Questions and Answers - Nov 9
ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Government—Measurable
Targets
1. Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the
Opposition) to the Prime Minister:
What will the specific measurable targets be, if any, that
she will use to hold her Government to
account?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Acting Prime
Minister): As Prime Minister, I will hold my
Ministers to account for improving the well-being and living
standards of New Zealanders.
Rt Hon Bill
English: What is the appropriate
measure—[Interruption]
Mr
SPEAKER: Order! Sorry, I'm just going to start
right now. Who is the member who interjected then? Right,
there's an additional question to the
Opposition.
Rt Hon Bill English: What is
the appropriate measure we should follow to monitor progress
on KiwiBuild where the Government has committed to build
100,000 houses over the next 10 years?
Hon KELVIN
DAVIS: We will make decisions on appropriate
targets in due course.
Rt Hon Bill
English: So does that mean that the current
expression of the Government's commitment, which is "to
build 100,000 houses over the next 10 years" does not
necessarily mean what most people would take it to
mean?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We will make and
confirm decisions on appropriate targets in due
course.
Rt Hon Bill English: Does the
Government stand by—[Interruption]
Mr
SPEAKER: Order! The chief Government whip, I think,
interjected, or someone around her did. There is a further
supplementary to the Opposition.
Rt Hon Bill
English: Does the Prime Minister stand by her
Government's commitment to "build 100,000 houses over the
next 10 years"?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We
will make and confirm decisions on appropriate targets in
due course.
Rt Hon Bill English: Why did
the Government commit to "build 100,000 houses over the next
10 years" if it is now not willing to re-express that
commitment in this House?
Hon KELVIN
DAVIS: Because the previous Government didn't build
houses.
Rt Hon Bill English: Is it
possible that the Government is revising this commitment
because of public statements made by the Minister of Housing
and Urban Development, that the commitment may involve not
building houses but buying existing houses?
Hon
KELVIN DAVIS: No.
Rt Hon Bill
English: What other reason could there possibly be
for not being willing to restate a commitment made by all
its members right though the election campaign to "build
100,000 houses"? What other reason could there be not to
make that commitment here today?
Hon KELVIN
DAVIS: We are not revising targets. We will make
and confirm decisions on appropriate targets in due
course.
Rt Hon Bill English: So is the
commitment to build 100,000 houses an appropriate target, or
one that is subject to revision or further decisions, or is
it one that we should take at its word?
Hon
KELVIN DAVIS: The member will find out in due
course.
Rt Hon Bill English: My question
to the Prime Minister is this, then: are there other
commitments that were made during the election campaign and
in the Speech from the Throne that are now open to revision
and later decisions?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS:
We are committed to implementing what the Governor-General
has said in the Speech from the Throne.
Hon Amy
Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just
want to clarify: it's been the practice in the House for
some time that a member answering on behalf of another
member should clearly identify that. I didn't want to
interrupt the question, but can you clarify whether that is
still the case?
Mr SPEAKER: The Prime
Minister answered the
question.
• Housing—Shortfall,
Estimate
2. TAMATI COFFEY
(Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of
Housing and Urban Development: What is the latest
estimate of shortfall in housing and how has he responded to
it?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and
Urban Development): We've inherited a crisis. The
official figures show a shortfall of 71,000 homes, with a
shortage of 45,000 homes in Auckland—far worse than the
previous Government let on. Our Government has a
comprehensive plan to tackle the housing crisis by building
100,000 affordable homes over 10 years, stopping the
sell-off of State houses and building thousands more, and an
ambition programme of large-scale urban development
projects.
Tamati Coffey: What is his
response to the comments of the Reserve Bank Governor
regarding KiwiBuild?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD:
The governor's been very clear that he's made some
assumptions about KiwiBuild. Our view is that the numbers of
new affordable homes built under the KiwiBuild programme
will be additional—over and above what the private market
is already delivering—due to massive increases in the
construction workforce, the Housing Commission delivering
large-scale new urban development projects that otherwise
would not be happening, and our policy commitments to free
up the planning rules and deliver a pipeline of
infrastructure-ready finance. These are measures that will
directly tackle the capacity constraints that the governor
spoke of.
Tamati Coffey: Was he
surprised to receive this advice on the housing
shortfall?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, we
knew there was a crisis in housing for the last few years,
but I had no idea how bad things really were. The fact that
there's about 45,000 houses short in Auckland alone is one
of the main reasons that house prices doubled in the last 9
years, to an average of $1 million per house. It's the
reason why we have the worst homelessness and overcrowding
in living memory, and this Government is upfront: we are
going to release data about that. The near-decade of spin
and denial on housing is over.
Hon Michael
Woodhouse: Were the estimates quoted by the
Minister of a 71,000 housing shortfall and 45,000 in
Auckland provided to him in the briefing to the incoming
Minister provided by his officials?
