Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of the Budget Responsibility Rules he committed to in Budget 2018?

Yes.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can he stand by his commitment to be in surplus every year until there is a significant natural event or a major economic shock or crisis when yesterday showed the Government is projected to be in deficit this year?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe the member will find that Budget 2018, the Fiscal Strategy Report, of which I have a copy here, says that we will deliver a sustainable operating surplus across an economic cycle. That is exactly what we are doing. We have had around $13 billion worth of surpluses up to this point, and we’ll have $12 billion worth of them up to the end of the forecast period.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: What is the point of having fiscal targets if you simply pick and choose when to ignore them?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I completely reject the premise of the member’s question.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why does he think it would be “ludicrously stubborn” to keep his promises?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again, I reject the latter part of that question. That comment was made yesterday in response to a question that, really, had at its basis the fact that, consistently, virtually every economic commentator in New Zealand has been calling for a boost to infrastructure spending—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: That’s right—including the member.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —yes, actually, that’s exactly right—including the member opposite, who also, I might add, I believe, said that borrowing to do that was a good idea.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Isn’t the fact that people were calling for a boost to infrastructure spending because the Government wasn’t doing any quality infrastructure spending, having cancelled or postponed most of the major projects that the previous National Government had left?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. I believe the reason that that was was because of this graph here, which represents the infrastructure deficit that the previous Government was left with.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can New Zealanders be assured about the quality of his Government’s spending when just today his Government released the Upper North Island Supply Chain Strategy report, the key financial assumptions underlining which Treasury has completely dismantled?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That report was one commissioned by the Government, undertaken by an independent group. It is now being considered by the Government. It is among a number of questions that the Government is now asking to finalise our position on that—look forward to hearing the member’s position on that matter, too.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is it not the case that Treasury points out that the working group’s preferred option of moving the port to Northport hinges on two assumptions, neither of which stack up?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ll just repeat the answer I’ve just given: that report, from an independent working group, has come back to the Government. The Government is now in the process of considering it, asking a range of questions, and we look forward to inputs from across the board on where people believe the port should go, when it should go, and that would include whether the member would like to make his mind up about that.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he satisfied with the quality of the Government’s increased spending, such as KiwiBuild and the Provincial Growth Fund?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m very satisfied that this Government is addressing the long-term challenges and issues that we inherited as a Government, and when it comes to housing, inheriting 71,000 houses less than what we should’ve had as a country, inheriting the sell-off of State houses, and inheriting increasing homelessness—we’re working very hard to address those. We’re making good progress on that, but it is a big deficit to make up for.

Question No. 2—Transport

2. to the Minister of Transport: What proportion, if any, of the “$6.8 billion for new transport projects” announced yesterday will be spent on the 12 projects that were re-evaluated following the publication of the 2018 Government Policy Statement on transport?

This package shows that the Government is serious about fixing up the neglected infrastructure that we were left with. The final details of the package have yet to be fully decided, so the member will have to wait for further announcements for information on those projects.

💬 Chris Bishop: Has the Government settled on the final package of transport projects to be funded through the package?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There’s just a few i’s to dot and t’s to cross.

💬 Chris Bishop: Can he confirm what New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) chair Sir Brian Roche said this morning at the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which is that while the transport agency has provided advice, the decisions as to what projects are funded and which ones are not is up to Ministers?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: This is not an unprecedented approach, and in general—let me make it clear—the vast majority of transport spending under any Government happens through the National Land Transport Programme, with NZTA making those decisions at arm’s length from Ministers, under the guidance of the Government policy statement. But from time to time, Governments choose to invest more in transport infrastructure, as is the case with this infrastructure package, and as was the case when the former Government announced the package of State highway improvements—exactly the same process.

💬 Chris Bishop: Will all the projects funded in the $6.8 billion package be shovel- ready?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The projects in this infrastructure package in the transport part of it are being selected on the basis of the transport value that they deliver, to move people and freight more efficiently around the country. The package will be a valuable and much welcomed economic stimulus, and it’s very important that those projects are ready to be delivered as soon as possible.

