Oral Questions

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

Yes, particularly this Government’s economic management, which has seen the median disposable income after housing costs increase 10 percent over the past two years. It fell, I should note, 1.8 percent in 2017, under the National Government.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Deputy Prime Minister accountable to her for his behaviour?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member, having previously been a Minister, well understands the Cabinet Manual.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t know whether you heard that question, but MPs and Ministers may be “accountable”, but they’re not “countable”, and that’s what he said.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Oh, he’s counting, all right.

💬 SPEAKER: I was contemplating ruling it out for another reason, but I’ve been asked to be liberal for both sides, and I will continue to do that. And, Mr Robertson, please don’t act like a fourth-former.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: So does she accept that the Cabinet Manual states “Ultimately, Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour.”?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, obviously—and that’s why I referred to the Cabinet Manual.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she think it is an appropriate response for the Deputy Prime Minister to play “Radio Ga Ga” to press gallery journalists attempting to ask him serious questions?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I don’t see how that is relevant to the Cabinet Manual.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Was her Deputy Prime Minister’s refusal to answer questions from the media yesterday an example of just how far her Government has fallen from her pledge that her Government would be more open and transparent?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would remind the member that when asked about very similar matters on his side, the member himself also deferred answering questions that related to his party, and he would do well to remember that.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister: why would a member of Parliament or, dare I say it, a Minister be responsible for answering questions to the media when the party that’s setting the questions up hasn’t got the courage to ask that member one question in the House?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why doesn’t he ask me a question? Because he’d get toasted—that’s why.

💬 SPEAKER: I’ll remind the Deputy Prime Minister, as the most experienced member in the House, that he does not add to his contribution once his bottom hits his seat. I will say that the Prime Minister has a lot of responsibility, but why people won’t ask him questions is not one of them.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What does it take for a Minister in her Government to be stood down by the Prime Minister?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I maintain absolute responsibility for every decision that I make as the Prime Minister in this House, and I stand by every one that I have made to date. But, again, the member may wish to reflect on whether or not he is setting a standard here that he himself will not keep.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What does a Minister have to do to get reprimanded by the Prime Minister?

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Trifling—trifling.

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I stand by every decision I have made as Prime Minister and the leadership I have shown on the issues that I have had to face to date. I would remind the member that whilst he is referring to Ministers, he himself is attempting to become the leader of New Zealand, and he is applying a standard here that he himself is not applying to him.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which party’s political donations are the subject of four court cases right now?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister does not have responsibility for those prosecutions. I think if we got to the point of asking the Prime Minister general questions about who’s before the courts for what, that would be an unhealthy stretch from current prime ministerial responsibility.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What is her response to the comment made by Heather Du Plessis-Allan earlier this week that the Prime Minister “looks either completely spineless or completely disinterested in running this country with integrity.”?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member knows, because he is an experienced member, that dressing up something which is out of order in a quote is in itself out of order. He will not repeat that.

Question No. 2—Regional Economic Development

2. to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: How is the Provincial Growth Fund supporting drought-stricken areas in Northland?

💬 SPEAKER: And on this occasion, it is the Hon Shane Jones’ chance to answer a question for himself, not for someone else.

Thank you for those words of wisdom. They shall fall in the appropriate place. The Provincial Growth Fund, supporting—

💬 SPEAKER: If I could wave a finger at the member, I would.

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Up to $2 million has been allocated to set up temporary water supplies in Kaikohe and Kaitāia, funding the infrastructure necessary to pipe water from a Sweetwater farm and, in Kaikohe, from Lake Ōmāpere. Up to $2 million will also be supported by approximately $400,000 from the Far North District Council. Former Ministry for Primary Industries director-general Martyn Dunne will lead the project, reflective of how concerned the Government is to address outstanding issues in provincial New Zealand.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: Why has this intervention been necessary?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: “Because we cancelled the previous Government’s fund.”

💬 Marja Lubeck: You’re useless.

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Sir, there are noises from the—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. Who made that interjection? Who made it?

💬 Hon Member: Which one?

💬 SPEAKER: The one that was directed at me. Marja Lubeck will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Marja Lubeck: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: And it’s not a wise thing to do.

