Oral Questions

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m asking you to have a look, before we get there, at question No. 4, and, in particular, as to what responsibilities does the Minister of Justice have for another Minister’s opinion.

It is a question which it will not surprise members to know that I looked at quite carefully. The member will be aware it is a question that has been adjusted somewhat from the way that it was originally presented to the Minister of Justice’s office.

Where something is within a Minister’s area of administrative responsibility, he can be asked whether he agrees or not with anyone’s opinion. It might be a media commentator’s opinion. It might be a fellow Minister’s opinion. It might be the leader of a political party’s opinion. It is, because of the independence of the Electoral Commission, something that I have considered very carefully, but my view is that the Minister does have responsibility in the area, and, if he does, he can be asked whether or not he agrees with opinions, even if he is not responsible for them.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. So if it should be, in the case of another political party, a matter of agreeing with the prosecution or the defence lawyers, which opinion is the Minister of Justice capable of saying he agrees with?

I think he’s probably absolutely capable of saying that it’s not something which he wants to opine on, as he can in this case if he wants to.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just with regard to the same question, the Electoral Commission has in their statements—and I’ve seen the letters that have been sent back to parties that are involved—said that they have formed a view, not that they have made a finding. A finding would suggest that there was an investigation, and the reason that the Electoral Commission has passed this on to the police is that they have no investigative powers. So I’m just wondering around the wording of “finding”, when it is actually in writing—and I could table the document, if it would help the House—where they have formed a view.

I think that is a very good point, and if that had been raised with me by any person at a point before 2 o’clock, I would have had the opportunity to adjust the question in order to meet what is, in my opinion, a valid criticism of my approval of the question.

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

No. There’s currently no point of order. Is the member going to make a separate and new point of order?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I was going to note the change that you have made in the question.

No. It’s not your responsibility to raise that with the House.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: You seem to have a differing style to different members.

The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise. [Interruption]

The person who made that comment will stand, withdraw and apologise. Well, I’m not going to repeat it. It began with “s” and ended in “e”.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: I withdraw and apologise.

It’s not helpful.

Question No. 1—Finance

1. 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 where I stood by my statement from the day before 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. For future reference, I will continue to stand by that.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Regarding his statement yesterday “We are in a good position to respond to any impacts of the virus because our economy, ultimately, is in good shape.”, how does he regard an economy that grew at just 1.6 percent last year, as estimated by the Reserve Bank, as being in good shape?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I regard the New Zealand economy as being in good shape because we have net debt levels below what we inherited, because we continue to have economic growth that outperforms most of our trading partners, because we have run Budget surpluses, and because unemployment is down to record lows, at 4 percent. These are all indicators of the economy being in good shape. The member should just be a little bit less negative about New Zealand.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that if the Government hadn’t turned the surpluses it had inherited into a projected deficit within two years, New Zealand would be in a much stronger position to weather the economic impact of the coronavirus?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Not only do I not accept that; I don’t accept the premise of the question.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: What is his latest estimate of the economic cost to New Zealand of the response to COVID-19, and what is he doing to minimise those costs?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we’ve announced at the beginning of the week, we’ve put in place an $11 million package to support Tourism New Zealand to be able to reorientate their marketing. The IRD and the Ministry of Social Development continue with the work that they do to support people on the ground who have been affected, either as workers or as employers, through the provision of support or the delaying of provisional tax returns. We continue to work closely with all industries that are affected. Minister Nash, as the Minister of Fisheries, has made some changes to support the rock lobster industry to be able to return some of their catch into the sea, and we continue to work on that. As the member is well aware, this is a very fluid and evolving situation. That’s why we’ve drawn together Government agencies led by Treasury, the Reserve Bank, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to do scenario planning if the situation continues, the virus spreads, or the spread goes on for longer. At the moment, as I said in the House yesterday, the best advice we have is that this will have a significant, but temporary, impact on the New Zealand economy.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister of Finance got any reports from IMF, OECD, or, for that matter, credit agencies which point to their not sharing this miserable, petty view of the New Zealand economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have a number of reports in that regard. We’ve had Fitch Ratings agency recently talk about the strength of the New Zealand economy and the IMF and OECD both projecting New Zealand’s growth rate to continue the pattern of the last couple of years of exceeding that of countries such as Australia, Canada, Japan, and the UK, and the eurozone. The New Zealand economy is in good shape. “Negative National” might want to say otherwise, but we’re getting on with the job.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Did he have National’s desire to reduce taxes for middle-income earners in mind yesterday, when he dismissed our policies as “selfish individualism”?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I didn’t have a particular National Party policy in mind when I described selfish individualism. I more had the record of nine years of ignoring the problems in our housing system, of ignoring the problems in our health system, of ignoring the problems in our education system, and of making decisions to give tax cuts that would have benefited members of this House by over $1,000 a year, rather than focusing on lifting the incomes of low and middle income New Zealanders, which I am pleased to say we turned around. I frequently have the member in my mind, but it’s more in a sense of pity that he has such a negative view of the world.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think Kiwis would be being selfish if they wanted some tax relief?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m sure a lot of New Zealanders would like it if they were paying a little less tax, but what they know is that the taxes that we all collectively pay is what pays for the teachers in our schools and it’s what pays for the nurses in our hospitals, and New Zealanders know that after nine years of his party running down New Zealand, we have to spend the money on our public services. So, you know, I’m not saying that any New Zealander who’s out there thinking “Wouldn’t it be great to have a tax cut?” is wrong; what I’m saying is it’s going to take a long time to make up for nine years of neglect by his party.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is it selfish for Kiwis to baulk at higher fuel taxes?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m not accusing any New Zealander who goes to the petrol pump and says “Why am I paying that price?” of being selfish; what I am doing is I’m accusing the National Party of having a focus on individualism at the expense of all New Zealanders doing well.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