💬 Chris Bishop: Does the Minister still stand by his previous statement that the 12 re-evaluated roads are of very low economic value?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, the member is quite wrong. What I said was that the former Government’s so-called roads of national significance—that were, in fact, ghost roads—were of very low value, and that’s why our Government put them through a re-evaluation process, so that they would deliver, because this side of the House stands for value for money.

💬 Chris Bishop: Has the Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter expressed concern to him about the increased funding for State highways; if so, when?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: What reactions has he seen to his announcement of the Government’s $12 billion capital investment package?

I have seen a number of supportive reactions to the announcement yesterday that the Government will lift capital spending to the highest level in over 20 years in order to stimulate the economy and address our neglected infrastructure. The Dominion Post editorial today said, “It’s hard to argue against the assumption it is fiscally wise to borrow and stimulate the economy in this way. An international slowdown has started to have local effects,”. The editorial goes on to say, “The contrast between future spending and recent capital spending is striking.” I believe the writer of the editorial may be referring to this chart, which shows a significant lift in infrastructure spending under this Government compared, for example, with the $4 billion spent in 2010, declining to the decade’s low of $1.1 billion in 2014.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What reaction has he seen from business groups to his announcement of the Government’s $12 billion capital investment package?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Employers and Manufacturers Association said the additional infrastructure spend of $12 billion is a “welcome boost” and good news for small to medium sized enterprises, particularly in the upper North Island, which continues to grow rapidly without having had the necessary investment in connectivity and ease of movement to support that growth. Infrastructure New Zealand CEO, Paul Blair, said, “We’re delighted with today’s announcement of $12 billion in new capital investment by the Government … It is encouraging to see the Government using its recent surplus to invest in productive infrastructure to deliver environmental, social, cultural, and economic outcomes.” The Government’s package is designed to provide business with a certainty and pipeline of Government demand over the coming years, and I’m pleased to see the positivity coming forward from business groups.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What other reactions has he seen to his announcement of the Government’s $12 billion capital investment package?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve seen a number of reactions from commentators who have noted the significant need for this package. The New Zealand Herald’s Liam Dann said, “Today’s announcement paints a stark reminder of what fiscally stimulating economic times we now live in. Around the world we’re seeing a swing back to a more favourable view on Government spending as central banks chase interest rates towards zero with limited impact on inflation.” Mr Dann went on to say, “After decades of austerity, it’s hard to see anyone making much of a case against this latest round of spending.” Stuff’s Thomas Coughlan noted—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! That is enough.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Did he see the reaction from National’s finance spokesman, who said, “This Government is world class at announcing things and third rate at delivering them.”

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I did see that peep come from across the House, and I prefer to take the view of respected economic commentators such as Stuff’s Thomas Coughlan, who noted, “New Zealand has a shocking infrastructure deficit. At [this] time our population began to expand, the Government cut back on infrastructure spending. That was a decision that”—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I accept it was a patsy, but that’s enough.

Question No. 4—Health

4. to the Minister of Health: Is he concerned that any of his policies and actions could have a detrimental effect on the performance of district health boards?

on behalf of the Minister of Health: No. In fact, I’m particularly confident that after years of neglect, the $2.45 billion that we have invested in rebuilding our hospitals will have a positive effect on DHBs and patients. That number is twice as much as the previous Government invested in health capital over nine Budgets. I’m also confident that the additional $300 million investment in health infrastructure announced by the very modest Minister of Finance yesterday will also have a positive effect.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: If those investments are so great, why have DHBs plunged to $1.2 billion of combined fiscal deficits?

The member will well know that such deficits build up over time, and when there has been such gross underfunding of the health sector over such a long period of time under the previous Government, it will take some time to turn around. In terms of the answer I gave to the primary question, that was in reference particularly to capital investment, where the member needs to tread very carefully when it comes to talking about the record of his Government.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Who is correct: Director-General of Health, Ashley Bloomfield, who told the Health Committee, regarding pay settlements, “The funding that the DHBs received was explicitly designed to address their cost pressures.” or Nelson DHB CEO, Peter Bramley, who yesterday told the committee, “$3.2 million was the cost in that year for the settlement of multi-employer collective agreements that were not funded.”?

I would need to see the full quotes from both members to be able to judge any answer to that question specifically. What I can say, in general, is that this Government inherited a situation where we had a number of pay claims in front of us. They were not adequately budgeted for by the previous Government. We have budgeted significantly increased resources for them.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: In respect of those pay claims, what was the extent of industrial action taken by health unions during the period 2009 to 2017, and how does that compare with the last two years?

