Oral Questions

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

Yes, particularly the Government’s actions to increase wages and focus support for low and middle income earners, including reducing fuel excise duty by 25c and instituting half-price public transport to take steps to reduce the impact on New Zealand families during the continued volatility of fuel prices caused by the war in Ukraine. I also stand by our decision to increase the minimum wage to $21.20 per hour; to increase Working for Families, which will make around 346,000 families better off by an average of $20 each a week; adjusting the income thresholds for childcare assistance annually in line with average wage growth, benefiting 1,500 children; benefits to increase up to $35 a week from 1 April, bringing the total increases for beneficiaries with children to an average of $175 per week, including to $207 per week during the 2022 winter period; student allowances will increase by $25 from 1 April; and superannuation will increase to $52 per fortnight for a single person, and $80 for a couple from 1 April. There’s no silver bullet that will fix the cost of living, but we have a plan and are implementing a range of measures that, together, will help to make a difference.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Go for it.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Thank you. Does she stand by her Government’s decision in 2017 to ignore their own policy and not remove GST from fruit and veges?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: When it comes to the policy of the removal of GST on fruit and vegetables, obviously, that was some years ago, rather than 2017, that that policy was held. I would point out that—just for the point of comparison—from what the member’s party has released today, which is the removal of GST, as I understand, off all food, it is interesting to point out that the Tax Working Group calculated a GST exemption on food would save families in the bottom decile of income roughly $15 a week, while families in the highest decile would save $53 a week. Again, I come back to the targeted policies that we’ve been promoting as a Government, like, for instance, increases to the Best Start payment for families with young children—which will also increase on 1 April—and those increases in the family tax credit, which, on those numbers, would, for many families, be a higher rate of increase than the removal of GST on food.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Yeah, just go for it—don’t wait. Don’t wait—all right?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: OK, thank you. I know when I do that, you’ll kick me out. But anyway, back to the question. Why is she unwilling to regulate retailers and break up the duopoly to prevent unreasonable price hikes on food and prevent them absorbing savings if GST on food was removed?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, actually, the member in her own question has highlighted one of the issues that is often raised around the removal of GST in any space, and that’s your ability to guarantee pass on. It’s quite different to the way that the market operates for fuel, where we do have devices that can give greater transparency around pass on to consumers, and the Minister is using those tools to ensure that, for instance, the 25c being removed off fuel is being passed on. When it comes to the Commerce Commission’s report which they only released just recently into supermarkets, it has confirmed what we feared as a Government: that the market could be more competitive and that, currently, that is coming at a cost to consumers. We have taken seriously the recommendations. We’ll be taking those to Cabinet and giving an official response, but we have kept open the option of going further because we are concerned that there needs to be greater competition in the market for consumers.

SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Rawiri Waititi—clearly remote.

Rawiri Waititi (remote): Clearly, Mr Speaker. Kia ora. Does she accept that GST is a regressive tax that targets lower-income whānau, who are forced to spend nearly every cent they earn; meanwhile, the rich have untaxed wealth accumulating in housing, investment funds, and trusts?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: There are many areas in which the member and I would likely agree on policies. I actually reflect back on—it was the Māori Party at the time—Hone Harawira, in this House, who promoted, for instance, food in schools. I want to acknowledge that that is the origin of that initial policy debate that we had, and I’m proud now that it is a policy for over 200,000 children now that are benefiting from that policy. But when it comes to just the blanket removal across the board of GST on food, you will have heard me reflect that—by just taking it off all food, at a cost of $5 billion per annum—there are targeted ways where we actually can provide greater support for low and middle income families. That is what we have done as a Government, using the Working for Families tax system to make sure that whānau are receiving more in their pockets during this period, and you would, for instance, see greater benefits to higher-income earners through a blanket removal of GST.

Rawiri Waititi: Why has the Government, despite being in power for more than four years, not shifted the tax burden from the poor to the wealthy, through new taxes on accumulated wealth, such as on capital gains, “ghost houses”, financial services, and pollution?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The question is quite a long way wide of the—I think we’ll be a little bit liberal now, but I think we might have a developmental session on making sure that questions are within order. I’ll ask the Prime Minister to respond, but with a bit of a warning that we’re not going to stay that wide in the future.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: When it comes to our approach to tax policy, you know, I would argue that, actually, we have focused on trying to ensure that the incomes of our low and middle income families have increased. In fact, when you look at the impact of our policies on, for instance, the likes of a low-income earner, someone on the minimum wage, we have increased their wages significantly. We’ve also, at the same time, for instance, put in place an additional top tax rate at those earning $180,000 or more. We have introduced, for instance, an extension to the brightline test. We’ve removed interest deductibility and removed other tax loopholes, which we believe were weighting the market more in favour of those who are investors in the market, relative to first-home buyers. All of those things, we believe, are not only evening up the playing field but making our tax system fairer for all New Zealanders.

Right, I’ve got a slight dilemma now because I was told the Māori Party was going to have five but no one’s taken the call for the fifth one. We’ll move on to question No. 2; it’s in the name of Christopher Luxon.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes. In particular, I stand by this Government’s decision to bring forward the date for opening our border to tourists, in a move that will help further accelerate our economic recovery from COVID-19. From 11.59 p.m., Tuesday, 12 April, Australians will be able to travel to New Zealand, isolation-free, and just in time for the school holidays. Not long after, from 11.59 p.m., Sunday, 1 May, vaccinated travellers from visa-waiver countries will be able to travel to New Zealand again. This includes for our key tourism markets, like the United Kingdom, the United States, Japan, Germany, Korea, and Singapore. We know it will take time to see tourism scale up again, but today’s announcement is a great boost for an industry who has had it very tough over the past two years. And, finally, to those considering a visit to New Zealand in the very near future, welcome. Can I say that we missed you.

