Oral Questions

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

ASB’s latest economic weekly report released yesterday was titled End of year cheer (and hopefully no hangover). ASB economists highlighted a range of recent data that paint a very positive picture for the economy as we head into the festive season, including “Retail, exports, manufacturing, and housing data”. ASB expects this week’s third quarter GDP data to “carry on the good vibe.”, with “monetary stimulus … working”, and last week’s half-yearly update confirming that “fiscal policy will … be doing its bit too.” While there have been challenging times for the economy this year in the face of global headwinds, the fundamentals of the economy have remained strong throughout, particularly evident in lower unemployment and rising wages.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: What reports has he seen on employment in 2019?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Stats New Zealand reported unemployment in the September quarter of this year was down to 4.2 percent, from 4.3 percent at the start of the year and 4.7 percent when we came into office. In the June quarter this year, it fell as low as 3.9 percent—the lowest level in 11 years—and in the last two years, we’ve seen the three lowest levels of unemployment in a decade. The Q3 data showed 81,000 more people employed under this Government, and the number of unemployed people has dropped by 12,000 since we came into office.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: What reports has he seen on wage growth in the New Zealand economy in 2019?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Stats New Zealand’s most recent data showed that average ordinary time hourly earnings grew at 4.2 percent over the year to September, well ahead of inflation. By another measure, the Labour Cost Index, Stats New Zealand said wages were rising at their fastest rate in over a decade. 2019 has been a good year for Kiwi workers, who are finally starting to see their fair share of the benefits of economic growth. There is plenty of reason to be cheerful as we head into the festive season. Indeed, just before we came down to the House today, we’ve seen that the ANZ Business Outlook Survey has recorded its second straight monthly jump, up 13 points—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! That doesn’t relate to the supplementary question that was asked.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Why is her Government now in deficit?

The Government is not in deficit. What the Government is doing is what most smart business people out there and commentators are saying: we are putting necessary injections into long-neglected investment in this country, and it is being saluted all around the country. Dare I say it, if you want to talk about economic indicators, for anybody who knows anything about business, the NZX 50 is at its highest since its formation—up, this year, 28 percent. That’s a real confidence indicator.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that lower economic growth and wasteful spending are the primary reasons why New Zealand will shortly be back in deficit?

The Prime Minister accepts the first part of that premise, because that was the last Government’s history and story, totally, and its narrative. The second half is a Government that’s got debt under control—got it under control—in two years flat, under 20 percent, and ensured we had massive investment in hospitals, in schools, and in all sorts of necessary facilities. To be criticised by a party that did nothing but try and continue from Opposition its neo-liberal stupidity is really a bit rich.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Prime Minister confirm that forecasts from Treasury, the OECD, and the IMF indicate that New Zealand’s growth in 2019, 2020, and 2021 will be faster than Australia, the UK, Canada, Japan, and the eurozone?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! There were actually nine questions there. The Prime Minister may answer one of them.

Answering the theme behind those questions, the answer, nine times, is: yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes, and yes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is she embarrassed that, after inheriting surpluses that were forecast for at least another 15 years by Treasury, her Government has turned that into a deficit within just two and a bit years?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, when one is making as a Government wise investments, then pride is what it’s about, not embarrassment. But here’s the real point: out around New Zealand, from Kaitāia to Invercargill, are all sorts of people previously forgotten, previously what you might call blue-collar, hard-batting New Zealanders who have never had a voice until late 2017. They got one in this coalition Government. Being bitter and angry at the outcome that sees them over there, and every day barking at everything that goes past the front gate, is not what a wise Opposition should be doing.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Can she confirm that growth has decreased from 3.5 percent in 2017 to just 2.1 percent now, and that means less tax revenue and yet more spending?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, anyone who knew the first principle of Government—or finance, for that matter—would know that taxation is not down; it’s actually up. That’s why we had a surplus of $7.5 billion. For goodness’ sake, would somebody over there give that novice some lessons.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How is 3.5 percent growth to 2.1 percent growth up?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, all over the world, and as forecast by one of her leading Ministers, there has been a correction internationally. But here’s the point: whether it’s Japan, the European Union, or the UK, or Australia, this country is doing better than them all. That means we’ve got sound, responsible management. All over, New Zealanders, those people that are watching this programme, are so glad that that member asked that question, because it points out just what little he knows about the economy.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that by running a deficit, she breaks the promise she made to stay in surplus unless New Zealand is in a crisis?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, the first thing the Prime Minister and her Minister of Finance demonstrated over two years was we got the level of debt down way below what we inherited, and we got it down in lightning time. But having done that and looked at all the neglect, whether it was railways, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, or, for example, right now operating out of White Island, our Defence Force—all those utilities were utterly neglected, and we had to deal to them—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Not true.

—and provide them with the funding—it is true. Could I just say, for example, we inherited a $20 billion forecast with respect to Defence, and not one dollar assigned to it. All of a sudden, the Australians and the Americans are saying, “On these matters, New Zealand is stepping up, and thank heavens for that.”

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she then believe we are in a crisis justifying the running of a deficit?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, how you can go—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Well, that’s what she said.

