools have said they will not opt into the programme because of poor planning and they will not take part until term 2 of next year?

💬 SPEAKER: Any one of the three.

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The strategy is on track to being delivered. The strategy is a large series of actions. The questioner has asked me about whether a specific action is on track to be delivered, and that specific action—the lunches in schools—is the responsibility of the Minister of Education.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a ridiculous scenario if the Minister responsible for the strategy has absolutely no relationship as to whether it’s actually going to be delivered, because she’s taking no responsibility—

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the Minister read out the responsibilities very clearly in the way that they’re organised. And if the member does have something which relates to Speakers’ Rulings and the Standing Orders which differs or the member can point to, to require the Minister to answer something which she has indicated is not part of her responsibility, then the member should show it to me.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: When she was planning her child, youth, and wellbeing strategy, did she consider that there would be a whole lot of kids that would be cut off from support, as part of one of her initiatives, at the age of 12 years old, as they are complaining in parts of New Zealand?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: When we were considering the Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy, when we were discussing it with the 10,000 New Zealanders that participated—6,000 of those being children and young people—we considered all avenues of how best we could support children, all children, as many children as possible, through the actions of the strategy. I’m happy to table the current programme of action for the member. But as she will know, as a previous Minister, there are limitations on budget. There are limitations on many other areas, including the capacity to have kitchens that can provide lunches in schools. So we work within the boundaries that we have to do the best for the children of New Zealand—all of them.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Can she confirm that she cannot deliver on her strategy because one of the core initiatives that was announced by the Prime Minister is behind schedule, plagued with multiple problems, and has a whole lot of people that don’t want to be part of it?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member is allowed to have two legs to a question. That one had four.

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I cannot confirm that. I think what the member is alluding to is that the lunches in schools programme is supposed to be rolled out at the beginning of the 2020 school year. We are not yet at the beginning of the 2020 school year. For any further detail on that particular action, she will need to direct her questions to the Minister of Education.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Will she take responsibility for one of the flagship initiatives in her strategy not being delivered if it does not line up with 30 schools being part of the programme as part of term 1 next year?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I think that the difficulty that the member is having is the collective responsibility of Ministers in the Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy. I do understand that this is a different way for a Government to work; that this Government is the first Government who is breaking down the silos of delivery and we’ve all purchased into the actions. And so the Minister of Education, the Minister for Children, the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction, we all carry responsibility for the individual actions of our individual ministries to deliver on the overall strategy for New Zealand.

Question No. 7—Regional Economic Development

I just give a warning. I have been warned that the answer to this question is longer than the Minister generally gives.

OK. Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Minister for Regional Economic Development: on what date was N.Z. Future Forest Products Ltd’s application to the Provincial Growth Fund lodged—

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry, I apologise. I have confused it with question No. 9. This one couldn’t possibly be longer than the Minister generally gives. Can the member start again—I apologise.

💬 CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, I was getting very excited then. OK, I’ll start again.

7. to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: On what date was N.Z. Future Forest Products Ltd’s application to the Provincial Growth Fund lodged, and when did he first become aware that N.Z. Future Forest Products Ltd had applied to the Provincial Growth Fund?

I am advised the application was lodged on 8 April. I found out that the application was coming to Ministers for consideration on 14 October.

💬 SPEAKER: No, I’m going to—

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order—

💬 SPEAKER: No, I don’t want a point of order. I want the Minister to answer the second leg of the question.

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: April 8 was the date that the company’s application was lodged. I became aware that the company had applied to the Provincial Growth Fund on 14 October.

💬 SPEAKER: Thank you.

💬 Chris Bishop: What is the conflict of interest that meant he recused himself from any decision making about the application to the Provincial Growth Fund?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: When I became a Minister, I identified a relationship I had with Mr Brian Henry, and, at that point, upon learning an application was wending its way through the process, because I had identified that association when I became a Minister, I recused myself.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is he saying to the House that between 8 April, when the application was lodged, and 14 October, when he declared a conflict of interest in relation to decision making about the application, he was not aware an application had been made?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I repeat again: I became aware of a formal application coming to Ministers on 14 October. I have asked my staff to go back and to test—

💬 Hon Amy Adams: When did the Minister know it had been made?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: —whether or not there had been any briefings—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. This is a very important question. I want to hear the answer, and Amy Adams is—

💬 Hon Amy Adams: He didn’t answer it.