Last week, Xero released its Small Business Insights data for December, showing “the decade finished strong for New Zealand small business … With 56.42 percent of small businesses cash flow positive, December recorded the third strongest month in the 2019 calendar year behind November and March. Compared to the cash flow numbers from December 2018, the data showed a solid year-on-year improvement of 1.13 percentage points.” David Bell, director of business growth at Xero, said the data pointed “towards a sector getting smarter around how they operate their businesses and use their capital.” These results are yet more real data that demonstrate the strong recent performance of New Zealand small businesses and the solid underlying fundamentals of the economy.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: What reports has he seen on the rural economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The rural economy continues to be strong. According to the latest Rural Economic Note, though, ASB has trimmed its milk price forecast for the 2019-20 season by 10c to $7.40 per kilo. They are clear that the disruptions from the coronavirus—COVID-19—outbreak have driven dairy auction prices slightly lower. However, the price fall was in line with expectations. What this does demonstrate is that the New Zealand economy is not immune to the impacts of global economic developments such as COVID-19, but we are well positioned to manage them.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: What reports has he seen on the global economic context of the New Zealand economy?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In its latest Global Macro Outlook, Moody’s has downgraded its expectations for global growth this year. While Moody’s said it was too early to make a final assessment on the impact of COVID-19, it has downgraded the growth forecast for China, Australia, Japan, and Korea, in particular. Comparing Moody’s revised forecasts with the consensus bank forecasts for New Zealand, New Zealand is still expected to outperform our counterparts, albeit in an environment of slower global growth. As I said yesterday, the Government remains vigilant on this issue. We are currently working through scenarios with Treasury, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and the Reserve Bank to ensure we are prepared if the virus outbreak is prolonged and the economic effects are sustained. That is not the advice we are receiving at the moment, but it is best to be prepared for all possible scenarios.

Question No. 3—Housing

3. to the Minister of Housing: Does she agree with the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development when he said, “So Kāinga Ora and the community housing sector are, as I said, being very careful not to displace people from the market—that’s the intention”?

Yes, and, as I explained to the member on Tuesday, in 2018-19, just 22 percent of Kāinga Ora houses were buy-ins, down from the 62 percent high achieved under the previous Government. In the current year to date, the number of buy-ins is down to around 15 percent.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: When she told Parliament on Tuesday that she had sought assurances that there was only one case of Kāinga Ora displacing first-home buyers, did she receive that assurance?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: When I said I had sought assurances from officials, I had asked if there was any other situation similar to the Onehunga case, where first-home buyers were to have their contracts cancelled, as was the case in the Onehunga case. I have received some information from officials, and I will continue to discuss it with them.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: How does that answer reconcile with Kāinga Ora’s statement to Parliament’s Social Services and Community Committee yesterday that they could not provide any such guarantee?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What the chief executive and the chairman of Kāinga Ora said to the select committee, from my understanding, when they went there yesterday was that they certainly were doing everything that they could to reduce buy-ins, and the evidence is there that that is occurring. I go back to the fact that we’re down from 62 percent buy-ins under the previous Government to 22 percent, and 15 percent respectively for this Government, and that they were ensuring to see that we could get that down even further. But there are occasionally times when Kāinga Ora has to go out and buy a very specific property to meet the needs of a referral through the Ministry of Social Development.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: How does her statement to Parliament on Tuesday that she had sought advice that there was only one case of displacement reconcile with her officials’ admission yesterday that there were, in fact, eight such instances of gazumping of first-home buyers in one development alone—people who had signed—