Hon PHIL
TWYFORD: Yes.
Hon Michael
Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Given that answer, I require the Minister to table that
document under Standing Order 376.
Mr
SPEAKER: The member has no ability to require the
tabling of a document unless it's been quoted from in the
House, and the Minister was clearly not quoting from it at
that stage.
Hon Michael Woodhouse:
Speaking to the point of order—
Mr
SPEAKER: Well, I've ruled, Mr
Woodhouse.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: It is
a clarification, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER:
No, if the member has a fresh point of order that goes to a
different point, I'll hear him, but if he doesn't, I
won't.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, it
is a general point of clarification. I just want to
clarify—
Mr SPEAKER: Mr Woodhouse,
you've been a member for some time, I think you've been a
whip for some time, and I think the member does know that,
despite some pretence otherwise, there is no such thing as a
point of clarification.
Hon Michael
Woodhouse: Who is correct: the Minister of Housing
and Urban Development, who says that there is a fixed
commitment to build 100,000 extra houses, or the Prime
Minister, who says such a target has not yet been
set?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Both the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Housing and Urban Development
have reiterated our policy, which is to build 100,000
affordable homes to restore affordable homeownership to this
country.
Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier on, you awarded
additional supplementary questions to the Opposition for
Government interjection during their questions. Just a point
of clarification on your earlier—well, actually, no, a
question: does that apply when interjections are made by
members of the same party during questions, as we had just
before?
Mr SPEAKER: Yes, it does, but I
think, as the Minister is aware, I am slightly deaf in my
left ear, so I didn't hear any
interjections.
• Crown Expenses—Fiscal
Plan
3. Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National)
to the Minister of Finance: Can he confirm
it is his intention as Minister of Finance to ensure core
Crown expenses do not exceed $81.9 billion in 2017/18, $86.1
billion in 2018/19, $88.2 billion in 2019/20, $91.8 billion
in 2020/21, and $96.1 billion in 2021/22, as specified in
the Labour Party's pre-election Fiscal Plan?
Hon
GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I can
confirm that it is my intention for core Crown expenditure
as a percentage of GDP to be within the recent historical
range. As to the exact figures in the member's question, I
cannot confirm those as, of course, they are subject to
detailed Budget decisions and revenue forecasts that are yet
to be finalised.
Hon Steven Joyce: Can
he confirm that he stands by his statement from 4 September
this year, and I quote, "Labour's Fiscal Plan is robust, the
numbers are correct and we stand by them"?
Hon
GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm that the Budget that
this Government is putting together will be robust and it
will deliver on a commitment that this Government has made
to ensure that all New Zealanders share in
prosperity.
Michael Wood: What else, in
addition to managing core Crown expenditure, will guide the
Government's approach to responsible fiscal
management?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The
Government will observe the Budget responsibility rules as
indicated in the Speech from the Throne: namely, delivering
a sustainable operating balance before gains and losses;
reducing net core Crown debt to 20 percent of GDP within 5
years; and ensuring a fair and balanced progressive taxation
system. We will also never forget that the purpose of a
strong economy is to give every New Zealander the chance to
share in prosperity, and we will never be satisfied while
children live in poverty or families sleep in
cars.
Hon Steven Joyce: Does he stand by
his statement also on 4 September, and I quote, that "Our
operating expenses are above the line and are clearly
stated."?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The
Budget that this Government will prepare will be clear about
what we are spending and where the revenue for that is
coming from.
Hon Steven Joyce: So that's
a no. Can I also ask: does he stand by his statement, and I
quote, "We have quite clearly put in the spending
requirements to meet the promises we have made. Our fiscal
plan adds up. We are absolutely clear that we have the money
to meet the commitments that we've made.", also on 4
September?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The
Government will prepare a Budget that shows how we will pay
for the important commitments that we have made to ensure
that every New Zealander benefits from economic
prosperity.
Hon Steven Joyce: Can the
Minister of Finance then confirm that it is not his
intention to necessarily ensure core Crown expenditure does
not exceed $81.9 billion this current financial year, $86.1
billion in the next financial year, $88.2 billion in
2019-20, $91.8 billion in 2020-21, and $96.1 billion in
2021-22? Can he confirm that's not his intention, even
though it was specified in the Labour Party's pre-election
fiscal plan?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can
confirm that we will keep Government expenditure as a
percentage of GDP in line with the historical
range.
Hon Steven Joyce: Can the finance
Minister then confirm that he doesn't at all stand by the
numbers he presented in the Labour Party's fiscal plan prior
to the election?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON:
The Government is currently going through the usual process
of putting together a Budget. We are absolutely confident
that we will deliver a Budget that is in line with the
Budget responsibility rules that were outlined in the Speech
from the Throne and that will deliver to New Zealanders a
fair share in prosperity. As I said in my primary answer,
the final numbers are the subject of the normal Budget
process.
