Oral Questions

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Why are there 1,600 extra patched gang members on our streets since her Government took office?

Could I just say that one of those is because of the deportation policies from Australia. The other is the environment that was allowed to grow that ensured that gangs do thrive in this country, under the previous administration. The third one is the gangs have not got it through their heads that this Government means to deal to that sort of behaviour, because they’re used to a party saying, “The day after the election we’ll bulldoze the headquarters down.” They said that and did nothing about it.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: How many of the 20,000 extra victims last year were victims of gang crime?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, that is not known. As to whether there was a partial association, a full association, an intermediary association, or a historical association, that sort of information we don’t have. But what we do have—and very shortly—is not 1,000 or 1,500, but 2,000 new front-line police being deployed to take on this area. That means boots on the ground, not dinosaur footprints.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: How many of the more than 51,000 victims of burglaries and almost 18,000 victims of serious assault were victims due to the actions of gangs?

Can I say to that member, she can make out that sort of construction as though it’s somehow a new feature of our society, when we know that under her administration, 90-plus percent of such crimes were not solved. We’ve got the front-line police to ensure today they are, and that’s why we’ve gone way beyond our commitment for 1,800 new front-line police. We have given a commitment to go to 2,000 by March of this year. That’s the greatest number ever, and 700 of them are going to be consigned to taking on the gangs in this country.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Is her Government’s greatest achievement increasing the number of patched gang members by 1,594?

Again, holding up a chart like that is actually rather sad because what that chart represented yesterday was the highest house-building rate in this country since 1973. This fantastic news that should be celebrated has been—like the No. 1 lemon suckers in the country—turned around now to a chart about gangs. The problem is that we have got ourselves ready to deal to the gangs in this country. We’ve changed the laws, and there are laws we have changed with respect to the use of guns, which, dare I say it, is being supported over here, but not by them. So let’s have a little less of the crocodile tears and a bit of on-the-ground common sense.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree with the Tauranga mayor, who said “Countries who are soft on crime tend to have crime escalate.” following the double gang-shooting in Tauranga?

Can I say, again, Tenby Powell had a call from the Minister of Police this morning—that’s the first thing. The second thing is he has been assured of the number of people we are putting on the ground and that the police will be provisioned with the utilities to do their job. The third thing is that quote could have been said by me—it sounds so original.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Well, is she satisfied with the response from New Zealand Police that they can’t do much and they can’t arrest their way out of increased gang violence?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, the police in this country may have had that sentiment at one time, but now there’ll be no excuse because they will have the resources. They’ll have the men and women and the power on the front line. In contrast, we saw the previous administration run the police numbers down—not going up; going down—and if I had that record, I’d keep my mouth shut.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: Has she seen a report from Jarrod Gilbert that stated “When Australian gangs became established in New Zealand in 2011, the next year, police numbers fell by 150.”?

I want to thank the Minister of Police for reminding us of the fact and not just allegations. But can I just say police will be on the ground. Expect to see more armed police on the streets of Hawke’s Bay and the Bay of Plenty in response to this gang tension. Expect to see police openly carrying their rifles and pistols where it’s required, expect to see police wearing new body armour, expect to see the Eagle helicopter in the air, and expect to see police executing search warrants at gang properties. Expect them also to be enforcing the new laws that we are about to pass with respect to their gang access or the provisioning of gangs with guns, which that Opposition party there is opposing.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: Has she seen reports that in the last five years of the previous Government, police numbers actually fell?

💬 SPEAKER: No. That’s not an area that the Prime Minister is responsible for.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

