QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Is he concerned that Meka Whaitiri still disputes the allegations of physical contact when the report details there were bruises left on the victim caused by physical contact?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The report is still private. There has been a leak. That leak is being investigated and the Government has supported that leak. We will find who the leaker is but, of course, we don't have the advantage of launching an inquiry into a leak whilst knowing who the leaker was in the first place.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very much about whether or not they still dispute allegations and not actually about the leak.

SPEAKER: Yes, and it was right at the margins of responsibility and, in my opinion, as much as the Minister was responsible for, was addressed.

Hon Paula Bennett: Do the actions of Meka Whaitiri make her a good role model?

Hon Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was intending to take one if you hadn't ruled how you had previously. Meka Whaitiri is no longer a Minister in the Government and I think—you are obviously considering the question.

SPEAKER: And I accept that, but I don't think one needs to be a—we could have had a lot of extra words in the question but I think we are talking about the actions of someone while she was a Minister and therefore the Prime Minister will answer the question.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that Meka Whaitiri has lost her ministry, or ministerial position. That said, Meka Whaitiri in her past has been a standout woman of enormous contribution to Ngati Porou and, indeed, Māoridom, and just because there may or may not have been a lapse is no reason for that member to repose on me the responsibility of being able to judge the worth or value of women.

Hon Paula Bennett: Has anybody in the Government apologised to the victim?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Could I just say that the victim is not known to me. The report is still confidential and is being released, and the delay to protect the so-called, or alleged victim—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Answer the question.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I'm answering the question in the way a lawyer would, not the way some twit would, like you. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Yes, I can—[Interruption] When I call order I expect to get order from both sides. I understand what the Acting Prime Minister was trying to do and I'm not going to require him to withdraw and apologise, but I ask him to take care not to draw me into his reaction to interjections, whatever their quality.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does he agree with the reported statement, "Instead of going on the defensive, Māori leaders and MPs have a responsibility to publicly acknowledge the problem and urgently address it, and Māori attitudes towards violence will not change until Māori leaders acknowledge the problem."?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: To the best of my memory, Meka Whaitiri does not agree with that statement, does not agree with the allegation that that member is now joining from a secret report which is not available to me at this point in time. Let me make it very clear: we'll wait till the report finally comes out in its entirety, and then we'll be in a position to answer the House and the member.

Hon Paula Bennett: I seek leave to table that statement, which was made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and was sourced from the Parliamentary Library.

SPEAKER: Can I ask the member what the original source of the document is?

Hon Paula Bennett: It was a press statement, but I've googled and cannot find it.

SPEAKER: Thank you. I'm not putting the leave, and I say to the deputy leader of the Opposition, in future can she give original sources of documents. Something that is got through the library does not disguise the fact—or should not be an attempt to be a disguise of the fact—that it's the type of document that, as my predecessors have made very clear, means members are disorderly when they seek to table them.

Hon Paula Bennett: Speaking to that, I searched for it and I thought the criteria was if it's not readily available, which it wasn't.

SPEAKER: Well, no. If it's a press statement, if it's available online, then we don't seek leave to table them here, and that has been made abundantly clear for the entire time that that member has been a member of Parliament.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does he stand by Megan Woods' statement that the Prime Minister was not actively involved in the appointment of Derek Handley as Chief Technology Officer?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Utterly, and so does Mr Handley.

Hon Paula Bennett: Did the Prime Minister exchange 23 messages with Clare Curran, discussing in detail the appointment of Derek Handley as Chief Technology Officer (CTO)?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have to confess that I haven't seen all of the thousand or so pages at this point in time, but I have been prepared to come down to this House knowing full well that the Prime Minister left this process in the hands of Clare Curran, and that she is totally blameless on the question of her involvement, if that member seeks to say that there's some sort of improper behaviour on the Prime Minister's part. The Prime Minister was at great pains to ensure—and there is evidence of that, when she says she's going to leave it to Clare Curran in terms of the role. That, of course, is backed up by a man called Handley, and thank God for him.

Hon Paula Bennett: Did the Prime Minister's chief press secretary proactively text Derek Handley, exchange 13 text messages with him, and call him at least twice to discuss his appointment as Chief Technology Officer?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is a fallacious allegation. First of all, a series—[Interruption] No. A series of events is put up, and then an improper interpretation of them is put up in the question, and I'm happy to debunk the second interpretation. Yes, there was some communication—there were communications. None of it concerns the CTO's job.