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The member is conflating two very different things. I said that I had sought assurances from officials that there were not similar situations where first-home buyers had had contracts cancelled. That is an ongoing discussion that I am having with officials. But this is nothing new. I go back to a situation in 2013, and an article in the New Zealand Herald where a bidder at an auction said, “The Housing New Zealand rep was going up in $10,000 bids while other bids were going up in $2,000s. How many working families are missing out because they’ll come along with big pockets and buy at auction?” That, of course, was under the previous Government.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So when the Minister wants to go to ancient history, is she also saying that Housing New Zealand actually had contracts cancelled for first-home buyers because they wanted to buy the property? Is that what she’s now saying, because that’s what’s happening under her watch?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We talked about on Tuesday in this House the situation in Onehunga and that I have talked to officials. Of course it is not our desire that first-home buyers have their contracts cancelled when looking to move into a house. Kāinga Ora will continue the practice that has operated for a number of years where sometimes developers or real estate agents come before any other efforts in the market have been made and offer those properties, and I also point the member to the fact that this is a practice that is declining under our Government. Under the previous Government, we reached highs of over 60 percent of those properties being buy-ins. We are building not only more houses but a lower proportion of them are buy-ins.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: When her ministry says that it is careful not to displace first-home buyers from properties that they have signed for—contracted for—then how can that be if they can’t actually tell her how many people they’ve done this to?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I have had some initial conversations, but, of course, this is less than a week ago. It is a conversation I will continue to have with officials—that is my job as the responsible Minister. But, again, I point the member to the fact that she is not coming from a strong position when her Government failed to build State houses and only went out and bought to the tune of over 60 percent on the open market. We are building more State houses than any Government in years, and we are buying in a far lower proportion—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Stop making it up.

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —than the previous Government did.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Who made that interjection?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I did.

💬 SPEAKER: Stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: If the Hon Judith Collins is finished, I am going to just make a brief comment. I have on occasions held her up as an exemplar for the asking of supplementary questions which are within the rules. I’ve had on occasion criticism from both sides of the House for what people have described as excessive flexibility with the member, but, generally, she has been very good. On this occasion, I think she knows that on at least a couple of the supplementaries, she went further than she generally does, and I want to ask her to go back to her normal practice of obeying the rules.

Question No. 4—Justice

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question as lodged has been changed, and I wish to—

Yes, Dr Smith—the member will resume his seat. Notice was given to the member’s party that the question had been changed. The member has—and I’ve seen him being given—the question as it was changed to. He will ask it in that form, and if he does not do that, we will go on to question No. 5.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We certainly were not notified that the question was going to be changed. The sheet was simply distributed and put on to the members’ desks. What I would take up with you, though, is that I didn’t challenge anything that the Hon Tracey Martin had to say before because I felt that you had ruled that you had allowed the question to stand on the basis of information presented at the time, but you would have considered another argument. But in that effort, you would’ve also considered what we would say about that, and it is an utter nonsense to suggest that someone makes a finding without investigating.

No, we’re not going down that track again, and I do want to make it absolutely clear to members that I have been advised that the appropriate people were informed of the change to this question before midday.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Now, if the member wants to ask the question, he will ask it as it is on the sheet now. If he wants to argue about it, we’ll go to question No. 5.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Of course I want to ask my question.

Well, ask it. Go ahead, then.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can you please explain why I’m not allowed to raise a point of order? It’s a practice that—I’ve seen many points of order raised in this House. It’s an important one, and I should at least ask you to hear me out.

I will hear the beginning of the member’s point of order. If I consider it does not have merit—and that is often the practice with this member—it will be rapidly interrupted.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that the verification I provided to the Clerk’s Office referred to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Hansard of the Deputy Prime Minister speaking on this issue—where he’s speaking on the very issue of the question, the Hansard shows him listed as the Deputy Prime Minister.

💬 SPEAKER: OK.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And so my question—

Thank you. I looked at the authentication. It referred to both the Deputy Prime Minister and the leader of the New Zealand First Party. I made the ruling that in my opinion, the comments were made not as Deputy Prime Minister, because there were no deputy prime ministerial responsibilities for this. If the Deputy Prime Minister made comment in this House on that, he was not making it in his deputy prime ministerial role. So the member will either ask the question as it is there now, or we will go to question No. 5.

4. to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree with the Leader of New Zealand First’s description of the Electoral Commission’s finding that, “the New Zealand First Foundation has received donations which should have been treated as party donations for the New Zealand First Party. In the Commission’s view, the donations were not properly transmitted to the Party and not disclosed as required by the Electoral Act 1993”, when the Leader of New Zealand First said it’s a “very damning statement for the Electoral Commission because they’ve passed a legal opinion without having the evidence or the proof”?