💬 SPEAKER: Amy Adams is interfering with me hearing the answer. She will not interject again during question time. Sorry, I’m going to go right back and I’m going to ask for the supplementary question to be asked again.

💬 Chris Bishop: I’m possibly paraphrasing a little bit. Is he saying to the House that between 8 April, when the application was lodged, and 14 October, when he recused himself from any decision making about the application, he was unaware that an application had been made?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I became aware of this formal application on 14 October. I have asked staff to ascertain whether, in the wodge of papers that, from time to time, wash up in my office, there was any reference at all to Mr Brian Henry in any application, and they have told me zero—that there was no reference whatsoever to that application from that individual.

💬 Chris Bishop: Was he aware informally between 8 April and 14 October that Mr Henry and N.Z. Future Forest Products Ltd had made an application to the Provincial Growth Fund?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I repeat again: 14 October is a date of great significance. That is the date that I was formally notified of the application. Now, I must say that given the development of proposals and the gestation that proposals go through, I would not know, at the level of the officials, who is dealing, given that there are 2,500 proposals, and it’s akin to me being on the bridge—I’m not down in the boiler room.

💬 Chris Bishop: Between 8 April and 14 October, was he aware that N.Z. Future Forest Products Ltd was in discussions with officials from the provincial development unit about a possible future application—a formal one—to the Provincial Growth Fund?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: As I’ve said, the life cycle of the Provincial Growth Fund application is that it’s akin to the life cycle of an insect. There is no shortage of people, throughout New Zealand, in particular provinces—because I am a crowd-pleaser in the provinces. I send all people interested in the Provincial Growth Fund to go and see the officials. The officials help them navigate the process. When an official decision is required, that’s when one exercises the judgment: are you in a position where you need to recuse yourself? So it is most important that the House focuses on the date of 14 October, when I was formally notified that an application was on its way to the Ministers.

💬 Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: I know what the point of order is. It was wonderful rhetoric but it did not address the question.

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Until 14 October, I was not formally notified of the existence of an application. I am advised, however, that officials have put in reports the name of the company they were dealing with. Unfortunately, I had no idea who that company was.

💬 Chris Bishop: Was he aware of discussions taking place between N.Z. Future Forest Products Ltd and officials at the provincial development unit between 8 April, when the application was made, and 14 October, when he recused himself?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: As I said, I am not aware of the detail—the extent—of any discussions between Mr Brian Henry or a company I had never heard of and did not recognise until such time as a formal duty fell upon me to make a decision. At that point, I recused myself. Then it was turned down, which is how the process works.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why did David Henry email his office on 21 September about the project, and why didn’t he declare a conflict then?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: There is no conflict between myself and a Mr David Henry, an individual I might have met once or thrice. I have clearly stated that I have a longstanding relationship with Mr Brian Henry, belonging to a family who has had 150 years of involvement in forestry. In fact, if any individual wants to contribute to the development of our forestry strategy and is looking for some support from the Government, they go through the formal process and they take their chances. In this case, they were unsuccessful.

💬 Chris Bishop: Was he aware at any point between 8 April and 14 October that representatives from N.Z. Future Forest Products Ltd were in discussions about an existing application or possible future application to the Provincial Growth Fund?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I repeat again: the point at which I became formally notified was 14 October. Now, the member has identified an email. I get so many of them; I have no recollection of it. Now, whether or not that individual or that company was talking to officials, as I said, that’s at the stage when the application is a larva stage, or the pupa stage—the time I wouldn’t be involved.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that N.Z. Future Forest Product Ltd’s application to the Provincial Growth Fund was declined?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: The application from the said company, I understand, was declined by fellow Ministers after I had recused myself. I would say that New Zealanders who may belong, or may have associations with politicians, are welcome to engage with the bureaucracy. It’s when a Cabinet Minister is required to exercise allocated authority—that’s when you recuse yourself, which, obviously, I have done, with considerable skill.