I think on this I would defer to the comments from the Deputy Prime Minister, who said that if a person thinks that a bus won’t come along, they won’t wait for it, but if they think that there’s a bus which has people in it who actually might care a little bit, they’ll wait for the bus. We have seen under this Government the fact that we’re prepared to address wage issues that were ignored for a decade by that Government.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: So if he believes funding and pay increases were adequately funded by this Government, is he also saying it’s the DHBs’ fault that their financial performance has dramatically deteriorated?

As I said earlier on, there are a number of reasons for why DHBs’ financial performances are what they are at the moment. A significant part of that is the long-term underfunding that went on. We also have issues related to governance, which the Minister of Health—I am the Minister of Health, aren’t I?—which we, as a Government, have been working on in terms of the appointments to DHBs, and we’re addressing those performance issues, but there are many issues that lie behind that.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: If he wants to look for someone to blame for the DHBs’ parlous state, shouldn’t he just look in the mirror and see a Minister with no plan and no clue?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! No.

Question No. 5—Justice

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

Yes, and in particular I stand by my statement this morning that this Government remains committed to effective changes that turn offenders’ lives around, reduce offending, and make our communities safer. That’s what matters most. We will make change at a pace the community understands and in a way that keeps their confidence. I hope our colleagues across the House will join us in this challenge that I know we all care about.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he stand by the action taken to commission the Safe and Effective Justice Advisory Group, which, after two years of engagement and a cost of $2.5 million, has delivered little in the way of promised justice reform?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: There are factual inaccuracies in that question but, in any event, I stand by the work of that group.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Does the Minister stand by his statement this morning that the Government “will make change at a pace the community [can understand]”, and why won’t the public know until next year what these changes will be?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I refer the member to the answer to the primary question.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: When he said that they didn’t think they could commit to the sorts of recommendations the group is likely to make regarding the resignation of members of their justice advisory group, what were the recommendations they did not agree with?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That is not a statement that I have ever made.

💬 Jamie Strange: What recent announcements, if any, has the Minister made regarding courts in Hamilton?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Today, I announced that not only will the Government be making the two alcohol and other drug treatment courts in Auckland permanent but we will also be adding a new alcohol and other drug court in Hamilton next year. I think it’s important to note that, of the offenders who go through these courts, 23 percent are less likely to offend for any offence; 35 percent are less likely to reoffend for a serious offence; and 25 percent are less likely to be imprisoned because of reoffending. I’d like to thank that member, along with the Hon Tim Macindoe, for the support they have given for that initiative.

💬 Jamie Strange: What reports, if any, has the Minister seen regarding his announcement of a new alcohol and other drug treatment court for Hamilton?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’ve seen a report from Hamilton Mayor Paula Southgate, who welcomed the Government’s announcement of the new alcohol and other drug treatment court, saying that punishing people whose offending is driven by alcohol and drug dependency without tackling the underlying issue doesn’t make sense, and there has been sustained and comprehensive public support for the court in Hamilton. The Government has heard the people of Hamilton and is taking action.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Why did it take two years for the Minister to commit to extending the previous Government’s very successful alcohol and drug treatment courts?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The previous Government had set up the pilots—in fact, had renewed the pilots of those courts repeatedly until June 2018. Following the completion of that pilot, this Government extended the courts while the pilot was reviewed. I received the report of that review early this year. We’ve now committed to the permanency of those courts.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Isn’t this just a fitting end to the year of non-delivery: that, after two years in Government, he has delivered nothing new?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member works out that he doesn’t ask me questions, doesn’t he?

Question No. 6—Justice

6. to the Minister of Justice: What reports has he seen which were released today that highlight racial discrimination in our justice system?

Today I released two reports, Te Tangi o te Manawanui: Recommendations for Reform from the Government’s Chief Victims Advisor and Turuki! Turuki! from Te Uepū Hāpai i te Ora, the Safe and Effective Justice Advisory Group. These reports noted the unacceptable rates in which Māori come into contact with the criminal justice system both as offenders and as victims of crime. As the reports note, the justice system must support fairness and equity, accountability and restoration. The Government is committed to a fresh start for our criminal justice system that meets these goals over time so that we see less offending, less reoffending, and fewer victims of crime, who are better supported.