I do not agree with that member’s supposition that the Electoral Commission makes findings. As the Electoral Commission itself notes in the very same statement that the member refers to, it “does not have the investigative powers to form a view.” The Electoral Commission does not determine guilt or innocence of any breaches of the Act.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with Mr Winston Peters that the Electoral Commission did not have any evidence or proof for making its statement that the donations were not disclosed as required under the Electoral Act?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have no knowledge of the processes that the Electoral Commission goes into when it discharges its statutory power to make an inquiry. It has made an inquiry and it has passed matters on to the police, who have subsequently passed it on to the Serious Fraud Office. That is as far as it goes.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why will the Minister not back the Electoral Commission?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member is being completely absurd. I have backed the Electoral Commission. I will back the Electoral Commission every day. They do a fantastic job.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the question of disclosure and the mentioning of the questioner’s electoral return just the other day in this House of over $25,000 from the National Party, which part of that $25,000 was disclosed in particularity and itemised to the Electoral Commission?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think we’ll put that one again in the category of a nice try. It does not flow from this question.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister back the Electoral Commission in their statement that the New Zealand First Foundation has received donations which should have been treated as party donations and were not disclosed as required by the Electoral Act?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I go back to the answer I gave in my primary question, which is that the Electoral Commission, in fulfilment of its statutory power to make an inquiry, has made an inquiry. It does not make findings; it doesn’t have the resources or the power to do so. But it is capable of referring matters to other authorities for investigation, and that’s what it has done.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the reason he will not back the Electoral Commission’s statement because hanging on to power is more important than doing what’s right?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The reason I choose to answer these questions the way I do is that that member is consistently tricky, and I do not trust his questions.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is it Government policy that political parties be able to form associated foundations as a mechanism to avoid disclosing significant donations?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House’s proceedings are beginning to become absurd, because now we’re asking the Minister of Justice to give us an opinion on an establishment which was made in the year 2010 by the then Government of the day—the National Party, in control. Now, we’re having a Minister being asked an absurd question, and he has no responsibilities for that. Mr Little was not the Minister in charge at the time, and he’s still not responsible for that 2010 decision made by the National Party.

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

💬 SPEAKER: I don’t need any help with this. The question was a pretty simple one. The original question referred to a foundation. The question of whether or not it’s Government policy that such foundations can be formed is one this Minister can answer.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I know that the member asking the question is having difficulty progressing through their seven stages of grief after the 2017 election, but I make this point, and that is that the Electoral Commission provides some oversight of the way our electoral laws are complied with and are rolled out. It has expressed concern about a number of issues across more than one party, including that member’s party. We have processes at the moment to deal with claimed breaches of the law, and we have a pledge from this side of the House following the next election—if we’re in a position to do so—to do a full-scale review of our electoral laws to make sure they’re fit for the 21st century and that New Zealanders can continue to have confidence in our processes.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was: is it Government policy that political parties be able to form associated foundations? That was not addressed by the Minister.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the Minister can have another go.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Government’s policy is to make sure that from time to time, we ensure our electoral laws and the institutions who are responsible for overseeing them and upholding them do their job have the means to do their job and do that job. They are, and I’m very pleased about that.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement in Hansard by the Deputy Prime Minister, prior to the referral to the Serious Fraud Office, that the Electoral Commission is the appropriate expert body to determine whether the New Zealand First Party and foundation broke the law?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: At the risk of indulging that member in his absurdity, the law is very clear about the power of the Electoral Commission. Its power runs to conducting inquiries. It is not an investigatory body. It’s not a prosecuting body. It’s made an inquiry in this and, no doubt, other circumstances, and where it has considered it appropriate to do so, it has passed matters on for further investigation and, potentially, subsequent prosecution, as they did in relation to the National Party’s two dodgy donations.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What are the consequences for a member of Parliament who asks a question based on what he says is a quote from another member of Parliament when he knows that that statement is not true?

💬 SPEAKER: That is not the appropriate way to raise it. If a member quotes from a document in a way which is deliberate and inaccurate, then that is potentially a breach of privilege and it should be dealt with in that way, either by letter to me or by a motion to the House.

Question No. 5—Workplace Relations and Safety

5. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Will the Screen Industry Workers Bill restore rights that he says have been lost by people working in the film and television industry, including collective bargaining rights removed under the previous Government; if so, how?

Yes. The bill restores screen workers’ right to bargain collectively, allowing workers and employers to negotiate binding terms and conditions across the industry and for individual productions. Alongside this, workers in the screen industry will be entitled to protections against bullying and harassment, unjust termination, and a dispute resolution system. Everyone deserves decent work conditions and fair compensation for their work, and this is just one more step in the Government’s plan to build a productive, inclusive, and sustainable economy.