Hon Steven Joyce: I'm sorry, Mr
Speaker, but just to be clear, the Minister released a
fiscal plan prior to the election—
Mr
SPEAKER: Order! I will sit the member down now and
ask him to ask a question. Speaker Hunt used to have an old
saying that questions start with a question word, rather
than something else.
Hon Simon Bridges:
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr
SPEAKER: No.
Hon Simon Bridges:
It's a fresh, genuine point of order.
Mr
SPEAKER: Right.
Hon Simon
Bridges: It's simply this. The question was
straight, really: whether he stood by the numbers they had
pre-election. There really wasn't any attempt to answer that
specific question.
Hon Chris Hipkins:
Point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: No, I'm not
going to take any further comments on that. Both the asker
of the question and I thought that there was a very clear
response.
Hon Steven Joyce: Is he saying
that the actual numbers written on the Labour Party's fiscal
plan prior to this election, which he and his colleagues
defended vigorously during the election campaign, are no
longer relevant? The comments he has made suggest that he
will put whatever numbers he likes in front of the public in
due course in the next Budget.
Hon GRANT
ROBERTSON: I have been absolutely clear that the
commitment that we have made is that Government expenditure
as a percentage of GDP will remain in line with the long-run
historical trend. Members on the other side of the House
well know that we will now be looking at new revenue
forecasts and, indeed, new growth forecasts. They will
determine the exact numbers that are presented. But we are
very clear on this side of the House: our number add
up.
Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point
of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: A
point of order—the Hon Steven Bridges.
Hon
Simon Bridges: It's Simon Bridges, but I
understand, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER:
Sorry.
Hon Simon Bridges: It's all
right. The point of order is this: the question really was
about the relevancy of the Labour fiscal plan. He didn't
even address whether that fiscal plan is still relevant. I
didn't see any addressing of that question.
Hon
Chris Hipkins: Point of order.
Mr
SPEAKER: No, I'm going to deal with it again. I'm
almost going to say "ibid" for my response to the member's
previous point of order. I think both the asker of the
question and I have understood the answers.
Hon
Tracey Martin: In the 51st Parliament, the last
Speaker made it very clear that the Government was not
responsible for the manifesto or the policies of a political
party. Can I ask for a ruling on that, please?
Mr
SPEAKER: I'm happy to answer that. I think the
member has been quite careful in the way that he has phrased
his questions, asking whether the member was standing by the
figures or still agreed with the figures. I think that is
something that is acceptable. They're a set of figures—it
doesn't really matter where they come from, and it's a
question of whether those figures portray the current
position of the Government. If that was not the case, I
would have ruled out the original question.
Hon
Steven Joyce: Has he noted how often the Reserve
Bank mentioned policy uncertainty in their Monetary Policy
Statement this morning, and has he considered how his
statements in the House this afternoon and his responses to
questions will not help with that policy uncertainty when
the Reserve Bank was obviously placing some credence on his
previous statements about Government expenditure and now he
is not even standing by those?
Hon GRANT
ROBERTSON: The Reserve Bank Governor noted today
that his thinking was preliminary, and, just like the member
opposite, when the Half Yearly Economic and Fiscal Update
and Budget Policy Statement are released before the end of
the year, there will be significant certainty about our
spending plans. If the member can't wait, I'll make up a
special advent calendar for him so that he can count down to
the half yearly update.
• Regional Development
(Provincial Growth) Fund—Benefits
4.
DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for
Regional Economic Development: What advice has he
received on the benefits of the Regional Development
(Provincial Growth) Fund?
Hon SHANE JONES
(Minister for Regional Economic Development): Given
the significance of creating a billion-dollar fund, the
advice is voluminous. Indeed, I've even had advice from
members on the other side of House as to projects that the
fund could be directed to in the future.
Darroch
Ball: What are some examples of regions that are
needing urgent attention?
Hon SHANE
JONES: We have been made aware of a number of
regions that were written off as zombie areas—zombie
towns—over the last nine years: Manawatū, Whanganui, Tai
Rāwhiti, Tai Tokerau. A number of those civic
leaders—and, indeed, certain list and constituency members
from the other side of the House—are already drawing up
proposals for such regions.
• Partnership
Schools—Legislation
5. Hon NIKKI KAYE
(National—Auckland Central) to the
Minister of Education: Will he be repealing
the legislation that covers partnership schools within the
next six months and how many schools does he expect to close
or be converted to another type of school?
Hon
CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): In answer to
the first part of the question: no, not within the first six
months. In answer to the second part of the question: it's
too early to make those decisions.
Hon Nikki
Kaye: Did he say to a Fairfax journalist, as
reported on 4 November, that four schools due to open in
2019 would likely not go ahead?