Christopher Luxon: How much better off will a family with two teenage children, where both parents earn $60,000 a year, be after the Working for Families’ changes on 1 April?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I don’t have, necessarily, is a specific example—

Chris Bishop: Oh!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —to run through for every—

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to interrupt right now. Standing Orders are very clear, and that is when a general primary question is asked, Ministers cannot be expected to give specific answers. And I will not have—I mean, the member’s probably got the disadvantage now that he’s closer to me and his loud volume interjections will appear to be louder than me. I will not have criticism of a Minister who does not have specific information that that Minister has not been asked for.

Chris Bishop: Point of order.

SPEAKER: If the member’s going to disagree with me now, he might have a short term in the Chamber.

Chris Bishop: I just want to clarify: am I no longer allowed to express reaction to the answer of a Minister?

SPEAKER: Not at that volume.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, the Speakers’ rulings are very clear: interjections ought to be rare and reasonable. He didn’t break any of those rules. Is there now—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat right now. I ruled it was unreasonably loud.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am happy to share two examples, though. For instance, if you took a single person at an income of $55,000, with children, they would be better off an average of $21 per week. I would note that it depends also on the age of the children. We are increasing the Best Start payment, which benefits low and middle income families if they have a child, for instance, under the age of three. The other example I could give that perhaps is in keeping with the member’s example in terms of wages, if you take, for instance, a new police graduate, who in 2017 may have been earning in the order of $62,000, they now, as a result of some of the wage work that we’ve done across the public sector, are earning an additional $12,292. I could give further examples across nurses and teachers as well.

Christopher Luxon: Can she confirm that that family with two people earning $60,000, and two kids, will not gain a single dollar in income from her so-called cost of living relief package, but if she reset the tax brackets for the last four years of inflation, they’d be $1,600 a year better off?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, it would depend on the specifics of the family make-up. But I would also point out across a range of examples that I could also counter with where the member’s tax bracket changes do not, for instance, benefit families to the same degree as, for instance, even with the reduction we’ve added with fuel, the family tax credit increase, the Best Start payment increase. It will come down to the circumstances of those families. Bottom line: the member’s proposals, which for some families on very low incomes delivers $2, in many cases won’t deliver the same amount as our changes, and, also, he has not demonstrated how he will pay for them and continue to provide the healthcare and the other range of services that Governments are obliged to provide. [Member interjects]

Christopher Luxon: Can she explain how a family earning the average household income, who have seen the cost of living increase by as much as $5,000 over the last 12 months, are supposed to cope, let alone thrive, when this Government is completely ignoring them?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I totally reject the premise of that member’s question. Again, if we run through all of the work that we as a Government have done since we’ve come into office, we have been completely focused on ensuring we’re doing what we can to lift the incomes of New Zealanders. Now, whether or not it is, for instance, our policy to get rid of school donations so we take a bit of extra pressure off families to be paying for when their kids are going to school when they should be receiving free education; whether or not it’s free doctors visits for under-14s; whether it’s healthy food in schools for 200,000 children across the country—even period products in schools. That is on top of the Best Start payment we introduced. That’s on top of extending paid parental leave; increases to the family tax credit, which was on top of those that we brought in when we came into office; or even the creation of the winter energy payment. We have had a relentless focus on the cost of living for New Zealanders since 2017. Now, I don’t deny that times are absolutely tough now, which is why you saw us this week, again, reduce fuel excise, whilst also making sure we don’t cut the projects that those families want us to continue with.

SPEAKER: Order! Before the Leader of the Opposition asks his next question, I do want to warn him that his last supplementary was out of order. The last phrase in it made it that way. While I’m on my feet, I will again admonish Mr Bishop. When he interjects he doesn’t interject in the second person. I think he’s a third-term MP now. He should know that.

Christopher Luxon: When she said yesterday that the Government was “giving back to … middle income earners”, does she believe someone earning $60,000 a year is a middle-income earner?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The first thing that I would say is that whether or not you are using tax cuts or tax credits, ultimately it’s a different way of ensuring that support is going to families, but the difference being there is either targeted or untargeted. By being targeted, we can reach low and middle income. I acknowledge, of course, median wage is putting people generally at about $72,000, from memory. But what we’re focused on is how we can lift the amount of support that exists whilst families are facing an increase in the costs of living—relative to the member’s proposal, where he would reduce taxes the most for those who are on the wealthiest incomes and cannot tell us how he will pay for the other services that those families rely on.

Christopher Luxon: Does she agree that resetting the tax brackets in real terms to where they were four years ago is not even giving back; it’s simply the Government not taking more of what Kiwis earn because of inflation?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I just said in my last answer, whether or not you do it with a tax bracket adjustment or a tax credit, it is simply a targeted way of trying to achieve that same thing.

Christopher Luxon: Will the Budget contain meaningful tax relief for Kiwi families earning an average household income, who are facing record price increases while paying more tax under Labour because of bracket creep?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As you will have seen from our initiatives, we haven’t waited. From December of last year, we saw, based on what many economists were forecasting by the simultaneous recovery globally of economies, that we would see extra pressure on supply, extra supply chain constraints—those things which have contributed to inflation in a number of countries and economies we compare ourselves to. So we moved in December to put those increases in place for 1 April, and then this week we moved immediately—

Chris Bishop: Immediately? Straight after a poll. Ha, ha!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —when we saw just the volatility in fuel prices—within 24 hours from announcement, seeing reduction at the pump. If Mr Bishop thinks the 25c reduction is laughable, for many people it is not.

