Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent announcements has he seen on the retail fuel market?

Today the Commerce Commission has released its final report on the retail fuel market sector. It confirmed that (a) fuel companies have been making persistently higher profits than we would expect from a competitive market; (b) wholesale supplier relationships, including restrictive contract terms between major fuel companies and resellers, limit the resellers’ ability to switch supplier, which hampers competitive pricing for people at the bowser; and (c) an active wholesale market for fuel does not exist in New Zealand. The report confirms our concerns that consumers are paying higher prices for petrol and diesel than they should be in a competitive market. We accept the commission’s findings, and the Prime Minister has said we are ready to act on them.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: How will the Government respond to these findings?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The Commerce Commission study found a lack of competition in wholesale markets. We’ll be introducing the best options to increase competition, which will make prices fairer on the forecourt. The Government will take the Commerce Commission’s findings to Cabinet with a view to swiftly implementing changes such as a more transparent wholesale pricing regime, greater contractual freedoms and fairer terms to facilitate competition in the wholesale market, introducing an enforceable code of conduct for the industry, and improved transparency of premium-grade fuel pricing. The Government intends for these changes to be implemented by the middle of next year.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What difference will this make to consumers at the pump?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: This is about breaking the big—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: This is about breaking the big fuel companies’ stranglehold on supply and getting more competition into the market to benefit consumers. We know that in parts of New Zealand where there is better retail fuel competition, prices are lower. The changes we are working on will make it easier for new entrants to compete in more parts of New Zealand. This view was driven home yesterday by Rangitata MP Andrew Falloon, who told The Timaru Herald, “When new entrants like Waitomo and Gull enter local markets the effect on reducing fuel prices is stark.” I thank him for his support.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Why did the Government settle on 14 grams of cannabis being able to be purchased in the proposed bill, three times what’s allowed in the Netherlands but half of what’s allowed in Canada?

Well, actually, I’ve got to say, I have an example of the kind of amounts that are in other countries. [Holds up photo of Hon Paula Bennett] In this case, it’s very hard to tell the difference between the dope and the weed, but Ms Bennett is a world-class expert on that, and I do defer to her knowledge and experience.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: If the Minister would like a picture of me for his wall, he can just let me know. What will the tax rate that will be imposed on cannabis be?

Well, on the question of the picture on the wall, it’s very hard to get a photograph when you’re spending all your time, as that member does, in front of a full-length mirror. But—[Interruption] Well—[Interruption] Ha, ha!

💬 SPEAKER: I think we’ll now leave the pot-kettle-black and get on with the questions.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I’ll just repeat the question if I might, Mr Speaker?

💬 SPEAKER: Repeat the question without the “mirror” comments.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Thank you. What will the tax rate that will be imposed on cannabis be?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, that decision has not been made by the Government yet.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does she envisage the tax rate on cannabis being the same as tobacco?

Again, that is not a decision that the Government has made.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree with allowing New Zealanders to privately grow cannabis in their homes?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, I do not think that that has been announced yet, but I have to say, to use—[Interruption]

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: The view has not been announced.

The view has not been expressed, with respect. But I have to say, listening to all these questions, it reminds me of that flower-power, hippie era—you know, “Far out, man!”

💬 Hon Members: What?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, come on, it’s an historical reference—we’ll just leave it. Some of us can remember.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree with allowing New Zealanders to grow and smoke cannabis in rental properties?

The Prime Minister has not expressed a view on that yet. That member sits on the committee, so does my colleague. Of course we’ve got an expressed view, but you’re asking the Prime Minister and not me.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does she believe that the drafting on the proposed bill around legalising cannabis should specify whether or not rental properties can allow their tenants to grow and smoke cannabis?

Can I just say that there’s a cross-party consortium working on this matter, but here’s the real essence of the answer that that member’s got to grasp: we believe in democracy.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, don’t start this rubbish!

We believe in asking the people of this country. We do not think, like Mr Brownlee and others, that they’re too dumb to work these questions out.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Should New Zealanders, in the name of democracy, have an answer to the question around rental properties before they vote?

That member is on the cross-party committee and should be making submissions on that matter, and at the end of it, I hope, with all her wealth of experience on this particular subject—rather exceptional knowledge, I might add—we can advance the outcome and come to a conclusion, but the matter is still a matter of deliberation.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the Deputy Prime Minister in future replies to be very careful about what can be inferred from the answers.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Why did the Government not bring legislation to the House so that it could go through all stages and the public know exactly what they are voting for and so that it was binding?