Hon CHRIS
HIPKINS: I was awaiting advice from the Ministry of
Education about charter schools at the time that I did make
that statement.
Hon Kris Faafoi: Have
any charter schools been closed previously and, if so, what
are the lessons learnt from that?
Hon CHRIS
HIPKINS: Yes. One of the first charter schools was,
in fact, closed within the first year of its operation. It
cost the Crown over $5 million, none of which has been
recovered, and there were several dozen students who needed
to be re-accommodated in what was inevitably a very messy
process. We are very keen to avoid that happening again in
the future.
Hon Nikki Kaye: In light of
his previous answer, has he received any advice,
communications, or correspondence from officials or any
other party on the potential legal or financial consequences
of his reported comments on partnership
schools?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The advice
that I have received thus far indicates that the contracts
that were due to be signed in October for those new charter
schools were signed in September, prior to the election. I
have not received any advice on any particular legal risks
around that.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he
guarantee that no partnership school will have their
contract terminated without a comprehensive review, whereby
all of the schools will have the opportunity to make their
case rather than finding out through the
media?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have been
clear that we will negotiate in good faith on a case by case
basis with all of the existing charter
schools.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Given the Prime
Minister's comments yesterday, that all people are entitled
to care and compassion, will he guarantee that he will
personally visit all of these partnership schools or the
sponsors of the proposed schools prior to making any
decisions about the future of some of our most disadvantaged
children?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have been
clear that we will deal with all of the issues around
charter schools on a case by case basis and in good faith.
The negotiations around potential changes to the contracts
or arrangements will be conducted by the Ministry of
Education and not by Ministers.
Hon Nikki
Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This
was a very simple yes or no—will he visit the schools of
these most disadvantaged children—and he didn't answer the
question.
Mr SPEAKER: In a way, similar,
I think, to—[Gown slips from shoulders] Sorry about
this. I'll get this right eventually. [Interruption]
Pull it up? Thank you for your advice, Mr Bridges. Similar
to the advice that I gave to the Hon Steven Joyce earlier, I
think, by omission the answer was actually
clear.
David Seymour: When the Minister
told Newstalk ZB that one of his reasons for closing charter
schools is that they were funded at a higher level than
State schools, was he quoting any advice he had received in
his capacity as a Minister?
Hon CHRIS
HIPKINS: I was drawing on the information that we
obtained from the previous Government when I was an
Opposition spokesperson.
David Seymour:
Supplementary?
Mr SPEAKER: No. The
member's having a good go. He gets two in a week, but not in
a week that's only got one question day. So you can't
transfer your question from Tuesday, because Tuesday wasn't
a question day.
David Seymour: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. Surely
this week the House has sat three times and all members on
this side of the House have been disappointed to have only
one question time, but if we can at least use our allocated
questions we will be OK.
Mr SPEAKER: I'm
sure that that argument would be supported by the Green
Party and New Zealand First, but it's not going to happen.
You're not going to get all your questions for a week in the
one day. I think I've been pretty generous with the member
as to the arrangements that he's got, and I wouldn't push it
if I was him. You might be able to, over time, negotiate
with some friends.
Hon Chris Hipkins: I
raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know the general
practice is to notify you of question transfers before they
happen. Can I indicate that I would be happy to offer one of
the Labour Party's supplementary questions to Mr
Seymour.
Mr SPEAKER: Would the member
like one of the Labour Party's
supplementaries?
David Seymour: Oh, yes,
I would. [Interruption]
Mr
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon Kris
Faafoi: Where's your friends,
David?
David Seymour: Well, you find
friends in the most unexpected places.
Mr
SPEAKER: Was that you, Mr Faafoi?
Hon
Kris Faafoi: Yes, it was.
Mr
SPEAKER: Well, Mr Seymour gets an extra
supplementary.
David Seymour: How can
the Minister say to the media on one day that he is able to
say with some certainty, as quoted, that he will be able to
cancel the contracts of partnership schools set to open in
2019, and then say, only two days later to a different media
outlet, that he is urgently seeking advice?
Hon
CHRIS HIPKINS: In the comments I made to the
journalist, I also made it clear that I had sought advice on
that matter.
David Seymour: Has the
Minister considered that by attempting to procure an end to
the contracts through the press, he has actually violated
the contracts on behalf of the Crown?
Hon CHRIS
HIPKINS: The position of the parties that form up
the Government has been clear for a long period of time,
from the point that the charter schools policy was first
introduced.
David Seymour: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was with respect to
the Minister's responsibilities and the legal implications
of his statement as a Minister. His previous political
positions, surely, are not relevant and he has made no
attempt to address the question.
Mr
SPEAKER: And it's a pretty long-standing position
in the House that Ministers have discretion about whether
they answer questions that involve legal opinions. I think
that the Minister probably went further than he had
to.
Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of
order, Mr Speaker. We'll just have to go back and check the
Hansard, but the original question that I asked—he
was very careful, as I see it. The Minister did not confirm
that he received legal advice. He said "financial" advice.
So the way that I read it, but we'll check the
Hansard in the future, is that he hasn't received
legal advice, so I think Mr Seymour is
entitled—
Mr SPEAKER: No, and the
point that I was making to Mr Seymour was that Mr Seymour
was asking a question about the legal position of the Crown,
and that would be inviting a legal opinion from Chris
Hipkins, and he certainly does not have to give
one.
David Seymour: I raise a point of
order, Mr Speaker. Could I perhaps assist by asking that the
Minister be given an opportunity to explain whether he
avoided the question for legal reasons or just didn't want
to answer it.
Mr SPEAKER: The member, I
think, is now just beginning to trifle with the Chair, and
while he's not in a position to lose any supplementary
questions this week, he could lose half of those from next
week pretty quickly.
• East-West Link Road of
National Significance—Draft Decision, Board of
Inquiry
6. Hon JUDITH COLLINS
(National—Papakura) to the Minister of
Transport: On what date is the Board of Inquiry due
to deliver its draft decision on the East-West Link Road of
National Significance?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister
of Transport): Mr Speaker, I do not have
responsibility for the Environmental Protection Authority's
board of inquiry. With respect to the road of national
significance part of the member's question, I am advised
that the description of the East-West Link, as such, was
simply an announcement by the National Party in its election
campaign press release. With respect to the other part of
the member's question, I'm advised that the decision of the
board of inquiry is due to be released on 14
November.
Hon Judith Collins: On what
date, given that he now knows the date of the draft
decision, is the final decision of this board into the
East-West Link road of national significance due, since
submissions closed eight months ago in March?
Hon
PHIL TWYFORD: That's a matter for the board of
inquiry, and I suggest that the member puts down a question
to the Minister responsible.
Hon Judith
Collins: What is the cost in monetary terms for the
process to date, including the cost to the Crown, the
submitters, and the New Zealand Transport
Agency?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Approximately
$50 million of taxpayers' money has been spent so far on the
East-West Link, but I want to reassure the member that that
money will not be put to waste. The work done currently
totals about $10 million worth. It includes construction of
stage 1 improvements to Onehunga, coming to $10 million. It
includes the widening of State Highway 20 between Neilson
Street and Queenstown Road, and replacing the old Neilson
Street rail bridge. The balance of about $40 million is for
project investigations that will be very helpful in
informing the Government on other aspects that may well be
included in the newer high-value, lower-cost option that our
Government is considering.
Hon Judith
Collins: Does he agree with the statement of Phil
Twyford on 20 June 2013 that the need for the East-West Link
has long been obvious to New Zealanders?
Hon PHIL
TWYFORD: I generally agree with that person. But I
will say this: this Government agrees with Ken Shirley of
the Road Transport Forum, who said, "The East-West Link in
its last iteration was very expensive and we probably need
to look at something with lesser expense". He also said that
the Road Transport Forum—
Mr SPEAKER:
No; I think that's enough. I probably was being a bit kind
to the member letting him go on after his first clause.
Hon Judith Collins: Has he advised
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern that her publicly pre-empting
the decision of the board of inquiry—by doing that she has
opened up the Crown to potentially massive
claims?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I am sure that
the considerable legal expertise of the member would allow
her to understand that the board of inquiry is a Resource
Management Act process designed to make decisions on the
resource consent for the project. The board of inquiry has
nothing to say about the economic merits or economic value
of the project, and is not a substitute for a decision by
the Government on whether to go ahead with the project or
not.
Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point
of order, Mr Speaker. The question was pretty clear: has he
given this advice to the Prime Minister? He either has or he
hasn't. Can he please answer it?
Mr DEPUTY
SPEAKER: And I think, for the third time today, I
am going to say that both the asker of the question and I
know what the answer is.
Raymond Huo:
What will the Government use any savings from the East-West
Link for?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The savings
from a low-cost, high-value option, which this Government is
exploring, are expected to free up hundreds of millions of
dollars, which will be an additional contribution to the
10-year, $15 billion programme of investments in Auckland's
transport system that will deliver a congestion-free
alternative to Aucklanders and get the roads moving once and
for all.
• Tertiary Students—Fees, Living
Costs
7. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the
Minister of Education: What is the
Government doing to reduce the cost of fees and provide more
assistance with living costs for tertiary
students?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of
Education): The Government will be providing one
year of fees-free tertiary education from 2018 for those
entering tertiary education and training for the first time,
and a $50 a week boost to allowances and loan entitlements,
which will kick in on 1 January 2018.