Question No. 8—Building and Construction

8. to the Minister for Building and Construction: Is the Government supporting regional building owners; if so, how?

This Government is implementing changes to our earthquake-prone building regime. Provincial building owners will benefit from these changes because we’re relaxing the requirement for expected strengthening work to be done on low-value properties. Under the existing rules, if a building owner makes improvements worth more than 25 percent of a building’s value, they’re required to do a full earthquake seismic strengthening, even if the value of the building is low. However, the change we made by adding a minimum dollar value of $150,000 of building work to the criteria for substantial alterations before costly strengthening has to occur means that our Government has delivered a major break for provincial building owners.

💬 Paul Eagle: How has the Government worked with regional building owners and councils on this change?

💬 Hon JENNY SALESA: The Government has listened to regional building owners and councils. I heard from business owners who wanted to use empty buildings in small towns to open shops and cafes, but couldn’t under the previous law. I was honoured to stand beside the mayors of Manawatū, Rangitīkei, Whanganui, and Horowhenua, who wanted this change, when we made the announcement in Feilding. Thanks also to New Zealand First for their strong advocacy on this issue.

💬 Paul Eagle: What feedback has she seen on these changes?

💬 Hon JENNY SALESA: I was pleased to see comment from Masterton Trust Lands Trust’s general manager, Andrew Croskery, when he said that this change would help to keep central business districts alive. Mr Croskery went on to say—and I quote—“The ability to tenant buildings at significantly lower cost now, while planning for structural work in the future, will provide the cashflow needed to ultimately strengthen those buildings.” This Government is ensuring we continue to have thriving rural towns and communities.

Question No. 9—Justice

This is a question with a slightly longer answer.

9. to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree with the statement by electoral law expert Professor Andrew Geddis regarding the disclosure of donations at the 2017 election, “You can’t have a country’s political system run in this way and be considered the second least corrupt nation on the planet”?

Yes, and I agree that we can’t build a reputation for our political system which is based on electoral spending that is only “pretty legal”, a Serious Fraud Office investigation into a questionable $100,000 donation to the National Party, Ministers—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are quite insistent that the grammar in questions is precise so that you’re able to rule more easily on the answers being given by Ministers. This question refers to donations at the 2017 election. So far, the Minister, in his addressing of this question—or attempt to address this question—has, it would seem, missed the point of the question.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m going to let the Minister continue, in the hope that he’ll get strictly within the bounds of the question soon.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The heart of the question goes to the reputation of this country’s political system—that’s what the quote from Mr Geddis refers to.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, and I’ve now looked at the question again carefully; it does have two legs. The first leg, the Minister has answered by saying “Yes”, and he can now answer the second leg, which goes to a much broader quote on the part of Dr Geddis.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: To pick up where I left off, we were at: Ministers in a previous Government travelling on the taxpayers’ dollar to shill for overseas support, confusing private and personal interests in relation to—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is quite proper for a Minister to seek leave, and to notify the Speaker, to have a longer answer. I think it’s inappropriate for that to be used as an opportunity to have a go at the Opposition parties.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think it’s a little bit rich for someone—[Interruption] Who laughed then, loudly? The member will leave the House. He can come back for question 11.