💬 Golriz Ghahraman: Is he concerned with the finding of the report from the Safe and Effective Justice Advisory Group that Māori experience worse outcomes than other New Zealanders at every stage of the justice process?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes, I am, and, as I’ve already noted, the report showed that Māori are more likely to be affected by the criminal justice sector at all levels, both as offenders and as victims. That’s why justice sector Ministers across the Government have already put in place a number of new initiatives that will improve outcomes for Māori by ensuring that we have less offending, less reoffending, and fewer victims of crime, who are better supported.

💬 Golriz Ghahraman: What is the Government’s intention regarding the Chief Victims Advisor’s recommendation on partnering with Māori to design and deliver tikanga-based justice processes which fulfil Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Government has already begun moving on this. I point to the great work done by the Minister of Corrections in establishing the Hōkai Rangi programme in corrections, which makes more effort to deal with the problems prisoners have as part of their offending. I’d also point to the work of Te Pae Oranga iwi community panels with police, which is a community response to some offending to get offenders off a track to a bleaker future in the criminal justice system. In the justice space, we continue to support alternative courts such as Matariki, the New Beginnings Court, and the Special Circumstances Court, as well as specialist courts such as the sexual violence court.

💬 Golriz Ghahraman: Is it the intention of the Minister to recognise the need for alternative justice processes such as tikanga-based therapeutic and restorative justice processes as well to improve outcomes for victims and defendants?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes. One example of a more therapeutic approach is the alcohol and other drug treatment courts, and, as I’ve already indicated, I was very pleased to announce that the Government will be making the existing pilot courts permanent as well as adding a new alcohol and other drug court in Hamilton. Again, I acknowledge the support of members Jamie Strange and Tim Macindoe for that initiative.

💬 Golriz Ghahraman: How will the extension of the specialised drug and alcohol courts reflect our Government’s focus on rehabilitation and treating the causes of offending?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What we’ve seen from the existing alcohol and other drug court pilots is that offenders who go through these courts are much less likely to reoffend—significantly less like to reoffend—because they get the treatment and support they need that addresses the causes of their offending. It’s a great result for communities that those individuals come from. It means that we can do the harm reduction and the help that they need while they are in the community. That’s why they are so positive.

Question No. 7—Finance

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: A point of order, David Bennett.

💬 DAVID SEYMOUR: Seymour.

💬 SPEAKER: Right. There are too many Davids in this place—fewer than there used to be—

💬 DAVID SEYMOUR: I agree.

💬 SPEAKER: —and that’s good.

💬 DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Speaker, I note that this year you’ve punished the Government by giving a hundred or more additional supplementary questions to the National Party. Well, here in ACT we’re also hurt by the Government’s bad behaviour, and in the interests of proportionality I wonder if you’d consider giving a couple of extra supplementaries to ACT.

💬 SPEAKER: You can discuss that with the National Party whips. David Seymour.

💬 DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, actually, I’m asking on behalf of a different party.

💬 SPEAKER: I will consider giving you an extra supplementary in the new year sometime.

💬 DAVID SEYMOUR: The new year! All right—Jesus.

💬 SPEAKER: Consider it a Christmas present, on a promise.

💬 DAVID SEYMOUR: A rather late Christmas present, I have to say, but we’ve never needed that many anyhow.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the member’s about to lose one if he doesn’t get on with it.

💬 DAVID SEYMOUR: Ha, ha! It’s a hard row to hoe.

7. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the OECD that New Zealand is the most highly taxed country in the Asia-Pacific region when measured according to the tax-to-GDP ratio?

No.

💬 David Seymour: Why does the Minister of Finance disagree with figures produced by the OECD which show that New Zealanders, as a percentage of GDP, pay more tax than Japan, Korea—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Right. Well, the member didn’t stop when I called him to order, so he won’t have his second supplementary. Answer that one.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because I don’t agree with the premise in the member’s question about the definition of highly taxed, and nor do I agree with the selective geographical definition that the OECD used.