Well, actually, she didn’t say that at all. The Prime Minister’s not renowned for saying stupid things; that member is. Can I just say, she said no such thing. What she said is changing circumstances require us to have a fresh look at where we could make the best investment now in terms of our economic and social futures. That’s why right now, and rising, 60 percent of the people in this country support this coalition Government. Guess what percentage that leaves for them?

💬 Hon James Shaw: Is it true that some New Zealanders borrow money to invest in buying a home and that some businesses also borrow money to invest in growth in the future, and that those debts are frequently more than 20 percent of their turnover?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member knows that that’s too long. Again, it’s nearly Christmas, so I’ll let the acting Prime Minister have a go.

The reality is that’s a question from somebody who knows something about business. He’s put it precisely. It is safe and it’s secure, and it’s well within trustee security bounds. But, no, no—someone over here, who’s never run their school tuck shop, gets up here, as the party of business, demonstrating every day the old English adage: the malady of the ignorant is to be ignorant without knowing it.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister stand by the Government’s action of attempting to buy back firearms prohibited by Parliament in April?

There is a forward programme out there at the moment for discussion with everybody in New Zealand, including those who own firearms. When that discussion paper has concluded and the policy is finally resolved, we’ll have an answer to that. In the meantime, to rush to the national rifle authority’s defence, so to speak, when the member’s never even held a BB gun, is a bit rich.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! A reminder: Prime Minister’s voice. I don’t think so in that case.

💬 David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question clearly related to the Government’s policy of buying back firearms prohibited by the arms amendment Act in April. I didn’t hear the Prime Minister remotely address that. He referred to, I think, actually, the second tranche of legislation, which is completely different. Can he please address the question.

💬 SPEAKER: No, I think it was addressed early on.

💬 David Seymour: What percentage of firearms prohibited in April does he believe will be bought back by the Government as part of its buy-back policy ending on Friday, 20 December?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, some of this Cabinet’s Ministers are renowned for their ability to forecast the future, but in this case no one knows, and we won’t know until that time comes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept, contrary to the buying a house on mortgage example of the Hon James Shaw, that the majority of the increased debt her Government in chalking up over the next five years won’t be for infrastructure, given her Government’s borrowing $35 billion and the infrastructure package is only $12 billion?

💬 SPEAKER: I think we’re getting worse every question.

I couldn’t agree more, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: No, no, no—I mean technically, not quality, and I don’t need comments on my rulings which I probably shouldn’t have made anyway.

Well, I apologise for that. But can I just give one example. When we became the Government, there was sewage coming out of the walls in Middlemore Hospital. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

Now, it’s Christmas time, and I can’t say they’re talking “something”, but the reality is those examples of neglect were legend in this country and had to be addressed, so there is balance, both with respect to consumption and to productivity and wealth growth and exports, in this latest round of investments.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: In light of that last supplementary question, can the Prime Minister confirm that net core Crown debt across the forecast period is lower as a percentage term in every year than it was in what the Government inherited?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, anyone that knows about business would know that.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Of the borrowing of $35 billion over the next five years, is only $12 billion of that for infrastructure?

Well, actually, on behalf of the Prime Minister, now you’ve even got me flummoxed.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Of the $35 billion additional borrowing over the next five years, is only $12 billion of that going in infrastructure?

On behalf of the Prime Minister and, dare I say it, my colleagues over here, we’ve got no idea what the member’s talking about.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Budget Policy Statement released last week shows that $50 billion worth of capital spending will happen over the next five years?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, most definitely.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Why is she breaking her promise to keep borrowing at under 20 percent of GDP by 2022?

The Prime Minister made it very clear through her Minister of Finance why there was a need to take the steps that we are taking. It was very definitively laid out. Nearly every business commentator and business expert, including all the banks, have recognised the wisdom of this policy, which probably explains why he can’t get it.

Question No. 3—Defence

3. to the Minister of Defence: What actions did the New Zealand Defence Force take in response to the eruption on Whakaari / White Island?

The New Zealand Defence Force swiftly leaned forward in response to the eruption, prepositioning assets and personnel so that they were ready for when requests might come through from the relevant authorities leading the operation. The response included capabilities from all three services—on the ground, in the air, and on the sea—and was ably commanded at the scene by personnel from the HQ Deployable Joint Interagency Task Force and from HQ Joint Forces New Zealand back in Trentham. I wish to commend all those defence force personnel involved for their bravery and their professionalism. This operation had real risks and required great care. I personally feel very privileged and proud to be their Minister and would hope that all of New Zealand would share in this pride and note that their defence force, whose actions reinforce their central role in providing support to the community and the nation in times of disaster and crisis, as always was very, very professional.

💬 Darroch Ball: What role has E Squadron 1 NZSAS regiment played in the response?

💬 Hon RON MARK: While the role played by the eight-person unit that went on to the island on Friday has been well documented, it is worth repeating to highlight the real bravery and determination that was on display. Special force operators from E Squadron 1 NZSAS, specialists in responding in hazardous situations, deployed to the island on Friday morning in highly dangerous conditions. With the risk of another eruption ever present, the team waded through knee-deep acidic sludge with intense heat building underneath the three layers of specialist garments and equipment. Special Operations Component Commander Colonel Rian McKinstry has described the team as having gone past the limits of endurance in this effort. They retrieved the six bodies from locations previously identified by air surveillance assets and continued to search for the remaining two who were missing for as long as they could. They completed the task ahead of them, and I hope that, through these efforts, it brought some peace to the families of those deceased.