Hon Paula Bennett: Then why were they released in the papers that the Minister has just tabled?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because this is a very transparent Government, and we believe in total, complete, full disclosure.

Hon Paula Bennett: Did the Prime Minister's chief of staff call Derek Handley to discuss his offer to help and support the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I don't know how many people work for the Prime Minister's office, but I can see me answering questions for everybody that was there. The fact of the matter is it is the Prime Minister who is not involved here, and that is the truth in this matter.

Hon Paula Bennett: So does he still stand by Megan Woods' statement that the Prime Minister was not actively involved in the appointment of Derek Handley?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have been driven, from the very beginning, to support the honesty of Megan Woods in that matter. She's utterly been truthful about that, and that member's got a thousand things to start poring over to try and find some evidence.

• Question No. 2—Finance
•
2. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Is it a goal of the Government's economic development policy for New Zealanders to enjoy higher incomes?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, along with establishing a more productive and sustainable economy overall.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Which of these things is most likely to lead to higher incomes: banning new offers for offshore oil and gas exploration, reducing foreign investment when any land is involved—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! That's two. We don't do multi-choice here.

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

SPEAKER: No, it's not a point of order. I have ruled that the question is finished—"Which of [the following]", and the member gave two alternatives.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The decision around oil and gas is part of an overall plan for New Zealand to have a more sustainable economy, to be able to build on the brand that we're all proud of in New Zealand about being a clean, green country, to harness the innovative potential of New Zealanders in a new technology, in clean technology. I would encourage the member to listen to the Mayor of New Plymouth, who's actually echoing exactly those thoughts when he says we can have a robust economy under this policy.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Isn't it true that there are a lot of things that New Zealanders have done in the past to make a living that he doesn't like, and, if so, what would he prefer New Zealanders did?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Goldsmith might want to look in the rear-vision mirror, but this Government, on this side of the House, is looking to the future, where we do want people in high-paying jobs. That means investing in research and development, that means making sure the economy's more sustainable, and that means making sure that every New Zealander gets a fair go. If the member opposite doesn't agree with that, more's the pity.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How are New Zealanders going to get ahead if costs such as petrol prices, ACC levies today, and rents are rising faster?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I could challenge almost every one of those, but what I can say is that, on this side of the House, we made sure that one of the first decisions that we made was to reverse tax cuts that would have given Mr Goldsmith and me $1,000 a year and, instead, put that in to lifting the incomes of the lowest-paid people in New Zealand, making sure that families have more money. On this side of the House, we've got our priorities right.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that the costs this Government is piling on to owners of rental properties are flowing through to a reduced supply of rental properties and to higher rents?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can't answer the question about the supply of rental properties, but what I can say is that, in terms of rents, as I told the House, I believe, yesterday, the median rent increased 5 percent since the coalition Government was sworn in. The median rent during National's last year in office rose by 5.3 percent.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What typically comes first—

Hon Andrew Little: The chicken!

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon Paul Goldsmith: —higher productivity, leading to sustainable, higher incomes—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Paul Goldsmith: —or higher incomes mandated by the State, leading to higher productivity?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What this Government is doing is realising that, yes, we do need to drive higher productivity to help lift wages, but guess what—newsflash—the Government can do something as well, like lifting the minimum wage.

• Question No. 3—Finance
•
3. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): This week, CBRE released its latest MarketView report. It shows New Zealand's commercial property market is having its strongest showing in nearly five years, with investors buying $2.9 billion of commercial property. The executive chairman of CBRE, Brent McGregor, said the New Zealand market was "active and attractive"—not a label I would apply to myself but to the New Zealand commercial property market—"with a mix of institutions and private investors buying [commercial property]." Mr McGregor said—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yep, straight out of residential.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —Gerry, listen up—these buyers would be long-term investors in the country. On this side of the House, we welcome this vote of confidence in the New Zealand economy.

Dr Duncan Webb: What other reports has he seen on the overall state of the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We had a helpful reminder today about the state of the New Zealand economy and the Government's fiscal management in BusinessDesk journalist Pattrick Smellie's latest column. Mr Smellie said that "budget surpluses, low inflation, low unemployment, low government debt, rising wages, enviable annual growth rates compared to our peers, and a reaffirmed Aaa credit rating are proof the economy is in reasonable nick."—this Government right here. Of course, we should not get complacent, and Mr Smellie also wrote about the risks facing the economy, namely the international situation and the potential for trade wars. We must make sure that New Zealand addresses this and New Zealand's infrastructure and skills bottlenecks.