💬 David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It won’t make any difference, but the way you just treated me is grossly unfair, and the fact that I can’t even give examples to make a question intelligible is completely ridiculous.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I note the member’s comment. I think he’s probably asking me for an early trip home to Auckland that’s not going to be granted.

Question No. 8—Corrections

8. to the Minister of Corrections: Does he support the recommendations of the Turuki! Turuki! report?

I support some of the recommendations and am already addressing others. One of the recommendations I support is the call for a cross-party parliamentary accord for transformative justice, where the report suggests it is time to take politics out of the issue and put an end to bickering. I guess the member’s line of questioning will make it clear whether or not he supports this recommendation as well.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Does he support recommendation No. 11 to establish community-based habilitation centres for some prisoners?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I support anything that’s going to reduce reoffending, to improve rehabilitation, and I look forward to the member also supporting anything that supports rehabilitation and reduces reoffending.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Does he agree that the work of decolonisation must begin in our justice system, and if so, what specifically needs to be decolonised?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: It’s quite disheartening to hear the National Party denying the effects of colonisation on outcomes in New Zealand. You just need to a look at the fact that over 50 percent of the prison population is Māori. There’s a substantive population that are Pacific Islanders in prisons. It’s evidence that things have gone wrong, and colonisation is part of the issue.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Does he agree with the report that there is institutional racial discrimination in the justice system?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, if we look at the fact that there are so many Māori who are in the prison system, if there are so many Pacific Islanders—and, in fact, I think it was Chester Borrows today who highlighted this, the Hon Chester Borrows, the former National Minister, who raised and emphasised this very point that we’re making: that there are too many people of colour in our justice system.

💬 Ginny Andersen: What other recommendations has the Minister seen on transforming the justice sector?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I’m aware of one recommendation which provokes gangs to commit more crimes and drives them further—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! That’s enough. The member should know that they don’t use patsies to attack the Opposition.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Does he agree with the report that Māori communities should be able to determine their own responses to hara—transgressions—among their people?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Sometimes, but what we’re doing in Corrections along our Māori Pathways programme is exactly that: we’re asking Māori to determine what we need to do better so that they can support their people not to reoffend, not to go back to prison—how we can help them to transition from prison into communities safely and be contributing members of society upon their release.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Will the Minister support power-sharing of the justice system with Māori communities to create a Māori justice system?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: If we look at article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, where that talks about tino rangatiratanga, tino rangatiratanga means that Māori should have the opportunity to have a say in what they want for their people. We as the Government, under article 1 of Te Tiriti, around kāwanatanga—means that we need to be enablers of Māori aspiration. If we work together—article 1 and article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi—we should be able to achieve article 3 outcomes, which is equal outcomes for all New Zealanders.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a simple question. A yes or no would suffice.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! How long has the member been here?

💬 Hon Members: Too long.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Five minutes.

💬 SPEAKER: No. That’s enough. I’m on my feet. There are two members who are going to withdraw and apologise. One said, “Too long.”—

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Darroch Ball: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: And there was one more I heard as well.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: It was me. I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: And another.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I said, “Five minutes.”, and I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: The member will withdraw and apologise.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: But the point that I will make is that David Bennett knows well—he knows well. He’s not a new member, and he’s not a member that does not understand the rules of the place. That was a deliberate breach and therefore was designed to create disorder. I’m going to let it go again, because it’s close to Christmas, but he’s facing some risks.

Question No. 9—Ethnic Communities

9. to the Minister for Ethnic Communities: What recent announcements has she made about community initiatives in ethnic communities?

on behalf of the Minister for Ethnic Communities: This Government is backing our ethnically diverse and multi-faith communities to plan and deliver more community initiatives and to ensure New Zealand is welcoming and inclusive for everyone. Last week, Minister Salesa announced an increase for the Ethnic Communities Development Fund, from $520,000 to $4.2 million a year. This represents an eightfold increase to the fund, the most significant lift in its history. This Government is delivering for all New Zealanders, and this funding increase will help our ethnic communities to thrive through the practise and celebration of their cultures.

💬 Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What has the fund been used for in the past, and what will this expansion mean for the 800,000 New Zealanders who identify with ethnic communities?