💬 Darroch Ball: What role has the Royal New Zealand Air Force played in the response?

💬 Hon RON MARK: The Royal New Zealand Air Force’s performance, as always, was exemplary. Their air surveillance, which is so important when requiring good intelligence and situational awareness in disasters such as this, has been provided by the P3K2 Orion maritime patrol aircraft. The NH90 helicopter rotary wing support has been provided throughout, including for casualty transfers. Further air transport tasks in support of the operation have been conducted by C130 Hercules, King Air aircraft, and by the A109 helicopters.

💬 Darroch Ball: What role has the Royal New Zealand Navy played in this response?

💬 Hon RON MARK: Once again, the Navy was to the fore as well. HMNZS Wellington has been a constant presence throughout the response as a staging point for the operation, providing maritime security and maintaining an exclusion zone, and through hosting yesterday the bereaved family members for the minute’s silence at 2.11 p.m. The rigid hull inflatable boats operating off Wellington have played a crucial role in transporting personnel to and from the island and in deploying dive teams in searches off of the island, and on top of that, the Navy’s SH-2G Seasprite helicopters have carried out vital air surveillance and rotary wing transport support throughout the entire operation.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Is the Government delivering on all its commitments to New Zealand in relation to the economy?

We are delivering on our commitments, with economic growth forecasts in every year to be higher under this Government than it averaged under National. Also under this Government, unemployment hit an 11-year low and wage growth is at its highest in a decade. We’re making a $12 billion investment into New Zealand’s infrastructure on top of what has already been invested, taking our capital investment to the highest level in 20 years. This Government is committed to building a strong economy, and we’re getting on with the job.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: If he’s delivering on all its commitments, why is New Zealand back in deficit?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has been discussed when the half-yearly update was released, we have had two years of very solid surpluses. We will have further years of surpluses across the forecast, amounting to about $12 billion. There are a number of factors in this year’s accounts, including revaluation of ACC, that have affected the operating balance before gains and losses, but across the period of time of Government, we are running strong surpluses across the economic cycle, as we have committed to do. I do note that the former Government didn’t run any surpluses at all in their first two terms of Government.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he telling the House that we are at a point in the economic cycle where we should be running a deficit at the moment?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, if the member had been paying attention to the international news reports in recent times, he would have seen that there has been a significant slow-down in global growth. The good news for the New Zealand economy is that we are continuing to grow at a faster rate than Australia, than the UK, than Canada, than Japan, than the eurozone, which is a sign that our economy is strong, but, yes, there are some global headwinds, and the point in the economic cycle where we’re at now is a challenging one, but New Zealand’s getting through it.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Were New Zealanders right to expect his Government would “be in surplus every year unless there’s a significant natural event or a major economic shock or crisis”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I invite the member to look at the wording in the Budget Policy Statement and in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update which commits the Government to a surplus across the economic cycle. On this side of the House, a surplus is what happens when we meet all of the commitments the Government has. A surplus is not manufactured by pretending that they funded health and education properly or being fast and loose with the numbers. This Government has had two surpluses, and we will have surpluses in the future, as forecast in the half-yearly update.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, will he give a categorical assurance that next year’s Budget will not forecast a second deficit next year?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Next year’s Budget will be done next year, and I am very optimistic that Treasury’s forecasts, as they have been in the past, will continue to be accurate.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister of Finance as to whether his Government, this Government, intends to replicate the ratio of borrowing of the previous Government, which was to inherit a total debt of $10 billion and take it to $82 billion?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As noted in the earlier question, this Government inherited a net debt to GDP ratio of around about 22.7 percent. There is no year in the forecast where it gets back to that level.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think there is a single New Zealander who has forgotten about the global financial crisis and the Christchurch earthquakes? [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m interested by the member’s realisation that global economic factors have an impact on New Zealand. So, for the remaining time that he is questioning me and decides that economic headwinds don’t matter, I shall recall that very insightful question.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Isn’t the most relevant current economic indicator the fact that New Zealand has the highest terms of trade in recent modern history and we’re still growing very slowly and running a deficit?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We can all pick our most relevant economic indicator, but the one I want to leave with the member is this: we, as a country, are growing faster than the UK, Australia, Canada, Japan, and the eurozone. No country with which we trade or compare ourselves is growing how they were two or three years ago. We are ahead of the pack and we’re doing well as a country.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: With respect to the terms of trade, is it not a fact that they’re affected by the fact that our dollar is not US82c but really between 64 and 66, and that’s been magnificent for an export-dependent economy and for provincial New Zealand in particular?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Indeed, exporters are doing well in New Zealand, and that’s something that we can be proud of, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that that money goes on something other than paying down debt. It may not go back into the economy, but what we can be is extremely proud of the performance of our exporters, alongside a stable exchange rate.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Which of the countries he listed in the answer to my previous question are we growing faster than, on a per-person basis?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On a per-person basis, I don’t have the information the member asked for, but what I can tell the member is this: when we came into Government we ranked 34th in the OECD on GDP per capita, and we’ve improved that. We’re up to 32nd and we will keep moving forward. On another measure that the OECD has in terms of per capita on real expenditure, when we came into office we were at 30th and we’re now 18th, so we’re making good progress.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: What happened to this commitment from the Speech from the Throne: “Through its KiwiBuild programme, this Government pledges to build 100,000 high quality affordable homes over the next 10 years, half of them in Auckland.”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House, we are extremely proud of the fact that we have built over 3,500 new State houses. We’ve seen the highest rate of building from a Government since the 1970s. We’re getting on top of homelessness and we’ve made sure that more people can buy their first home, with first-home buyers lifting as a percentage from 20 percent to 24 percent. We inherited a housing crisis denied by that Government over there, and we’re getting on with fixing it.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: How does this Government’s current and forecast net capital spending on key infrastructure compare to the previous Government’s over their nine years?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It compares extremely well, and I believe I might have a chart somewhere. If I don’t, I’m sure there’s someone who can help me with it. [Several members hold up chart]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Ginny Andersen will stand, withdraw, and apologise for being the last to put it down. I want to say that all members in the House know that that sort of performance breaches the Standing Orders. So the member will withdraw and apologise and there will be an additional set of supplementary questions going to the Opposition.