Dr Duncan Webb: What is the Government doing to address this bottleneck?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The coalition Government recognises that after years of under-investment in infrastructure and training, we need to catch up. That's why we're making record investment in New Zealand's nationwide transport infrastructure, including a $28 billion package alongside Auckland Council. We're also rolling out targeted training programmes like micro-credentials, like Mana in Mahi, alongside the fees-free post - secondary school study. On this side of the House, we understand that it is an active Government working alongside the business sector and training providers that will break through these bottlenecks.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether or not, if someone had as his business experience five weeks as a director of a casino, that member would be attracted to this economy?

SPEAKER: Order! Question No. 4—

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

SPEAKER: If I need to explain it to the Prime Minister, I will. It is an area of ministerial responsibility, and a general question like that about casino experience and the economy is one which Ministers are not responsible for.

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

SPEAKER: Well, I've dealt with the point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I understand, but the reality is there are many elements to the market that might be attracted to New Zealand's present economy. I could've asked whether it be the farming economy, the fishing economy, or, dare I say it, the timber economy, but I asked about a specific industry called casinos, and I wouldn't have thought, in that category, I was being limited from making that inquiry.

Yes, and I'll give the member another reason for ruling it out, and that is that patsy supplementaries from the Government are not allowed to be used to attack the Opposition.

• Question No. 4—Conservation
•
4. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Conservation: Has she done wrong by the hunting and tourism community in the way she has consulted on her department's proposal to cull tahr; if not, why does she think the consultation she has undertaken has been appropriate?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): No. What is wrong is that National's neglect and its underfunding of the Department of Conservation allowed tahr numbers to explode, devastate our threatened alpine plants and habitats, and what is wrong—

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

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: —is that under National—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! A point of order, the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I make a plea for some consistency. You've just been very, very strong in putting the Deputy Prime Minister back in his place over what was an attack question—

SPEAKER: Order! The member's not referring to something I've dealt with.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: —yeah, I'm getting there—but you've just allowed the Hon Eugenie Sage to justify her entire position by, effectively, an erroneous attack on the current Opposition.

SPEAKER: Well, I think the member might have been making some progress until the very end of it, when he drew my attention to the fact that there are disputed facts in the answer. It's not my job to make a judgment around those facts. Can the member start the answer again, please.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. No. What is wrong is that National's neglect and underfunding of the Department of Conservation allowed tahr numbers to explode, to devastate our alpine plants and alpine habitats, and that it stopped engaging with the Tahr Liaison Group. Under this Government, we have given the biggest increase in funding to the Department of Conservation in 16 years. That enables the department to properly implement the statutory Himalayan Tahr Control Plan. The department has consulted and engaged with members of the hunting community, and so am I.

Hon Todd McClay: Is the real reason she's been forced to postpone her tahr kill and reduce the number of tahr to be killed because the Department of Conservation has received two legal letters from recreational hunting groups threatening judicial review unless she enters into proper and meaningful consultation with hunters?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The tahr control effort is going to proceed as planned. There has been consultation with the Tahr Liaison Group. There is another meeting with the group next week. I will be attending that meeting.

Andrew Falloon: Is today's Timaru Herald article correct that as part of a postponement, the number of tahr to be culled will reduce from the original plan; if so, how many tahr will be culled under the revised plan and why?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The plan is for the Department of Conservation to control 10,000 tahr. The meeting with the Tahr Liaison Group proposed that other hunting stakeholders also contribute to that control effort. There is further discussion on how many tahr groups like wild animal recovery operations operators and the Safari Club International will be controlling. The plan to control 10,000 tahr is proceeding, because the former National Government allowed them to explode to three times what the plan allows.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Stop lying to the House.

SPEAKER: Order! Mr Brownlee? Did the member make an unparliamentary comment?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Todd McClay: Can she confirm that the Department of Conservation has stopped using lead shot for West Coast predator control because of high levels of lead found in kea but that they've purchased 14,000 rounds of lead buckshot that they intend to use for her tahr cull?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: My advice is that the department is well aware of the problems caused by lead to kea, and that it will be using ammunition which does not result in the risk of lead poisoning to kea.

Hon James Shaw: Has the Minister been handing out weapons to her public servants, as alleged by the National Party Twitter account?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: No.