Can I say to that member that that has been traversed by the Ministry of Justice already.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption] Mr Peters, I think we all know what “traverse” means—

💬 SPEAKER: No, sorry. Do we have a point of order, Mr Brownlee?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes.

💬 SPEAKER: Right, well, points of order are to me, not to Mr Peters.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Right. Well, with all due respect—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. It’s to me, and I know what the member means when he says that.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: The question was not answered. The question may have been addressed with some words out of the Minister’s mouth on behalf of the Prime Minister, but it was not an addressing of the question.

💬 SPEAKER: I think the question was addressed.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: Is he concerned that the Treasury considers it is likely we will see “overall New Zealand GDP growth fall below Budget forecasts”, and what domestic policy decisions, if any, are behind this slower growth?

In addition to my answers in oral questions yesterday regarding the same partial quote, I would simply add that it is Treasury’s job to forecast, and, therefore, I am not concerned that they are doing their job. In answer to the second part of the question, I reject the premise. It is my belief that the domestic policy decisions we are making are ensuring that New Zealand’s GDP growth is stronger and forecast to be stronger than the countries we compare ourselves to, such as Australia, the UK, Canada, and the OECD average.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he expect that the Reserve Bank’s capital requirement changes announced today will increase or lower growth over the next five years?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The bank itself has indicated that over the medium term, they believe that it will actually increase GDP growth. I know that that view is contested by others, but that is the view of the Reserve Bank.

💬 SPEAKER: Question No. 4, Willow-Jean Prime.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: No, supplementary.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, sorry. I looked at the member and he didn’t stand up.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, I was on my way; I just hadn’t started.

💬 SPEAKER: The member will resume—the member will go down again. The member might’ve thought he was on his way to standing up, but it actually requires a physical movement. I will wind it back and give him another chance.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Very gracious. Whose estimate does he prefer on the likely impact on retail interest rates for that decision, the Reserve Bank’s 0.2 percent or the ANZ’s 0.3 to 0.6 percent on mortgage rates?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I of course have confidence in the Reserve Bank.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why did he not insist that the Reserve Bank release a full cost-benefit analysis of its proposal to increase the bank capital before they released the decision?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There is a very comprehensive analysis that the Reserve Bank has indeed released, and there’s a summary of it that I think is already available for people. They undertook a long period of consultation, independent analysis was used, and they have done that analysis. Clearly, not everyone is going to agree with it; that’s quite clear, particularly the four large Australian-owned banks, who clearly have a significant interest in the matter that’s at hand here. What I hope is that they will now focus on what really matters, which is making sure that Kiwis’ money is safe.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: What difference does it make to New Zealanders if the economy is growing at around 2 percent, as it is now, instead of over 3 percent, as it was in 2017?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, we all know that economic growth can improve living standards, so that’s the difference that economic growth can make. But as we’ve traversed many times in this House, across the world, rates of economic growth have been slowing. In New Zealand, they have also been slowing, but they have been slowing at a far better rate in terms of New Zealanders, because we continue to outperform those that we compare ourselves to.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Isn’t it true that a slower economy, as we have in New Zealand, creates fewer opportunities for New Zealanders to get ahead?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What we have is a situation where still in New Zealand today, in the middle of a global slow-down, there are more opportunities for New Zealand relative to the countries that we compare ourselves to. Mr Goldsmith knows we are an open, export-based economy. We are susceptible to global trends, but the economy is in good shape to withstand them.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: So how can an open, export-led economy be doing so poorly at a time when we’ve had historically high export prices, as we have now?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I utterly reject the premise of that question. The economy is not doing poorly, and Mr Goldsmith needs to actually get out there and listen to people who are working hard every single day to ensure that we create jobs, that we do have economic growth that is better than it is in many other parts of the world. The New Zealand economy is in good shape. We’re in the middle of a global slow-down, but we have the resources to manage that.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is the Minister saying that he is content with 0.5 percent per person growth?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I am never content, and all of my colleagues know that on a daily basis. What I do know, though, is that the New Zealand economy, relative to others in the world, is doing relatively well. We’re in good shape, and the member needs to get on board with the fact that New Zealanders are a positive, optimistic bunch—unlike what we see over there.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on New Zealand’s economy and financial system?