This fund helps support much of the good work being done at the grassroots by ethnic communities. In the past, this fund has supported ethnic communities’ sport and youth initiatives, multicultural events, ethnic women’s centres, refugee and migrant services, and language initiatives. With this funding boost, more work can be done by ethnic communities to include and welcome ethnic diversity, promote understanding, educate New Zealanders about the contribution of our ethnic communities, and support the participation of our ethnic communities in employment and society more generally.

💬 Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What changes are being made to how the fund is accessed?

The changes we are making to the Ethnic Communities Development Fund are not just about this record investment; we are also providing more support for groups to apply and be recognised. Community advisers are available to walk side by side with groups that go through the application process, including support for those with English as a second language. The fund will also now operate on a rolling basis, with application decisions made throughout the year rather than just once annually.

Question No. 10—Housing (Public Housing)

10. to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): Have there been any evictions of state housing tenants for anti-social behaviour since this Government took office; if not, how does he reconcile his statement yesterday that there have been 24,386 reports of anti-social behaviour by state housing tenants in that time period?

💬 SPEAKER: The Hon Kris Faafoi, with a warning that I have been warned this is slightly longer than normal.

For Kāinga Ora, technically an eviction is where a Tenancy Tribunal has ended a tenancy and a court bailiff takes possession of the property. When Kāinga Ora have to move someone on because of antisocial behaviour, it uses a business-initiated transfer to another, more appropriate property. In terms of antisocial behaviour, I’m advised there have been 308 business-initiated transfers since the Government took office. I’m advised that there has been one eviction since the Government took office. This is in the context of 185,000 New Zealanders in State homes and 65,000 Kāinga Ora properties. As I said yesterday, I recognise it can be tough to live next to someone who is an antisocial tenant, but some tenants have complex needs and these also have to be managed. These issues have always been complex. As a predecessor of mine said, “We know that steady housing helps provide stability and security, however, some tenants face eviction from their home for anti-social behaviour or financial issues, only to end up in need for emergency housing. If we can avoid them being evicted by resolving their behaviour, this benefits the tenant, their family, and the taxpayer,”, and I agree with the former housing Minister Amy Adams.

💬 Simon O’Connor: How many business transfer protocols have there been since the Government took office?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: If the member is asking around antisocial behaviour, the number that I have is 308. I believe—and I stand to be corrected—from discussions I’ve had with officials that the wider number of business-initiated transfers may be close to something like 380.

💬 Simon O’Connor: What does the Minister say to neighbours of some State house tenants who have to put with daily abuse or said tenants barking at them?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I would ask them that they go to Kāinga Ora to make an official complaint. I would also point out that if we take each of those 308 business-initiated transferees in comparison to the 65,000 properties that Kāinga Ora has, that amounts to about less than 0.5 percent. I’m concerned that the Opposition wants to focus on 0.047 percent of those tenants and wants to stigmatise the other 99.5 percent of Kāinga Ora tenants.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Does the Minister agree with using taxpayer dollars to put neighbours of antisocial State housing tenants up in motels rather than evict or move on those troublesome neighbours, and if so, why?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I have faith that the Kāinga Ora staff at the front line can manage those situations in order to keep those tenants safe. As I have said, there have been 308 business-initiated transfers to move antisocial tenants out of Kāinga Ora properties. That is in the context of 185,000 New Zealanders living in State homes and in 65,000 properties.

💬 Simon O’Connor: In light of that response, does the Minister appreciate that his keeping the tenants safe is putting New Zealanders, as neighbours—themselves and their children—in harm’s way?

💬 SPEAKER: I’ll let the member answer even though it’s an out-of-order question. Answer the question.

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Look, as I had said yesterday, tenants are evicted when either staff, contractors, or neighbours could be seriously—their safety is put in serious harm. As I’ve said, there has only been one eviction technically, under Kāinga Ora’s terminology, and 308 business-initiated transfers for antisocial behaviour. I’m sure that people on the front line are taking into consideration the safety and the lives of the neighbours of some of these tenants who have to be managed. But at the end of the day, as former Ministers on that side of the House have said, they have to manage in the best interests of everyone, because if we kick those people or evict those people out of the properties, as the Hon Amy Adams has said, sooner or later they will end up costing the taxpayer more.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Does the Minister therefore agree with people like the Rotorua Motel Association chairwoman who says that motel emergency housing is in a “dire emergency”, and what is he currently doing to keep it under control?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: We have always been honest that we inherited a housing crisis, which is why we have invested hundreds of millions in increasing the supply of support like emergency housing special-needs grants, like building more public housing when the previous Government was tearing them down and demolishing them.