Yesterday, the Reserve Bank released its latest Monetary Policy Statement. The bank forecasts New Zealand’s GDP growth to remain slightly subdued at the beginning of this year before picking up again to be at 3.4 percent in the year to March 2021, supported by low interest rates and the Government’s infrastructure investments. There’s good news there for workers as well, where the Reserve Bank sees employment currently at around its maximum sustainable level, while according to its forecasts it will remain at around 4 percent over the next four years, and wage growth is also expected to remain strong.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What did the Monetary Policy Statement say about risks to New Zealand’s economic growth?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The bank highlighted that global growth has been acting as a headwind to economic momentum through elevated uncertainty, rising trade barriers, and slower global manufacturing. The Reserve Bank said that despite some tentative signs of easing of trade tensions—including the signing of the US-China phase one trade deal—downside risk remains, including specifically the COVID-19 outbreak. The bank’s current projections assume the effects of the outbreak on New Zealand’s growth to be short-lived, but they stress that any economic implications remain very uncertain at this stage.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What is the Government doing to ensure the New Zealand economy is resilient to these risks?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Overall, the Government’s economic plan will ensure we’re adaptable and resilient by transitioning to being more productive, sustainable, and inclusive in our economic growth. Obviously, the recent $12 billion New Zealand Upgrade Programme is a critical part of that plan to futureproof our infrastructure, create jobs, and provide certainty. With regard to the COVID-19 outbreak, as the Reserve Bank said, it remains early days. The Government is actively monitoring the situation, working closely with industries, and supporting Ministers to provide advice on how we may respond to future developments. There is no doubt that there will be an immediate impact on New Zealand’s first-quarter GDP as a result particularly of the impact on tourism.

Question No. 3—Finance

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

Yes, in the context in which they were made and given. In particular, I stand by my comment yesterday that “We are getting on with the business of Government. We are positive about the future of New Zealand and we’re focused on the issues that matter to New Zealanders.”

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can he stand by his statement from October last year that “The New Zealand economy is in good shape.” when, just yesterday, the Reserve Bank lowered its annual GDP growth estimate for 2019 to just 1.6 percent?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of that question, I can say that because New Zealand’s growth rates continue to outperform those of many advanced economies. We have unemployment at historically low levels of 4 percent. We have debt for the Crown at historically low levels as well. We’ve run surpluses. We’re spending money in the parts of the economy that will stimulate jobs and growth. So I can say with confidence that the New Zealand economy is in good shape.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: So does 1.6 percent growth in 2019 mean that, per person, we didn’t grow at all last year?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again, the member is using a figure that includes a projection for the December quarter. We’ll wait and see where that ends up. What I do know is on the official figures that we have, New Zealand’s growth continues to outperform most advanced economies.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can we afford higher wages, better healthcare, and better public services when the economy is not keeping up with population growth?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again, the same question. I think the member has got assumptions in his question that are not yet proven. What I would say is that the economy is sustaining that. In a period in which we had around 2.7 percent growth, we also saw wages increase by around 3.5 percent. That’s catch up, I might here add, on 10 years where New Zealanders saw very few benefits of economic growth; under this Government, they are.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, does he agree that, ultimately, higher wages are not sustainable if the economy is not keeping up with population growth—as it didn’t in 2019?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I do know is that higher wages are for New Zealanders the benefit of their hard work and their dividend from the prosperity of New Zealand. Of course we need the economy to continue to grow at sustainable rates, and, as I said, we continue to grow at a faster rate than many of our trading partners. This is a time to be positive about the economy, not just normal “Negative National”.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that families will ultimately be less financially secure if the economy is not keeping up with population growth—as it didn’t in 2019?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s been a goal of this Government from the day we entered here to make families more secure. It’s the very reason why we put in place a Families Package with $5.5 billion to lift the incomes of low and middle income New Zealanders. It’s why we’re pleased that we are seeing the wage growth that we’re seeing. We always aim for solid sustainable growth, and in New Zealand we can say we are ahead of the curve internationally, but I am proud of a Government that is delivering a dividend to working New Zealanders through wage growth.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the economy keeping up with population growth was the concern, does the member have any comparison between 2018, 2019, and this year, compared to the years of 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017, when we had all-comers’ records coming into this country?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: While I don’t have the exact figures to hand for that, what I can say for sure is that in those years, we saw net migration at record high levels. It would be fair to say that at that time, one of the things a responsible Government might have been doing was actually building the infrastructure that was needed to support that kind of population growth. We saw none of that. That’s why the New Zealand—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! There is a limit to the free hits from a supplementary.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How is it possible that a country with historically high export prices and a Government able to increase spending significantly can stall like New Zealand did in 2019?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premise of that question.

Question No. 4—Justice

4. to the Minister of Justice: Does the Government support the statement by the Electoral Commission that “the New Zealand First Foundation has received donations which should have been treated as party donations for the New Zealand First Party,” and that “the donations were not properly transmitted to the party and not disclosed as required by the Electoral Act 1993”?