Christopher Luxon: Does she believe that families on the average household income, who are paying more tax while getting smashed with inflation, are somehow immune to the cost of living crisis, and, if not, can she explain why she is refusing to give them tax relief at the Budget?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I’ve already said in my answers, we have focused on using the tax credit system to ensure that we are lifting the incomes of our low and middle income earners—particularly focused on those with children and those with younger children, where we know the cost burden is higher, and that’s where the Best Start payment has been particularly useful. Contrast that with the member’s proposal, which would see a couple on $280,000 or more receiving an extra $23 a week as the result of his tax cuts at the highest-income bracket. Taxpayers need us to do a bit of everything. They need us to look at the cost of living—and we have with fuel and, of course, the package which comes in on 1 April. But they also want to know they can get the healthcare they need when they need it. They also want to know that they have the best-quality schools possible. Governments have to make sure that they do everything. The member has not told us how he will pay for everything with his policies and his fiscal hole.

Question No. 3—Finance

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

The manufacturing sector is continuing to support the economy. Statistics New Zealand reported last week that manufacturing sales jumped 12 percent in the December quarter compared with the previous September quarter, as restrictions related to the Delta outbreak were eased. Stats New Zealand said this marked an all-time high for the industry since data collection began in June 1992. Manufacturing activity has remained resilient in 2022, and, on Friday, the seasonally adjusted BNZ BusinessNZ Performance of Manufacturing Index for February rose 1.3 points to 53.6. A reading above 50 indicates that manufacturing is generally expanding; while below 50, that it is declining. The long-term average is 53.1. New orders and production rose, while employment moved back into expansion. BusinessNZ called the result positive, but cautioned that the spread of Omicron could still affect business plans in coming months.

Dr Duncan Webb: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The labour market has remained strong, with job ads near record highs. Earlier this month, the Seek NZ Employment Report for February 2022 edged down 0.1 percent on January, but it is up 68 percent for the year. BNZ economists said that this may reflect the need for businesses to plan for staff with Omicron having to self-isolate, but the high number of ads also indicated that firms are taking a view of the labour market beyond the near-term impacts of the pandemic. One exception to the result was in hospitality and tourism, which declined 13 percent. But BNZ noted that the reopening of the borders, as announced today, and the easing of restrictions are expected to help revive the fortunes of these sectors. Overall, the BNZ said that the result signals that unemployment will stay at record low levels at the beginning of 2022.

Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on support available to deal with the challenges of Omicron on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The ANZ-Roy Morgan Consumer Confidence Index, reported earlier this month, shows that consumer confidence had fallen to its lowest level in the 18-year history of the survey. We acknowledge that this is a challenging time for New Zealanders, and these results reflect the spread of Omicron and the rising cost of living due to global factors. We have acted to support households through temporarily cutting taxes on fuel, and further support that will be available with the cost of living measures from 1 April. We’re also supporting businesses through this time, through the targeted COVID Support Payment. The second payment opened on Monday and so far has paid out $70.1 million to 14,627 applicants. When combined with the first payment, we’ve now had a total of $424.4 million being paid out to 85,794 applicants. We are continuing to protect jobs and support New Zealand businesses by providing cash flow and confidence. We recognise that this is a tough time for many businesses and we are here to support them. The experience overseas indicates that Omicron has an intense but relatively short peak, and, once that passes, confidence will return quickly and spending will rebound.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with ANZ economist Miles Workman that “Inflation is now running laps around wage growth”, and “households are going backwards at an alarming rate”?

First, can I congratulate the member on her new role. I note that Mr Workman’s comments are in a document titled, “Rebound 3.5”, which predicts a strong bounce back in December quarter economic growth. I agree to the extent that, at this current point in time, households are facing significant cost of living pressures as a result of high inflation driven by global factors such as COVID-related supply chain issues and the war in Ukraine. However, when it comes to the relationship between inflation and wage growth, I think it is important to look past temporary spikes and, rather, at long-term trends, which has seen wage growth outstrip inflation in recent years, something which is predicted to continue in years to come. Right now, the Government’s focus is on supporting the incomes of those New Zealanders most affected by the rise in prices, also while easing pressure caused by the global energy crisis, through a 25 percent litre cut to the fuel excise duty and equivalent reductions to the road-user charge.

Nicola Willis: Why does he keep gaslighting New Zealanders by claiming his stats prove—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will start—no, the member will start another supplementary now.

Nicola Willis: Why does he keep patronising New Zealanders by claiming—

SPEAKER: The member may start another supplementary now.

Nicola Willis: Why does he keep trying to fool New Zealanders by claiming his statistics prove they’re getting ahead under his Government, when they know they’re not?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premise of the member’s questions, and I would point her to the fact that wages have outpaced inflation between 2018 and 2021 and are projected to do so again. There are periods of time in New Zealand’s history when inflation does in fact outpace wage growth. One of those was in 2010 and 2011 under a National Government.

Nicola Willis: What does he say to Karl, who wrote to me saying, “I get what you would think is a nice amount of money a week. Yet even I am struggling at the moment.”, and can the Minister explain how he expects middle-income Kiwis to cope with the cost of living crisis, when they are not eligible for the 1 April changes to benefits and Working for Families?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the Prime Minister outlined in her earlier answer, the Government has instituted a number of measures across the four years that we’ve been in Government to help ease cost of living pressures, be it taking away school donations, be it things like food in schools and a range of other supports. On this side of the House, when we put a Budget together, we’ve got difficult choices to make. Among those choices is whether or not we stop investing in long-term issues, like, for instance, building roads or public transport routes, or whether we have to balance that against making sure that we support those on the lowest incomes. There are no easy choices. We have chosen the ones we have; the member’s party has chosen tax cuts for the most wealthy New Zealanders.

Nicola Willis: Is he concerned by surveys showing one in three under-35-year-olds are planning to leave New Zealand in the next five years, and does he agree with economist Tony Alexander, who says we could soon see a brain drain of Kiwis attracted to Australia by “lower house prices, lower cost of living, higher incomes”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’d be interested to know if the National Party’s policy was to ban the OE, because that’s what we heard just there from the member today. What we do know is that, in New Zealand today, we have the largest number of New Zealanders in work in modern history in New Zealand, the lowest rate of unemployment, and a Government that’s backing a productive economy. In contrast, we have a National Party offering tax cuts to the richest New Zealanders and two bucks—two bucks—a week for those on lower incomes.

