ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Finance

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Minus two.

1. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): On Monday, Treasury released the Crown financial statements for the nine months to the end of March, showing that the Government continues to manage the books responsibly. The accounts show a surplus of $2.5 billion in the operating balance before gains and losses over the nine months, $329 million above forecast. Net core Crown debt as at 31 March was also below forecast, at 20.6 percent of GDP, compared to the 20.9 percent expected. These results demonstrate the solid underlying fundamentals of the New Zealand economy.

Willow-Jean Prime: What other reports has he seen about the fundamentals of the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This morning, Statistics New Zealand released labour market statistics for the March quarter, showing the unemployment rate fell to 4.2 percent. This means that the last nine months have seen the lowest unemployment rate in over a decade. The underutilisation rate also fell to 11.3 percent, the lowest it has been since December 2008. Meanwhile, according to the quarterly employment survey, wages grew at 3.4 percent, well above the annual inflation for the quarter of 1.5 percent. The data released today does reinforce the tightness of the labour market, but it also shows an economy that is delivering for more New Zealanders on the back of solid underlying fundamentals.

Willow-Jean Prime: What reports has he seen on international risks to the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Eurozone GDP data for the March quarter came out overnight, showing growth of 0.4 percent and annual growth of just 1.2 percent. The data reaffirmed the message that I heard at the IMF and World Bank meetings last month that the global economy, while still growing, is doing so more slowly than the highs seen in recent years, amidst risks from geopolitical and trade uncertainty.

Hon Amy Adams: Risks of bad Government.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As a relatively small—you should leave your negativity in the caucus room, Ms Adams—open nation, we are not immune to the challenges posed by the international outlook. That's why we're continuing to manage the books responsibly while implementing our plan for a modern and resilient economy based on productive, sustainable, and inclusive growth.

SPEAKER: Question No. 2, the—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question. I thought they wanted to take one.

SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your consideration. Can I ask the Minister of Finance: do these stats indicate that rather than gloom and doom, so beloved of some, the economy in New Zealand is being seriously, soundly managed?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I am far too modest to respond to the second part of the member's question, but what I can say is that this is an economy that is resilient, that is strong, and that in the face of international headwinds, this Government is committed to making sure that it's more productive, more sustainable, and more inclusive, and the management is down to everyone on this side of the House.

• Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's actions, policies, and statements?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that under the previous Government, job creation was at 10,000 per month, yet in the last three months, job growth has fallen by 4,000—that is, it's gone negative?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I notice that the member has very specifically drawn on a quarter-to-quarter comparison because what he doesn't want to say is that the unemployment rate, as it's being announced today, is at 4.2 percent, the second-lowest level in 10 years. What he doesn't want to say is that wages grew 3.4 percent over the year; that the underutilisation rate—again, we want to make sure that people, when they're in employment, are working as much as they want to be working—fell to 11.3 percent, the lowest underutilisation rate since December 2008; and the NEET rate fell—not as much as we'd like, but it has fallen—and the number of employed people rose 38,200 from a year ago. The member has compared one quarter to the next because that was the only number that he felt comfortable raising in this House.

Hon Simon Bridges: So will she answer the question: does she accept that under the previous Government, job creation was at 10,000 per month, yet in the last three months, job growth has fallen—that is, has gone negative—by 4,000 people?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: For the quarter, yes. However, if we're looking at the average change in employment, it is, of course, in the positive and over 10,000. Again, I notice that the member, when he was in Government, tended not to use quarter-on-quarter either.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she know that the reason Statistics New Zealand gave for the unemployment rate falling in the last quarter was because people were deciding to leave the labour force—that is, to go on a benefit?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is actually not correct. If someone goes on a benefit, by default they are termed unemployed and would show up in the unemployment statistics, which have gone [Interruption]—if surveyed, they would indeed be regarded as unemployed, and the unemployment rate has gone down. Secondly, I also acknowledge that when the numbers came out, Statistics New Zealand said they saw a rise in men aged over—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Don't just make it up.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —this is actually from Statistics New Zealand, Mr Brownlee, if you'd like to tune in—55 leaving the labour force in order to go into leisure time—perhaps a suggestion, Mr Brownlee.

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

SPEAKER: Order! I think the member has a right to make a point of order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, I just want to express to the House how overcome I am by the kindness of the Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: Well, I thought the member was going to say he wouldn't notice any difference.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: We really should get our two back.