I refer the member to section 6 of the Electoral Act 1993, which states that “The Electoral Commission may, if it considers that it is necessary for the proper discharge of its functions … (b) make any inquiries:”. I also refer the member to section 7 of that Act, which states that “The Electoral Commission must act independently in performing its statutory functions and duties, and exercising its statutory powers,”. So, to answer the member’s question, it is irrelevant whether the Government supports the Electoral Commission in any particular action. The Electoral Commission is independent of the Government, and that is as it should be.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the Deputy Prime Minister’s criticism of the Electoral Commission when he said this is a “very damning statement for the Electoral Commission because they have no evidence or proof for their statement.”, and does the full Government retain confidence in the Electoral Commission?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: In relation to the second part of the question, yes.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with yesterday’s statement by the Deputy Prime Minister that the major donors to the New Zealand First Foundation are entitled to keep their identities secret, and is this statement consistent with Government electoral policy?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It will have occurred to you by now that the Minister being asked these questions is not responsible for the basis on which the question is being put in the first place—that would be obvious to any experienced member of Parliament. The second thing is that this matter, in the interests of honesty and openness and candour, has been the subject of investigation, which we welcome. But for somebody to come here and make this argument out, who told Parliament that he had made a declaration to the parliamentary commissioner, who then wrote to me and said “No, he has not.”, is a matter of grave audacity. He shouldn’t be able to use this Parliament in that way. He can’t substantiate what he’s doing with respect to the Minister’s responsibility, and he should be stopped in his tracks.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order, it’s a long-established practice that you can ask the Minister to comment on colleagues’ comments. Secondly, it’s within the Minister’s portfolio responsibilities of electoral law and whether the Minister agrees with his colleague on that.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m going to ask the member to rephrase his question. I’m surprised there wasn’t an objection on another ground. I think the leader of the New Zealand First Party might have made a comment; I don’t think the Deputy Prime Minister did. So if the member rephrases his question to get it appropriate, then he can ask it again.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We get, again, into the difficulty that this Parliament’s faced on a number of occasions, where you have the various hats being pulled on and off by people, but the convention is that a Minister is always a Minister. You can’t be a part-time member of the Government. So when the Rt Hon Winston Peters was speaking yesterday, unless he introduced himself in another role and made it very clear, then everyone has a right to assume he speaks as Deputy Prime Minister, a Minister in the Government.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I can help you there. The press statement I put out was put out as the leader of New Zealand First; not as a Minister, not as the Deputy Prime Minister, but in the name of the office of the leader of New Zealand First—the parliamentary wing. That serves the precise answer. It went out on Sunday at 2 o’clock—last Sunday—and that’s my authority for what I’m answering to.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: This is very well-traversed ground in this House. In fact, when the former Prime Minister John Key was questioned about similar matters—party matters—he was often quoted in the media as Prime Minister John Key, and he made it clear in the House that he had been commenting as leader of the National Party. The House accepted that, and the then Opposition was prevented from asking him further questions about it.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, and I’m not preventing the member from asking his question, because it is within order to ask a Minister if he agrees with a statement if it’s in their general area of responsibility, and if it’s not, the Minister can say so. But in this particular case, it is clear to me that there is nothing in the area of the Deputy Prime Minister’s responsibilities that is being addressed by this. The Hon Dr Nick Smith—rephrasing the question.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Certainly, Mr Speaker. Does he agree with yesterday’s statement by Winston Peters that the major donors to the New Zealand First Foundation are entitled to keep their identities secret, and is this statement consistent with Government electoral policy?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The statement is consistent with the Electoral Act, which allows within its framework for donations up to a certain threshold to be made and the donor to be concealed.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he share the concerns of commentators and political scientists that the large undisclosed donations from the racing industry to New Zealand First, alongside millions of dollars of concessions by this Government in its 2018 and 2019 Budget, raise serious probity questions about New Zealand’s electoral system?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Look, throughout the last many years, there have been donations of all sorts of origins made to all sorts of MPs. I recall a donation from a labour hire company being made to the Hon Simon Bridges. He subsequently became Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. So I think we have a level of transparency in our current Electoral Act. The question for this House will be and must be whether that Act—much of the drafting of which goes back to 1956—is fit for purpose in the 21st century. This side of the House is keen to see a ground-up review for that legislation that will bring it into the 21st century.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is he concerned that the party that determined the final outcome of the 2017 election breached as many as seven sections of the Electoral Act—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: —notably, section—