Nicola Willis: What is his response to Merva, who wrote to me saying, “Who can afford $500 to $600 a week rent, when you are lucky to bring home $800 a week in the hand? Shame on the Government.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I would say to Mervyn is that this Government is building more houses than any Government since the 1970s, that we did not deny the existence of a housing crisis, and that record building consents mean that supply is now catching up with demand, and perhaps the Government that Mervyn was calling shame on was the last National Government that failed to build houses.

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to remind the member that including unparliamentary things within quotes does not make them parliamentary. I think the member probably knows that.

Nicola Willis: Does he accept his policies are failing Jordan, who wrote to me saying, “I too struggle to afford food. Sometimes we only eat toast. I’ve had KiwiSaver since I was 16. Now I’m 30 and I don’t have enough for a house deposit. I’m scared we’re not going to have a home for my unborn baby.”, and is he concerned that his policies are failing a generation of New Zealanders?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House, we are proud of the fact that we’ve made a massive investment in housing to make sure that New Zealanders do have a secure future. On the other side of the House, they have a record of selling off housing, and now their promise to low and middle income New Zealanders is $2 a week while they—members in this House—would get thousands of dollars a year in tax cuts. That’s not the way to a fair society. That’s not the way to making sure that people have economic security.

Question No. 5—Energy and Resources

5. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What responses has she seen to the Government’s decision to cut fuel excise and road-user charges by 25 cents per litre?

The most immediate response I saw to the Government’s announcement to cut fuel excise by 25c per litre was fuel prices across New Zealand dropping. Little over an hour after the announcement, prices at the pump started falling. From the lowest fuel price in Greymouth, there was a 29c per litre fall in the price of Regular 91 today, compared to Monday. For the lowest fuel price in Auckland, there was a 31c per litre fall in the price of Regular 91, Monday to Tuesday, and a 29c fall in Hastings, and these figures show our reduction in excise is already making a big difference to consumers across the country.

Tangi Utikere: What feedback has she received on the Government’s decision to cut fuel excise by 25c per litre?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’ve seen a number of enthusiastic and positive responses to the Government’s decision to cut fuel excise and road-user charges by 25c a litre. The Auckland Business Chamber said that the Government’s reduction in fuel excise exemplified the decisive leadership New Zealanders expect and deserve. Julie Wyatt from Hospitality New Zealand said that the Government’s reduction was an essential move that would provide New Zealanders with urgent relief, while the Motor Trade Association has said cutting taxes on fuel without impact on funding for major roading projects is a win-win for motorists.

Tangi Utikere: What response has she seen from New Zealanders?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’ve seen a number of responses from New Zealanders to the reduction in fuel excise. Radio New Zealand reported an Auckland mother who said the excise reduction will mean her family “can buy some of the things for the girls, more fruit, and some meals that are more healthy than just eating frozen vegetables”. Tema said the reduction “will really help us in this crisis situation that the whole country’s going through”. I’m proud of the action that our Government is taking to give Kiwi families immediate relief through the current global energy crisis, triggered by the war in Ukraine.

Question No. 6—Housing (Public Housing)

6. to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): What was the national weekly median rent in October 2017, and what is the current national weekly median rent according to MBIE rental bond data?

And can I congratulate the member on—welcome to housing. There are a range of measures used to analyse rent prices of which Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) rental bond data is one. The Government uses the Stats New Zealand rental price index, which shows that, from October 2017 to December 2021, rents rose 16.4 percent. To put this in context, we saw the same 16.4 percent increase between August 2013 and October 2017. According to MBIE tenancy bond data, the national weekly median rent was $400 in October 2017 and $550 in January 2022. I would note that officials and commentators have warned that the MBIE data is often significantly revised, often downwards. That is due to bonds for more expensive properties being lodged earlier, and lower bonds being lodged later. This can result in exaggerated rent increase data for the most recent months. This Government recognises that the rental market is under pressure right now and we will continue to support renters and that is why we have limited rent increases to once a year, banned rental bidding, and increased the wages and benefits for low and middle income earners.

Chris Bishop: Is she aware that rent has increased by $150 per week since the Government came into office, and why does rent affordability continue to decline under this Government?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What I do accept is there are some people who are doing it tough right now, but we have made a number of changes to support our renters during this time. A married couple, for example, receiving jobseeker support now receives $88 more per week in their weekly benefit after tax compared to March 2020. The average rent reported by couples renting and receiving the accommodation supplement increased by $38 per week for the same period. An adult working a 40-hour week on the minimum wage saw their income increase by almost $75 per week after tax between March 2020 and December 2021.

Chris Bishop: Point of order. It was an interesting answer, but it didn’t go anywhere near addressing the question as to why rent affordability continues to decline. It’s just a bunch of stuff about welfare benefits.

Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order, there were two questions, and, in actual fact, the member had actually answered the first of those in her primary answer.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, we’ll see if Mr Bishop wants another supplementary first. I haven’t—I mean, I don’t think I need to rule on it. I’m sorry, Mr Bishop. I’m sure you are aware that when you ask a two-legged supplementary that the obligation on the Minister is to only answer one of them.

Chris Bishop: She could have addressed both of them, but she didn’t.

SPEAKER: Sorry—order! The member doesn’t comment on my rulings. No, he’s not in the school debating team anymore; he’s in the House of Representatives.