Hon Damien O’Connor withdrew from the Chamber.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, Upper Moutere, it was your member. It is a little bit rich for someone who asks a very political question to be unhappy when there is a political answer. Andrew Little, start again.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes, and I agree that we can’t build a reputation for our political system which is based on electoral spending that is only “pretty legal”, a Serious Fraud Office investigation into a questionable $100,000 donation to the National Party, Ministers in a previous Government travelling on the taxpayers’ dollar to shill for overseas support, confusing private and personal interests in Oravida, doing questionable deals over convention centres—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister answering the question knows full well that electoral rules have been changed on numerous occasions, and the rules that related to 2017 and the 2017 election are the rules that are in question. I think it’s quite unreasonable for the Minister to take a defensive position in support of his coalition partner by using this opportunity to have a go at the Opposition.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! There’s been no reference to any coalition partner at all that I’m aware of. Now, the problem I’ve got now is whether I get the Minister to start again, but I think I’ll just get him to wind back slightly rather than start from the beginning again.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I only have one other point to raise in relation to our political reputation abroad, and that, of course, relates to the funnelling of candidate donations through the National Party head office to confuse their origins, which happened in the 2017 general election.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is it consistent for the Minister of Justice to refuse to make any comment about the front-page headlines of the last three days regarding his coalition partner, but express extensive views about matters that go many years back?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The issues that have been the subject of the front-page headlines for the last few days are the subject of, at the very least, a preliminary investigation by the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission is independent of the executive Government. It would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment on a matter that the Electoral Commission is investigating into, because I don’t want to end up like the member who asked the question, with a conviction for contempt.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Supplementary—supplementary? He always goes after the person—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. If the member wants a further supplementary, he can have one. He’s just had one ruled out.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is extremely unfair, in my view. You sat there and listened to a totally gratuitous flick coming from the Minister of Justice, someone who a higher standard might be expected of, particularly when dealing with members in this House—

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: Point of order.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: —and particularly at a time—I’m in the middle of one. Sit down, fella.

💬 SPEAKER: Sit down.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: This isn’t a point order; it’s a speech.

💬 SPEAKER: I think for the first time since I’ve been Speaker, we’re going to have two out at the same time. Away you go.

Fletcher Tabuteau withdrew from the Chamber.

💬 SPEAKER: He was, of course, right.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Beg your pardon?

💬 SPEAKER: He was right. It is not a point of order yet.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, but you’ve got to, of course, frame it, because otherwise, how could you rule?

💬 SPEAKER: No. The member, I think it’s fair to say, is taking quite a big frame.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, I’ll get right to the point. I think if you were to, at a later point, look at the Hansard, you’d find that it was an unreasonable comment, it doesn’t help the order of the House, and denying Dr Smith of some of the limited supplementaries that we get on this side of the House, I think, is unreasonable.

💬 SPEAKER: And the member is aware of the fact—or should have been aware of the fact—that I shut the Minister down when he started his flick.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the further statement by Professor Andrew Geddis, and I quote, “If what has been reported is both true and not a breach of the rules of political donations, then New Zealand’s reputation for being squeaky clean looks like a joke.”?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m aware that Professor Geddis takes a very close interest in the operation of our electoral systems, and he has made that comment; I acknowledge it. He made another one, too, in relation to the funnelling of donations through the National Party headquarters to National Party candidates, when he said, “After all, it’s extremely rare for this elite law enforcement agency”—the Electoral Commission—“to be asked to look at an electoral law matter, let alone one allegedly involving the Leader of the Opposition having some role in illegally funnelling six figures’ worth of cash to his party.”