💬 SPEAKER: A point of order—the member sits when someone calls a point of order.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: This is a serious offence to the running of this House, when a member gets up and thinks he can mouth those allegations without any response. The first thing we have in this country, and it’s a proud matter of law, is that you’re innocent until proven guilty. The second thing is there is—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. Points of order will be heard in silence, and the indication which I gave very recently is reversed.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: He’s about to listen. He began with the first one. Again, he has got no right or sanctuary in this House to make those statements when they’re not backed up with one fact whatsoever. We are happy to wait upon an external inquiry as set up by the lawful authorities of this country, but what we won’t do is to have someone think he can get away with making all sorts of libellous allegations in this House and get away with it.

💬 SPEAKER: All right—

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

💬 SPEAKER: No, I’m not going to hear from anyone further on this. What I am going to do is I am going to allow Dr Smith to get a little further into his question and work out from that for myself whether he is making an unfounded allegation or whether he has, in very short terms, the evidence. I’ll remind him that questions have two legs and they don’t have seven.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the statement by the New Zealand Electoral Commission saying that the New Zealand First Party breached the Electoral Act 1993.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, that’s been well published. I don’t know why the member’s seeking the leave for that. Further supplementary—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well, the reason I’m seeking the leave is because members are disputing whether there’s evidence they broke the law.

💬 SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The member may have a further supplementary now if he wants one.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the Minister concerned that the party that determined the final outcome of election 2017 has breached as many as seven sections of the Electoral Act?

💬 SPEAKER: Right—

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order.

💬 SPEAKER: No, no, I’m going to rule that one out, it’s all right. There’s no—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did he as Minister have any discussions with Labour colleagues on the Justice Committee regarding the request of the former New Zealand First president and treasurer to give evidence in the 2017 election inquiry that saw them ultimately block that request?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister share the concerns of Dr Andrew Geddis of Otago University that the breaches of the Electoral Act, as determined—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Now he’s about to quote from someone who claims to be a lecturer or professor of law—

💬 Chris Bishop: He is a lecturer.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: —who seems not to understand—even though he has an office down at that university—the first principle of our law, which is that you are innocent until proven guilty. If I was to challenge Mr Geddis to give me the legal opinion and the authority on which he makes his statement, he could not.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The acting Prime Minister will resume his seat, and Mr Bishop just lost, as a result of his interjection, the additional question which the National Party had just got. I want to hear the end of the question.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister share the concerns of Dr Andrew Geddis of Otago University’s political science department, who says that the systematic use of the New Zealand First Foundation for the purposes of avoiding the electoral law amounts to the most serious breach of New Zealand’s electoral law?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m aware of a number of concerns that Professor Andrew Geddis has raised by some parties under our Electoral Act, including actions by the National Party funnelling donations to electorate candidates through their party—including to Nick Smith, whose only declared donation in the 2017 election was a $25,000 donation from the National Party. What was he trying to conceal?

💬 SPEAKER: Question No. 5, Darroch Ball.

💬 Darroch Ball: Thank you, Mr Speaker—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: The problem was Labour MPs did the same.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Send that old joke home.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The pair of you, the two most experienced members, or two of the three most experienced members, of the House should know better.

Question No. 5—Defence

5. to the Minister of Defence: What recent reports has he received of the New Zealand Defence Force delivering value to the community or world?

I can assure the House that while Parliament was in recess over the summer break, our women and our men in uniform have been very busy. In the community last week, an NH-90 helicopter with 11 personnel, two Unimog trucks, and 13 soldiers deployed to Southland to help people trapped by flooding; as part of the Government response to the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak, the Tamaki Leadership Centre in Whangaparāoa, with the support of New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel, has been used as an accommodation facility for those in isolation after being evacuated from China; and many of you would have seen the brilliant Tri-Service Guard, Tri-Service kapa haka group, the Black Falcons fly-past, the army chefs, the military bands, and HMNZS Waitangi all at Waitangi this year supporting a range of events, including the opening of Te Rau Aroha, the Māori armed forces museum.

💬 Darroch Ball: Is the Minister aware of any recent examples where the NZDF has delivered value on the world stage?