Chris Bishop: What is her response to statistics which show the weekly median rent for three- to four-bedroom properties across New Zealand saw the biggest annual increase of 8 percent to $650 a week last year, and why does the average rental house continue to become more unaffordable under this Government?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What I can say is that there is no doubt that there are people who are doing it tough right now. The response from this Government has been from the time we came to Government to increase the incomes of low and middle income earners to cushion themselves from just the kinds of shocks that we are seeing right now. Not only that, this Government responds to issues that come up by ensuring that we have wages that keep pace with the cost of living, that we are in a particular time right now due to the impacts of what’s happening in the Ukraine. And this Government responds by ensuring that families can have more of their income to put to those things because we reduce the cost to them in terms of petrol, in terms of payments to schools. We have, as a Government, made sure that families have got more in their pockets to cushion them against the times that come up, such as this one.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is the member aware that the four-year increase since we came into Government between 2017 and 2021 of 16.4 percent in rents is exactly the same as the four-year period from 2013 to 2016 when the National Party were in Government?

Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility for the 2013 to 2016 period.

SPEAKER: I’ve heard members from that side regularly ask for comparatives between the period that the current Government’s responsible for and the previous one. And that is entirely in line with that. And I just want to say, I think the member actually knows that. He is getting to the point of going from being disorderly to highly disorderly. Supplementary, the Hon Poto Williams.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Yes, I am aware. And, as I answered in the primary question, I am aware of that. But what I do want to say is: this Government recognises that the rental market is under pressure right now, and we continue to support rentals.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! The member has answered the question.

Chris Bishop: When does she expect rents to stabilise or drop under this Government?

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Auckland, it’s 2.7.

Chris Bishop: I asked her, not you.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What I can say is that—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The member will now stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Chris Bishop: Withdraw and apologise. A point of order.

SPEAKER: If this is disorderly, the member will be leaving the Chamber.

Chris Bishop: Well, Mr Speaker, I asked a question, and as I was finishing asking the question, the Prime Minister answered for me, when the question wasn’t to her; it was to the Associate Minister.

SPEAKER: And the member, for the fifth or sixth time today, from a seat very close to me, referred to me in his interjection. He knows what the rules are; he’s not a stupid member. I can only assume he’s doing it deliberately.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Can I say one thing that I’m enormously proud of this Government, and that is for pressing ahead with increasing the supply of housing. If there is one thing that is going to ensure that we do our best to reduce the cost of housing, it is building supply. And that is what I’m proud that this Government is doing.

Chris Bishop: Does she think that there is a connection between weekly rents increasing by $150 per week since the Government came into office and 4,000 children growing up in motels, and, if so, what is she going to do about it?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What we have to do is increase the supply of housing. That is how we address the issues that that member has just raised. And that is what this Government is doing. The record number of building consents demonstrates the fact that we are well on our way to ensuring that we have got housing supply for our people, and I’m enormously proud of the work of this Government in that space.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the member confirm the direct correlation between increasing supply and rent increases, by the fact that when you look at the Stats New Zealand rent price index between February 2021 and February 2022, in Auckland increases are 2.7 percent—the area where we have seen record consents?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I can confirm that, and, further, I can confirm in places like Canterbury, where the supply of housing has increased, the same as evident. That demonstrates that increasing supply—

Chris Bishop: Nine years we’ve said that to Labour.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: —has a positive effect on the cost of housing and therefore on the cost of rents.

Chris Bishop: Oh, turns out supply works!

SPEAKER: Order! I am now going to refer Mr Bishop to Speaker’s ruling 61/1(1): he will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Chris Bishop: For what? I withdraw and apologise, but for what in particular, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: If the member—

Hon Member: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, I’ll deal with this one first. Does the member not realise when he laughs out loud so the House can hear him, while I’m on my feet, while I’m ruling about him? I was drawing his attention to one Speaker’s ruling; I’ll draw his attention to the second which is 61/2(3), and the consequences of that should probably have occurred already.

Question No. 7—Prime Minister

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

Yes, particularly the Government’s action to increase incomes of New Zealand families through a range of measures, including measures to protect lives and livelihoods during the one-in-100-year COVID-19 shock, including the wage subsidy and Resurgence Support Payment; our decision to increase support for those relying on main benefits that will mean 110,000 beneficiaries with children will be better off by an average of $175 per week; the introduction of the Best Start payment and its increase to $65 per week on 1 April; raising the minimum wage, which over time has come from $15.75 to $21.20 as at 1 April; introducing and extending the free Healthy School Lunches programme to over 200,000 students; reducing education costs for parents by increasing funding for deciles 1 to 7 schools that agree not to request donations; and by removing NCEA fees. All of these initiatives are one of the reasons we’ve seen progress against all nine child poverty indicators in New Zealand since we took office. I especially stand by the decision to prioritise these changes over the member’s plan to provide over $9,900 a year to someone earning over $300,000 and not a single dollar to someone earning $45,000. We’ll continue to work to grow the incomes of all New Zealanders, not just the highest-income earners.

David Seymour: A point of order. I find myself in a very difficult position, because the Prime Minister is telling the House what ACT’s policies are and getting it wrong. It actually would give a lot of relief to people—

SPEAKER: Well, the member will resume his seat. I think the member knows that I don’t have responsibility for the answers. If the member thinks that a Minister has got something wrong, there are ways of taking that up, but points of order is not one of them.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: No, no. I’ve ruled on the point of order.

David Seymour: A fresh point of order, and I in no way mean to dispute your ruling; however, you said you don’t have responsibility, but, actually, the Standing Orders do require that answers do not contain unnecessary arguments or information. Now, the Prime Minister has, very arguably, done that. She’s not responsible for ACT’s policies and she doesn’t get them right either.

SPEAKER: Sorry, I’m just—

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, may I speak to the point of order, given you haven’t yet ruled?

SPEAKER: You can. It will give me a chance to look up the references.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Somewhat tentatively, if I could buy you some time—speaking to the point of order, I would be happy to table the member’s own Supplementary Order Paper, dated Tuesday, 15 March, on the tax rates that he is proposing, which is the basis of the answer that I gave.

SPEAKER: No, I think now I’ve got to the point where I’ve got my head around the appropriate Standing Order and it is 367, and that is something which is done in writing. So we’re not going to go any further on this point of order now. If the member wants another supplementary question or if the member wants the first supplementary question, he can ask it.