Today the Reserve Bank released the final decisions of its review into bank capital, which began in May 2017. It is important to note that the Reserve Bank operates independently in these matters. It carried out four phases of consultation during the process and commissioned three independent reviews. Compared to the draft proposals earlier this year, the Reserve Bank is giving banks seven years instead of five to meet the new capital requirements and greater flexibility on the specific financial instruments that they can use, with a more cost-effective mix of funding options. I am pleased that the comprehensive consultation process has seen interested parties listen constructively to each other as they work through the process. The bottom line here is ensuring that consumers know their money is safe and the banking system is effective.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What analysis has he seen on how the new proposals will affect bank lending?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealand’s banking system is one of the most profitable in the world. Over the past 10 years, the four large Australian-owned banks generated $39 billion in profit after tax and distributed $22 billion of that to their parent companies. I am advised that the Reserve Bank thinks the seven-year transition period will allow banks to meet the new requirements through retained earnings and that the Reserve Bank sees no need for them to reduce lending growth. While I am advised that some banks will be affected more than others, as a whole, banks will be able to meet the new requirements and still maintain some dividends to their shareholders. At the end of the seven-year transition under this scenario, the Reserve Bank estimates lending would be no more than 1 percent lower than if the changes announced today were not made.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: Why is it important for the economy to have a strong and stable banking system?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: A strong and stable banking system is essential for the confidence of New Zealand consumers. This process is about protecting the money New Zealanders have in the bank. New Zealanders said during the consultation process that they wanted a safer and more secure banking system, and at the end of the day it is about protecting their money. I am confident that the proposals today will mean our banking system will be able to withstand a one-in-200-year event like a serious global financial crisis. It’s also worth noting that the proposals allow for more competition between banks. A more secure and competitive banking system ultimately supports a stronger economy over the long run. By reducing risk, there will be more confidence in the economy. I know that this process has been a difficult one, but now is the time for everyone who believes in the importance of New Zealand having a safe and secure banking system to work together to make sure the changes are implemented practically and fairly.

Question No. 5—Regional Economic Development

5. to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: How many times did he receive documents relating to N.Z. Future Forest Products Ltd before he declared a conflict of interest with the Cabinet Office on 14 October, and does he stand by his statement, “I became aware of this formal application on 14 October”?

I stand by the statement “I became aware of this formal application on 14 October”. Since this matter came to light, my office has conducted a search of documentation received that makes any mention of the N.Z. Future Forest Products application. I’m advised between June and November, six documents in total were received by my office. Of these, I personally received three, and the project is merely referenced as the name of the company—someone and something I had never heard of.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is it correct that his chief of staff advised him of this issue while he was on a personal holiday overseas, and what exactly did he advise him?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I don’t recall, whilst being at the gun range in Thailand, and other places, receiving such advice. However, I have every confidence that the chief of staff and other relevant officials took all appropriate steps, given that I had identified in 2017 a relationship with Mr Brian Henry.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is he saying, then, that his written answer released to me on Tuesday, which says, “My office was advised of this issue by our chief of staff while I was on a personal holiday overseas.”, is wrong?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This penchant for, by way of innuendo, asking a question as though it’s a fact and now—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Resume your seat. Who interjected?

💬 Nicola Willis: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I said, “What?”

💬 SPEAKER: The member will withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise. Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: No, I’m not taking a point of order. I’m finishing this one. We’re in the middle of a point of order; the member knows that.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It didn’t sound like a point of order.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, you can—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Nick Smith, did you interject again?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I said the Deputy Prime Minister’s point did not sound like a point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: The member is now on a final warning. If he breaches Standing Orders again today, the situation will be very serious.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: You will observe by the supplementary question asked by Mr Bishop that he imputes that because this information was received when the Minister was overseas, it automatically means that the Minister was told about it, and that really cannot stand as a question line.

💬 Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: No, you’re not speaking to the point of order. I did listen to the question. It didn’t say that. The Minister will answer it.

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Please repeat the question.

💬 Chris Bishop: My question was: in light of the answer to the first supplementary, is he saying, then, that his written answer to me, released on Tuesday—and I quote, “My office was advised of this issue by our chief of staff while I was on a personal holiday overseas.”—is wrong?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I stand by the answer I’ve already given.