Hon Todd McClay: Can she confirm that she has instructed the Department of Conservation to use helicopters to herd tahr, and that they will be slaughtering bull, nanny, and baby tahr with shotguns from these helicopters?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I know the member is a very keen hunter and is a member of the Rotorua Deerstalkers Association, but what National is, effectively, saying is that the Department of Conservation should not be shooting tahr to protect our mountain lands and alpine plants; it should simply allow the hunters to do that. Recreational hunters have had—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It would not be hard to make a case that that answer impugns the motives of the questioner; that's quite unreasonable. Secondly, there is no way that the balance of the answer delivered today answers this very simple question that's asked.

SPEAKER: I think that I was contemplating the first part of the answer, and I think it wasn't quite an improper reflection on a member of the House, but the tone of it was heading in that direction. It's not something I expect from that Minister. The next point that I would make to the Hon Gerry Brownlee is that I am sure that soon the Minister answering the supplementary question will get to the question.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Would the Minister like to repeat the question?

Hon Todd McClay: The member would love to, yes. Can she confirm that she has instructed the Department of Conservation to use helicopters to herd tahr, and that they will slaughter bull, nanny, and baby tahr with shotguns from these helicopters?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I have not instructed the department to do that, but the department will be using aerial control. It needs to do the control operation now before there is another breeding increment this summer. And, yes, it will be using shotguns, in the same way that hunters use guns to kill tahr themselves.

Hon James Shaw: Will there be any tahr left in New Zealand, once "Tahrmaggedon" is over?

SPEAKER: No, no, no.

• Question No. 5—Biosecurity
•
5. Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Biosecurity: How many passengers are estimated to have passed through the Green Lane at Auckland International Airport when a detector dog wasn't working on that lane between the hours of 2 a.m. to 5 a.m. this year, and on how many days did this happen?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): Seven thousand, five hundred and sixty, and 270 days.

Hon Nathan Guy: In light of the Minister's answer, is the passenger pathway as secure as it could be in 2018 to keep biosecurity risk items out of New Zealand?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I would be dishonest to say that it was a perfect system, but I have to say that with the additional $9 million that we've put into the biosecurity system; the additional efforts we've made with an offshore intelligence unit, with tests and checks on passengers as they board the planes—and as they get off the planes there are new X-ray facilities—I think we run a far more robust system than was previously in place under the last Government.

Hon Nathan Guy: When he established the biosecurity intelligence unit in April this year, to give a clear line of focus and accountability for biosecurity, why didn't the intelligence unit tell him that for nine months there's been no dog detector teams working at Auckland International Airport between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The intelligence unit works offshore. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Come on; both sides, please.

Hon Nathan Guy: Have staff been told by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) that they have to stop reporting fatigue or stress due to management and the roster and that if they do not stop complaining, then they can leave the programme?

SPEAKER: Order! I'm going to give the member another go at making this relate. At the moment I think we've got dog tired but we haven't really got a relationship between the question and the supplementary.

Hon Nathan Guy: In light of the Minister's answer confirming that there's been no dog detector teams working between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. for nine months this year, is he concerned about reported comments from staff—both former staff and current staff members—about the toxic culture of management amongst this very small but important dog detector team?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I'm aware of claims that have been made. I received an email that has been passed on to the Director-General. I expect him to investigate those, and if any such culture exists, to get rid of it.

Hon Nathan Guy: When the Minister said in question time last week that he's very grateful that he's not rung up and woken at 2 a.m. to be told there's no dog working on the green lane at Auckland International Airport, would he still be grateful for his sleep if there was a major biosecurity incursion at this time because of his lack of oversight?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I hope that we have no more biosecurity incursions. The ones that came in under the previous Government, such as Mycoplasma bovis, are something that this Government is determined to prevent in every way we can.

• Question No. 6—Health
•
6. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about the delivery of air ambulance services?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Air ambulances are a critical life-saving service. Our current air ambulance providers have done a great job, but our helicopter fleet is ageing. The Government is committed to a 10-year programme led by clinicians that will modernise our air ambulance fleet, increase crew numbers, and reduce call-out times. Yesterday, I was pleased to announce that an agreement in principle for services in the northern region has been reached with an agency combining the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust and the Northland Emergency Services Trust. Announcements about the central and southern regions will follow at a later date.

Jamie Strange: How will the new approach to ambulance services improve outcomes for patients?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The average age of our air ambulance fleet is 29 years, and one in three of the helicopters are still single-engine. We need to modernise and upgrade our helicopter fleet and move to the use of twin-engine machines nationwide to allow more space for treatment of patients during transit. Nationally, the new contracts will also mean more permanent staff on base and will ensure crew and clinical staff are closer at hand to reduce call-out time. This is about putting the needs of patients first and reflects the Government's commitment to improving the well-being of Kiwi families.