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Sir, there were noises from the other side of the House. However, I realise some MPs may thunder out into the provinces and whimper in this House. I’m a lion on all occasions. Last week, Damien O’Connor, Minister, announced that the Northland drought is an adverse event. It has begun to affect essential facilities—schools are threatened, hospitals, old people’s homes. A variety of essential services are at risk. Trucking water to the regions is proving to be prohibitively expensive. Residents should be able to go about their lives knowing that we believe, although you live in isolated parts of New Zealand, they deserve First World services, and I’m happy to accommodate those demands.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: What other water storage schemes have been supported by the Provincial Growth Fund?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Just to dispel any misapprehensions that the love is only being shared in the north, Wairarapa has been in receipt of significant support, and I acknowledge the various MPs—in particular, the right honourable Ron Mark and my colleague here from Labour—for their advocacy that Wairarapa not be overlooked. In addition to that, we are addressing concerns in the Kaipara Harbour because land-use change is on its way. But the Government cannot step back and remain aloof from the requests for assistance from landowners. Consequently, the first citizen of the provinces is stepping up for Northland yet again.

Question No. 3—Finance

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

I’ve seen a range of reports which demonstrate the underlying strength of the New Zealand economy. The latest BNZ-Business NZ Performance of Services Index (PSI) shows that the services sector expanded in January at its fastest rate since March 2018. The PSI reading for January was 57.1, up five points from December, the third-largest one-month gain in the survey’s history. BNZ economists said that the details “oozed strength”, with new orders, sales, and employment all sitting above their respective long-term averages. Similarly, the ANZ Truckometer indicated a steady start to the year for our transport industry, with both the Light Traffic Index and the Heavy Traffic Index up. ANZ sees the recent slow-down in economic momentum, having found a floor, consistent with its economic forecasts. While these reports both show a positive start to the year for the economy, they both warn of uncertainty and risk created by the COVID-19 virus.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What are the emerging risks from the COVID-19 virus?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Treasury has been developing scenarios alongside the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and the Reserve Bank to help understand the potential economic impacts that the COVID-19 outbreak may have on New Zealand. Obviously, the virus is having an impact on global supply chains and confidence that goes along with that. Therefore, Treasury’s latest advice is it will have a negative but temporary impact on directly exposed sectors such as tourism, export education, and some primary industries such as forestry and seafood. This will be felt in the GDP data for the first and second quarters of 2020, and Treasury then expects economic activity to return to normal as global growth picks up and supply conditions normalise in the second half of the year. Independent bank forecasters are therefore pointing to 2 to 2.5 percent growth in 2020.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: How is the Government managing and mitigating the risks posed by COVID-19?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We are in a good position to respond to any impacts of the virus because our economy, ultimately, is in good shape. There are the travel restrictions that people will be aware of, and just in the last couple of days, we’ve announced an investment of an initial $11 million into a tourism package to support what is an incredibly important sector to New Zealand, in an acknowledgment of the crucial role that China does play in our tourism industry. Looking ahead, we remain vigilant. If the virus outbreak is prolonged and the economic effects are sustained, other scenarios may come into play. We are working through those as part of the Treasury, MBIE, and Reserve Bank work.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