💬 Hon RON MARK: Alongside our maintaining deployments to diverse theatres such as Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, the Korean Peninsula, and South Sudan, this summer the New Zealand Defence Force leant forward with our Australian and Pacific partners into a huge effort to support the response to the Australian bushfires. In total, 147 personnel have deployed to Australia, including military firefighters, New Zealand combat engineers, plant operators, environmental health personnel, and primary health teams, as well as three NH-90 helicopters, two C-130 Hercules, and one B-757—

💬 SPEAKER: OK, OK.

💬 Darroch Ball: What challenges arose for helicopter crews on the mission to support the Australian bushfire response?

💬 Hon RON MARK: Well, that’s a good question, because conditions for the helicopter crews were extremely challenging at times, with severe turbulence, dense smoke, dust storms, and electrical storms affecting flying conditions. Despite this, however, the crews and maintainers performed exceptionally and, with the exception of days when smoke and weather prevented flying, 100 percent of all missions allocated were flown. It is noteworthy that there was little to no respite between the return to New Zealand and redeployment of an NH-90 and crew down to Southland in response to the flooding down there.

💬 Darroch Ball: What challenges arose for C-130 crews on the mission to support the Australian bushfire response?

💬 Hon RON MARK: Once again, unfortunately, when the first C-130 arrived in Australia to contribute to the response, it broke down. A second C-130 had to be sent over, along with a new engine, before joining the Australian Defence Force firefighting effort. Once again, this reinforces the challenge of operating with ageing defence equipment and a problem we have inherited here. I am proud of the coalition Government for making the decision last year to select the highly capable C-130J-30 Super Hercules as a replacement for these old and ageing 1960s-era Hercules. Rest assured, Mr Speaker and the House, that front of my mind is progressing the procurement of the Super Hercules. It is our highest capability priority this year that this Government will address.

Question No. 6—Health

6. to the Minister of Health: Are the same 2019 novel coronavirus screening processes in place for all flights from China as announced on 26 January 2020 also in place at airports and ports that receive passengers from affected areas that have not arrived directly from China?

on behalf of the Minister of Health: Health staff are meeting all direct flights from China and can meet any international passenger, regardless of where their flight originates. No one, other than New Zealand citizens or permanent residents, who has been in China since travel restrictions were introduced is currently being allowed into New Zealand, and anyone on any flight who is identified at the airport—and passports are all being checked—as having been in Mainland China from midnight on 2 February that isn’t on a direct flight from Mainland China will be treated exactly the same as people who arrive on direct flights.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Are there health staff meeting all ships and flights with passengers arriving from outbreak areas, and, if not, why did she, effectively, answer yes to that in the primary question?

Mr Speaker, the answer might be a little bit longer. There is a complex set of arrangements in place that identifies that anyone who’s been in the affected area will be met by public health staff—yes.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he agree that if health staff are available at Auckland and Christchurch airports and not available at any other port or airport in New Zealand, then those screening processes are clearly not the same?

What the member might not appreciate is that the only flights coming into airports outside of Auckland and Christchurch are coming through Australia, and Australia has the same checks in place as New Zealand. Outside of Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch, the only commercial flights that I’m aware of arriving at airports in New Zealand have been tracked through Australia, where they have the exact same screening processes and, in fact, are not allowing New Zealand citizens or residents who are not normally resident in Australia to transit.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: What does she say to traveller Harry Flett, who said of the screening process, “You could have said you were feeling fine [but] have a raging fever and they would have let you through.”?

With all due respect to anecdotes that are being reported in the media, I don’t think that they paint the full picture. Clearly, that person did not have a raging fever and so is speculating.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he believe the reason health officials now have to track down 4,000 people who haven’t registered with the coronavirus healthline is because none of the written material available at airports actually asks them to?

I am confident that health officials are acting under the best advice. We are reviewing our border response in light of the best evidence, science, and medical advice in a rapidly evolving situation.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he received any advice from his Associate Minister Julie Anne Genter on how to manage the outbreak based on her experience with the measles outbreak last year?

On behalf of the Minister, I can assure the member that the health Minister works very closely with his Associate Ministers, and we’re very proud of the fact that we’re finally launching the catch-up campaign—that the previous Government never did—to finally address under-immunisation in respect of measles.

Question No. 7—Social Development

7. to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by her statement, “if that member ever asks me a question again in this House about a thing called the dole—which does not exist—I will refuse to answer the question”?