Jamie Strange: Will the new approach to air ambulance services require further investment from the Government?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Improving our nationwide air ambulance service will require sustained investment. That is why in Budget 2018 we invested an extra $83 million into air ambulance services over the next four years so that the dedicated medics and pilots have the tools they need to do their job. This Government is committed to investing in the health system and dealing with the legacy of underfunding that we inherited.

• Question No. 7—Research, Science and Innovation
•
7. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: Does she stand by her statement on her proposed R & D tax credit policy that "If no final decisions have been made, anything is possible"?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research, Science and Innovation): Mr Speaker, yes.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What is the potential fiscal cost of changing her R & D tax credit policy to include companies not making a profit, and removing the restrictions around companies spending less than $100,000 on R & D?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The potential costs of the full policy were included in Budget 2018 when this Government allocated over a billion dollars over a four-year period in addition to the growth grant funding. So that is all laid out there. So the funding for the growth grant of $649 million remains in addition to the money that is set out of over a billion dollars.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Does she agree with Treasury's advice that the design features may influence the fiscal cost, and that without design details the financial implications of introducing a tax credit are unclear?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Of course the design details will impact on the total cost of the package. That's why that was one of the key things that we had in mind when we put together the package to take out to consultation with industry around the final design details. These were done with the view that there had to be plenty of fiscal headroom.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How is it, then, a responsible move to announce $1 billion towards this policy, given the details of the policy are still not known?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: It is responsible because this is a Government that is not content to languish at 1.3 percent of expenditure on GDP. We're in a Government that is investing in our businesses to incentivise them to do R & D, and we have designed a policy within the funding that we allocated in Budget 2018. I know that member struggles with the fact that this is a Government that is seriously investing in research and development.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Why did she reject the advice from Treasury to implement the policy in 2020, not 2019, to allow for proper development of the policy, and instead pursued her approach, that will result in higher fiscal risk and higher risk of not achieving the objective?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We took a very prudent approach. What we are implementing in April 2019 is the incentive for companies that are in profit. We have given ourselves an extra year to do the most risky part of the policy, which is pre-profits, and we are putting in place incentives for those companies to carry them through. We're a Government that wants to get on with helping businesses so they can invest more in R & D, and this is a Government that is dedicated to a sustainable, productive, inclusive economy, and we are willing to invest in that.

• Question No. 8—Whānau Ora
•
8. JO HAYES (National) to the Minister for Whānau Ora: Is he still supportive of the principles and values of Whānau Ora; if so, what support does he have from his senior ministerial colleagues for the Whānau Ora policy?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Whānau Ora): Tēna koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. The answer to the question is yes, I continue to actively support the principles and values of Whānau Ora, and my ministerial colleagues and I are currently considering how the aspirations of whānau well-being can be supported even more.

Jo Hayes: What steps will he take to ensure the principles and values of the Whānau Ora policy is a priority in his Government's work programme, after the Prime Minister acknowledged on Saturday that she couldn't guarantee Whānau Ora would get the extra funding that Labour promised before the 2017 election?

Hon PEENI HENARE: I also quote the Prime Minister, who in the same interview said, "We're undertaking [a review of Whānau Ora] so we can demonstrate the value of Whānau Ora." To me that sounds like this Government certainly believes in the principles and values of the policy, and with well-being at the centre of everything this Government does, I'm looking forward to the outcomes we can expect.

Jo Hayes: How will Willie Jackson's comments that the Government's 2019 social well-being Budget will be "more observant of community needs right across the spectrum, translate to more funding for Whānau Ora" when the Prime Minister is unable to guarantee any new money for Whānau Ora?

Hon PEENI HENARE: More broadly speaking, I am proud of this Government and the words of the Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson, in the prospect of delivering a well-being Budget, a first in this world—a well-being Budget—aimed directly at the well-being of our communities and our country. I am under no illusion that the words of my colleague the Hon Willie Jackson are in line of delivering well-being for our communities and country.

Jo Hayes: Does he agree with the statement from the Acting Prime Minister and leader of New Zealand First, "Whānau Ora is just a giant koha fund set up in a separatist system to appease the Māori Party."; if not, why not?

SPEAKER: Order! I just want to make sure that that statement was made by the Acting Prime Minister or at least by the Rt Hon Winston Peters when he was a Minister.

JO HAYES: Yes, it was. It was in the same article on 22 September this year.