💬 Ginny Andersen: I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he surprised that National could deliver so much infrastructure with its investment while Labour has delivered so little with its?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The infrastructure investment that’s come in from this Government, which will be $50 billion of capital spending over the next five years, represents the kind of commitment that you would expect the Government to have. To have a year in which only $1 billion went into capital spending is the very reason why we have an infrastructure deficit.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think it takes great skill on his part to announce the intention to spend other people’s money?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The job of Government is to spend on behalf of taxpayers wisely, and on this side of the House we’ll do that. So we got on with fixing the infrastructure deficit left to us—[Interruption]—in hospitals, in schools, in rail, and, yes, in roads as well, Mr Bridges, because that is our job.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: If the Government’s delivering on its commitment to improve access to tertiary education, why do figures out today show a rise in the proportion of students from wealthy areas going to university and a decline in the number from poorer areas?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That’s not what the figures show.

Question No. 5—Housing

What progress is the Government making on tackling the housing crisis?

Two years in and we’re making substantial progress tackling the housing crisis. After years of the public housing stock—

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How was that question verified?

I don’t have the authentication right in front of me, but I think if one had been listening to earlier questions, one would have heard a number of figures which made the “if any”, which normally occurs in these, superfluous. Paul Eagle, ask the question again, please.

5. to the Minister of Housing: What progress is the Government making on tackling the housing crisis?

Two years in and we’re making substantial progress tackling the housing crisis. After years of the—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The only person who can speak for the remainder of this question is the Minister, and any person asking a supplementary question. There will otherwise be silence. Start again, please, Dr Woods.

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Two years in and we’re making substantial progress tackling the housing crisis. After years of the public housing stock declining, we’re now building more houses than any Government since the 1970s. This means that, right now, there are 3,485 houses under construction across the Government build programme. We’re not just building more houses; we’re also focused on addressing homelessness, supporting first-home buyers, banning offshore speculators, developing an offsite manufacturing industry, ensuring there are enough skilled apprentices, reforming the Resource Management Act, and many other things. All of these initiatives will help, but the reality is that the housing crisis we inherited was severe and there is still much to do, and that’s why we’re committed to continuing to build on the progress we’ve made so far.

💬 Paul Eagle: What is the Government doing to address homelessness?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: For the second year in a row, this Government has made tackling homelessness a priority. It’s simply not good enough that families have been forced to sleep in cars and kids have to do their homework by torchlight. That’s why Budget 2019 invested $197 million to roll out Housing First around New Zealand. This programme aims to break the cycle of homelessness by housing people and then connecting them with health and social services. I’m pleased to report there are now more than 1,000 households engaged in that programme; that’s 1,000 families getting the support they need to ensure they reach their potential and avoid living in cars.

💬 Paul Eagle: What steps is the Government taking to help more New Zealanders into their first home?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Homeownership rates have been declining for many years, and the dream of homeownership has been slipping away for more and more New Zealanders. This Government wants to see more New Zealanders in their own homes, which is exactly why we’ve introduced a range of policies to support first-home buyers. We’ve expanded the eligibility for first-home grants and first-home loans, to expand eligibility and enable intergenerational purchases; we’ve set aside $400 million for a progressive homeownership scheme to help more people into their first home; and we’ve reset the KiwiBuild programme to ensure the settings are right because, on this side of the House, we’re committed to actually building affordable houses for first-home buyers and not just leaving it to the market. I’m pleased to report the latest October housing dashboard shows we’ve completed 239 KiwiBuild homes, 562 are under construction, and eligible buyers have purchased 303 houses in total. To us on this side of the House, that represents lives changed.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Of the 22 houses underwritten as KiwiBuild at Pegasus, how many have been sold as KiwiBuild?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I don’t have that information in the House with me, but if the member wants to put it in writing, I’ll answer it.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Isn’t it correct that only one has been sold?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I said, I don’t have that information with me, but if the member wants to put it in writing, I’ll answer it.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: How is homelessness being helped by an increase in average rentals by up to $60 a week under her Government?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We’re incredibly proud of the work that we are doing to tackle homelessness. We were not content for children to be growing up in cars. There are a range of factors that are driving rents up, but the most important of those factors is a lack of supply, and that is why we are a Government that is absolutely proud of the fact that more house are being built under this Government than there have been in decades. Homelessness is also driven by the lack of supply we have in our public housing stock. I do remind that member yet again that if when in Government they had built—

💬 SPEAKER: I’ve had enough, and, clearly, five members on the other side have had enough too, because they interjected during that answer. So that will be one supplementary down for each of those.