Yes. What I have been attempting to convey is that her questions about a thing called the dole are unclear and ambiguous. [Interruption] The Ministry of—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I just want to say there’s an important point of principle—[Interruption] Sorry, who interjected then?

💬 Brett Hudson: They coughed.

💬 SPEAKER: Oh, OK. All right. There’s a serious point of principle that both the questioner and the Minister are attempting to establish as a result of this question. I think it’s important that we listen, and it ill behoves people who shout down either the Minister or the questioner.

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Shall I start again, Mr Speaker?

💬 SPEAKER: Yes.

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes, what I have been attempting to convey is that her questions about a thing called the dole are unclear and ambiguous. The Ministry of Social Development does not have any products or services referred to as the dole. There is also no reference to the word in social security legislation. I feel it’s in the public interest that the correct terminology for Government support and assistance is used during question time, and on that point, some actual examples of main benefits in New Zealand include jobseeker support, sole parent support, supported living payment, youth payment, young parent payment, and emergency benefit.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Is she in denial about the fact that the Government has put an additional 27,000 people on to the dole and, in fact, a larger percentage of people are coming back on to the dole within 13 weeks of leaving than under National?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There is no such thing as the dole in the social security legislation, and there are no Ministry of Social Development products referred to as or called the dole.

💬 SPEAKER: Before the member asks the question, I am going to assume that if the Minister is shouted down again, National Party members do not want to have any further supplementaries.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: When will she advise the Prime Minister about her statement about the dole being unclear and ambiguous, because that’s how the Prime Minister has referred to it in this House?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I am referring to the use of terminology during question time. As the Minister for Social Development, I think it is in the public interest that we use correct terminology when referring to services and support that the Ministry of Social Development provides.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Why is she not willing to correct the Prime Minister on 21 May last year, when she referred to people in Mana in Mahi who get the equivalent of the dole in this House, and yet she refuses me as a member of the Opposition when holding her to account for the additional 27,000 people who are on the dole?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As the Minister for Social Development, I think it’s important that we use the correct terminology when referring to the supports and assistance that are available through the Ministry of Social Development. I think, as the Minister for Social Development, it is important during question time—a very formal part of the process here in Parliament—that we do use the correct terminology, and that it is in the best interests of the public to do so.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: When will she correct the Prime Minister, who continues to use it, including on Facebook posts?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I keep referring to question time as the process where I think it’s important to use the correct terminology with respect to Ministry of Social Development supports and assistance, and I stand by that statement.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Does she believe people are better off having the opportunity to earn their own income through work, or is she happy for them to live hand to mouth on the dole?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There is no such type of assistance referred to in the social security legislation or by the Ministry of Social Development called the dole. If the member would like to put questions down that refer to actual types of benefits that are paid through the Ministry of Social Development, then I would be more than happy to respond to those specific questions.

Question No. 8—Education

8. to the Minister of Education: How are schools benefiting from the capital investment of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme?

Around 2,050 State schools are eligible for up to $400,000 worth of capital investment, based on their roll numbers, to upgrade their classrooms and buildings. This is the largest capital injection for school upgrades in 25 years, and it’s part of the Government’s $12 billion New Zealand Upgrade Programme, which includes investments in roads, rail, hospitals, and schools. It will modernise our infrastructure and futureproof the economy. Schools no longer have to keep deferring modernising their classrooms and their property because they have to deal with more pressing and urgent repairs instead.

💬 Jan Tinetti: When will State schools start applying for funding for their property projects?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The good news is they already have been—for example, Arahoe School in Auckland, who have already started the recladding of their classrooms. They have used some of the $400,000 that they were allocated to modernise five further classrooms they didn’t have the money to do before. Riverdale School in Palmerston North did a similar thing, where they used the $285,000 they received as part of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme to add two more classrooms to their existing refurbishment programme.

💬 Jan Tinetti: What other property projects in State schools have already had funding approved from the New Zealand Upgrade Programme?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m pleased to say that there are heaps, but I’ll just cite a couple. For example, Rangiora Borough School, who wanted a new library, put it out to tender and found they didn’t have enough money. They have now got that extra money and they are going ahead with their new library. Fairlie School in Canterbury was entitled to nearly $100,000 from the New Zealand Upgrade Programme, and by the end of last month, they’d already lined up a local building company to upgrade and modernise their classroom. Murchison Area School got in there quickly, too, and used some of the $112,000 that they have been eligible for to refit their science lab with new benches, carpets, and whiteboards. These are just some of the projects that are already under way around the country.