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

Yes, particularly this Government’s measures to boost the incomes of the lowest-income earners, which saw 46,000 people lifted out of poverty last year. Now, despite some of the stats that you hear quoted by the Leader of the Opposition, this is actually the first data that starts to show—just starts to show—some of the impact of the Government’s Families Package and minimum wage increase, and it demonstrates they are making a difference to people’s lives.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does she support the Commissioner for Children’s statement earlier this week that the right to silence should be abolished in child abuse cases?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I agree with his sentiment; I think all New Zealanders would. The situation where we have no one being held responsible for what is a devastating case is something that of course we want to see changed. I would say to the member: I don’t think we’d be in disagreement on this. I know some years ago this was something that the National Party faced when they were in Government. They sought to make law changes. Clearly, that hasn’t necessarily been the solution we needed. We’re now going ahead and looking again to see whether or not there are other solutions, and this is one of those issues where if the member would like to join us, I’d welcome it.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What will I be joining her in?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In finding a solution that works, because the last attempt by the last Government didn’t. It doesn’t need to be political. It’s a solution for kids.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Will her Government make it an offence to criminalise the non-disclosure of information relating to child abuse cases?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member will well know, some attempts such as that had been used in other countries unsuccessfully. Surely, what we want to do is something effective. We are looking at the experience of Australia, where they have not had successful convictions through their law change. So we are looking at this issue, but we’re looking for a solution, not something that’s failed.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: So is it then the case that her and her Government will not support an offence to criminalise the non-disclosure of information relating to child abuse cases?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I implore the member to work with us as we find something that works. The evidence is that what Victoria did failed. The evidence is that what you last tried to do, unfortunately, has failed. None of us want a situation where a child can be harmed in this way and no one is held to account. So the member will forgive us if we’ve only had a few days to work on this, but we are going to keep going.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: So is it—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Sorry, before the member goes on—and I apologise to him—Mr Jones, Mr Davis, Mr Robertson, and about 10 members from this side, led by the shadow Leader of the House, are making it very hard for me to hear the Prime Minister. I think all members agree that this is a serious issue. People might have different solutions and different views, but I think, given the seriousness of it, members should let other members hear what’s being said by the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Is it the case, to be clear, that she and her Government will not support an offence to criminalise the non-disclosure of information relating to child abuse cases?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We’ll support an initiative that works. Again, I come back to the Victoria 2014 law. Failure to disclose has led to eight charges and zero convictions in, basically, six years. I know the member feels deeply about this; so do I. So we need to find something that will work, not just on paper but in reality, for kids.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Leader of the Opposition told the Prime Minister that the right to silence does not exist in the case of the Serious Fraud Office having an investigation into party fund-raising?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That’s not a discussion I’ve had.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Will she find a solution to the Ihumātao land dispute soon given that the chief executive of Fletcher’s today has said they are “not in a position to hold off [the] development indefinitely.” and certainly won’t wait another seven months for a resolution to the dispute?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That continues to be my ambition.

Question No. 5—Housing

5. to the Minister of Housing: What action is the Government taking to prevent homelessness in New Zealand?

The Homelessness Action Plan was released last week, and it aims to both prevent people becoming homeless in the first place and reduce the reliance on motels by increasing the supply of transitional housing. We’ll deliver a thousand new transitional housing places by the end of the year, which adds to the 1,300 places we’ve already created since the Government was formed. We’re also providing funding to expand a range of other initiatives to ensure people have the support they need to avoid becoming homeless. But we recognise that there is more to do, because we’re committed to making sure every New Zealander has a warm, dry, secure home to live in.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Nice speech—it means nothing.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m just going to say to the shadow Leader of the House that I think he asked seven supplementary questions during that answer. Can I just suggest that if he really wants to have one, he stands up.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was no answer, Mr Speaker, so it’d be a waste of time asking the question.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, actually, if the member cares to go back and reflect on what was said, I think at least three of his supplementary questions were answered. It’s a matter of listening.

💬 Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How does this fit with other actions the Government is taking to prevent homelessness?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Alongside the thousand additional places we’re delivering, of which I note 63 were available on the day of the announcement, and 39 had families living in them, we’ve put in place the largest public house build programme in a generation, with 4,000 new places added since we took office. It was unfortunate that at a time when demand for public housing was rising, the previous Government sold off State houses. We stopped that and we’re putting things right by getting on and building more public housing.

💬 Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What reaction has she seen to the Government’s Homelessness Action Plan?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’ve seen a range of very encouraging comments about the Government’s plan. For example, Scott Figenshow, chief executive of Community Housing Aotearoa, said, “In 10 years’ time, New Zealand will look back on this announcement as a turning point in how we bring an end to the housing crisis.” Unfortunately, I’ve also heard one commentator describe the Government’s action to prevent homelessness as “knee-jerk, wasteful expenditure”. That dismissive tone to a serious crisis came from the leader of the National Party, and, frankly, I find it disgraceful.