SPEAKER: So, he's made that comment recently? All right. Thank you.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The election last year was on 23 September. The Government began on 26 October. That member cannot possibly be right when she made that statement to the House.

SPEAKER: Well, I just want to check: is the member talking about this year or last year?

JO HAYES: This year: 22 September 2018.

SPEAKER: So the member's saying that the Deputy Prime Minister made that comment on 22 September this year?

Jo Hayes: That's correct.

SPEAKER: All right. OK. [Interruption] Well, no, we've got to take the member's—[Interruption]. No, we do have to take the member's word. She has been asked and she has said that that statement was reported as being made by the Prime Minister, by the—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: She's going to have to prove—

SPEAKER: No she doesn't. Order! At the moment, she does not. She said she has the authentication for it. She has been asked twice about it. She has an absolute responsibility to be correct, because it is a matter of privilege—clearly, a matter of privilege. We must take her word at this stage.

Hon PEENI HENARE: I believe that member is wrong, but what I do want to say is I'm proud of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, because in the work that we've been doing on Whānau Ora and the discussions I've had with him, he's been very supportive.

• Question No. 9—Pacific Peoples
•
ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): How is the Government—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Who was that?

Hon Kris Faafoi: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: And the member has just been responsible for some additional questions, the number of which I'll decide, going to the Opposition. Please start again.

9. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: How is the Government promoting an understanding of Pacific languages, arts, and cultures overseas?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): In April, the right honourable Minister Peters announced New Zealand's partnership with the Royal Academy of Arts in London to exhibit Oceania, the largest collection of traditional contemporary Māori, Polynesian, and Melanesian art ever displayed in the United Kingdom, with artworks spanning over 500 years. Tonga and Papua New Guinea are cultural co-sponsors of the exhibition. Minister Sepuloni opened the exhibition on behalf of the New Zealand Government on Tuesday. This is an exciting development, a unique opportunity, and a proud moment for Māori and Pacific peoples in New Zealand to see a small part of ourselves, with our representatives being profiled on the world stage with a sophisticated narrative of Pacific peoples who value their languages, arts, and cultures. Oceania artworks and artists are some of our greatest ambassadors and champions.

Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: How will the exhibition improve international understanding of the issues affecting New Zealand and our Pacific neighbours?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Oceania will focus UK and international attention to our Pacific region and its peoples. Oceania will highlight, through visual and digital arts, some of the global issues that Pacific nations are facing, such as climate change, migration, and regional and environmental security. Oceania is an opportunity for New Zealand and Pacific leaders to build dialogue with UK stakeholders and encourage them to take a greater multilateral role in collectively solving these issues.

Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: How has the Government ensured that ex-pats are able to see the exhibition?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: This is exciting: this exhibition is an important part of our story and our history, and New Zealanders living in the UK will learn a lot more from seeing Oceania. That's why we've made the entry to the exhibition free for all New Zealand passport holders and all Pacific Island passport holders. People just need to show their passport at the entry to the exhibition.

Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What is the value to New Zealand and its Pacific population of promoting Pacific languages, arts, and cultures overseas?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Exhibitions of this nature are vital in keeping Pacific and Māori languages, cultures, and arts alive for future generations. Language gives voice to our arts and cultures. We believe that when the language dies, a culture dies. When a culture dies, our stories and arts will die. When our stories and arts die, connections to our lands and environment will die. When our connections to the environment die, identities die. When our identities die, we will truly be a lost people. Exhibitions such as Oceania help to build greater understanding, appreciation, and the collective will to uphold and protect the dignity of Māori and Pacific peoples' right to speak their heritage languages and pass it on to the next generation.

• Question No. 10—Prime Minister
•
10. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his appointment of Wally Haumaha as Deputy Commissioner of Police, and does Mr Haumaha still enjoy his confidence?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): An inquiry into the appointment process is now under way, and I have confidence in Mary Scholtens QC's ability to run a fair process. It would not be appropriate for me to comment during that inquiry.

Chris Bishop: Why was Wally Haumaha appointed as deputy commissioner when he was asked in the interview process by the State Services Commission words to the effect of "Is there anything in your past that would embarrass the Government?", to which he answered, "No."?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With respect to those matters that may relate to the inquiry, I can't comment, other than to say there's one aspect that I can comment on, and that is this: Mr Haumaha received two significant promotions under the National Party, and an honours. I suppose, at that point in time, some of us thought, well, the due diligence had been done and we could have confidence in the National Party's judgment.