💬 Jan Tinetti: What actions is the Government taking to encourage State schools to get their projects under way with funding from the New Zealand Upgrade Programme?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Ministry of Education has already contacted every State school in the country about the funding that is available to them. Their property advisers have been working with them to look at their current property plans and look at what they can add to or accelerate from those programmes. We have already, in the first few weeks of term, seen an additional 91 schools identify the projects, and that rate is accelerating rapidly.

Question No. 9—Regional Economic Development

9. to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent Provincial Growth Fund announcements has he made?

Consistent with being the most historically pro-infrastructure Government of the century, 47 Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) projects have been announced: over $200 million to aid the cause of expanding rail into an important province in New Zealand; aiding the cause of expanding water storage to deal with changing climate challenges, both in Wairarapa and in another important province in the nation; and $30 million to work practically with Māori groups to unleash the potential of their land and avoid litigation, which ensnared the last Government in their poor relationship with Māoridom over water interests.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: What other PGF announcements have been made this year?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: I speak very briefly of the opening—

💬 SPEAKER: Chance would be a fine thing, but carry on.

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Sorry, I speak very modestly of the opening of the Te Rau Aroha whare taonga Te Whaka Maumahara, offering testimony to the ethic of service, otherwise known as the Māori Battalion museum; the National Party MPs from the South Island have privately communicated to me over their joy with the Kaikōura announcement—they have asked that I not out them, because they’ve been advised they’re not allowed to speak publicly about such good news, although the mayors of those areas do—and $6.1 million for the Wairoa CBD build, including a $960,000 contribution to the Wairoa digital employment programme, which shows that this Government works—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why are dole numbers going up—23,000 more on the dole?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: —down at the level of the earthy interests of New Zealand society, not the big end of town, which crippled the vision of the last Government. I have also been advised that in the event further assistance is needed in projects in Nelson, under no circumstances associate them with Nick Smith.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: How have these announcements been received in the regions?

💬 SPEAKER: Briefly.

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Great friends of mine, the Federated Farmers—their president Mr William Beetham has welcomed the Wairarapa water investment, noting some of our largest companies and employers are under threat going forward as they were failed in their ambitions in the previous nine years—and the Kia Kaha programme and effecting a relocation and the development of North Port has been supported by Dr Reti and the occasionally seen Mr Matt King.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister report to the House as to how many times he’s been knocked over by National Party MPs trying to get to the openings of these projects?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think we’ll just leave that there. I think he’s not responsible for being knocked over.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his statement on 7 December 2017, “But I want to make it clear that it is not the role of the Minister of Transport to prioritise particular roading projects”, and have any roading projects in the transport component of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme been prioritised?

on behalf of the Minister of Transport: Yes, I stand by my statement in the context it was given. In answer to the second part of the question, all of the roading projects in the New Zealand Upgrade Programme are a priority for this Government. That’s why we funded them.

💬 Chris Bishop: Was the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission involved in the selection of the projects to prioritise, and, if so, how?

On behalf of the Minister, the main responsibility for the identification of projects was, as you would expect, with the New Zealand Transport Agency. As the Minister said, in the House yesterday, he had conversations with the Minister of Finance around the projects. I would have to get back to the member on the exact role of the Infrastructure Commission, but it would have been a minor, advisory one, if there were one.

💬 Chris Bishop: When did Auckland Transport find out about the transport projects selected as part of the Upgrade Programme?

On behalf of the Minister, the member will have to put that question down in writing to give him a specific time and date.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why is the South Island receiving less than 5 percent of the nearly $7 billion committed to transport projects in the Upgrade Programme?

On behalf of the Minister, the Upgrade Programme represents additional spending on top of the already impressive rate of spending through the National Land Transport Fund of around $3.5 billion in the South Island. I know that in the Canterbury community, where some concerns have been raised, $1.5 billion is going there from the National Land Transport Fund. So these projects are in addition to what is already being done.

💬 Chris Bishop: Did the Government consider prioritising the East-West Link project in Auckland as part of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme, and when will the Government announce a decision on that important project?