💬 Chris Bishop: What issue did his chief of staff advise him of while he was on holiday overseas?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I stand by what I’ve already referred to.

💬 Chris Bishop: When he said last week, “I became aware of this formal application on 14 October”, does he mean that he knew informally earlier than 14 October?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I’ve been characteristically candid and incandescently clear on this issue. I became aware of this formal application on 14 October.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why does he not just say then, if the word “formal” has no meaning, “I became aware of this application on 14 October”?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I am an expert in language, and the reality is that the role that I have and may have had in an application that was rejected, where no public money was ever allocated, is a formal role. Now, what the officials may be doing down in the boiler room, I don’t see from the bridge.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: on this matter, has he heard of a call by a member of Parliament for the Serious Fraud Office to investigate why the application did not succeed, and how ridiculous is that?

💬 SPEAKER: I understand what the member’s getting at, but I think that this Minister does not have responsibility either for the Serious Fraud Office or for Mr Bishop.

💬 Chris Bishop: How did his chief of staff come to know about the issue, such that he could advise him of it while he was on holiday?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: As prescient as I am, that’s why we employ staff, to, from time to time, ensure that Ministers who hold formal roles—a particular Minister, myself, in this case, who recused himself, so I have no idea whatsoever what powers of intelligence gathering that highly decorated individual might have employed.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The circle has been complete. In that last question, he did exactly what I said he was going to do; by innuendo, he is saying that advice to the person in that office is advice to the Minister. That’s where he started, and that’s where he’s landed up.

💬 Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: No, we’re not speaking to the point of order. I think the member, who is a very experienced member, is aware of the fact that while we attempt to have a straightforward set of Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders, we have not got to the point in this Parliament where we can rule out innuendo.

💬 Chris Bishop: When did he first learn of the existence of a company called Future Forest Products Ltd?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I had no idea of the existence of such a company. It was formally brought to my attention when I was made aware of a formal application. When there are over 2,500 applications for this highly successful fund, I tend to remain aloof from the vast majority of applications. On occasions where I am required to exercise discretion, such as this one, I recused myself appropriately.

💬 Chris Bishop: So is he seriously saying that the first time he learnt that there was a company called Future Forest Products Ltd was when he was formally notified by the officials that he was, at some point in the future, going to have to make a determination about their application to the Provincial Growth Fund?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: At the risk of suffering repetitive strain injury, I stand by the answer that I have given. I became aware of this formal application on 14 October. Now, any other suggestions about knowledge of the company, which I remain ignorant of, are never going to change, irrespective of how many porcupine quills he throws.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that what occurred here was that he recused himself from the Provincial Growth Fund Ministers’ meeting when it was addressing the application of N.Z. Future Forest Products, and that the remaining Ministers declined the application?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I can confirm that I recused myself, separated myself physically from the other three Ministers as they worked through the approvals process. I can also confirm that this mission of maliciousness is being driven by an ill-informed and quite bent out of shape journalist hoping to do damage to the party I belong to.

Question No. 6—Justice

6. to the Minister of Justice: Does he intend to further amend the Electoral Act 1993 to make it unlawful for a political party to accept a $150,000 donation from a New Zealand - registered company owned entirely by a foreign shareholder in China; if not, why not?