Chris Bishop: Why was Wally Haumaha appointed when he was not the preferred candidate of the State Services Commission interview panel that interviewed him?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, a very distinguished woman with qualifications, of course, Mary Scholtens QC, will determine the process and give us a report on that, and at that point—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Because he's a mate.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, Mary Scholtens is not a mate of mine. She's married to a former National Party Minister. Didn't know that, did he—didn't know that, did he? So we'll await her wise opinion when we get the report.

Chris Bishop: In relation to the Scholtens inquiry, why did the Government scale back the Government inquiry into his appointment from a short and sharp inquiry that would only take six weeks, when officials originally recommended an inquiry of three months, at a cost of $840,000?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I think the answer to that is so obvious. We are a very frugal Government. We're famous for looking after the taxpayer's money the same way we look after our own—very Scottish in that fact. I just want to say $800,000 was far too much, and so we've reached a much more reasonable accommodation.

Chris Bishop: Has he asked the Rt Hon Winston Peters why he told Parliament he was invited to the celebration of Mr Haumaha's promotion to assistant commissioner of police by the police and the Government of the day, when the evidence shows he was invited by the marae which Mr Haumaha is the chairman of?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: At this point in time, there's no such evidence on the last claim that Minister made, just like there was none yesterday. Now, let me just say this here: at the marae were all the police heads at the time, and a number of political parties. I just happened to be one of them. I got there—because I was a very busy man—well after the event started, and was seated at the direction of the police. That's why I had the assumption that they were involved in its organisation.

Chris Bishop: In relation to that final answer, was he invited to the marae, to Wally Haumaha's celebration, by the marae?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In that context, I think the answer's almost compellingly no, but, as some members will know here, in Māoridom we're very much a wanted guest sometimes—not always, because of the effect of what our message might be, but, nevertheless, because it's important that they hear all sorts of views. That was the reason, I assume, I was invited.

Chris Bishop: So if he wasn't invited by the Government of the day, he wasn't invited by the police, and, as he just said, he wasn't invited by the marae, who invited him to the celebration of Wally Haumaha's promotion to assistant commissioner?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The first thing that member's going to have to do is get some cultural understanding. A marae can be a building, a marae can be a complex, or a marae can be all the people and the complex, all put together. So in that context, it's very difficult to know—I know the building didn't invite me, but as to who on the marae had the foresight and wisdom to invite me, I don't quite know. That said, that member yesterday promised a revelation. When are we going to hear it?

Chris Bishop: What is the difference between Meka Whaitiri, who was stood down as a Minister once an investigation commenced into alleged inappropriate behaviour towards a staff member, and Wally Haumaha, whose alleged bullying behaviour towards civil servants is now the subject of two—and possibly soon three—inquiries, and why will he not stand Mr Haumaha aside?

SPEAKER: I'm going to make a minor amendment to the question and make it "public servant", so we have a New Zealand not a UK context, and ask the Prime Minister to answer it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just say, the member actually gave the answer in his question—he said, "alleged". In this country, people are presumed innocent. We have an inquiry going on now into the process that appointed Mr Haumaha, a twice-promoted police member under the National Party and an honours recipient under the National Party.

Chris Bishop: Why did he stand Meka Whaitiri aside as a Minister when the allegations against her were only alleged, and how does that differ from Mr Haumaha?

SPEAKER: I'm going to get the member to try again, at the beginning of the question: "Why did the Prime Minister", not "Why did he".

Chris Bishop: Why did the Prime Minister stand Meka Whaitiri aside as a Minister when the allegations against her were only allegations, and how does that differ from the allegations against Mr Haumaha?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Prime Minister, in the Meka Whaitiri case, had the benefit of a report. In the case of Mr Haumaha, the inquiry is still being done, and so, as the member said yesterday, I can also reveal that we will wait till the report's out.

• Question No. 8 to Minister
•
JO HAYES (National): I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct a statement I made in the House. Mr Speaker, when you asked for my assurance—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Is the member going to seek leave to make a correction, presumably relating to something she said relatively recently?

JO HAYES: Yes.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that. There appears to be none.

JO HAYES: When you asked for my assurance that the statement made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters was in his capacity as Minister, I said it was as it was an article dated 22 December this year. I was mistaken; the statement was in fact made in February 2012. I apologise to the House.

• Question No. 11—Youth
•
11. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister for Youth: What recent announcement has he made on the Youth Parliament?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Youth): I can answer that question tickety-boo.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: You're not young.

Hon PEENI HENARE: Yesterday, I announced the nationwide selection process—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. I'm going to ask Paul Goldsmith just to stop stating the obvious. I'm not. Thank you. Start again please.