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Are New Zealand electoral laws on disclosure of significant donations working to the satisfaction of Government when a party can avoid disclosure by having a separate foundation fund all sorts of campaigning activities, like fund-raising websites, guest speakers, and advertising?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think it is most unfortunate that there is at least one party who thinks that it is acceptable to conceal the origin of donations to individual candidates by funnelling it all through their party headquarters. But I expect the Justice Committee, in its inquiry into the 2017 general election—an inquiry that has now been running for roughly 18 months—to report on all matters associated with that general election. I am still waiting for their report.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that the disclosure of donations regime in place at the 2017 election, as noted in the primary question, was a regime overseen by the former Government?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can confirm that the law, as it is today, is as it was in 2017 under that previous Government. I’m not aware of any changes made to the donations regime under that Government. It is very clear that a principal objective of the donations regime, as it appears in our 1993 Electoral Act, is for a level of transparency, but that seems to be defeated when you channel all your donations to candidates through party headquarters and nobody knows who is supporting particular candidates.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does that then mean that the Minister is concerned that the $840,000 unexplained by the New Zealand First Party is of concern to him?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I only work on facts, and I’m waiting to see whether the facts are established, but one fact is very clear: there are National Party candidates who received donations for their localised electorate campaigns, the entirety of which came from National Party headquarters.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: What trends has he seen in New Zealand’s Corruption Perceptions Index?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: A very good question. Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index has been running since 1995. Overall, New Zealanders can be satisfied that we consistently rank amongst the least-corrupt countries in the world. However, in three different years we crashed right out of the top three—those years were 1997, 1998, and 2014, and I’ll leave members to guess which Government was in place during those years.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will the Government establish an independent inquiry into the serious allegations about non-disclosure of electoral donations at election 2017 to protect the number one ranking that National bequeathed to this Government from Transparency International in 2017?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I don’t share the chronic lack of faith that member has in parts of our Public Service, but we have an independent electoral commission; their reputation is absolutely outstanding. Their job is to deal with law enforcement issues in relation to our electoral code. They are doing that. They do it, they do a very good job, and I remain to see what they have to say about the matter.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table an email to myself and Simon Bridges, received today, from the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ lawyer, Mr Brian Henry, threatening to sue for $30 million if statements made in Parliament are repeated outside the House, with the exclusion of some personal information in that email.

💬 SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that being tabled? There appears to be none.

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

💬 Ginny Andersen: What other reports has the Minister seen regarding donations at the 2017 general election?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I may well have canvassed this, but there are quite a few interesting reports: one from a candidate that declared a total of $54,000 in donations, one that declared a total of $38,000 in donations, and one for $59,000 in donations—all from the National Party. And those reports were from Chris Bishop, Lawrence Yule, and Andrew Falloon.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Does he agree with the statement by electoral law expert Professor Andrew Geddis, regarding the disclosure of donations, that “It’s plainly a very bad look”?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I’ve said before in this House—[Interruption]

Order!

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have said before in this House, in relation to Professor Geddis, that I agree with some things he says; I disagree with others. But I agree with his very close interest in matters of electoral law and compliance with the donations regime, and I think his comments about the National Party funnelling donations through their head office I agree with entirely.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: To take the Minister back to the supplementary before last, is he saying that those members that he mentioned declared only a donation from the National Party headquarters and no other donations whatsoever, and how credible does he find that?

The first part he can answer.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, yes, that is correct. The only donations declared were those from the head office of the National Party.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to table the electoral return of Mr Tamati Coffey, which shows that Labour pooled, regionally, the donations in the candidates’ declaration of expenditure.

OK—the answer to that is I’m not going to put it, because it is publicly available on the website, and, frankly, no laundromats are going to be tabled in here.

Question No. 10—Energy and Resources

10. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she think Kiwi households and businesses will be paying lower electricity prices in a year’s time?

As I’ve covered before, the price they pay will depend on a range of factors. These factors include the amount they use, retail overheads, distribution costs, the wholesale market transmission charges, and any other contractual terms that may apply. However, I note that the futures price for one year from today is lower than the current wholesale price, so the market is expecting to see some movement. At the same time, I have seen some industry commentary predicting price rises, so this is an issue of contested debate. I’m also aware of three trends putting downward pressure on prices: falling costs of capital, which will mean lower transmission charges; we are now seeing over $880 million being invested in new renewable energy generation over the coming year, which means lower prices for New Zealanders over the long term because they have the lowest levelised cost; and the Government has also started implementing the recommendations—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! We have heard this before.

💬 Jonathan Young: Thank you. So does she agree with the Electricity Authority who, two days ago, said that the increase in future prices for the next three to four years appears indicative of a change in the fundamental drivers used to price electricity—in particular, the increasing impact of a tighter gas market appears to be leading to higher longer-term wholesale electricity prices?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I said, there is currently contested debate in the industry. What I’ve also said is the futures price today is lower than it will be in a year. I’d also point out that, in terms of the costs that a consumer sees on their electricity bill, 31.9 percent of that amounts from generation. I’d also note that, counted against that, we have the recent Commerce Commission decision on Transpower’s price-quality path, which should see consumers pay lower prices as a reduction in the cost of capital as reflected in lower revenue limits for Transpower, which are 15 percent less than the current five-year period. So there are many factors at play here.