Question No. 6—Justice

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

In relation to statements, I stand by all but one of them, which I’ll talk about shortly. In relation to policies, I stand by the Government’s policies, since as Minister I have none of my own. In relation to statements, at question time last week, I made a statement that there was concern about the National Party funnelling donations to electorate candidates through their party, including to the Hon Nick Smith, whose only declared donation in the 2017 election was a $25,000 donation from the National Party. I’d like to set the record straight—that, in fact, Nick Smith had two donations, one from the National Party for $25,000, and another for $223.30 but also from the National Party.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he stand by his statement that protecting the freedom of the press is vital to holding those in authority to account; if so, is the photographing and social media intimidation of journalists, as has occurred in the last week, consistent with Government policy?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: In relation to the first part of the question and in accordance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, yes.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he, noting his statements about the importance of the free press, share the concerns of the union E tū that the photographing and vilifying of journalists last week was “chillingly similar to countries where press freedom is suppressed”?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have noted both my statements and those of E tū.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is his stated policy of promoting freedom of the press supported by a journalist being called “a psycho” by the Deputy Prime Minister for asking questions about the propriety of a $15 million application for Government money from parties closely associated with the New Zealand First Foundation?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I stand by the letter of the law and the spirit of the law as contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which protects—through the application of the Act, in consideration of when laws are being applied—the protection of the freedom of expression.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he believe it’s consistent with the freedom of the press for media officers to be raided by the police, and, if so, is he aware of any examples where that has happened in recent times in New Zealand?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes, I would be most concerned if those in positions of power and authority were to use the powers—perhaps of the police—to raid the offices of journalists and broadcasters and publishers, and I’m aware that that has happened in recent New Zealand history.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does—

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Sit down. Can I ask the Minister whether or not he has heard of any examples in this country, in this country’s law, or anywhere around the free and Western World where an inquiry has been sought into an application for funding that failed?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think that there have been inquiries of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature into a number of things, including into an application for a grant that was declined, and that has also happened in recent New Zealand history.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does his statement last night that “The Electoral Commission are thorough, good at their job, and very professional.” give him confidence in their determination last week that New Zealand First’s donations were not properly disclosed under the Electoral Act?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I stand by my statements and my general support of the Electoral Commission, and I note that they have a power of inquiry but they do not determine guilt or innocence of breaches of that Act or any other Act.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Which statement is correct: his statement last night “The Electoral Commission are thorough, good at their job, and very professional.” or the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister last week that “The commission has no proof and no evidence and should be damned.”; which statement is correct?

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

💬 SPEAKER: A point of order—I think I know what it is, but—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, Mr Speaker. That is a statement from that questioner which I did not make, and that last word proves that. He cannot recite the evidence for the quote he gave.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order, I’d be happy to table the news report that exactly quotes the words that I used in the question of what the Deputy Prime Minister said in criticising the Electoral Commission.

💬 SPEAKER: I think we’ll go straight to answering the question. I think it’s the easiest way of—

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In light of the scope of the primary question, I continue to stand by all of my statements.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why has the Minister not repeated his previous statements on the importance of freedom of the media with the repeated attacks, in the last week, on those freedoms, with journalists being ridiculed—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member’s finished his question.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On every occasion I have been called upon to stand in support of journalists’ rights and responsibilities and freedom of the press and freedom of expression, I have done so.

Question No. 7—Finance

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

Yes, in the context they were made and given. In particular, I stand by my statement yesterday about the situation this Government inherited where “We had hospitals that had been run down, $2 billion not put into the health system that needed to be, kids being taught in school halls and libraries instead of classrooms, not enough teachers, and not enough police officers.”, and that we’re getting on with fixing that.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he stand by his statement to Radio New Zealand on 19 November last year regarding Ihumātao that the Government was continuing efforts to find a solution that respected all parties including the Crown, mana whenua, and Fletcher’s?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he understand the frustration of Fletcher’s chief executive, Ross Taylor, when he said today, “The reality is … we are … legal owners of a piece of land which is fully consented, that is empathetic to iwi considerations … and which we are entitled to develop.”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think if the member refers to Mr Taylor’s full statement, he will talk about the fact that he believes that a solution is close to hand.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Who will pay for the seven months’ delay that Fletcher’s has suffered?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Any issues around what will happen with payments are to come in the future, and I’m not in a position to comment on them today.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is it not the case that more houses have been stopped from being built at Ihumātao than have been built by his Government’s $2 billion KiwiBuild programme?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House, we’re extremely proud of the housebuilding that’s gone on under this Government. The fact that more than 3,000 houses have been built, and the fact that we’ve actually got public housing finally going forward after nine years of it going backwards and State houses being sold off, means we can be very proud of the houses we have built.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is it the case that more houses have been stopped from being built at Ihumātao than have been built by his Government’s $2 billion KiwiBuild programme?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.