Jo
Luxton: Will these changes benefit students taking
trades and other vocational courses outside of universities;
and if so, how?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes.
It's important to remember that only around a third of
students go from school into university study. The other
two-thirds move into vocational programmes or forms of
employment, including on-job training. They will also be
able to benefit from having one year's free, and many of
them will also be accessing the additional student support
the Government will be making available.
Hon Paul
Goldsmith: Will Australians have access to free
fees in 2018?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Any
Australians, as with any other residents from a different
country, will need to meet the three-year residence
requirement. If they do that, then yes, they will be able to
access it.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is
providing Australia with free fees a priority for limited
New Zealand education resources?
Hon CHRIS
HIPKINS: The policy is being applied or implemented
on exactly the same basis that every other policy regarding
tertiary education student support is being
applied.
• Regional Development (Provincial Growth)
Fund—Success
8. Hon SIMON BRIDGES
(National—Tauranga) to the Minister for
Regional Economic Development: How successful will
his new $1 billion annual Regional Development (Provincial
Growth) Fund be?
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for
Regional Economic Development): Obviously, the
success will depend on the soundness of the proposals and
the robustness of the criteria, which is being developed at
the moment. But I can assure the member the success will
surpass the 10 bridges in Northland that he promised.
Hon Simon Bridges: Can he confirm the
fund and its $1 billion allocated every year will all be new
funding rather than from existing funding?
Hon
SHANE JONES: The full structure and character of
the fund—
Hon Steven Joyce: Ha, ha!
Hon SHANE JONES: Mr Speaker, can you
tell "Slim Shady" with the bald head to keep
quiet?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I'm going to
ask the member now to withdraw and apologise. And the member
probably shouldn't use that expression, with the member in
front of him and with me.
Hon SHANE
JONES: For any offence caused to the music
industry—
Mr SPEAKER:
No.
Hon SHANE JONES: —or to the
member, I apologise.
Mr SPEAKER: No. The
member will withdraw and apologise.
Hon SHANE
JONES: I withdraw and apologise.
Mr
SPEAKER: Has the member finished his
answer?
Hon SHANE JONES: Ah, hmm. The
full character and structure of the fund will be worked
through and be made available when the Budget Policy
Statement is announced.
Hon Simon
Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I'm
simply asking a straightforward question about whether it's
new funding. I mean, I don't even think that has been
addressed.
Mr SPEAKER: I'm going to let
the member have another go.
Hon Simon
Bridges: Thank you, sir. Can he confirm the fund
and its $1 billion allocated every year will all be new
funding, rather than from existing funding?
Hon
SHANE JONES: I can confirm that the full structure,
content, and character of the fund will be released as a
part of the Budget Policy Statement. I can, however, confirm
in addition that funds such as the "neets" programme, which
he established six months ago—on which not a brass razoo
has been spent—will probably be in the mix.
Hon
Simon Bridges: So can he confirm then that it's a
mix of existing funding reprioritised but also a Budget bid
coming through Budget 2018?
Hon SHANE
JONES: I repeat again that the full content,
structure and character of the fund will be dealt with
conclusively in the Budget policy process. Just
taihoa.
Hon Simon Bridges: Can he give
me any detail at all about where the money's coming
from—is it existing money or new?
Hon SHANE
JONES: I can confirm that I am picking up
unfinished work by the former Minister and I can confirm
that there are substantial amounts of funds that were not
dedicated yet promised, but the full extent of the
provincial growth fund will be tidied up in the Budget
Policy Statement announcement.
Hon Simon
Bridges: As an annual fund, can he confirm that $3
billion will be spent over this term of
Government?
Hon SHANE JONES: It is a per
annum fund, and I can assure the member that it is our
intention to dedicate and expend such an amount of money,
and, based on the large number of proposals coming in to me
already from civic leaders, regional leaders, EDS, and a few
of his own colleagues, I think we'll chew through that
amount of dough.
Hon Simon Bridges: Of
all the specific initiatives that are going to happen under
this fund other than those specifically mentioned in the
coalition agreement, are there any specific ones he already
has in mind as real possibilities and can tell us about what
they are today?
Hon SHANE JONES: I'm
glad that he has enabled me to talk about the tree planting
programme. The full details will be rolled out at a later
date, but I direct his attention to the Governor-General's
speech, the Prime Minister's speech, and my colleague the
Hon Ron Mark, on behalf of our leader—that speech. It
identified a billion trees and it is related to the
billion-dollar fund.
Hon Simon Bridges:
Other than in the coalition agreement, in terms of new
things that the public and certainly I wouldn't have heard
about, has he mentioned any specific initiatives to
officials, and what are they?
Mr
SPEAKER: No, I'm going to rule that question out,
because the Minister has no responsibility for what that
member has heard about.
Hon Simon
Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can
I rephrase it, then, if I've put it inelegantly?