💬 David Seymour: Supplementary? Supplementary, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Question No. 6—the Hon Judith Collins.

Question No. 6—Environment

6. to the Minister for the Environment: Does the Government support the replacement and reform of the Resource Management Act 1991?

Yes, because it takes too long, costs too much, and hasn’t protected the environment. That’s why this Government has funded its replacement and has started this important work. Over the nine years of the previous Government, the Resource Management Act (RMA) was made longer and more complex, and we’re fixing it.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: With the working group investigating the RMA due to report back in mid-2020, will he commit to introducing legislation to address the underperformance during this term of Parliament?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: We’ve already got a bill in the House that starts on that journey. I don’t think that the full legislative process in respect of the second bill is likely to be completed before the election.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does he mean, then, that he will not commit to introducing any legislation recommended by the working group during this term of Parliament?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I don’t, but I’d also note that I’ve read the member’s discussion document, and given our political history, no one would expect me to see her discussion document as a gift my true love gave to me—using the words of the “Twelve Days of Christmas”—but I do welcome that National has finally fronted up with something on the RMA after nine long years.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Why did the Minister say to the Environmental Defence Society earlier this year in relation to RMA reform, “The Ministry for the Environment actually wanted to charge into this straight after the last election but I stopped them from doing so.”?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Because it’s true—because it would have been premature to start at that time. Further, I have read the National Party discussion document—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I know this is not a patsy from one’s own side, but the member, I think, is going to have trouble linking that.

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, I—

💬 SPEAKER: No, I’ve ruled it out. It’s not an area that the member is responsible for. I let him go on too long last time.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: If he wasn’t ready to have the Ministry for the Environment actually charge into the RMA straight after the last election, then why after thinking about it for nine long years wasn’t he ready?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The reason that we chose to focus first on creating an urban development agency was because the housing crisis was so serious. The reason we started with real efforts on reduced water quality was because water quality was degrading. The reason that we progressed the climate change response bill and the zero carbon bill was that climate changing emissions had risen over the prior years of the last Government, and, as a consequence, we thought it was wise to prioritise those intermediate steps above the holistic review of the RMA that we’ve already got under way.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Minister seen any evidence that rushed reform of the RMA would actually make it longer and more complex?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I have, and it does seem screamingly illogical to me to repeal such an important piece of legislation as the RMA, to replace it with a transitional law that hasn’t yet been designed within your first 100 days, and then propose to further replace it with something even more substantial that hasn’t been designed either.

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does he support splitting the environment and developmental planning sides into two separate Acts?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: That is one of the issues that’s being considered, but it’s Christmas. It’s traditionally a time to give presents, not receive them, and yet I note that the most recent gifts to the country in this respect seem to have taken the Environmental Defence Society’s proposals, rewrapped them, and given them away as if they’re their own. Not even the Grinch used to do that.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister on this troublesome legislation that he’s wrestling with—and, apparently, now the National Party is as well—when was it brought in; in what year and by what party?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: It was passed in 1991 and it came into effect in 1992 in this, sort of, decade—by the National Party at the time. It does seem that some of the half-baked ideas to somewhat contemptuously replace it—it’s a fitting end to the same year when the deputy leader of the Opposition gave the Deputy Prime Minister wilting flowers.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Was that the same legislation that the Deputy Prime Minister voted for when he was in Cabinet in 1991?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! No—I’m going to deal with it; the member’s not. The member who asked the question knows well that that was out of order, and she’s getting very close to being disorderly in asking it.

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the Resource Management Act review panel’s issues and options paper as a Christmas gift to the member opposite.

💬 SPEAKER: I think, if the member has things he wishes to give to the member, as opposed to the House, he should do it privately.

Question No. 7—Health

7. to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied with district health boards’ progress in achieving published performance measures for quarter 1 of the 2019/20 year?

I am satisfied that the doctors, nurses, and allied health workers at our public hospitals are working hard to deliver the quality care that the people of New Zealand expect and deserve. I’m satisfied that our public health service does an incredible job responding to emergency situations. In terms of the narrow data set that the member asks about, which does not represent the breadth of care provided by DHBs, I’m satisfied that clinicians are working hard to make progress and deliver to their patients.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is he concerned that the Smokefree 2025 target will not be achieved, when 18 of the 20 DHBs’ performance on better health for smokers have gone backwards since he became Minister?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have often said that I have concern about the narrow set of political targets put in place by the previous Government. The particular quit smoking target the member refers to is based upon referrals. So, if the member were to refer a person to me as a clinician and I were to refer them back to him as a fellow clinician, that would count as two for that set of targets. I don’t think that’s a particularly useful measure. I think there are broader measures of our health system’s success that show the work of the DHBs and their contribution to the health of New Zealanders.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why then, if, as he says, they are such an inappropriate proxy for the health of the health system, has he not, after two years, done anything about it?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I reject the member’s assertion.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why have all 20 DHBs’ performance under the Shorter Stays in Emergency Departments performance all dropped since he became Minister?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The member will know from my previous answers that I want to see meaningful and transparent measures of progress in health. Unfortunately, we know that data for the emergency department target was falsified and gamed under management pressure on the previous Government’s watch. As one DHB staffer reportedly told Auckland University associate professor Dr Tim Tenbensel, “The patient will be scanned out of the [emergency] department before they reach the six-hour mark even if they haven’t actually physically left the department, which I actually find quite unsafe and I don’t like that practice.”