No, as we’re getting too close to the 2020 election to make further changes to the Electoral Act. In any event, the changes introduced by the Government through the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2)—now an Act—would mean that in such a circumstance, the party secretary would have to take reasonable steps to ensure that the donation was not made by or on behalf of an overseas person, as receiving such a donation could amount to an illegal practice.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Does he concur with the Prime Minister’s view that the $150,000 donation received by the National Party from Inner Mongolia Rider Horse Industry (NZ) Ltd was “outside the spirit of the law”, and, if so, why did he not make further amendments to improve the law through the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2)?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It’s not for me to express a legal opinion on matters arising under that Act. That is a matter for the Electoral Commission and any enforcement agencies, except that the reason we have the laws in the Electoral Act covering political donations and the rules around disclosure is exactly so that people can see who is supporting political parties—where political parties are getting their sponsorship from. But I remain satisfied and confident that the rule change passed by Parliament this week in relation to banning foreign donations and the associated measures that go with that address this particular issue and require party general secretaries to ensure that donations received are compliant with the law.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Is New Zealand at risk from foreign interference in our democracy by foreign nationals that own New Zealand - registered companies seeking to influence Government Ministers by making significant donations, and, if so, what advice does he intend to provide those holding ministerial office on how to mitigate that foreign interference risk when meeting with wealthy foreign nationals?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes, that risk is apparent, and that is a risk that was notified to the Justice Committee, both in public and in private, as they conducted the inquiry into the 2017 general election, but the reason we have the rules that we do is precisely to provide that level of transparency. But, again, I remain confident that the law changes that we passed this week will require party general secretaries to now take more action and to be more actively involved in ensuring that the donations that political parties receive comply with the law.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Is it consistent with any advice he may give his colleagues that are Ministers that if they meet with a foreign national in China and then later invite that person to meet in New Zealand, where electoral donations are discussed, and then take steps to procure an electoral donation from a company entirely owned by that foreign national, it would be unhelpful for New Zealand’s foreign interference risks?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member, in his question, lays out a number of assertions. I don’t know whether they are factual or not, except to say in circumstances like that, that is just the sort of situation that the law changes passed by Parliament this week seek to address. It is important, I think, now that we are on notice from agencies and from conduct around the world that we are at greater risk of foreign interference and undue foreign influence, that all members and all participants in our political process take appropriate steps to mitigate that risk of foreign interference and undue foreign influence.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Has he sought any advice on establishing an independent commission against corruption, which could be tasked, in part, with investigating foreign interference in our democracy where a Minister procures an election donation from a foreign national who has business interests associated with that Minister’s portfolio responsibilities?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It is true that this Government does intend to embark on a programme of work in relation to our current corruption regime, and it is the view of the Minister of Police and myself that just having the Serious Fraud Office is not enough given the potential issues around corruption. When I was in Australia last week, I took some time to visit the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption to see how they operate. The New Zealand Government work on that has been postponed because of other demands, particularly since 15 March this year, but I am keen to see at some point a more thoroughgoing regime for dealing with issues of corruption. I make no comment about allegations made in relation to political corruption.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Should the Electoral Act require a political party to return donations if it can be proved by an inquiry, either by the Electoral Commission or a law enforcement agency, that the source of funding originated offshore in China?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The regime that currently exists under our Electoral Act is that if there is an overseas donation or a foreign donation that does not comply with the requirements of that Act, then that donation must be surrendered to the Electoral Commission.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister—to better understand the subject that he is dealing with, and the law that he seeks to cast—will he avail himself of asking Jami-Lee Ross MP what more he knows about the certain activities of a certain political party that’s deafeningly silent today?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The way question time operates is that it’s Ministers of the Crown who are subject to the questioning, but the member who just asked the question could refer to Mr Ross’ speech in Parliament the other night.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Good try, old man.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Supplementary—

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: But it’s appropriate for him.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member is interfering with her own member’s question when she is meant to be silent. The other point that I would make is that, going right back to my grandmother, it was suggested that pointing it out in that way was rude.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Hear, hear! Behave!

💬 SPEAKER: Mr Jones, not again today.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister explain, given its commitment to openness and transparency, why Labour members blocked the ex-president of New Zealand First—its president and treasurer—from being able to appear—

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

Question No. 7—Defence

7. to the Minister of Defence: What recent announcements has he made regarding infrastructure at Ohakea air base?

On Friday, I turned the first sod of earth, commencing the first phase of the infrastructure work at Ōhākea—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Biggest day’s work ever as a Minister.

💬 Hon RON MARK: —for the new P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft fleet, Mr Brownlee. Phase one will prepare Ōhākea for the arrival of the P-8s—work which will include earthworks, site preparation, roads, utilities, and runway aprons and will be delivered by the defence industry member Fulton Hogan, at a cost of $64.5 million. This announcement reinforces this coalition Government’s commitment to its men and women of the Defence Force through providing them with the necessary tools and infrastructure to maintain New Zealand’s security, respond quickly to events, and to, ultimately, save lives.

💬 Darroch Ball: What are the next steps in the P-8 infrastructure project?

💬 Hon RON MARK: Phase two will focus on building and construction, with work expected to start in the second quarter of 2020. This will deliver crew maintenance simulator buildings, an operations centre, hangars, warehousing, and maintenance facilities to ensure the P-8s are fully supported in the performance of their very valuable role. All infrastructure work is expected to be completed by early 2022, at a cost of over $200 million, in time for the arrival of the first aircraft in 2023.