💬 Jan Logie: How did the process for developing this bill reflect this Government’s commitment to involving unions and sector representatives in developing durable workplace protections?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The bill will enact unanimous recommendations from the parties representing the major players in the screen industry, including unions, guilds, and producers. The parties worked together to create a tailored solution that worked for all participants. That is the way this Government works. There will always be a seat at the table for workers and businesses, and they will always be carefully listened to.

💬 Jan Logie: Does he agree with former Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly that “It was outrageous that the Government removed worker rights as it did”, and does he believe that this bill honours her work and the thousands of workers who challenged the previous Government’s “Hobbit law”?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I do agree with Helen Kelly. The passage of the “Hobbit law” through all three stages under urgency on a single day in 2010 was a dark day for workers and for democracy. It was done to film industry workers with neither consultation nor care. In contrast, we have developed an enduring solution by working with workers and the industry. That is the kind of industrial relations that Helen Kelly promoted.

💬 Dan Bidois: Can the Minister guarantee that the law changes won’t result in any workers losing their jobs in the film and television industry?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: We live in a dynamic, open economy. I challenge that member to guarantee that anybody will keep or lose their job. Can he guarantee that Simon Bridges will still be the Leader of the Opposition next week?

💬 Jan Logie: How will the occupation-wide bargaining rights for film and TV contractors under this bill lay the foundation for better workplace conditions through fair pay agreements in other industries?

💬 Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: When the participants in an industry sit down together to work things out, they can come to a much better solution than one that is imposed upon them. That is what this bill demonstrates, and it’s exactly the framework that we intend to create with fair pay agreements. Everybody wins when we all work together.

Question No. 6—Transport

6. to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements on NZ Infra’s unsolicited bid for Auckland light rail?

Yes, in the context they were made.

💬 Chris Bishop: What is unique about the NZ Infra proposal for Auckland light rail, in comparison to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) proposal?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, it’s different to the NZTA proposal in that, first, it was unsolicited. Second, it’s proposing that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, in partnership with its Canadian partner, designs, builds, finances, owns, and operates the light rail line for a considerable period of time.

💬 Chris Bishop: Has he ever received advice from officials that the NZ Infra proposal might not have met the Government guidelines for unsolicited bids?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: To the best of my recollection, no.

💬 Chris Bishop: How does NZ Infra’s proposal meet the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s procurement guidelines that such proposals “are not advance proposals for a requirement that has already been identified, and perhaps socialised in the market”, when the Auckland light rail project has been discussed between the council and the Government seriously since 2015?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, that was one proposal and one solution that was developed by Auckland Transport and then worked on by the NZTA. The proposal by the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and its Canadian partners is quite different in many ways. The advice from Treasury and from the Ministry of Transport to Cabinet was that it was an unsolicited proposal and it should be dealt with in line with Government procurement rules.

💬 Chris Bishop: How does NZ Infra’s proposal meet the procurement guidelines—for example, proposals are not readily obtainable in the market place—when there are numerous potential vendors for Auckland light rail?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I think the answer is contained within the member’s question. There are numerous potential suppliers and contractors that might contribute to the design, building, financing, and construction of the light rail line, but I’m not aware of any other proposals for an entity like NZ Infra to design, build, finance, and own and operate in perpetuity the Auckland light rail project.

💬 Chris Bishop: How does NZ Infra’s proposal meet the procurement guidelines that such proposals “include sufficient detail so … the government can assess whether it is worthwhile” when his own talking point to Cabinet of December last year notes that there are significant unknowns and risks, and more needs to be done to test the offering?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The answer is that, obviously, there was sufficient detail for it to be considered on the advice of Treasury and the Ministry of Transport as an unsolicited bid that required serious examination, and more detail has been elicited through the twin-track process.

Question No. 7—Transport

7. to the Minister of Transport: What recent actions has he taken to encourage more and safer walking and cycling?

Last week, I kicked off construction of the Tamaki Drive cycleway, with Mayor Phil Goff. The project includes a 2.8-metre, dedicated off-road cycleway which will be separated from the existing shared pathway, meaning that both pedestrians and cyclists will be safer. Upgrading one of Auckland’s busiest cycle routes makes sense. There’s an average of more than 1,500 cycle trips on that route every day, and we expect even more people to use it once the upgrade is completed.

💬 Raymond Huo: How does this cycleway help motorists on this key route?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, every winter, during storms and king tides, Tamaki Drive is quite often underwater and impassable. The project will raise sections of Tamaki Drive by around half a metre to reduce the impacts of flooding, meaning that drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians will have a more reliable route.

💬 Raymond Huo: What other recent announcement has he made about walking and cycling infrastructure?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The recently announced New Zealand Upgrade Programme includes nearly 100 kilometres—100 kilometres—of shared paths across the country to give people real transport choices. The programme also fully funds SkyPath and SeaPath so that Aucklanders will finally get the ability to walk and cycle over the Harbour Bridge. Our Government is creating safer, healthier, and more accessible cities for people of all ages and abilities so that they can choose to bike every day. I want to acknowledge the Greens for their strong advocacy and role in this policy.