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the Minister aware that despite those anecdotes, Waikato University research showed that 700 lives a year were being saved by that target? That’s many thousands under the term of the previous Government.

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am very aware that there’s lots of research which shows that those targets were being gamed. I’m also aware that the New Zealand Doctor recently reported that, at one hospital, a new chief executive exerted considerable direct pressure on emergency department (ED) medical and nursing staff, and “Interviewees at this site described a range of gaming behaviours. One staff member described ‘clock-stopping’ behaviour … falsifying the record of time of departure from ED.” The previous Government’s targets were a failure—they failed to achieve what they wanted to achieve with them other than for political ends. I’m interested in a health service that builds and meets the needs of New Zealanders for the care that they would expect and deserve. We’ve inherited a health system that’s been run down after nine long years of neglect and political focus, and we want to see a health system that actually serves the needs of New Zealanders.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he believe that there is a link between the fact that 19 of 20 DHBs have lower immunisation rates since he became Minister and the recent measles outbreak?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: What I will say about the immunisation target the previous Government never achieved is that it was dropping over the longer term, and that that has actually turned around under this Government’s watch. So I thank the member for his question.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: In this year of delivery, doesn’t this show that he has delivered poorer health outcomes for New Zealanders?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think what it shows is that we still have work to do to improve the health system after nine long years of neglect under the previous Government’s watch.

Question No. 8—Education

8. to the Minister of Education: What actions has the Government taken to champion a high-quality public education system that is available for all New Zealanders?

Lots of good news. It’s been a very busy year in education, but to pick just a few of the highlights: we’ve taken action to rebuild classrooms and to fund more classrooms for growth, reduce financial barriers to education in schooling and in tertiary education, increase trades training, have New Zealand history taught in our schools, secure the future of vocational education, chart a new course for early childhood education with a particular focus on quality, and we will be putting more front-line support closer to schools to give every child the best chance to succeed.

💬 Jo Luxton: What action has the Government taken to support more teachers into classrooms?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Again, great news. After inheriting a 40 percent decline in the number of people who were training to be teachers, this Government has invested $135 million into teacher supply initiatives, and by the end of this year, we’ll see an additional 2,000 more teachers in classrooms—that means more teachers to meet population growth. Teachers themselves, of course, are being supported in their profession, with most teachers receiving an average pay rise of $12,000.

💬 Jo Luxton: What action has the Government taken to reduce the cost of schooling for New Zealand families?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This year alone, the Government has reduced the cost to New Zealand families by funding the removal of NCEA exam fees for 168,000 students; we’ve awarded almost 150,000 students, including former students with unpaid NCEA fees, their credits and qualifications; and we’re increasing funding for schools that don’t ask parents for donations, benefiting nearly half a million students and their families across the country.

💬 Jo Luxton: What action has the Government taken to upgrade classrooms and build more classrooms to meet population growth?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This year, the Government announced the largest ever increase in school property funding made by a New Zealand Government. To date, we’ve begun the upgrade or new build of at least 1,100 classrooms, benefiting around 33,000 students; we’ve released the first ever National Education Growth Plan to manage and plan for the growth of at least 100,000 additional students by 2030; and we’ve announced the largest cash injection in 25 years into State schools’ funding so that they can carry out their own upgrades using their existing local trades people.

💬 Jo Luxton: What action has the Government taken to champion trades training and vocational pathways?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: So much good news. The Government has announced 4,000 additional trades academy and gateway places from next year so that more young New Zealanders can take up trades from secondary school; we’ve given 345 students this year the very first Prime Minister’s award for vocational education excellence; we’ve provided free training to 3,900 apprentices in building and construction trades through Fees Free; and finally, of course, we’re moving towards a much more sustainable and effective new system for vocational education up and down the country.

Question No. 9—Transport

9. to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his reported comment to the Herald in relation to the 12 roading projects presently on hold or under review, “If we were to do what the Business Advisory Council was saying, it would mean spending a great deal of money, more than $12 billion, on projects that have very low economic value”, and which, if any, of the 12 roading projects will the Government be progressing as part of its transport package in the new year?

In relation to the first part of the member’s question, I stand by my statement that the National Party’s unfunded and undesignated roads promised in the last election would have had low economic value. The transport agency undertook a review of a number of State highway projects that had been on their books for some time. The purpose of that review was to redesign these roading projects to give better value for money and to better reflect our balanced transport policy, which they now do, and work is continuing on them. As for the second part of the member’s question, as I indicated to the member previously, he will have to wait and see what is in or out of the infrastructure package.