💬 Darroch Ball: What benefits will this project deliver for the Manawatū region?

💬 Hon RON MARK: There’s so much I could—

💬 SPEAKER: Briefly. Pick one or two.

💬 Hon RON MARK: At peak, this project is going to deliver 300 jobs, employing people in the local region. It will bring about 450 to 500 people into the surrounding region. Every dollar that Defence invests in the region is expected to deliver a twofold boost in GDP, meaning that the investment in the infrastructure alone will add an estimated $400 million to the region’s GDP. These major boosts in the economy will assist the surrounding regions, once again reinforcing this Government’s commitment to the regions. I have to say—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! That’s enough.

💬 Hon RON MARK: Oh—

💬 SPEAKER: No, you don’t have to say it all.

Question No. 8—Police

8. to the Minister of Police: Does he have confidence in New Zealand Police’s ability to keep personal and confidential information of firearm owners secure?

💬 SPEAKER: As I call the Hon Stuart Nash, I will indicate that the Minister has indicated to me this will be a slightly longer than normally acceptable answer.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have confidence in the Commissioner of Police to ensure police follow the highest standards for information security. An external IT provider has taken full responsibility for the unauthorised change to software regarding the system used to give effect to the gun buy-back scheme. The company, SAP, has unreservedly apologised for its error. I can confirm to the House that police advise that the audit log confirms only one firearms dealer who had legitimate access to the system viewed information about others. He says he did nothing with this information. He viewed the details of 34 gun owners. Police have made contact with 32 of them, and the remaining two are being visited today to follow up on earlier messages. These people have told police that they are generally very appreciative of the contact and are understanding of the circumstances surrounding the breach.

💬 Brett Hudson: Is the Minister aware that that person in question accessed the system using their personal firearms licence information, not their dealer licence information?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: What I can confirm is that SAP has unreservedly apologised for the unauthorised changes that they made to the system, and they have taken full responsibility for this.

💬 Brett Hudson: Would he be concerned if letters were sent to firearms owners from the New Zealand Police clearly showing occupation and firearms licence number on the unopened envelope?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: I am aware that letters have been sent in envelopes that contain windows. I’m also aware that there have been no complaints—well, I’m led to understand—from the people who were sent the letters, and I also understand it would actually be incredibly difficult to identify the information contained within those envelopes.

💬 Brett Hudson: Does he agree that revealing the occupation of an armourer and their address could indicate to anyone who saw that information that there are likely multiple firearms at that address?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: I’m unaware of that, but if anyone wants to know who the armourers are around this country, I’m assuming it’s pretty easy to find out.

💬 Brett Hudson: Does he agree with the Cabinet Manual, which states at paragraph 3.27: “Ministers are accountable to the House for ensuring that the departments for which they are responsible carry out their functions properly and efficiently. On occasion, a Minister may be required to account for the actions of a department when errors are made”—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Stop the question! This is not an area of responsibility for this Minister.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you just ruled that a Cabinet Minister is not responsible for understanding what’s in the Cabinet Manual?

💬 SPEAKER: No, that wasn’t the question.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, it was, in actual fact.

💬 SPEAKER: That was not what the question was, Mr Brownlee.

💬 Brett Hudson: Will he apologise to the individuals who had confidential information about themselves accessed under his watch?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: As I said on Tuesday, SAP have admitted responsibility for this. What I will apologise for is if any of these people have suffered any form of emotional harm or trauma. But as mentioned, the New Zealand Police has been in touch with every single one of these gun owners except two who they have tried multiple times, and they are visiting these two people today.

Question No. 9—Immigration

9. to the Minister of Immigration: Does he have confidence in Immigration New Zealand’s ability to process visas in a timeframe that prevents people from being in New Zealand unlawfully?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Timely visa processing is important to me. Officials are working hard to address the issues that we inherited from the previous Government. Immigration New Zealand (INZ) is making good progress in reducing processing times across key categories. I’m confident that the extra 177 staff that Immigration New Zealand has employed will continue to improve processing times. For those on expiring interim visas, INZ has issued new visas for nearly everyone affected; the remainder will be issued in the next 24 hours. INZ have also instituted a new process to ensure that new visas are issued to anyone approaching the limits of their interim visa.