On behalf of the Minister, that was not a project that was included in the considerations. Obviously, it remains a project on the books. The concern that this Government has previously had is that that was going to be, per kilometre, one of the most expensive roads in the world. That project, obviously, can be relooked at as time and resources allow.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why should New Zealanders have any confidence in the ability of the Government to actually deliver these projects, when Ministers in the Government have spent years criticising the projects they say they are now prioritising?

On behalf of the Minister, there is one very important reason why New Zealanders can have confidence in the projects in the New Zealand Upgrade Programme: we’ve actually funded them.

💬 SPEAKER: Question No. 11, Marja Lubeck. [Interruption] And I just will say to the member that now we have one member from north of Auckland being relatively quiet, there’s not a need for another one to replace him.

Question No. 11—Building and Construction

11. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent information, if any, has she seen about a growing construction workforce?

Building the homes, schools, roads, rail, and hospitals that New Zealand needs requires a growing construction workforce. It’s great that this coalition Government’s work, together with industry, is delivering a growing construction workforce. From the figures from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Tertiary Education Commission, it shows that the building and construction workforce is growing larger and it’s becoming more diverse. In fact, since we came in as a coalition Government two years ago, an additional 11,000 people have joined the construction sector—a huge increase—and it’s proof that our plan is working.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What Government policies have helped with this increase?

💬 Hon JENNY SALESA: We’ve achieved this record construction workforce by working with industry through the Construction Sector Accord, as well as through the Construction Skills Action Plan. This includes making trade training fees free for the first two years, raising the standard of trades in our schools through the Prime Minister’s Vocational Excellence Awards, and prioritising apprenticeships through our new Government procurement rules. This has meant construction apprentices have increased by 20 percent since 2017, with an additional 4,700 apprentices being trained at any one time.

💬 Marja Lubeck: How is the construction workforce growing more diverse?

💬 Hon JENNY SALESA: We are recruiting more women, more Māori, more Pacific, as well as more Asian New Zealanders. In just two years, 1,000 more Māori have joined the construction industry, an additional 2,700 more women are in construction, and 600 more Pacific and 2,800 more Asian New Zealanders are working in construction. I’m proud of what we’ve achieved so far, and this Government will keep delivering the workforce that our country needs.

Question No. 12—Housing (Public Housing)

12. to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): Can he confirm that almost 14,500 New Zealanders are currently waiting for a State house, and that the waiting list is more than double what it was when National left office?

on behalf of the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): Yes. The Government has always been clear that it is going to take some time to reverse the damage that nine years of neglect caused. Five thousand State houses were removed from the State housing list under the last Government. Since we took office, we’ve created 4,258 new public housing spaces, and we have a further 3,480 houses under construction. If that rate of progress had been in place over the nine years prior to when we became the Government, we would not have a State house waiting list at all.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Can the Minister once again confirm to the House that a large number of those new builds were actually started, consented, or contracted by the former Government?

Some of those were at various stages under the previous Government, as would have been the case when the previous Government took office back in 2009. Had they sustained a rate of progress of building new houses during that time, we would not have had a waiting list. Unfortunately, they took the view espoused by Paula Bennett that if the Government sold State houses, other organisations like banks would step in and fill the void. It was that kind of befuddled thinking that created the mess that we have now.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: Has the Minister seen reports that in the city of Napier, under the previous Government, over 140 State housing units were torn down and not one replaced?

Yes, I can confirm that example. There are other examples—for example, in Trentham, where hundreds of State houses were demolished and replaced by the land being sold to private developers, so further State houses were not built on that. There are examples of that all over the country.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Is he able to confirm that if the number of people waiting for a State house is increasing and the wait times for such houses is over 3½ months, then, by definition, things are getting worse under this Government?

The waiting lists are increasing. That is an unavoidable fact, and the fact is that we do not have enough houses to accommodate those people. Our Government is working as fast as we can to build additional houses, but what we will never do is what the last National Government did when it purged people from the State house waiting list in order to try and create the impression that there wasn’t a problem when there was.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Is the Government proposing to make New Zealanders who are having to live in motels still pay 25 percent of their income towards it because the Government is running out of money, after a 440 percent increase in emergency housing expenditure?

No. It is because we don’t want to create a situation where people in emergency housing are better off financially than people who are actually paying rent in normal houses or in transitional houses.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Is it still the Government’s intention that “no one should have to live in a car”, and, if so, why is the Government including an exemption in their Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill for people who do live in cars?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! That’s not an area the Minister is responsible for.