💬 Chris Bishop: Does he think State Highway 2 Te Puna to Ōmokoroa, known as the Tauranga Northern Link, is a road with economic value and worth progressing?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It’s certainly a road of value, and that’s why the transport agency’s done a substantial piece of work reviewing, evaluating, and redesigning that project so that it not only delivers good transport and safety outcomes but delivers value for money, because that’s what this side of the House stands for.

💬 Chris Bishop: Does he think State Highway 1 Cambridge to Piarere is a road with economic value and worth progressing?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, we do think that’s a road of value, unlike the former Government, who never funded it, never designated it; they simply announced it in a press release during the election campaign but did nothing about it—after nine years.

💬 Chris Bishop: Does he stand by his comment that New Zealand has overinvested in roads and motorways for decades, and, if so, why is the Government purportedly planning to reinstate State highway funding and build some of the roads we’ve just been discussing?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I stand by the full remark that I made—the full quotation, not the highly selective version that the member likes to peddle around the country. I stand by my statement that actually, for a long time, particularly over the last nine years, there was an unbalanced transport policy that poured 40 percent of the entire transport budget into a few handpicked motorways at the expense of every other part of the transport system. That policy saw the neglect of local roads. It saw the neglect of public transport and the neglect of road maintenance.

💬 Chris Bishop: Can he confirm that, two years after cutting State highway funding by $5 billion over the next decade, the Government is now looking at an the injection of money to bring forward State highway roading projects that are currently delayed?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I can confirm, in the words of the Minister of Finance, that the Government is looking at one of the biggest infrastructure packages this country’s ever seen. It’s going to allow us to bring forward a number of transport projects that would have otherwise taken much longer to build, and it will reflect this Government’s balanced, multi-modal transport policy. It will include walking and cycling projects, rail, and roads.

💬 Chris Bishop: How can the public have any confidence in the Government’s ability to deliver these projects when he spent two years bagging them as having low economic value and telling New Zealanders the previous Government overinvested in State highways?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Precisely because—and the member clearly wasn’t listening to the earlier answers—the ghost roads that the National Party announced in the last election campaign weren’t funded, they weren’t designated; they were simply campaign promises. We’re getting on. We’re getting on and building a lot more infrastructure, including roading and other transport infrastructure that that Government didn’t even dream about.

Question No. 10—Climate Change

10. to the Minister for Climate Change: What progress, if any, has been made implementing the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019?

Today, I was delighted to announce that we have fulfilled one of the key requirements of the zero carbon Act—that is, the establishment of the Climate Change Commission. Six new climate change commissioners have been appointed under this Act, that the House passed without opposition. These commissioners will provide the expert, trusted, and independent advice that will be essential to ensuring that New Zealand plays its part in solving the challenge of climate change. They will pick up the work started by the Interim Climate Change Committee, which was appointed in May 2018. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the Interim Climate Change Committee for their hard work, for their analytical honesty, and their rigour. What they have achieved in such a short period of time will have a lasting impact on the future of climate policy.

💬 Golriz Ghahraman: Who are the commissioners and what skills do they bring to the commission?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: The Act requires that commissioners have relevant technical and professional skills, experience, and expertise, including Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Te Ao Māori. The House will recall that I announced in October that Dr Rod Carr had been appointed as chair designate for the Climate Change Commission. The six commissioners who will now join him are experts in the field of climate science, adaptation, agriculture, economics, and the Māori-Crown relationship. They are Ms Lisa Tumahai, who has been a member of the Interim Climate Change Committee and, I’m delighted to say, will continue in her role as deputy chair; Dr Harry Clark, a New Zealand expert on agricultural greenhouse gas research and also a member of the interim committee; Dr Judith Lawrence, a thought leader with international expertise in climate change adaptation; Ms Catherine Leining, a leading New Zealand economist on climate policy; Professor James Renwick, a leading climate scientist; and Professor Nicola Shadbolt, a farmer, company director, and academic with expertise in land use and land use change.

💬 Golriz Ghahraman: What opportunity will New Zealanders have to inform the work of the commission?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: In addition to the fact that the commission is required by law to consult widely, my hope is that it will also appoint a number of advisory committees to support its work. This will complement the skills and perspectives of the commissioners and will provide a space for New Zealanders such as the scientific community, Māori, and young people to have their say. At the launch event for the commission earlier today, I was joined by a number of stakeholders who wanted not only to meet the new commission but also to celebrate with us this important step that we have taken to solve the climate change challenge and make our communities safer and healthier.

💬 Golriz Ghahraman: What feedback has he received from other countries about the zero carbon Act?

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: Last week, I was in Madrid for the annual international climate change negotiations. I was approached by representatives from a number of countries from around the world who are thinking about putting in place their own—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Settle.

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: —climate change legislation, and they are using our zero carbon Act—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Must have strong winds.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member’s drowning him out.

💬 Hon JAMES SHAW: —as a benchmark for what meaningful, ambitious, and lasting climate change action looks like. What I shared with them is how, with bipartisan support, this Government has set a framework for climate action and put targets in place and has established a commission that will now give us independent, expert, and non-political advice on what our carbon budgets should be and the plan that we need to meet them.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Just on the question of bipartisan support, did what we just hear across the House sound like bipartisan support?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, it’s a fair question.