Question No. 8—Education

8. to the Associate Minister of Education: Is she confident she is delivering on her promises around additional learning support for children?

I want to thank the member for asking this question today, because this morning I addressed the new learning support coordinators that are here in Wellington for the first of three induction forums. So far, 505 of the 623 learning support coordinators have registered to attend an induction forum, and they will begin work this term. This morning at the forum, I also had the pleasure of launching a new kete of resources to strengthen support for students with dyslexia, and improved and extra tools for the new learning support coordinators as they start in schools this year. Can I acknowledge Matt Strawbridge, from Dyslexia Potential, who created Dyslexia Potential to show our children with dyslexia that this is their superpower and not a negative.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Can she confirm that she has failed to deliver the 623 coordinators promised by the Prime Minister by the beginning of this year, in light of her answer?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: What I can confirm is that at this stage, we have 505 of the 623 learning support coordinators registered for the forum. At this stage, because there has been only two weeks of the school year and we have not had any payroll data in, we can’t say whether we have met the 623 or we are sitting at over the 80 percent mark. But what I can say to the member is that as soon as we have the payroll data and as soon as the schools that are still advertising for learning support coordinators get in contact with us, the Ministry of Education will move in and assist them as soon as possible to put learning support coordinators on to the ground.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: Nikki Kaye—she’s allowed two, and then the member will have a turn.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Can she confirm that 623 new learning support coordinators are in school, as per the Prime Minister’s promise last year?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: As I just mentioned to the member, there’s been only two weeks of the school year. Until the payroll data is in, I cannot confirm or deny whether there are 623 coordinators, but I can say to the member that 505 learning support coordinators—experienced teachers—are on the ground now. We have over 86 percent of our schools inside the new learning support delivery model. We’ve put $133.5 million into Ongoing Resourcing Scheme funding. We are moving forward.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: How many of those positions were filled before the present Government and the Minister came to power?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: There were absolutely zero of these positions when this Government came into power, because the National Government at that time refused to accept this as a recommendation of the inquiry by the Education and Science Committee into dyslexia, dyspraxia, and children on the autism spectrum.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she take responsibility for the months of delay before schools knew what the allocation was, the inequity of the allocation, and the broken promise that the Prime Minister has made?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I reject all parts—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. The member will ask the question without the unauthenticated addition to it.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she take responsibility for the months of delay before schools knew the allocation and the inequitable allocation that the Government provided?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I reject the basic premise of the question.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: How does she reconcile the Prime Minister’s promise that every school should have one coordinator with statements by education officials in the last week that there is no work or time line on this?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: When the first 623 learning support coordinators, which was an investment of $217 million into this area by this Government—when they were first launched, I made it perfectly clear that for the first 623 we would be perfecting the job description, making sure that when we rolled out the rest of the learning support coordinators we would have it right, that we would have the job description right, and that we would have the delivery model right both for urban and rural, and Māori medium and English medium. So there is work going on. It’s being done by the 505 learning support coordinators who are going to be on the ground, and then the rest of the learning support coordinators will be rolled out as we perfect the way to do it.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister’s answer was just definitive around the 505. It sort of makes a mockery of all of the answers—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I think that if the member had been listening to the previous answers, she indicated that there were 505 at some conference or briefing or something like that, but she was not aware of whether the others—and she can’t be aware until the payroll data is there. I was going to criticise the Minister, actually, for something else, and that is that her answers were going on for far too long. But it does require people to listen.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to go back and listen very carefully and look at the transcript and look at the exact answer that the Minister made. The point the Minister was making was that it wasn’t possible to confirm or deny definitively that number right throughout the question, and then, in the last question, she then chose to rely on that number, and I would ask you to reflect on that transcript.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. I don’t need any more. Look, as both members know, I have some experience in this area. I, roughly, know what people are talking about. I also have some experience with counting. I heard the Minister say there was at least X and it might be Y, but you won’t know it’s Y until such time as the payroll data is in, and to suggest that the Minister’s misleading when she has oversupplied information which is actually consistent, I think, is unfair.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: It better not be the same story again.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: I seek leave to table the unpublished transcript by the Ministry of Education that has different figures to the Minister.

💬 SPEAKER: At the?

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: At the annual review, which has not been published yet.

💬 SPEAKER: When was the annual review?

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Last Wednesday.

💬 SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is none. It may be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the question of counting, Minister, how many of the 623 coordinators did the Hon Nikki Kaye call for before they were established?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Zero.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! No, there’s not responsibility for that.