David Seymour: OK, a fresh point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Unrelated?

David Seymour: Unrelated. In the point of order that the Prime Minister just raised, she offered to table a Supplementary Order Paper which has already been published publicly by the House. Surely she knows that, and it’s disorderly to suggest it.

SPEAKER: I’m trying to work out whether the member wants to stay or not. Supplementary question, David Seymour.

Chris Bishop: It’s a good point.

David Seymour: Point of order?

Chris Bishop: Ha, ha!

SPEAKER: Order! Look, Mr Bishop. No, the member will resume his seat. One thing that—you know, it may be a disadvantage to the member with a new seat; I have sat in that very seat.

Chris Bishop: I don’t think it’s going to be a new seat for me.

SPEAKER: Order! There he goes again—there he goes again. I mean, if I was either of my predecessors, he would have been gone half an hour ago. The member must not run a commentary on Speakers’ rulings. It may be that I can hear him more easily now he is sitting in that seat. I have sat there before and I know that it has advantages and disadvantages. And I’ll say to Mr Goldsmith: his running commentaries are much easier to hear as well now that he is sitting there, but what I’m not going to have is constant comments on my rulings. And if the member’s going to comment on this one, he’s asking to leave the House.

Chris Bishop: Just a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just—

SPEAKER: Well, as long as it’s not going to comment on this ruling.

Chris Bishop: I’m just trying to be helpful.

SPEAKER: If it does, he’s going.

Chris Bishop: I’m just trying to be helpful. Would it be useful if we had a coffee afterwards so that you can understand the difference between sotto voce when I speak and, actually, speaking in public? I’m happy to go for a coffee to discuss—

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll decline the member’s invitation for a date, because I have meetings that go on for some time afterwards. But I will say to the member: just because it’s quiet for him, doesn’t mean I can’t hear it. David Seymour [Interruption] Now, have we got up to supplementary questions yet?

David Seymour: I was just wondering if Chris Bishop would like to have a coffee. [Interruption] Oh, cool—see you later. After question time? Yeah, cool. Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: David Seymour.

David Seymour: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Prime Minister stand by the statement she made to this House just two weeks ago, “To simply carte blanche open the borders would be at a great cost, potentially, to New Zealanders, and we’re not willing to do that at this time.”, and, if so, how does she reconcile that with her statement this morning that “In short, we’re ready to welcome the world back.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Quite easily. We have said, even from the beginning of February, that the right time to open the borders would be at the point that we know when we are, essentially, reaching our peak, and when we have confidence that we are on the other side of it, and that cases are stabilising in our hospitals. Now that we are there, it is easier to anticipate how much longer we may expect some of that pressure on our hospital system.

David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware of a poll released on Saturday by news organisation One News showing 75 percent of voters want the border reopened, and, if she was aware, can she reassure New Zealanders it had no effect on her change of stance on opening the border?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It had absolutely no effect. At the beginning of February, we announced our reopening plans, and at that time I said it was highly likely that we would bring forward all of those dates once we had reached the high peak of our outbreak, because, at that point, experts had advised us that it would make less difference to have a large number of people coming in. We also sought expert advice on when that reopening date would be, preceding any of the measures that the member is pointing to. We have never based our decisions on people’s lives and livelihoods on something like a poll; we’ve based it on evidence and advice—I would assert that nor does the member, because I would have thought his policy, to say that everything that we’ve done on COVID should have been reversed because he believes we would have been better off with people dying, doesn’t seem to be based on popularity either.

David Seymour: Will the Prime Minister table all that advice she just referred to, to use the decision in this House, right now so everyone else can read it too?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We’ve always released the advice that we receive from Professor David Skegg. We proactively release our Cabinet papers. We publicly release our public health advice, and it’s contained in the Reconnecting papers that will also be released. The speech where I said that we would likely bring those dates forward, I believe, was on, possibly, 3 February, was live streamed, and is publicly available.

David Seymour: How many cases and hospitalisations will New Zealand avoid by waiting another six weeks to open the border to all tourists, and can she explain why this reduction in cases and hospitalisations is worth the cost of continuing isolation to businesses, families, and people up and down New Zealand?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Just to be clear with the member, what we’ve announced today is the blanket reopening for all tourists from Australia and visa-waiver countries, so it’s actually not purely a decision about lifting isolation. When it comes to how many additional cases we receive, even if you had half, possibly 65 percent of previous returnees, you’re looking at about an additional thousand cases on top of what you’re already receiving in any given week. What we have to be mindful of is the wider impact on our hospital system. So, yes, we have high case numbers now, but we also have high case numbers in our hospitals. Whilst we may have peaked in Auckland, we have not elsewhere, and some of our regional hospitals, of course, they do have smaller numbers of high dependency unit and ICU capacity. We have to balance the need to ensure that people get the hospital care they need with our economic recovery. The final point I would make is that, actually, many operators have welcomed these dates. The 12th of April means that we will capture the vast majority of school holidays and it gives them, albeit a short time, time to prepare for their re-entry trip into the country.

David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister confirm what she just appeared to tell the House, that she’s keeping the border closed for another six weeks to reduce case numbers by a thousand a week in a country that is experiencing anywhere from 120,000 to 140,000 domestic cases right now?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I said, that is only if you had, for instance, half, or roughly half, of those individuals return. And as we’ve always said, all of our decisions have been based on the best advice and evidence that we have, and that advice from the beginning has said—and Professor Skegg gave it just a week ago from the podium publicly—that their advice would be not to reopen generally to tourists until we had reached the peak. We’re not clear we have, but we’ve estimated that by 12 April we will be in the best possible position. Most New Zealanders have welcomed this decision. I would have thought this might be an opportunity for the member to as well.