Mr SPEAKER: Yes, you can have another
go, but can I just say it won't generally be a practice for
senior members to let them have a second crack at asking a
question.
Hon Simon Bridges: Has he
mentioned any specific initiatives that he hasn't spoken
about publicly to officials, and what are they?
Hon SHANE JONES: The matters that are
being debated and discussed within the precincts of the
offices of the Government departments and myself and my
office at this stage are not privy to the member.
Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of
order, Mr Speaker. If he's saying that in the public
interest he won't answer my question—
Mr
SPEAKER: Sorry, is this a point of order?
Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, Simon
Bridges.
Hon Simon Bridges:
Effectively, I haven't had an answer. All I have asked him
is about specific initiatives that he's mentioned. He has,
effectively, said he's not going to tell me. If that's in
the public interest, that's valid; otherwise, my submission
to you would be that he needs to tell me if he's made
specific initiatives clear to the—
Mr
SPEAKER: I think what the member—I mean, I don't
want to over-interpret what the member was saying. But I
think what he was saying is he's not yet in a position to
make public those discussions, and that is something that
has been the right and, in fact, the responsibility of
Ministers for all the time that I have been in this
Parliament.
• Department of Conservation—Advocacy
Role
9. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the
Minister of Conservation: What action is
she taking to restore the Department of Conservation's
advocacy role to protect our wildlife and its habitats, and
why
Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of
Conservation): I will be instructing the Department
of Conservation (DOC) to implement its statutory
responsibilities to advocate for nature and to develop a
robust advocacy strategy, which includes better
communication with stakeholders.
Jan
Logie: How did the previous National Government
undermine DOC's role as nature's primary
defender?
Mr SPEAKER: Sorry, can the
member repeat the question, just so I can—?
Jan
Logie: What evidence has the Minister seen that
shows DOC's role as nature's primary—
Mr
SPEAKER: Order! Part of the problem I have is that
Amy Adams twice interjected: once the first time, and then
the second time. What I'm going to do is ask the member to
ask the question as she originally asked it, so I will then
make a judgment as to whether it's within the Standing
Orders or not.
Jan Logie: How did the
previous National Government undermine DOC's role as
nature's primary defender?
Mr SPEAKER:
My view is that that is something that the Minister has no
responsibility for.
Jan Logie: May I
rephrase that?
Mr SPEAKER:
No.
Jan Logie: I raise a point of order,
Mr Speaker. I guess I have a question of consistency and
leniency to the Opposition on a previous, similar
issue.
Mr SPEAKER: It might seem a
little bit unfair, and I can understand the member's point
of view there, but I think the difference is that in this
particular case, members who are supporting the Government
have quite a lot more resources and quite a lot more
opportunity to be properly prepared. The member herself has
had much more experience in recent years asking
supplementary questions than Mr Bridges has, and therefore I
was treating him a little more like I would a newer
member.
Jan Logie: What evidence has the
Minister seen that shows DOC's role as nature's primary
defender has been undermined?
Hon EUGENIE
SAGE: Political pressure and funding cuts by the
last National Government significantly undermined DOC's
role. We have seen a major reduction—
Hon Simon
Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The
answer was simply, from the very start, descending into
political attack, and I don't think that should be
allowed.
Mr SPEAKER: My view is that it
was a pretty gentle comment, and I just ask the member not
to be quite so sensitive. Eugenie
Sage—[Interruption] Order!
Hon EUGENIE
SAGE: May I finish answering the
question?
Mr SPEAKER: Yes, I think you
were part-way through when you were
interrupted.
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Yes,
thank you. National's funding cuts reduced the number of
planning staff by 40 percent. National virtually halved the
amount of funding. That meant that the department didn't
submit on a number of applications, such as the Ruataniwha
Dam, despite the significant number of threatened species
that were affected by that dam.
Jan
Logie: Why is restoring DOC's advocacy role so
important?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: We know
that when DOC invests fully in the Resource Management Act
process, there are better outcomes for both conservation and
the environment. An example of that is Project Mokihinui,
where the department made strong submissions and appealed to
the Environment Court. Meridian withdrew its dam proposal,
and that land is now being investigated for addition to
Kahurangi National Park.
• Land
Information—Policies
10. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE
(National—Ilam) to the Minister for Land
Information: Does she stand by all of the
Government's policies in relation to her
portfolio?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Land
Information): Yes.
Hon Gerry
Brownlee: Will the Government's proposed changes to
the Overseas Investment Act (OIA) cause consequential
changes to other New Zealand laws; if so,
which?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The details of
that proposal are still being developed, and legislation has
yet to be introduced to the House.