Question No. 9—Education

9. to the Associate Minister of Education: Can she confirm that children’s average wait-times for early intervention services have increased from 74 days in May 2018 to 101 days; if so, does she take responsibility for this result?

In answer to the first part of the question, the ministry informs me that the member’s figures are incorrect. As at 31 May 2018, the average waiting time for support from the early intervention services was 99.62 days. I can confirm, as at 31 January 2020, the average wait-time is 101 days. In answer to the second part of the question: yes, and that is why between 1 July 2018 and 31 January 2019 we have increased our overall specialist service workforce by 96 fulltime-equivalents. It will take time for this workforce to adjust. With this workforce investment and the new ways of working being trialled by the ministry specialists across the country as part of the learning support delivery model, I expect waiting times to continue to decrease over the next 12 months.

💬 Nicola Willis: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have a bit of a dilemma on our hands because, of course, this primary question was authenticated with the Clerks. Those facts were verified with evidence, and now the Minister’s disputing them.

💬 SPEAKER: That’s all right—well, the Minister can say she doesn’t agree with the question. That’s a practice that’s been going on at least since I started listening to Parliament in the 1970s.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does she stand by her recent statements in Facebook videos that the use of the phrase “wait-time” is misleading; if so, why?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Yes I do, and I would give you this response: when a student is on the wait-list, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are not being supported in any other way. Currently, the ministry’s case management system only catches comprehensive data on individual supports for children while waiting for more tailored support. Most parents will have been offered some initial advice, guidance, and strategies to support their children. A number will have also attended group workshops for parents and children with similar needs—e.g., a workshop on supporting language development or managing behaviour. Some parents may also have attended our Incredible Years Autism course, an intensive 14-week programme specifically designed for parents and teachers of children aged from two to five on the autism spectrum. Some children will be supported through a teacher-focused intervention in early learning services such as the Oral Language and Literacy Initiative. The ministry also provides resources to support teachers to better meet the needs of children who have been identified as needing additional support, including Much More than Words, which is a communication-focused programme, and other programmes around emotional competence, and so on. I seek leave to table the document that the member just spoke about in her last question, which outlines the process by which the wait-list is calculated and the actions taken while children are waiting.

💬 SPEAKER: Is that a document which is generally available?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: It’s been created by me. It is on my Facebook video, but I don’t think—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! There is a point of order and a response to me. I am going to put it because there is a question of general availability, and while some members might be friends with the member, I don’t even think that I am. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

💬 Nicola Willis: What phrase would she prefer that families used to describe the months of time they spend waiting for a specialist appointment from this Government’s early intervention service?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Thank you. Under priority three of the Learning Support Action Plan, work is under way with the Ministry of Health to develop and test integrated approaches to improve seamless access to support for young children and their whānau through the child development, and a number of local proposals are being developed within our regions. One of the areas that the Ministry of Education is looking at is actually changing the way that the wait times, as such, are identified and recognised—because the member continues to suggest that nothing is happening for these children, and that is not true.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why was the phrase “wait-time” appropriate when the Prime Minister promised to reduce them in 2018, and somehow not appropriate now that the Minister is failing to deliver the promised reduction?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The phrase “wait-time” was actually created by the National Government when it decided to—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I can’t help the truth, Mr Speaker. That wait time—

💬 SPEAKER: The member has finished. I mean, it’s bad enough having it coming from one side but being chipped as part of an answer is not good either.

Question No. 10—Greater Christchurch Regeneration

10. to the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration: What action is the Government taking to speed up the return of Christchurch regeneration activities to local leadership?

Yesterday, I introduced the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill to speed up progress on return to local decision-making in Christchurch. The bill will support Christchurch to thrive by removing some of the Crown’s extraordinary powers that are no longer required. It will also bring forward the planned disestablishment and transition of Regenerate Christchurch. As we approach the ninth anniversary of the 22 February quakes, the time is right to return responsibilities back where they belong: the local people.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What did last year’s review of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act find?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The annual review of the Act undertaken by Liz Sinclair in September last year found that given the considerable progress on key regeneration milestones has been made, the city has reached a tipping point and it’s time to amend the legislation to recognise the progress on shifting control back to local leadership in Greater Christchurch. This reflects the incredible work of stakeholders as well as local and central government officials to speed up progress, and I want to thank all of those who have worked so hard to get us to where we are today.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What other steps has the Government taken to accelerate progress in Christchurch?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Over the last two years, we’ve taken a number of steps to accelerate progress on the regeneration of the city. In February last year, we revoked the Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement District Plan) Order 2014, which took effect from 18 March 2019. That order was due to expire in 2021, so bringing the restoration of district planning power back to the city was a significant achievement. Last year, we also made huge progress by concluding a global settlement with the council, marking a major milestone and getting the city back to full local leadership. Of course, we’re also continuing to invest heavily in projects in Greater Christchurch, with $300 million set aside in the Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility for major projects. We’re proud of the work we’re doing and I look forward to announcing further progress in the coming months.