Hon David Parker: What would have been the outcome for New Zealand’s pandemic in the January period when New Zealanders were on holiday, had the Government opened the borders in December before booster rates were higher?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is correct that in this House it was the common position of both the member and the Leader of the Opposition to declare 1 December “freedom day”. That was within days of the World Health Organization declaring Omicron a variant of concern. We had only just begun the booster roll-out. Had we opened at that time, I fear that the outcomes in New Zealand would have been vastly different. Some people still trivialise COVID; it is not to be trivialised. Yes, we are working hard to bring as much normality back as possible. But when you look at the likes of Hong Kong that is experiencing similar case rates to New Zealand, the death rate is vastly different because—different in vaccination rates. It made a difference for us to hold Omicron back for the time we did. Seventy-three percent of our eligible population is now vaccinated, and soon we will be ready to safely fully reopen.

David Seymour: What would have been the effect on the pandemic had a country called New Zealand been at the “front of the queue” for procuring vaccines, and the booster roll-out was completed by December and we could open up and save billions of dollars?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member there is just wrong. There was almost no country that had completed a booster roll-out by 1 December.

Question No. 8—Education

8. to the Minister of Education: What actions is the Government taking to support schools and early learning services to keep children and young people safe during the Omicron outbreak?

on behalf of the Minister of Education: Nearly an additional million rapid antigen tests are being made available and easier to access in schools and early learning centres. Schools, kura, and early learning centres can opt in to be provided with rapid antigen tests to give to symptomatic children, young people, and staff, and the people in their households. I know this is an uncertain time for a lot of us, and we want to keep schools and early learning centres open while keeping young people and children healthy and well. The advice and feedback I have received from the education sector is that greater access to rapid antigen testing could help them to do that.

Camilla Belich: Is there any other provision being made for the use of rapid antigen testing in education settings?

Hon JAN TINETTI: On behalf of the Minister, early learning centres will also be able to access rapid antigen tests for reassurance testing so that parents can have confidence in their centre to stay open and for their children to continue to attend. Those centres that opt in will receive enough tests for staff to do twice-weekly testing. Staff at specialist schools and special-needs units will also be able to access rapid antigen testing for this purpose and will be prioritised for distribution, as will staff at school hostels. This is a voluntary short-term measure while we get through the peak of the Omicron outbreak. It will be reviewed again in a few weeks’ time.

Camilla Belich: What other protections do schools and early childhood centres have?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Schools and early learning centres already have very good protections in place, with all staff required to be vaccinated, mask use in year 4 and up, and good ventilation. In fact, portable air cleaners are already being sent to schools to be used in classrooms, staff rooms, and other spaces where there is a need to supplement natural ventilation. We expect all schools will have at least one portable air cleaner by May, with additional cleaners for larger schools. A further procurement is under way to identify suppliers to meet any future need for carbon dioxide monitors and portable air cleaners.

Question No. 9—Oceans and Fisheries

9. to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Will the Government ban bottom trawling on seamounts in New Zealand waters and support similar measures in international waters, including in the South Pacific?

Fisheries New Zealand and the Department of Conservation are establishing a multi-stakeholder forum on managing the effects of trawling on the benthic environment in New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The impacts on seamounts and seamount-like features are being considered as part of the forum deliberations. Following the forum and public consultation, the Government will consider whether to impose additional restrictions on bottom trawling in New Zealand or EEZ waters. Bottom trawling in international South Pacific waters is regulated by the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation—SPRFMO. SPRFMO is due to review the issue at the 2023 commission meeting, and the issue is also being considered intersessionally by SPRFMO members, of which New Zealand is one. New Zealand will play a responsible role in that consideration.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he stand by his statement that “I do accept that bottom trawling has environmental impacts and we should be doing our utmost to moderate them.”, and, if so, why has he set up a stakeholder forum rather than taking immediate action to moderate these impacts?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, and we will achieve that moderation through the steps that we’ve taken.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Has he received any recent advice on creating a framework for defining and identifying habitats of particular significance for fisheries management, in accordance with section 9(c) of the 1996 Fisheries Act, following the report of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser in March 2021, and, if so, what did that advice say?

Hon DAVID PARKER: If the member means “very recently”, no. Since the Chief Science Adviser’s report was received, I have received some advice on that. And it also informed the measures that the Government took in response to the sea-change recommendations in the Hauraki Gulf.

SPEAKER: Sorry, supplementary question, the Hon Eugenie Sage. Just a bit of a reminder: you get two and then you ask them after that. But we’ll keep going until you stop, OK?

Hon Eugenie Sage: Thank you. Does he agree with former Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark, who was reported last week as saying, “It is a concern to me that New Zealand still bottom trawls on sea mounts in the South Pacific high seas areas, and the Tasman Sea … there’s incredible damage being done to our seamounts from this kind of activity.”, and, if so, what action is he taking to avoid this damage?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I agree that bottom trawling causes environmental damage, as I have previously said. I don’t think these things are as easy to solve when you are in Government, as they appear to be after you’ve left.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he agree with the Rt Hon Helen Clark, who was also reported as saying last week that she hoped bottom trawling of seamounts in the South Pacific would be banned under a sufficiently strong global oceans treaty, and, if not, why not?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I have great respect for my former leader, but I don’t agree with all of her prescriptions, which is not to say I disagree with this one.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he believe New Zealand’s position as the only country which has commercial fishing vessels bottom trawling on seamounts in the South Pacific is defensible in the face of an urgent global biodiversity crisis; if so, why?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m not sure that I quite agree with the articulation of the way in which the member describes New Zealand’s position compared with other countries. I would observe that some of the countries that take positions through SPRFMO take different positions in other parts of the world, including areas where they fish.

Question No. 10—Social Development and Employment

10. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What measures will take effect on 1 April to support people and whānau with the cost of living?