💬 Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm that had the last Government built houses at the rate of this Government, we would not have the waiting lists that we currently have?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I absolutely can confirm that for the Prime Minister. The fact that—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No you can’t.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, no we can, Mr Brownlee, because the rate of houses that we’re building now is something that Government never even got near. At the same time, in the middle of a housing crisis, the response of that Government was to sell State houses. It is a disgraceful legacy, Mr Brownlee.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: Has the Minister seen reports that in the electorate of Napier, for example, the previous Government pulled down over 140 State housing units and built absolutely none?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In fact, I have. The member for Napier has been a consistent advocate for housing in his area, and finally, under this Government, he is starting to see some progress on that.

Question No. 8—Health

8. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about upgrading mental health and addiction facilities?

This Government is taking mental health seriously. We’re building new services, and we’re investing in new and upgraded facilities that support people’s care and treatment. As part of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme, $96 million has been set aside for new and improved mental health and addiction facilities. That $96 million is on top of the $200 million that was ring-fenced for mental health facilities in Budget 2019. This additional investment will make a huge difference to mental health workers and the people that they care for.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: How will the Bay of Plenty benefit from mental health investment?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: So far, we’ve announced funding for four projects as part of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. Two of these are in the Bay of Plenty: $30 million has been set aside for the development of a new acute mental health facility at Tauranga Hospital, and a further $15 million for the facility at Whakatāne Hospital.

💬 Hon Member: So good.

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It is so good. I visited the mental health facility in Whakatāne last year and it was tired, and well past its use-by date. These investments will mean the Bay of Plenty has modern mental health facilities that better support people’s care and are fit to meet future demand.

💬 Ginny Andersen: How will the mighty Hutt Valley benefit from mental health investments?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will ask her question without—while I might well agree with the adjective, it’s not something that should be part of the question.

💬 Ginny Andersen: How will the Hutt Valley benefit from mental health investments?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As Minister of Health, I have visited mental health and addiction facilities across New Zealand, and all too often it’s been clear to me that they have been neglected for many years. In the Hutt Valley, $25 million will be invested in a new acute mental health facility. This will be welcome news not just for the local representative who asked the question but also for the people that use the facility and for the staff that look after them it will provide a more therapeutic and culturally appropriate environment. In Taranaki, as well, $5 million has been set aside there to allow the DHB to complete refurbishments of its mental health facility. All these New Zealand upgrade projects build on earlier investments in mental health and addiction facilities, including at Hillmorton in Christchurch and the new facilities in Tai Rāwhiti, Hamilton, and Palmerston North.

Question No. 9—Justice

9. to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement, “I could not conceive of such a power to compel someone to make a statement”, and will the Government criminalise the non-disclosure of information relating to child abuse cases?

In relation to the first part of the member’s question, I stand by my full statement that “The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 sets out people’s basic rights and equally determines the power of the State and its agencies. No person can be compelled to submit to an interview with the police apart from an obligation to provide identifying details, name, address, and occupation. I could not conceive of such a power to compel someone to make a statement ever being acceptable to New Zealanders”. In relation to the second part of the member’s question, I note that the previous Government considered mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse that would have been accompanied by a criminal sanction when they made changes to the Oranga Tamariki Act, and they decided not to progress that provision. They had the chance and they didn’t take it then.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: When he said, yesterday on Magic Talk radio, “Tell me what the law is to change that doesn’t encroach on the longstanding kind of protections for innocent people we have”, does he believe that family members who close rank and refuse to disclose information about child abuse to police when they’re asked are innocent bystanders?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I stand with all New Zealanders who are absolutely appalled and outraged at the fact that a little infant boy sits in a hospital bed in Auckland because those who were charged with looking after him and loving him and caring for him did not do so. That is an outrage on the values of all New Zealanders and New Zealand. However, we need to make sure that when the police are conducting their inquiries, they do so with a legal framework that means that they get to do their job but without encroaching on basic rights and protections that every citizen has. Right now, the police are struggling to find someone to give any indication about who might have been in close proximity to that boy as they conduct their investigation. What I also pity is the fact that in these very difficult situations when the police are trying to do their job, when a community is trying to support the police in doing their job, there are those who would take political advantage.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Whose rights does the Minister think are more important: the four-year-old child that we have lying with a serious brain injury in Starship hospital or the adults who are closing ranks, refusing to cooperate with police, and not allowing the perpetrator to be identified, arrested, and charged?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I stand firmly with the rights of that little infant boy who sits in that hospital bed. Who I do not stand with are politicians who grandstand, who make calls for law changes that they would never contemplate, who make calls for law changes that when they had the opportunity in 2017 to do that did nothing about it.