💬 Stuart Smith: Why were 108 people given an option by his officials to remain in New Zealand unlawfully once their interim visas expired due to their visa applications not being processed on time?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That was the wrong thing to do. Immigration New Zealand has apologised, and that process has been changed.

💬 Stuart Smith: Did his officials advise these 108 applicants their unlawful status will almost certainly affect their ability to get visas to enter other countries?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The people who were affected by this are getting new visas issued. They will no longer be unlawful, and that will no longer be a problem for them.

💬 Stuart Smith: Why were his officials, whose job it is to enforce immigration law, advising people they could break immigration law?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: As I said, that was the wrong thing to do. Immigration New Zealand has apologised, and the situation has been sorted.

💬 Stuart Smith: Will he apologise for overseeing a situation that allowed the reputations of at least 108 people to be compromised due to becoming unlawful persons who will now face difficulty when they apply for visas to other countries?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Immigration New Zealand has apologised, and that’s the right thing to do.

Question No. 10—Education

10. to the Minister of Education: What reports has he seen on the Government’s investment for 2,050 State schools so that they can upgrade their classrooms and other property over the next 24 months?

More good news: I’ve seen more reports on the Government’s significant $400 million investment in school property that was announced on Sunday. Bathgate Park School principal Katrina Robertson was delighted with the funding boost and believed it would help the school’s financial position. The Otago Daily Times, in their editorial, stated that “Government acknowledged the need to play catch-up after years of underspending.” and “The prospect of [the] new work is doubly pleasing as businesses prepare for some significant building projects over the next decade.” The Canterbury Primary Principals’ Association president, Shane Buckner, said Saturday’s extra funding was “ ‘a bit of icing on the top’ and could go towards upgrades that fell outside of the scope of the [Christchurch schools] rebuild programme.”

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, here we go.

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: What does the school property funding announcement on Sunday—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! No, sit down, please. Who was that? Who interjected then?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I spoke. I didn’t mean it as an interjection. It was just my surprise that the tactic used yesterday was once again being deployed by the Government.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, and the member knows—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: —that calling out something in reference to something that is occurring over on this side, loud enough to hear it, is an interjection.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: And, as you know, I’ve got a loud voice.

💬 SPEAKER: The member will apologise.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I certainly apologise. I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: The fact that he’s got a loud voice is not news to anyone.

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: What does the school property funding announced on Sunday by the Prime Minister mean for special schools?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There’s some very good news for the 37 special schools across New Zealand, who’ll be $200,000 each in acknowledgment of their additional property requirements. That’s almost $7.5 million over the next two years to allow special schools to upgrade and modernise their facilities.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What does the school property funding announced on Sunday by the Prime Minister mean for schools in Invercargill?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Some very good news for the 39 schools in Invercargill, that will receive a total of almost $6 million to upgrade their property. For example, Waihopai School were getting $243,000, Otatara School will be receiving $196,000, and Southland Boys’ High School and Southland Girls’ High School will both be receiving $400,000 each.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What does the school property funding announced on Sunday by the Prime Minister mean for schools in the most awesome Hutt South?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are 26 schools in Hutt South that will receive a total of around a $5.5 million increase to their property budgets to bring forward their projects, including Eastern Hutt School, who will receive $400,000; my old school Waterloo School will receive $371,000; Arakura School, who will receive $113,000; and Muritai School, who’ll receive $282,000.

💬 Greg O’Connor: What does the school property funding announced on Sunday by the Prime Minister mean for schools in Ōhāriu?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There’s very good news for the schools in Ōhāriu. Twenty-three schools in Ōhāriu will receive nearly $6 million to upgrade their properties. Newlands Intermediate will receive $348,000; Tawa School, $259,000; and Onslow College, who I visited this morning with the member, will be receiving $400,000. But there’s better news for Onslow College, because, as we announced this morning, they’re also receiving $25 million to upgrade their facilities.

💬 Jo Luxton: What does the school property funding announced on Sunday by the Prime Minister mean for the schools in Rangitata?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: More good news: 31 schools in Rangitata will receive nearly $6 million in their property budgets, including Temuka Primary School, who will get $172,000; Methven school, who will get $191,000; and Ashburton Intermediate, who’ll receive $280,000.

Question No. 11—Local Government

11. to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by all her statements and policies?

on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: Yes.