💬 Jonathan Young: So does she, then, disagree with Fraser Whineray, chief executive of Mercury Energy, who just last week said that the electricity sector is showing significant stress and that there is a risk of current and spot wholesale prices flowing through to households and residences?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I said, there are many views in the industry. I’ve also had conversations with Fraser Whineray, who has told me that gas has got expensive because it was proved to be unreliable last year. So that fear is being priced into the market. The energy prices are going up in the wholesale market, but the retail flow-through is not clear. He has also commented to me extensively about the very positive signals being given to the industry to build renewable generation, which has the lowest levelised cost.

💬 Jonathan Young: So does she or doesn’t she think that Kiwi households and businesses will be paying lower electricity prices next year?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I have told the member on several occasions now, that depends on a range of factors. This is a competitive market and companies will make decisions about how they balance those inputs into their retail pricing to consumers.

💬 Jonathan Young: Well, with the reduction in natural gas availability being replaced with more expensive imported coal for electricity generation, does she now regret not listening to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s advice last year around the oil and gas exploration ban—that it would increase the price of electricity in New Zealand and increase emissions in New Zealand, as it has done?

💬 SPEAKER: Again, any one of those.

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’ll address the leg of the question that was the increase in the price of gas because of a shortage of supply. That is patently just wrong. What we are seeing are some problems around contracting, but I am reassured by many parts of the industry that there is no shortage of supply. In fact, the estimates that we have around the security of supply of gas are the same as they have been for decades: 11 years.

Question No. 11—Agriculture

11. to the Minister of Agriculture: What recent reports has he seen about the performance of the agricultural sector?

There is a lot of good news for the sector. The recent ASB commodity price report, headlined “Rewriting the record books”—here it is—says that our farmers and growers are in a sweet spot. The ASB’s index for primary sector exports shows it’s at record highs above its 2011 level. So farmers and growers are getting better prices for their work under this Government than the last National one. Specifically, lamb prices have set fresh record highs in eight of the last nine weeks. Lamb prices cracked $9 a kilogram for the first time ever last week. Meanwhile, beef prices are not far behind, with AgriHQ’s beef index setting records each week since 11 October. Seafood prices have also been regularly setting fresh record highs since March. It’s all good news.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: What reports has he seen about the sector’s prospects for next year?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The ASB expects New Zealand commodity prices to continue to push higher over the remainder of 2019 and early 2020. In particular, dairy prices are set to lift over November and December as New Zealand production growth slows and global demand remains firm. In meat markets, we anticipate that prices will remain very high for that extended period, as the impact of African swine fever is likely to persist over 2020 and potentially into 2021. Similarly, we also anticipate that fruit and seafood prices are likely to remain near record highs. The low dollar, the low interest rates, and the high commodity prices mean that there is a very, very good future across all the agricultural sectors.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: What actions is the Government taking to help this sector?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: We’re doing a lot more than the previous Government ever bothered to do. Firstly, we’re giving certainty to farmers with our recent agreement on agricultural emissions. Our just released skills work plan, developed with the sector, will attract workers—the workers that we require for the future. Our joint efforts with DairyNZ and Beef and Lamb to eradicate M. bovis are progressing really, really well, and, of course, with our $229 million Budget package to support farmers on the ground, through things like catchment management groups, updating Overseer, and boosting extension services—it’s all spectacularly good news.

Question No. 9 to Minister

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You ruled before that leave couldn’t be sought for the tabling of an electoral expenses return, on the basis that the returns are public. All that is public on the website at the moment is long lists of members’ names, the total expenditure used in the participation in the election by each member, not the detailed returns that have been available publicly in the past. I’d ask you to perhaps consider whether or not that might mean that the return that leave has been sought for, for it to be released, could be sought.