SPEAKER: Fair enough—fair enough.

Hon Simon Bridges: How does she explain unemployment down but benefits strongly up?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, there's been a variation of 0.2 percent in the benefit numbers. Again, however, when we look at the percentage of those of the working-age population receiving a main benefit, even where it is now in the March quarter, which is at 9.5 percent, that is lower than it was in every year from March 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017, under the last Government. So, yes, of course we want to keep those numbers coming in a different direction, but, again—relative to the last Government—in better shape.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that under the previous Government, 60,000 people came off benefits, yet in the last 12 months, there were 13,000 more people on the benefit?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yet, I say again, despite that, we are still at a lower rate than under the last Government. Of course we maintain the aspiration that we want to see people in work. That's why we have Mana in Mahi, where we are supporting those who are on unemployment benefits to go into work and supporting employers to take them on in apprenticeships. That's why we've got our driver-licensing scheme, where those on youth payments are eligible for free driver-licensing to help them get into work. And it's why just this week, Ministers announced the work they're doing with the building and construction sector. We do want people in meaningful work, and we're taking meaningful action to make it happen.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why are there 13,000 more New Zealanders on the job seeker benefit under her watch?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, I prefer to use the proportion of working-age population, but, again, even then I have said there has been a 0.2 percent increase. We have seen, according to the Ministry of Social Development, some softening in the areas around construction, from memory. So those areas where we have seen problems around our sector is where we've seen also job issues, and that's why we're doing the work to try and make sure those individuals have the skills to go into those areas of work.

Jami-Lee Ross: Why is the country still waiting for the Government's response to the inquiry into mental health and addiction, when the Minister of Health said in November, January, and February that a response would be delivered in March, and in March he said that it would be only a few weeks away?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I did add clarity to our expectation around when that report would be released on Monday, at post-Cabinet. The Minister had indicated it would be released by the end of April. As we worked on the final response from the Government, what became apparent was that so much of the response was tied up with the Budget, and tangible announcements of our health service delivery would change under this Government. The view was that bringing closer proximity, therefore, to the actual announcements at Budget time and the Government's response would be preferable. So we're asking members to wait a matter of weeks.

Jami-Lee Ross: Will the Government be adopting a suicide reduction target?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I won't make that announcement here today, but what I will highlight is one of the vexed issues that we've had is that on the one hand, the inquiry did recommend that a target be adopted, and on the other, the various members of this Government are on record talking about a view that of course we should have no tolerance, and targets suggest tolerance. We've grappled with that as a Government, but we'll be making an announcement in its totality when the response comes out.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will the Government's $1.5 billion mental health package be announced pre-Budget or on Budget day?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: All Budget announcements, of course, sit with the Minister of Finance and the Government. We don't give time lines on what is in and what is out, and nor am I going to confirm the totality of those Budget amounts.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she agree that it's a failure that the Ashburton District, with an unemployment rate of 1.8 percent, saw a 20 percent increase in the number of people on the job seeker benefit in the last year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, my preference would always be to look at some of that individual, regional data myself, because sometimes it does give us patterns around what's happening for industry areas. Of course, we don't wish to tolerate growth in any of those areas; that's why we're taking very specific initiatives in very specific regions and employment areas in order to try and turn such numbers around. I would again say, though, this is a day where we've, again, had the second lowest unemployment rate in a decade, matched only by the lowest in a decade, which we achieved two quarters ago. This is a time for celebration for the country, that we are doing well in the face of some international headwinds which are not positive.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: With all of these questions about employment, when unemployment is at a most commendable rate of 4.2 percent, could, nevertheless, one professional position be facing unemployment?

SPEAKER: Well, there'll be one facing underemployment.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I wouldn't want to speculate, but given how tight the labour market is at the moment, I imagine prospects would be good, no matter where anyone went.