💬 Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the member confirm that the sad and appalling situation of silence around child abuse has happened before, and it was under the last Government and their actions at that time that was not to change this convention but instead to create an offence of failing to take reasonable steps to protect a child or vulnerable adult, that that has not resulted in a solution here, and that that is not a case for blame but a case for us to find another solution?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I agree with the Prime Minister that the duty on all those who are in a position to do so is to find solutions that work. In fairness to the previous Government, at least when Judith Collins was the Minister and shepherded through the 2011 law change, it did make some difference, there have been charges laid, and there have been convictions reached. The Victorian state legislation, passed in 2014, which did decriminalise failure to disclose, while it led to eight charges, has led to absolutely no convictions. But it’s on that basis that I have asked justice officials to have a close look at the way—when the police are interviewing somebody, when there is a real prospect of prosecution and laying a charge, that we change the warning that is given so it shifts the balance toward an emphasis on disclosure by the person being interviewed, and not the right to silence.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Does the Minister think that it’s grandstanding when members of this Parliament are highly offended by the fact that we have a four-year-old Kiwi child in Starship hospital—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. He knows that’s not a question.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Supplementary, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: A supplementary question on this occasion, Mr Mitchell.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Why does he think New Zealanders would not accept a law change that would criminalise the non-disclosure of information relating to child abuse?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Because if they were prepared to accept it, the previous Government would have done it when it had the opportunity to do so.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Will he work with National to pass legislation that will help ensure those that perpetrate violence against our children are held to account?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m prepared to work with any member of this House who is prepared to do something useful, sensible, and that will actually work.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. to the Minister of Transport: Why has the Government not gone out to the market and invited other bids for the Auckland light rail project, when he said yesterday, “the unsolicited proposal from NZ Infra is unique. Nothing like that has ever been tackled before in New Zealand, and the Government took the view that it was best to assess that financing and governance model and consider whether we wanted to do that before then going out to the market and inviting other bids”?

I stand by my comments of yesterday. NZ Infra submitted an unsolicited proposal for the delivery of light rail in Auckland. Consistent with procurement guidelines, the Government is giving further consideration to that proposal. It’s doing this by considering it against the alternative option of a procurement led by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). Following the Cabinet decision on our preferred delivery partner, the market will then be able to engage with either NZ Infra or NZTA.

💬 Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just reflect on that answer and whether or not it actually addressed the—

💬 SPEAKER: I listened to it very, very carefully, and I studied the question very carefully, and it was answered.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why did the Government not see if there was any interest in the wider international infrastructure construction market in building Auckland light rail, particularly once it received an unsolicited bid to build it?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to ask the member to rephrase that in light of the answer that was received.

💬 Chris Bishop: What were the Government’s reasons for not testing the feasibility of building light rail in Auckland with the wider international construction market?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because it’s necessary to follow the Government procurement guidelines.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why has the Government limited itself to only two preferred delivery partners for Auckland light rail?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because the Government procurement guidelines contain a process explicitly designed to deal with unsolicited bids, and we believe it was right to follow those guidelines.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is he seriously saying to the House that, in the event that the Government receives an unsolicited bid for a project that the Government is seeking to procure, the procurement guidelines compel the Government to then put that unsolicited bid up against the other proposal on the table, and that’s it?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The guidelines contain a process for dealing with unsolicited bids, and we have followed it.