💬 Hon Jacqui Dean: What advice has she received on the cost-benefit analysis for the wellbeing framework?

I haven’t got that information before me. If the first question had been more specific, I would be able to answer that question. I suggest she puts that question down in writing, and the Minister will answer it.

💬 Hon Jacqui Dean: Thank you. What are the mechanisms proposed for “central government to engage with local wellbeing priorities”, and does this amount to a central government takeover?

In response to the second part of the question, no.

💬 Hon Jacqui Dean: If, when she said in answer to oral question No. 10 on 23 October, quoting several examples of councils working effectively with the community, including on stream enhancement and with training providers, why does she believe that a whole new wellbeing framework will need to be added on top of all that?

Again, I can’t answer that on behalf of the Minister, who is not present. I’m sure she’d be happy to answer that question either orally or pursuant to a written question.

💬 Hon Jacqui Dean: Which councils are not acting in the best interests of their ratepayers and, therefore, need to implement the wellbeing framework?

I’m aware that the prior Government narrowed the wellbeings that councils were responsible to address, and this Government thinks that was unwise.

Question No. 12—Energy and Resources

12. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by the statement in her Cabinet paper, Just Transitions: Report back and next steps, which says, regarding the people of Taranaki, “There has also been an ongoing need to manage stakeholder expectations around how much resource and funding the Government will bring to a partnership”?

on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources: Yes, because it’s a combination of central, regional, local government, private sector, iwi, and not-for-profit investment that is required. All have a role to make sure Taranaki’s long-term transition is a success, and it’s not something Government can deliver alone. The good news for Taranaki is that the transition is making good progress. Central government has invested $27 million in the New Energy Development Centre. The Provincial Growth Fund has backed hydrogen projects. Local leaders are doing excellent work with their economic development road map. OMV are investing $500 million, and we’ve also seen several hundred million dollars invested by the private sector, in renewable energy. As a consequence, rising wages—5,100 new jobs in Taranaki since we came to office show that their economic future is bright.

💬 Jonathan Young: Well, does she accept that she created that expectation she referred to in her Cabinet paper when she said, in her speech to the 2018 Petroleum Conference, “our Government will take action to support communities that currently rely on fuels that are being phased out. Our Government’s Provincial Growth Fund and Green Investment Fund will invest billions of dollars in local infrastructure and clean energy projects in areas like this.”?

Yes, I do accept that the Minister said that. Of course, that was in respect of the whole of the country. In respect of what’s happened in Taranaki in particular, the Tilt Renewables and Genesis Energy announcement of a $325 million wind farm in South Taranaki is a very substantial contribution to that very outcome.

💬 Jonathan Young: So in regard to the expectation that that statement created, did she say in a recent Cabinet paper, regarding Taranaki, “This next phase is where trade-offs have to be considered and difficult conversations about costs and responsibilities have to be held.”?

I haven’t seen that particular statement, but I am confident that the transition is under way in Taranaki. When we came to office, unemployment was 6.4 percent in Taranaki; it’s dropped to 6 percent in the last quarter. Of course, it takes more than the period we’ve been in Government to overcome the prior nine years.

💬 Jonathan Young: Considering it was 4.1 percent last year, is it integral for her to say in her letter to Taranaki businessman Mr Newton, in August this year, “Government will also invest hundreds of millions of dollars in new infrastructure and clean energy projects in regions that currently rely on fossil fuels.”, when five days later she is saying to her Cabinet colleagues that the next phase is where trade-offs have to be considered and difficult conversations had?

I think I’ve already well and truly addressed that by reference to the $325 million Genesis Energy wind farm project in South Taranaki.

💬 Jonathan Young: So when she recently said in the Taranaki Daily News, “[We are] seeing record investment in new energy sources”, why did her Government reject the Taranaki Azura wave energy project when New Zealand company CH4 Global say they are needing a wave energy device to help produce the world’s first methane-busting cattle feed supplement made from seaweed?

I’m not aware of the details of that particular application. I am aware that going back to the time of the prior Labour Government, we have tried to stimulate wave and tidal energy in New Zealand, and with significant Government subsidies. That hasn’t yet been brought to fruition. It appears, though, that the economics of wind power are very compelling and beneficial to South Taranaki, which is why Genesis Energy and Tilt Renewables have just recently announced the investment of the $325 million wind farm investment in South Taranaki that I’ve mentioned twice already.