Hon Simon Bridges: If unemployment being down is so good, why are benefits up 13,000 people?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I've given multiple answers to this question. Regardless, again, of those rationales, we are taking individual efforts to make sure that in those areas where we have job need we are matching those on a benefit in a way that we just did not see under the last Government. And that is the right approach to get our benefit numbers down.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report, due to be released on Friday, recommend the removal of most or all benefit obligations and sanctions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Look, I welcome the question from the member, because I've noticed some statements being made around sanctions which are just not accurate. There have been no changes to the sanction regime. We have, however, ensured that Work and Income is following the existing policy. So I cannot make any statements around whether or not that kind of rigour was applied to our system before, but it is being applied now. The sanctions themselves, however, have not changed. The second point is that the Welfare Expert Advisory Group—you'll be able to discuss and debate their recommendations once they're released.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will her Government not only "remove excessive sanctions in the welfare system" but, as the Speech from the Throne states, also "go further"?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have been very open as a Government around some of the discomfort we've had with some of the sanctions that exist, for instance, naming of children—the penalty that applies for, particularly, women in those circumstances. That's something we've been very open about. With sanctions, of course, we've always been mindful about the impact of them on children in particular. But again, in terms of any announcements, you'll have to wait until the Government formalises its response.

Hon Simon Bridges: If she and her Government have made no secret of the fact that they're uncomfortable with the sanctions and obligations, why have no changes been made, and will changes be made when the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report and the Government's decisions come back?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I was simply flagging a particular sanction that at least Labour and the Greens have been on record on for a number of years. When it comes to announcements, the member will have to wait.

Hon Simon Bridges: So can I confirm that she is uncomfortable with the sanctions and obligations that are in place on benefits today, as she, I think, just said?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. The member completely misinterpreted my statement and he knows it.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is the current system and what we've got in place right now—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I'm just going to remind the Prime Minister that she cannot accuse a member of deliberately misleading the House, and I think she just did.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is she then saying that the benefit arrangements around obligations and sanctions today are fine as they are?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have not changed them—they have not been changed. We're just making sure that Work and Income applies them appropriately.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, what's the point of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group then?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will see the results in due course.

• Question No. 3—Veterans

3. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Veterans: What announcements has he made regarding funding for veterans' support?

Hon RON MARK (Minister for Veterans): Last week I announced additional funding to support the well-being of veterans and their families. The funding will be used to meet ever-increasing demands for services and for new health and well-being assessments to ensure our veterans are linked into the right support services when they leave the Defence Force. I also announced additional capital funding to improve the application and IT systems at Veterans' Affairs to make it easier to get assistance online, and to free up case managers to provide better support for more complex cases. This is on top of the extra $250,000 we allocated to the RSA, and on top of the $25,000 that we've allocated to the No Duff Charitable Trust.

Darroch Ball: Why are early interventions for veterans important?

Hon RON MARK: Whilst there are approximately 11,000 veterans from World War II, Korea, Malaya, and Vietnam, we now have upwards of 31,000 contemporary veterans in New Zealand—that is, people who have seen active service since 1971. Many of these vets return with service-related health and mental health issues, in particular post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Where we see severe and complex PTSD issues arise, it is paramount that they be identified as early as possible and that support is put in place to prevent self-destructive behaviours leading to self-harm and suicide. It is with all this in mind, and this Government's particular focus on mental health and well-being, that we decided to put in the extra funding.

Darroch Ball: How much additional funding will be allocated?

Hon RON MARK: Over the next four years, there will be a $2.1 million boost in operating funding, representing a 5.4 percent increase in the current Veterans Affairs baseline. Capital funding totalling $2 million has also been allocated to overhaul Veterans Affairs' client management structures and IT systems. It is money that will be very well spent and the changes will enhance support and services to our veterans and their families, ultimately leading to improvements in well-being and better transitioning into civilian life.

• Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of the Government's statements, policies, and actions in relation to the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were given, made, and undertaken.

Hon Amy Adams: How does he reconcile his statement that the Government is making solid progress on improving the well-being of New Zealanders, with data out today that shows the job market now has 4,000 fewer jobs in it than it did three months ago despite our growing population—fewer jobs for more people?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I would justify that by the following statistics released today: the unemployment rate falling to 4.2 percent in the March quarter from 4.3 percent, the second lowest since December 2008; wages growing 3.4 percent over the year, on average ordinary time hourly earnings; the underutilisation rate falling to 11.3 percent, the lowest rate since the December 2008 quarter; the NEET rate falling, although we want to see it fall a bit further; and the number of employed people rising by 38,200 people from a year ago. That's how I would justify that statement.