Hon PEENI HENARE: Yesterday I announced that the nationwide selection process for Youth Parliament 2019 is under way. All MP offices would have received an information pack about the Youth Parliament 2019 programme and the selection process. I'm enjoying seeing how members are using social media to promote this fantastic opportunity—in fact, in the words of my good colleague, "keeping it lit." There is wonderful momentum from all sides of the House to ensure we work together to bring youth voices into this Whare.

Kieran McAnulty: How will Youth Parliament be different this time round?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Great question. Rangatahi who will participate in the Youth Parliament 2019 programmes stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before them. We have listened to the voices of previous youth parliamentarians—namely, the Hon Kris Faafoi. They suggest that the programme include significant changes. The changes include the programme being from 1 March to 31 August, allowing for young people to work alongside their MPs and communities and take their views to the two-day event in July 2019. After the two-day event, these young people will return to their communities to share their insights and learnings. For the first time in the history of Youth Parliament, Youth MPs will be submitting and deciding on topics to be discussed at the two-day event. All rangatahi from across Aotearoa will be able to submit their thoughts on the 10 chosen Youth Parliament select committee topics through a public submission process.

Kieran McAnulty: What are the governing arrangements for Youth Parliament 2019?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Youth Parliament is governed by a multi-party steering committee of members, as well as a representative from the press gallery. I would like to acknowledge the following members, who have been championing more opportunities for young people to have a voice. Can I also acknowledge you, Mr Speaker, for your acceptance of Youth Parliament 2019.

SPEAKER: Just before we go on to question No. 12 from Jenny Marcroft, I want to make it clear that despite what has been a written appeal to me from people on behalf of Mr Faafoi, I'm not going to take the questions back that I have awarded the National Party because of his interjection. Even though there may have been some justification for it at the time, he's got to learn to do things in an appropriate manner.

• Question No. 12—Forestry
•
12. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister of Forestry: What insights can he offer about his recent trip to China and Japan?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): The insights I can offer about the recent trip are based on intuition and judgment—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Table the snaps.

Hon SHANE JONES: —during that period. Yes, don't worry, pork belly was there, Gerry.

SPEAKER: Order! That's enough. Right, the member will resume his seat. We're not going to proceed with this question now because the member has—it's the second member in two days to make personal reflections on the shadow Leader of the House, and I'm, frankly, at a loss as to how to otherwise improve the behaviour. I am now ruling that question time is concluded because I cannot think of a better way of indicating my concern to Mr Jones and other members of the Government about their inappropriate personal comments.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Brownlee said, "Table the snacks."

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, "snaps".

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That was his intervention—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, no, no—clean out the ears.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: He's back into it again. This is a point of order and it should be heard in silence. Now, Mr Speaker—that's a fact. That's what we heard over here: "Table the snacks." And now my colleague responded with an answer that pork belly was there. I mean, to be reasonable, if he had not intervened and shouted out that silly statement, then we would have got on and answered the question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The word was "snaps" as in "holiday snaps". I realise that most people don't use those now because they've got cellphones, but I do have another point of order, though.

SPEAKER: OK, we have dealt with that one. That's what I thought the member said, so we'll just keep going. Further point of order, the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

• Question No. 1 to Minister
•
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In question No. 1 today, you ruled that the Hon Paula Bennett could not table a document, on the basis that it had previously been published. But I would just ask you to consider what you've ruled today in relation to Speaker's rulings 149/1, which talk about documents of a historic nature and not readily available, and Speaker's ruling 149/2, that says that documents that are published by the media can be tabled if there has been a passage of time, effectively, and they come from a credible organisation. Now, the Parliamentary Library, I'm sure you would agree, as far as this House is concerned, is a credible organisation.

Further Speaker's ruling 150/2 says that a document published by media is much the same as 149/2 in exceptional circumstances. In this case, the statement that was tabled by the Hon Paula Bennett was 18 years old. Now, that creates the sorts of exceptional circumstances that I'm sure are anticipated in that. While that moment has passed, I would ask you just to reflect on whether your ruling today supersedes those other rulings.

SPEAKER: Well, I haven't looked carefully at 149/1, but I have looked at 149/2, and I'm not sure that the member's argument actually works for that one. I will look carefully at it. I'm not at the point yet of where I'm going to take the current Speakers' rulings out of the book by superseding them, but I will sit down and have a wee look at the question and at the context. I thank the member.

© Scoop Media