💬 Chris Bishop: Has he or his office had any engagement with the Office of the Auditor-General regarding the procurement process for Auckland light rail?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, but I’ll say this: Cabinet decided to undertake this process on the basis of advice from a number of Government agencies. The Ministry of Transport has been leading a process in conjunction with various stakeholders and with oversight from Audit New Zealand and Crown Law. And the process is entirely consistent with the procurement guidelines.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is there a chance that Cabinet will decide not to proceed with either the NZ Infra or NZ Transport Agency proposals, and if so, what happens then?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: That’s a hypothetical.

Question No. 11—Workplace Relations and Safety

11. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does he stand by the coalition Government’s commitment to increase the minimum wage to $20 an hour by 1 April 2021; if so, why?

Yes, absolutely. This Government is committed to sharing New Zealand’s prosperity more fairly. With unemployment at 4 percent, and strong growth in the number of people in full-time employment, this is the perfect time to lift the minimum wage. We’ve increased the minimum wage from $15.75 an hour to $18.90 this term, and we are committed to raising the minimum wage to $20 per hour next year.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What impact do minimum wage increases have for working people and their families?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: In six weeks’ time, around a quarter of a million workers will get a pay increase to $18.90 an hour. The increases we have made this term are equivalent to more than $6,500 a year in the pay packet of a full-time worker. That’s money for things like school uniforms, healthy food, and sports equipment. When hard-working people on low incomes have more money in their pocket, they spend it in their local community, and that is great news for the economy.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What criticisms has the Minister seen of planned minimum wage increases?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I have seen some reports from commentators who are against higher wages for hard-working, low-paid New Zealanders. One commentator this week suggested that cancelling the Government’s minimum wage increase to $20 per hour is worth thinking about. Doing that would cost a full-time worker on the minimum wage around $2,300 per year. It’s a timely reminder that people who work hard for lower wages get left behind when National’s in Government.

Question No. 12—Prime Minister

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

Yes, particularly this Government’s investment in Customs to tackle drugs, which saw a record 3 tonnes of drugs stopped at our borders in 2019. This is also going to prevent harm—a harm reduction worth about $3 billion. This is in addition to measures like recruiting more police and restricting access to firearms, which I encourage members across the House to support.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does she support legalising recreational cannabis?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member well knows, I’ve taken the position that it’s my job to ensure that New Zealanders have information they can rely on in this referendum and that they make their decision on their own but with the best information possible. That’s the role I’ll play.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Has she seen the statement by Duncan Garner that it is “a pathetic cop-out from the Prime Minister” that she is not confirming her position on legalising recreational cannabis?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think he may have actually even said it to me. I maintain the position that I have—that it is actually up to every New Zealander to place their vote, and their vote will be as good as my vote, but my job is to make sure that they have the best information possible. I’ve asked my Chief Science Advisor to play a role in that, and I’ll maintain that position.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: He’s even more stupid than you are.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Prime Minister will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: It seems like the most experienced and the least experienced members are making the same mistake today.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does she support the wording of the referendum question being a specific reference to legalising recreational cannabis in order to avoid confusion with medicinal cannabis?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think there is value in making it clear that laws have already been changed around medicinal cannabis, and we wouldn’t wish to confuse the situation.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister confirm that New Zealanders will be able to vote on whether they choose to legalise and control cannabis as per the draft bill, come this year’s general election on 19 September?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, and, of course, what we prepared is a draft bill so that there will be that full information available to members of the public—that if they support the bill, that is the legislation that at least three parties in this House have said that they will then support to enact.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Is one of the main reasons her Government is holding a referendum on legalising recreational cannabis because she doesn’t believe people should be imprisoned for cannabis possession or use?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It’s because we believe New Zealanders should have their say on this issue.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: So one of the main reasons in the Cabinet paper was that they believed that they should not be imprisoned. Can she confirm, then, that the number of people in New Zealand convicted and sentenced to imprisonment solely for cannabis possession and use in the 2017-18 year was one person?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve read that Cabinet paper, and, whilst it is not in front of me now, I can tell the member that one of the primary reasons noted in that paper was harm minimisation and the reduction of cannabis use. That is one of the goals. It is up to the public to determine whether or not they believe that is the best way to reduce cannabis use in New Zealand.