Question No. 11—Health

11. to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by all her statements and actions regarding measles?

Yes, in the context they were given.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Can she confirm her health officials declined multiple requests from Auckland DHBs for a national measles catch-up campaign going back to October 2017, despite her repeated statements urging people to be vaccinated against measles?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It’s well known that it had been recommended to run a national catch-up campaign since 2014, which the previous Government did not do. Our Government has, in the past year, administered more than twice as many vaccines as the next highest year in the last decade, and we’re actively looking to address the under-immunisation that exists in our country.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Did the refusal to support a national measles catch-up campaign two years ago contribute to the current measles outbreak?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: No.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Why did no health officials undertake any form of contact tracing, including notifying airlines, following a young female passenger with measles who flew with Air New Zealand from the Bay of Plenty in March this year, as stated in answers to written questions?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I think that question is best put down in writing, but it’s my understanding that contact tracing is not usually undertaken for people who are travelling by air.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Has she addressed that question already in answers to written questions?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It is entirely possible that I have. I have received over 400 written questions from that member in the past two months; unfortunately, I cannot retain to memory the answer to every single one of those.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Is she satisfied her management of the measles outbreak is up to standard when Official Information Act documents show that contact tracing of the young passenger with measles on Air New Zealand was undertaken by the “backpackers’ grapevine”?

💬 Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: What I can stand by is our Government’s absolute commitment to addressing the measles outbreak. There’s been an enormous effort undertaken at DHB level to contain the outbreak, and the Government is actively looking at doing everything we can to ensure this never happens again in New Zealand.

Question No. 12—Foreign Affairs

12. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What recent announcements has he made about New Zealand’s tsunami warning capability?

Yesterday, the Minister of Civil Defence and I announced the deployment of a network of DART buoys on board the RV Tangaroa at the Aotea Wharf in Wellington. Yesterday, as I said, we sent the first shipload of five offshore, and bear in mind that when we found out what had happened—we found out that the whole system had been allowed to run down to virtually nothing under the previous Government.

💬 Jamie Strange: What benefit does the DART buoy network bring?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: DART buoy stands for Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis. DART buoys are the only tried and tested technology that confirms the generation of tsunami waves before they reach the coast. So, in short, half the Pacific Islands were being exposed, and so was the top of our country as well, because of the gross neglect of that administration when they were in power—what a disgrace.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s a complete misleading of the truth. Stop being reckless with the truth.

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

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Mr Bennett is not helping you.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I didn’t ask for his help.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, that’s one wise comment the member’s made.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: That would be absolutely right. Now, the question is—[Interruption] My comment—I won’t repeat it because you obviously didn’t like it, but it was simply making a general statement; it wasn’t making an accusation. How can that be out of order?

💬 SPEAKER: The member knows that that statement has been ruled out on many, many occasions in the House—many occasions.

💬 Jamie Strange: How swiftly has the Government acted to deploy new DART buoys?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On the very day that, as acting Prime Minister, I found out, I contacted my colleague Kris Faafoi, and we set straight to it. We didn’t lose one day in ordering the equipment, which left yesterday from the Wellington harbour. That’s what we did. It was dramatic, and more importantly, we were so aghast when we discovered what had happened—we could not believe that a previous administration, whose obligation—

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —was to the security of the Pacific people and the New Zealand people—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —had done exactly nothing.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think that’s, sort of, repeat of use of supplement patsies for attacking the Opposition.

💬 Jamie Strange: Who paid for the new DART buoy network?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That’s a very good question. The rejuvenated DART buoy network service is an excellent example of the good work that official development assistance funds in the Pacific do. Of the $47.3 million, $24.3 million came from the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management, $20.4 million came from the official development assistance—

💬 Hon David Bennett: How much did the foundation give?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —as to the foundation of $100 million, the National Party can tell you all about that—and $2.6 million came from our friends in Australia. Can I just say also that it was vital that this constructive effort be recognised when we found out the crisis that we, potentially, faced.