Hon Amy Adams: Well, has he seen reports out today from the ANZ, commenting on the latest statistics, that note that the very slight drop in the unemployment rate was only because of a decline in participation, with employment growth actually falling over the last quarter?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I've seen the whole statement from the ANZ, which includes the following: "The labour market is currently in good shape."

Hon Amy Adams: Does he think that the well-being of New Zealanders has been improved by facing rents that are $50 a week higher under this Government, according to Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment statistics?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I understand that for everybody who pays rent, they monitor very closely the fluctuations in rent. I can say that between February and March, the geometric mean rents—which we know we've covered in this House before—have, in fact, fallen.

Hon Amy Adams: Is the well-being of New Zealanders being improved by facing electricity prices up to 40 percent higher because of the Government's renewable energy target, as confirmed by the interim Climate Commission?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premise in that question.

Hon Amy Adams: Is the well-being of New Zealanders being improved, as he's claimed, when the number of New Zealanders on a benefit has gone up by 13,000 people over the last year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the Prime Minister has already stated, in fact, if we look at the various March years right the way back, I think, to 2014, we would see that, in fact, the working-age population on a main benefit is lower at this point than in future. But what I do want to do is thank the member for constantly referencing the well-being Budget.

Hon Amy Adams: Well, is it a sign that the well-being of New Zealanders is improving when the number of New Zealanders who now need emergency housing grants has gone up more than 300 percent under his Government?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think everyone in this House shares the view that we need to do more in New Zealand to deal with the housing crisis that developed over the last decade. What this Government has done is got on with building more houses, including around 1,600 houses in the past year and 6,400 over the next four years. We are actually committed to making the changes, and we actually acknowledged that there was a housing crisis, unlike what that member did for the last nine years.

• Question No. 5—Housing and Urban Development

5. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by his answers to oral question No. 6 on 12 March that "The test applied to determine whether a KiwiBuild underwrite should proceed is additionality" and that "I'm advised that the threshold can be met in four key ways"?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yes, in its original context.

Hon Judith Collins: Does he have confidence additionality tests undertaken so far have been robust enough to determine whether a KiwiBuild development should proceed?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.

Hon Judith Collins: Has he seen any of the additionality tests that were undertaken?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Those additionality tests are carried out by officials in the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, and I'm advised by those officials that the test was conducted in each case.

Hon Judith Collins: Is he surprised to hear that the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development have advised, when asked for a copy of additionality tests, that these tests are done verbally with builders and no written record existed?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I was surprised to learn that too, but I am advised that there are other documents and that the ministry will clarify its response to the National Party research unit later today. However, the point is that KiwiBuild reduces the price paid for those houses by first-home buyers. It enables new affordable homes to be brought to the market more quickly, and our Government makes no apologies for backing builders to build more affordable homes.

Hon Judith Collins: Is it acceptable for the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development to be playing so fast and loose with their response as to how these sign-offs for $700 million worth of homes have been assessed?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, that is a matter for the ministry, but I understand that while there is no specific single assessment document as requested by the National Party research unit, there are other documents and communications that set out the negotiations and record the ministry's work in this area. The point is that in the case of, for example, the Mike Greer deal, 104 affordable homes will be brought to the market more cheaply and more quickly for the benefit of first-home buyers.

Hon Judith Collins: Is the quality of the response from his ministry dependent on who is asking the question?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, not at all.

• Question No. 6—Pike River Re-entry

6. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister responsible for Pike River Re-entry: What actions is the Government taking to meet its pledge to re-enter the Pike River mine?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister responsible for Pike River Re-entry): On Friday, 3 May, the coalition Government will start the process of re-entering the Pike River mine drift, following the tragic loss of 29 lives in the 2010 disaster. This is the first step in meeting our pledge of re-entering the drift. Re-entry will enable the thorough investigation of the drift, which will hopefully allow us to better understand what caused this dreadful loss. This will be an ongoing process, and there are still many challenges ahead. Our primary focus will always be safety, and if our commitment to safety means delays or a slower process eventually, then so be it.

Rino Tirikatene: What work has been done to ensure that Pike River can be re-entered safely?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Re-entry to the Pike River drift is a complex undertaking. This is a site which, even eight years after the explosions that caused that great loss of life, still poses significant but manageable hazards. This has required robust planning, and the Pike River Recovery Agency has done an incredible job getting ready for re-entry, along with important oversight and scrutiny from WorkSafe New Zealand. The agency has received advice from international experts and the independent ministerial adviser, Rob Fyfe, and has operated with a commitment to safety first.