Hon Gerry
Brownlee: Will the proposed changes prevent trust
constructions that allow property ownership by New Zealand -
domiciled trustee companies who invest in residential
property, and then extend licences to occupy to
beneficiaries of the trust, who may also be settlors of the
trust?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The details of
that proposal are still being developed and will be in
legislation to be introduced to the House.
Hon
Gerry Brownlee: Will foreigners still be able to
register trusts in New Zealand once the OIA is amended, and
will they have the ability to have New Zealand - domiciled
trustees invest on their behalf?
Hon EUGENIE
SAGE: The details of the proposal are still being
developed and will be in legislation to be introduced to the
House.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can the
Minister tell us how far on the proposals are to have a
foreign-buyer ban, and what will be the time line for its
introduction to the House, and, if it's shortly, then how
soon can we get the answer to these
questions?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I think
there are a number of questions in there. That commitment to
have a ban on foreign buyers is part of the Government's
100-day programme. The 100 days expires on 3 February, so
there will be significant developments before
then.
• Teina Pora—Compensation
11.
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) to the Minister of
Justice: What announcement has he made recently on
Teina Pora's compensation for wrongful conviction and
imprisonment?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of
Justice): Yesterday, I announced that Cabinet has
agreed to inflation adjust Teina Pora's compensation for
wrongful conviction and imprisonment. This means that Mr
Pora will receive an additional $988,099 and this brings his
total compensation package to just over $3.5
million.
Raymond Huo: Why did Cabinet
decide to make the inflation adjustment to Teina Pora's
compensation?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Teina
Pora was the victim of one of New Zealand's worst
miscarriages of justice. Mr Pora was wrongly imprisoned for
nearly two decades. Those are decades he will never get
back. It's only fair that what Mr Pora receives should
reflect the magnitude of the injustice that he suffered.
Cabinet agreed that inflation adjustment was the right thing
to do.
Raymond Huo: Why did he have to
make this decision to inflation adjust Teina Pora's
compensation now?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The
assessor appointed by the previous Government to consider
the issue of compensation recommended that the previous
Government make an inflation adjustment but that Government
declined to do so. The High Court subsequently confirmed
that it was within the discretion of Cabinet to make an
inflation adjustment, and invited the Government, or the
Cabinet, to make that adjustment. The new Cabinet considered
it and made the inflation adjustment.
Hon Amy
Adams: Why did the Minister choose the particular
inflation calculation methodology that he did from the range
of valid options that were available to him?
Hon
ANDREW LITTLE: In considering the inflation
adjustment formula, I, as Minister, took advice from
Ministry of Justice officials and also from Treasury, and
their advice led to the inflation adjustment at the level
that was subsequently agreed upon.
Hon Amy
Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I
asked very carefully and very directly around why one option
was chosen over another. What I got from the Minister was
who he took advice from, but I have yet to hear from him any
rationale or reasoning as to why this particular one he felt
was the right one to take.
Mr SPEAKER:
I will invite the member to ask the question again. I invite
the Minister to maybe differentiate a bit about the advice.
Hon Amy Adams: Why did the Minister
choose the particular inflation calculation methodology that
he did from the range of valid options that were available
to him?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The range of
options included a measure of Consumers Price Index (CPI),
less the value of alcohol and tobacco. I'm not quite sure
why that was included in the range of options. The High
Court was very clear that an inflation adjustment should
reflect the change in purchasing power as between dollar
amounts set in the year 2000 and the value of those dollar
amounts in the year 2017. The only accurate measure or
adjustment to make in that regard was CPI—the headline
inflation figure—and that was the basis of the adjustment.
• Primary Sector—Policies
12. Hon
NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) to the
Minister of Agriculture: Does he stand by
all of his Government's policies in relation to the primary
sector?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of
Agriculture): Yes.
Hon Nathan
Guy: What advice has he received on the cost of
creating separate entities for forestry, fisheries,
biosecurity, and food safety?
Hon DAMIEN
O'CONNOR: I have yet to receive advice on the cost
of breaking up the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI),
but I can assure the Minister that a greater focus on
biosecurity will deliver better border protection. A greater
focus on forestry will deliver greater amounts of planting
of trees. A greater focus on fisheries will ensure better
protection of what is one of New Zealand's greatest
resources.
Hon Nathan Guy: What advice
does he give to exporters who are now very concerned about
the uncertainty and the nervousness within MPI's 2,500
staff, who will now be focused more on themselves and their
future than supporting the most productive part of the New
Zealand economy—and that is, indeed, our
exporters?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR:
Exporters at the moment are celebrating the lower dollar. I
can assure that Minister—that member, pardon the
pun—that there will be a very strong focus through an
independently focused biosecurity and food safety regime to
protect the interests of those exporters—unlike the
previous regime, which delivered insufficient focus. We had
a numerous number of incursions through biosecurity and food
safety issues, such as WPC80, which is still costing this
country hundreds of millions of
dollars.