💬 SPEAKER: The member has no responsibility—this Minister has no responsibility for either the noise or the interpretation of it.

Question No. 11—Housing (Public Housing)

11. to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): What percentage of the 24,386 reports of anti-social behaviour by State housing tenants since this Government took office have resulted in an eviction or business-initiated transfer?

Last week, I informed the House that, since the Government took office, there were 308 business-initiated transfers and one eviction of a State house tenant as a result of antisocial behaviour. I also told the House that there were 24,386 reports of antisocial behaviour by tenants, which include such things as car noise, frequency of visitors, lawns not being mowed, and dogs. Now, that maths says that the precise answer to that member’s question is 1.5 percent. However, to use this number would be disingenuous because there have been multiple reports for very simple issues, such as an address in Hamilton that had 16 reports of a dog barking, and, while annoying, I don’t think that serves as grounds for an eviction. The vast majority of the 185,000 New Zealanders who live in State houses who haven’t been the subject of antisocial behaviour are good neighbours.

💬 Simon O’Connor: What does the Minister say to neighbours in an Auckland suburb who are having to put up with the State housing tenants continually throwing rubbish into their yard despite warnings from Housing New Zealand?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Any local member of Parliament would suggest that they go to Kāinga Ora to lay a complaint, and, as I’ve said to the member, there are 24,386 reports of complaints being made—most of them dealt with quite easily by Kāinga Ora.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: They make out only Housing New Zealand tenants do that stuff.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Thanks for your contribution. Does he believe that—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member knows that’s out of order, doesn’t he? I just want to check that the member does.

💬 Simon O’Connor: I do, but I also understand that some members—

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the member will apologise to the House.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Myself?

💬 SPEAKER: He will.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Oh, OK. I withdraw and apologise. Does he believe that the 99 percent of people who made complaints that resulted in no action being taken can have any confidence in the reporting system, and if so, how?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Yes, because that’s the way the system works, and there are a range of options that Kāinga Ora can make to remediate complaints. As I say, some of those are multiple issues with one tenant. As I say, there are 185,000 New Zealanders living in State homes and they are some of the New Zealanders who will be most vulnerable over the Christmas period. I’m quite proud to sit on this side of the House and say that we will continue to support them, but the Christmas message they seem to be getting from the Opposition is that, next year, they’re coming after them.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Does the Minister support National’s view that there should be consequences for serious antisocial behaviour, or is he more aligned to the Housing New Zealand view that it is open to moving private land owners neighbouring troublesome tenants?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I have seen the proposal from the National Party to remind, remedy, and remove. My thought to that is: I’m wondering if you’re using it for your leader as well.

💬 Simon O’Connor: When the Minister said last week that neighbours should complain to Housing New Zealand, does he think they have a 50:50 chance of being heard, or more like less than 1 percent?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As I said to the member last week, I am confident that front-line workers, who deal with these on a regular basis, are dealing with them in a correct way. As I say, I don’t think that a barking dog—while annoying—warrants eviction, but if that is the threshold for the National Party, then we’ve got two different approaches: we will continue to help, and you will continue to vilify.

Question No. 12—Education

12. to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all his statements and actions in relation to the Fees Free policy?

Yes, I stand by the policy that last year meant that 47,000 students and their families avoided fees of around $5,800, on average.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: When he said recently that he is largely happy with Fees Free, does that include a report that Fees Free has differentially boosted university participation for upper-decile students and has been referred to as middle-class welfare?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject the premise of the member’s question. Actually, if you look at the data, it’ll show that for students who came from decile 1 to 3 schools, there’s actually been an increase in the number going to university. The issue is that we’ve seen declining participation in other areas of tertiary education—most notably, in our polytechs and institutes of technology. That’s something that this Government doesn’t think is sustainable, and that’s one of the reasons that we are undertaking a very comprehensive reform of the whole sector.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Does he understand, then, that low-decile families are not as largely happy with Fees Free as he is, given recent reports that the Fees Free environment has reduced participation for low-decile students?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t think the member listened to my last answer.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Is Fees Free not helping the students it was intended to, given his statement in December 2017 that “the minority of students receiving the Fees Free subsidy will be university students”, and yet 55 percent of Fees Free students are at university?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh, I’d encourage the member to speak to some of the people who have benefited from Fees Free, including, for example, South Auckland solo mum Mere Thompson, who, at 37, has started a social work degree at the Manukau Institute of Technology and who said, “I wouldn’t be here without Fees Free.” Up and down the country, we see examples of people who have told us very clearly that they would not be participating in tertiary education if Fees Free had not come along. I think that is a successful outcome.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: When he said, in answer to written questions several weeks ago, that he would release Fees Free numbers in two weeks, has he not released the figures because the polytechnic head count numbers are down?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, that’s not the reason for not releasing those numbers. I suspect it’s to do with the quality-assurance process. We generally would release the numbers as soon as the quality-assurance process is finished. I can, however, confirm that the number of people studying at institutes of technology and polytechnics has continued to trend down. That is something that the Government is unhappy about. That trend started in around about 2011, 2012—around that period—and it has continued consistently during that time. That’s not something the Government is happy with, and that is why we’re undertaking a very comprehensive reform programme.