Rino Tirikatene: What support has the Minister seen for the Pike River Recovery Agency's re-entry plan?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I want to acknowledge the Pike River families for their patience and determination to see that justice is done. I'd like to acknowledge the advocacy and support of local MPs the Hon Damien O'Connor and Rino Tirikatene, as well as the New Zealand First and Green parties for their support. I'd also like to acknowledge the Hon Mark Mitchell for his support, and I look forward to seeing him there on Friday morning.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that, as promised, the re-entry will be led by the Rt Hon Winston Peters?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! He's not responsible for undertakings made pre-election.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Unlike that questioner, I am experienced in going underground, and I'm happy to answer it myself.

SPEAKER: I'm not certain which particular Standing Order he was referring to.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The one where I—

SPEAKER: Well, the member's skating on pretty thin ice at the moment.

• Question No. 7—Police

7. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: Why did he say yesterday, "I have not received advice that there was a leak of top-secret information", when the Police Commissioner has today confirmed he has directed that an investigation be commenced into the alleged unauthorised disclosure of information to a media outlet, and does he now accept there has been a leak of intelligence information to the media?

SPEAKER: The Hon Stuart Nash, with the caveat that I have been warned that this answer is longer than I would normally permit.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): I stand by my answer to the question the member put to me yesterday. He claimed the information disclosed was top secret. He was wrong—the commissioner today has stated it was, "Not top secret information". Today, he claims it is intelligence information. The member's statement needs a fact check. Police have not stated that intelligence information has been leaked. The original media report did not claim there had been a leak; it stated the information had been obtained [Interruption]. Police today have stated, "Information related—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. I think most members in this House will recognise that this is a very serious matter that may involve the security of individuals, or the country. The rest of this part of the answer will be heard in silence.

Hon STUART NASH: Police today have stated, "Information related to [the] ongoing investigative and prevention steps" has been allegedly disclosed. Police, and myself, do take these allegations seriously, that's why on Monday morning I asked police to look into the media report. As I said in the House yesterday, I expect the commissioner to investigate potential breaches of operational protocol, and that is exactly what he is doing.

Chris Bishop: When was he advised that Stuff had obtained part of a confidential watch list of more than 100 people being watched by police?

Hon STUART NASH: I read a media report on Sunday, but it is not a confidential watch list of more than 100 people. The fact that police compile lists of suspects and persons of interest is not a secret. As I told this House before Easter, there are a small number of individuals who are emboldened by what occurred on 15 March and have made threats and preached racist and anti-immigrant rhetoric online and in other forums. Some of this online chatter and threats are open-source information and not gathered through covert means. They are often reported to police by responsible members of the public. As that member is aware, deleting something from Facebook or Snapchat does not mean the information goes away.

Chris Bishop: Is he saying that the reason he did not confirm to the House yesterday that there had been a leak of clearly confidential information was because the article on Stuff described the information erroneously as top secret?

Hon STUART NASH: Do not believe everything you read in the press. In fact, I think the Prime Minister should have been a 10 out of 10.

Chris Bishop: Why did he not tell the House yesterday exactly what happened to the confidential information in light of the commissioner's words this morning: "The disclosure of this information is of significant concern to police and we are taking this matter very seriously"?

Hon STUART NASH: As I said yesterday, I expect the commissioner to investigate potential breaches of operational protocol—

Hon Amy Adams: Yesterday the Minister denied it.

Hon STUART NASH: —and that is exactly what they are doing. Yesterday, Ms Adams, I denied that there had been a leak of top secret information, and I stand by that statement.

Chris Bishop: Why, when he was told on Sunday—as he has now confirmed to the House—did he not answer the question yesterday and tell the public and the House that there had been an unauthorised disclosure of confidential information about people being monitored by police?

Hon STUART NASH: I urge that member to be very careful with his words, because allegations and false and outrageous claims can undermine the great work our New Zealand Police service is doing in keeping us safe and preventing crime.

Chris Bishop: I'll just ask the question again, Mr Speaker: why, when he has confirmed to the House he was told on Sunday about an unauthorised disclosure of information, did he not tell the House yesterday, when given repeated opportunities, that information confidential to the police had made its way to a media outlet?