Question No. 11—Agriculture

11. to the Minister of Agriculture: When was he first informed of the regional outbreak of bovine TB in Hawke’s Bay?

on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture: I am informed that in early last October, the Minister was informed of a small increase in TB cases in the Hawke’s Bay.

💬 Todd Muller: If the Minister has known since last October, how has this gone from a first detection in April 2019 to the largest outbreak of TB in Hawke’s Bay in the last 20 years?

That is an exaggeration. The Minister was further advised on 28 January that this increase was considered a very small cluster of bovine TB infection. It’s important that scaremongering not be allowed to plague this House, as this is not considered as an outbreak. There is a small cluster of bovine infections, and Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand (OSPRI) is extending their TB-free programme to manage and return Hawke’s Bay to TB-free status.

💬 Lawrence Yule: Why is OSPRI waiting until 1 March to expand the livestock movement control area in Hawke’s Bay to cover approximately a third of the Hawke’s Bay region?

I am advised that Hawke’s Bay is a part of the country known already to have TB and OSPRI is working with the best-available information, and any suggestion that panic should set in is unworthy of contributions to this House.

💬 Lawrence Yule: Why did it take six months for OSPRI to arrange trapping and poisoning operations surrounding a property that had nine affected animals?

As I said, this is the not the case where we should allow scaremongering to inform these issues. Possum control operations have been brought forward and planned. Whether or not there were problems with access to adjoining blocks of land is not something unusual when the Crown, through the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), deals with the occasional outbreak of TB.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Is the Minister aware that despite the fact that since the early 2000s, cases of TB have gone down from 1,700 to 26 last year, there have been numerous clusters of infections over the last decade, all of which have been successfully managed?

There’s a modest mop-up being addressed in the Hawke’s Bay, but to suggest that things are worsening is, unfortunately, a lame attempt at scaremongering, and it will not succeed.

💬 Todd Muller: How can he honestly stand in this House and say that first detection last April, six months of no poisoning, expanding to nine farms, and now, on 1 March, there’s a no-movement zone across 500 properties in Hawke’s Bay—the largest in that region for 20 years—is just minor and something we shouldn’t be concerned about as a Parliament?

This is not a situation—although the member may resemble it—of the pea weevil. This is a problem that is being dealt with in the context of MPI’s services. Local farmers have been regularly updated, and it is quite unbecoming for members to try and generate political capital from scaremongering.

Question No. 12—Police

12. to the Minister of Police: Will he consider supporting amendments to the Arms Legislation Bill; if not, why not?

on behalf of the Minister of Police: Yes, especially the 25 or more recommendations from the Finance and Expenditure Committee, who considered 3,527 written submissions, heard from 381 submitters in person, and sat for 41 hours on the bill.

💬 Brett Hudson: Will he support the amendment I have lodged to limit the compliance and burden on shooting clubs and ranges while still providing for public safety; if not, why not?

The member is speaking in contradictions. The reason for the changes to the shooting clubs, the gun clubs, is to lift their safety performance and make sure that those who are using those facilities are as safe as possible.

💬 Brett Hudson: Will he support my amendment to instate prohibited firearm exemptions for sport shooters, so that they can continue to compete in their sport; if not, why not?

No. There is no intention to change the policy on that particular point at the moment. But, if that member has something constructive to add that’s going to add to the safety regime around firearm ownership, then this Government is all ears.

💬 Brett Hudson: Will he support my amendment to provide for a more common-sense prohibited firearm exemption regime for farmers to control pests on their property themselves without having to form a separate company; if not, why not?

That question presupposes that that member represents common sense, and, if he’s the author of a proposal, it’s unlikely that it will be adopted by this Government.

💬 Michael Wood: Does the Minister continue to support rules around access to weapons referred to by the member in respect of pest control and access to sporting weapons, as passed through in phase one of the firearms reforms in this House unanimously a few months ago?

The member raises an important point, which is that this House has already considered those issues and exemptions were given for those conducting pest control operations, and those pest control operations are being conducted happily. Likewise, in relation to competitive shooters, exemptions were provided there. But that member asking the primary question and some supplementary questions continues to believe that there is a form of competitive shooting—a three-gun shooting contest—that is going to somehow take off worldwide. No other country wants it, and it’s most unlikely to be a form of international competitive shooting.

💬 Brett Hudson: Will he support the amendment lodged by me instating a prior recommendation from the Office of the Clerk to restrain regulation-making powers; if not, why not?

The member needs to keep up. The select committee recommended some changes in that respect. They were sensible changes. They reflected the purport of what the Clerk raised. There will be sensible changes that reflect those.