On 1 April, a suite of measures will take effect that will see the Government delivering increases to main benefit rates, student allowance and living costs, childcare assistance income thresholds, Working for Families tax credits, and the orphans benefit and unsupported child’s benefit and foster care allowance. Our Government are also lifting the minimum wage to $21.20, and, on 1 May, over 1.2 million New Zealanders will start receiving the winter energy payment. It is hard for many whānau right now. There is no silver bullet that will fix this issue; however, our Government are continuing to take action to ease the pressures on whānau.

Glen Bennett: How many people will be better off as a result of these changes?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The changes taking effect on 1 April will see more money in the pockets of approximately 1.25 million individuals. Compared to 2017 policy settings, and as a result of our increases to welfare support since taking office, 364,000 beneficiaries will be better off by, on average, $109 per week—increasing to $133 per week during the 2022 winter period. Of these beneficiaries, 109,000 beneficiaries with children will be better off by, on average, $175 per week, increasing to $207 per week during the 2022 winter period. It’s important people are aware of these changes and know what they’re eligible for. We encourage people to use the Ministry of Social Development’s online tool, which helps people find out what assistance they may be able to receive based on their individual or family circumstances.

Glen Bennett: What other changes have been made to lift incomes for people and whānau?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: In addition to the changes outlined before, our Government has continuously worked to lift incomes and improve support for people in need. Over the course of the last term and a half, our Government has raised benefit levels, removed the sanctions which impact children the most, invested $5.5 billion through the families package, increased the minimum wage year on year, raised the family tax credit, indexed benefits to average wage increases, raised abatement thresholds, and invested heavily in job training. We are seeing good progress, but we absolutely accept that there is more to do.

Question No. 11—Justice

11. to the Minister of Justice: Is the Government taking all possible steps to reduce violent crime and to prioritise the needs of victims of crime?

The Government has a significant programme of work under way in both of those areas. We’re taking steps to protect victims of family violence, including the excellent work undertaken by Minister Davidson to develop New Zealand’s first strategy to eliminate family and sexual violence. We’ve also introduced legislation to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk offenders, and we’re also reforming the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act to hit gangs where it hurts: to seize their assets and money when they can’t prove it has been legitimately earned. Last year, this Government also passed the Sexual Violence Legislation Act, which makes changes to trial processes and evidence rules to reduce the unnecessary re-traumatisation that sexual violence complainants can experience in court. We’ve increased funding for the likes of the Victim Assistance Scheme to ensure that more victims get the support they need. And we’ve also invested in practical programmes to keep victims safe, like the Women’s Refuge, Whānau Protect, and the National Home Safety Service. All of these measures are designed to make sure we’re reducing violent crime and prioritising the needs of victims.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he argue these steps have been effective, when violent crime has increased by 21 percent over the past two years, while convictions have reduced 19 percent over the same time period?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: If the member is referring to some of the statistics that were released yesterday, I would also note that the overall number of charges that are being put on have reduced. So I would ask that the member take a glass half-full approach as to the current glass half-empty approach.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the Government accept responsibility for the 50 percent increase in gang numbers under its watch, and does he accept this is why many New Zealanders are seeing an increase of lawlessness and violence in their communities?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I stand by the Government’s track record to make sure we give the police the legislation to clamp down on organised crime—as I have mentioned, the moves around the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, and also our commitment regarding funding to the police to increase the number of police on the beat.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can the Government possibly argue it prioritises victims, when the resolution rate, which measures when formal proceedings are brought after someone has suffered a violent crime, has declined from nearly 70 percent in 2017 to a mere 47 percent in 2021? That’s fewer than half.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I stand by our track record to support victims. As I mentioned, this Government has increased the support to the likes of Victim Support and the Victim Assistance Scheme by the tune, I believe, of around $7 million compared to when that party was last in Government.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: No, the member’s used all his supplementaries. That concludes oral questions—oh, sorry, one more question.

Question No. 12—Tourism

12. to the Minister of Tourism: What announcements has the Government recently made about the future of tourism for Aotearoa New Zealand?

This morning, the Prime Minister and I announced that international tourists will be welcomed back to New Zealand earlier than expected as the Government accelerates the country’s economic recovery. From 11.59 p.m. on Tuesday, 12 April, Australians can travel to New Zealand. From 11.59 p.m. on Sunday, 1 May, vaccinated travellers from visa-waiver countries and those with valid visitor visas will also be able to travel to New Zealand. To support that reopening, I’ve announced a new tourism marketing campaign launched in Australia by Tourism New Zealand to build demand for travel to New Zealand as we prepare to open borders for our first international visitors. That campaign is seeking to persuade Australians that our unique landscapes and Kiwi hospitality and friendliness are “Within Your Wildest Dreams”. Tourism New Zealand has been working hard over the past two years to keep “Brand New Zealand” alive in the minds of international travellers and tourists. And with the announcement today, we’re well and truly gearing up to welcome visitors to our little piece of paradise.

Shanan Halbert: Supplementary. Why is it important—

SPEAKER: The member may have a supplementary, but I’m going to warn the Minister that his answer was far too long, and this is the only supplementary he’s going to get.

Shanan Halbert: Why is it important that Aotearoa New Zealand is still marketed as a tourism destination?

Hon STUART NASH: It was a very important announcement today, Mr Speaker. It’s a shame that you’ve cut me off from one of my supplementaries. But anyway, reopening to Australia—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member—he can’t resume his seat because he’s sitting down already, but he’s going to stop talking. The member has commented on one of my rulings in the way that I’ve been admonishing members not to do today. That will now conclude oral questions—

Hon Todd McClay: Point of order.

SPEAKER: That now concludes oral questions. A point of order, the Hon Todd McClay.

Hon Todd McClay: Well, Mr Speaker, thank you. I was going to say a better punishment for the Minister would have been to offer the Opposition a supplementary question on this.

SPEAKER: Now, the member’s team sacrificed a number of supplementary questions by being out of order. If the member really wants to get supplementary questions, he needs to work with his whips or work with his front bench not to do that.