Hon STUART NASH: If I had been asked that question, maybe that member would have received that answer.

• Question No. 8—Social Development

8. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Social Development: Has there been a reduction in the number of single mothers having their benefits cut for not naming the father since this Government took office?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Thank you for that question. I am pleased to say, although there have not been changes to the policy at this stage, we have seen a reduction in the number of section 192—formerly known as section 70A—deductions applied to parents who do not, or are unable, to name the other parent of their child. There has been a drop from 17,731 deductions as at March 2017 to 15,302 deductions as at March 2019. This reflects Work and Income case managers ensuring that sanctions are being applied correctly, and having conversations with clients to better understand their circumstances and situations.

Marama Davidson: Does the Minister agree that the social welfare system should value the work done by caregivers and provide support for mums struggling to get by, rather than making their lives harder with excessive sanctions?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I do agree that we should have a welfare system that is fair, accessible, and provides people with the support they are eligible for. That is why the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) started a proactive campaign in April this year to contact sole parents who currently have a section 192 deduction applied to do a full review of their entitlements. So far, 93 reviews have been completed, resulting in 23 people getting more financial support, five people having more manageable debt repayments, and 12 people having the deduction itself removed due to new information about their situation, or because they have named the other parent, and/or applied for child support.

Marama Davidson: Has any advice been provided on the impact of sanctions, particularly for children?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I have received a range of advice on sanctions, in particular on section 192. I started looking into these deductions in more detail in November 2017 and have continued to do work in this area. MSD, alongside Oranga Tamariki, also recently completed work on section 192 deductions, which will be proactively released this Friday, alongside the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report. This evidence reflects that these sanctions are not in the best interests of children, and there is no evidence that they have achieved their original objective to encourage child support applications. The previous Government received the same advice in 2016. I've also seen international evidence which suggests that a very harsh sanctions regime can have adverse effects that drive people away from, rather than closer to, employment.

Marama Davidson: So is the Minister concerned that, despite this reduction in numbers, there are still over 15,000 children who are missing out because of this sanction?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes, I am concerned about that, particularly based on the evidence I have seen, which shows that sole parents who have this deduction applied to them are one of the major groups who rely on other supplementary assistance through the welfare system. I look forward to working with our coalition and confidence and supply partners to address this.

• Question No. 9—Prime Minister

9. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's statements, policies, and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Has she seen New Zealand Police evidence that New Zealanders consume around 16 kilograms of methamphetamine a week, doing $20 million worth of social harm, and what effect will the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill have on communities given that it will decriminalise personal consumption of these drugs?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: First of all, the member is incorrect in her characterisation of the Misuse of Drugs Act (MODA). There is still the ability within the legislation for an individual to be prosecuted for personal use and possession. What we have proposed is to codify what the police tell us is what they do in practice, which is to take a health-based approach for those who are caught with enough to be considered to be using for personal use. Evidence around the world suggests that a health-based approach is the best way to reduce the harm of drugs in our society that the member talks about. That means using drug and alcohol addiction services rather than prisons.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree with the New Zealand Drug Foundation and the Police Association, and others, who presented at the select committee this morning and who said they do not believe there will be any prosecutions for those who are using drugs?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I say, I've relied on the advice from the police and, of course, the likes of the Ministry of Justice. I've seen the Police Association's submission very recently—happy to look at the suggestions that they have made and the points they've made, but, again, it is the police themselves who have suggested this would simply codify their practice in law, and this is the House that wants to base its decisions based on research and evidence. I would be very surprised if the Drug Foundation did not support that move.

Simeon Brown: Is the Prime Minister concerned about the most recent report from the Coroner that says 80 people died from synthetic drugs in less than two years, and is she committed to urgently addressing the supply of these drugs?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. That's exactly why the misuse of drugs legislation increases dramatically the penalty for those who manufacture and supply synthetic cannabis, because we are concerned about the harm it's doing. However, when it comes to those who are users, we do not believe that the best way to prevent their death is by arresting them and putting them in prison. Instead, we believe the best way is to make sure that they get the treatment and support they need to cease their use of dangerous drugs.