The answer to that is that I have seen in the last 48 hours publications of—I don’t know if it was a news website or some other website—the type described. If there is a problem with accessing the website for the lower-level donations, then that is something which I will consider at some stage in the future. But I know that they certainly have been available and I know that some of them—because, like other members, I look through the news reports and the linked documents—were certainly available over the last 48 hours.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Those sorts of returns have been referenced in the House this afternoon in relation to the National Party by a question from Grant Robertson to Andrew Little. The point is that those returns are not available now. The access to them appears to have been taken down, for whatever reason, and I think it is unreasonable that we are left in a situation where there are allegations against us, because some people have been able to access returns, yet we’re unable to table a return that is dealt with in exactly the same lawful manner.

Speaking to the point of order, in this case, having just had a quick look myself, I think Mr Brownlee might be right that they were there and now they’re not available. I suspect what you’ve seen, as many of us have seen, Mr Speaker, are screenshots of what has previously been available. So I’m not sure if that changes your ruling.

I can’t sort of tell the difference, but if there are screenshots of things which were previously available and the screenshots are available now and it’s got the information, it is publicly available.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are not 120 screenshots of members’ returns. There are selected screenshots that have been used to illustrate some points. There is nothing illegal or wrong with the way in which people like me have accounted for my electoral expenditure. All big donations are declared through the National Party. All we are saying is we would like to be able to table one example of a Labour member’s expense where the same lawful process has been used.

OK, all right. I think I’ve now got to the point where I am convinced, and, therefore, I am happy to have—I presume in this particular case, it’s a screenshot of an old thing from a website that Dr Smith wanted to table. Is there any objection to that old screenshot being tabled? There appears to be none.

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

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have a copy of returns, and I’m not sure whether they are screenshot copies or whether they’ve come directly from the website, but in light of the previous decision of the House, I seek leave to table the election returns for Chris Bishop, Andrew Falloon, and Lawrence Yule.

Is there any objection to those being tabled? There appears to be none. They may be tabled.

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

Question No. 12—Police

12. to the Minister of Police: What is the number of net new sworn police added to the force, when taking into account attrition, since 26 October 2017, and where have they been deployed?

on behalf of the Minister of Police: Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Minister, I thank the member for his question, which allows the House to celebrate the graduation today of the 1,825th new police officer since this Government took office. That brings the net number of police officers up by 1,000 since October 2017, which is an 11.3 percent increase in the number of front-line officers. Now, to the second part of the member’s question, Northland gets 96 new cops; Auckland gets 707 new cops; Waikato gets 158; Bay of Plenty, you get 146; central gets 153—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. Order! [Interruption] Order! I realise that this is not a Government patsy question, but it is going on for too long.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This was a primary question set down. The member deserves the full answer.

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, and I have ruled that the answer is too long.

💬 Brett Hudson: Does he stand by his answer to a written question that on 1 November 2017, just five days after the Government took office, there were 9,016 front-line officers in the force?

On behalf of the Minister, I’ll have to take the member at his word that that is what the written answer said, and I can only assume that it is correct.

💬 Brett Hudson: What is the number of front-line sworn officers on the force as of today?

The police constabulary stands at 9,838 officers. That is an increase of more than 11 percent since the start of the 2017-18 financial year.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: In reference to the answer to the primary question, what did other regions receive?

Oh, thank you very much. The—

💬 SPEAKER: The member may give us two or three examples.

—eastern region received 61 new police officers, the Wellington region received 200 new police officers, and the Canterbury region received 171 new police officers. I could go on.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: In reference to that answer, does the Minister have any other examples that he can provide the House?

Just two more: the Tasman district received 24 new police officers, and the southern district received 109 new cops.

💬 Brett Hudson: Given the Minister’s answers, what does 9,838 officers less 9,016 officers equal in the number of front-line officers?

The difference between those two numbers is what it equals. But the point I would make to the member is that since the beginning of the 2017-18 financial year, there has been an 11 percent increase in the number of front-line police officers to a record total number of 9,838.

💬 Brett Hudson: Shouldn’t the Minister, therefore, thank the National Government for the officers that they delivered while in Government, that he’s now claiming?

I think what the good people of New Zealand should thank the coalition Government for is the fact that today there are more police officers on the beat, on the front line, than ever before.