Simeon Brown: Will the Government support, at the third reading of my member's bill today, the increasing of penalties for those found guilty of supplying dangerous psychoactive substances in order to urgently make our communities safer?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, because our bill does it in a more substantive way.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the confidence and supply agreement with the Green Party requires that this Government treat drugs as the health issues that they are, and does she believe that this is a better approach to solving problems of addition than criminalisation?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, and all of the international evidence backs up that approach.

SPEAKER: Question No. 10, Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki—[Interruption] Order!

Hon Paula Bennett: Well, she's arguing with me, too.

SPEAKER: Well, you're arguing louder.

Hon Paula Bennett: That could be true.

SPEAKER: Yes, and it's while I'm calling a member, which sort of—[Interruption] Both of you should know better.

• Question 10—Social Development

10. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What support, if any, has the Government introduced to help families with heating costs over the winter months?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Last year, we introduced the winter energy payment, which was implement on 1 July 2018 as part of the Government's Families Package. Single people who are eligible will receive an extra $20.46 a week and eligible couples and people with dependent children will get an extra $31.82 a week from 1 May to 1 October this year—1 May. The winter energy payment has the largest eligible population for financial support within the welfare system and benefits around 1 million New Zealanders. Under this policy, more Kiwis will receive a helping hand to keep their homes warm and dry over the coming winter months.

Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What feedback has she received about the winter energy payment?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Overwhelmingly, the feedback has been positive. We have had people over the year tell us what a difference this payment has made, helping them keep their homes warmer and themselves and their families healthier. Recently, I have had people write in to say that they can finally use their heating without the fears of it being unaffordable come the end of the month. Some have said that the additional support almost brought them to tears. We are proud of the impact that this payment is having for Kiwis across the country.

Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Why is this important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Winter is coming. As we know, every year too many of our seniors are hospitalised due to respiratory illnesses during this period. I've also been told of many others in our communities on low incomes concerned about—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! At risk of wanting to show a personal interest in this, I would like to hear the answer.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Would you like me to start again, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: No.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Oh, OK. I've also been told of many others in our communities on low incomes concerned about the cost of heating, with some seniors saying that they stay in bed all day just to keep warm during winter. That's not right, and we can do better. The winter energy payment is a simple but important way of supporting over a million New Zealanders to keep warm and stay healthy over winter.

• Question No. 11—Education

11. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Associate Minister of Education: Does she agree with the Prime Minister's statement in May last year that "In early childhood education, the average wait for help from the early intervention service is about 74 days. And in the life of a little three- or four-year-old child who's hungry to learn, that's 74 days too long. Today's announcement will halve the current waiting list for services, as well as help meet future demand"; and, if so, what is the average wait [time] for help from the early intervention service today?

SPEAKER: I think there's an extra word, but we'll go for it anyway.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): Yes. I also agree with the Prime Minister's press release—also in May last year—that outlined that this was a four year budget and a reduction target. This acknowledged that it takes longer than a year to rebuild a workforce neglected for nine years. Currently, the average waiting times to receive support from early intervention services is 106 days.

Nicola Willis: Is the Minister confirming that despite the Prime Minister's promise, waiting times for early intervention have increased under this Government.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I am confirming that after nine years of neglect, with no workforce planning, this Government invested $21.5 million in April last year. Since then, 120 extra specialists have been employed in specialist services. Over the four-year period of that budget, with the roll-out of the learning support delivery model, with the roll-out of learning support coordinators in 2020, to improve a system that was broken under the previous lot, yes; that is true.

Nicola Willis: Does the Minister stand by her reported statements that, "Most teachers and most parents will have not noticed a single bit of difference" and "It just hasn't worked"; and, if so, will she take responsibility for this failure to deliver for children in need?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I stand by all the statements I make, but the reason why it hasn't worked is the other part of the statement I made on the radio, which was, I believe, a 21 percent increase in behavioural needs, a 15 percent increase in oral language needs, and a 15 percent increase in other needs. So, unfortunately, quite rightly, $21.5 million—10 times what was previously invested over a nine-year period by the last organisation—when we started so far behind the eight ball, has not been enough; hence why this Government is rolling out the learning support delivery model across the whole of New Zealand by the end of this year. We'll have the first tranche of 600 learning support coordinators on the ground, and the pilots tell us that when the early childhood education providers are a part of the learning support coordinator and the learning support delivery model, wait times drop. It takes a while to repair nine years worth of damage.

Nicola Willis: By what date will the Government deliver on the Prime Minister's promise to halve waiting lists for early intervention?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Recognising that that was a statement made about a four-year budget and so therefore a four-year target, recognising that there had been no workforce planning, that it takes five to seven years to train an oral language specialist, and recognising that this Government put in 10 times in one year what that Government only invested in nine years, it will take time.

• Question No. 12—Statistics

12. Dr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister of Statistics: Does he stand by his answer to oral question No. 12 on 12 April 2018 that "What I would say is that this census looks to be more successful than previous censuses, that we're meeting all of our targets, and that that person, whoever wrote that article, should stop believing everything that he sees on Twitter"; and, if not, why not?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Statistics): I feel I covered a fair amount of territory on this topic yesterday, so I will just say yes.

Dr Jian Yang: Was The Northland Age editor Peter Jackson incorrect when he described the census as showing all the hallmarks of being a shambles, and if not, why not?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, as I said the previous two times I've been asked about this in the House, when I said this census looks to be more successful than previous censuses, I was referring to online response rates and other targets, which at that point, Statistics New Zealand have advised me, they were on track to meet or exceed. There are significant successes with the 2018 census. The 4.7 million population count is a better count than the 2013 census. There is more comprehensive Māori ethnicity and Māori descent than ever before. Online participation was substantially higher than expected, and Statistics New Zealand is now several years ahead of their work programme that was signed off by the previous Government in the business case in 2015.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: All made up.

SPEAKER: Order! Just before the member asks his supplementary, Mr Brownlee, you are now being repetitious.

Dr Jian Yang: Does he agree with Victoria University School of Mathematics and Statistics Professor Richard Arnold's statement on census 2018, "It is disastrous."; if not, why not?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, as I have said now several times, yes, I do disagree with that. The member and others have failed to distinguish between the outputs of the census versus the inputs of the census. We've always said that there were clearly problems in the field collection phase of the census, but if the member was paying attention to what the Government Statistician said this previous Monday, the output of the census is starting to look very successful indeed. There are gaps in the data, and we are working very hard to fill those gaps, but at the level of data that's required for some of the most important uses, such as district health board funding—[Interruption] See, the issue here seems to be that the National Party are attempting to weaponise their own incompetence. I would suggest that they allow the Public Service to continue the good work that they have been doing in line with the business case that was signed off in 2015 by the previous Cabinet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that the northernmost newspaper, The Northland Age, is pointing out the failure of an online attack with respect to the census, when there should have been a backup—and who was responsible for not getting that ready?

Hon JAMES SHAW: As I said yesterday, I am reserving my judgment on the execution of this service until I receive the report of the independent review conducted by a management consultant, Murray Jack, and the former Canadian deputy chief statistician, Connie Graziadei, which I'm expecting before July and, at that point, I will pass judgment on every aspect of the budget, including the decisions of the previous Government to conduct and fund the census the way that they did.

Dr Jian Yang: Can he explain how Census 2018 could have an optimal output but a suboptimal input?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, yes, actually, and I'm very glad that the member asked that question.

SPEAKER: I don't know if the House is going to thank the member for asking that.

Hon JAMES SHAW: So, as the previous Government intended, what the census output includes is a mix of data that's gathered as a result of the census forms that people participate in and a set of administrative data, the kind of data that Government collects all the time about people and that Mr Brownlee insists is made up. That kind of information is things like births, deaths, and marriages, which Mr Brownlee insists is made-up data. It includes things like ACC, which Mr Brownlee insists is made-up data. It includes things like education records, that Mr Brownlee insists is made-up data. It includes things like health information, that Mr Brownlee insists is made-up data, and that data—real data about real people—is added to the census file from the forms that are gathered during the census process. Now, the data file of 4.7 million people that the Government Statistician referred to on Monday, a more accurate file than the 2013 census, which the National Government was also responsible for, was composed 89 percent from census forms and 11 percent from administrative data. That is completely in line with the long-term transformation of the census that that Government signed off on in 2015, and you should congratulate them for their foresight.

Dr Jian Yang: Does he agree with Massey University Professor of Statistics, Professor Paul Spoonley, who said yesterday, "I think that DHBs at this point are going to be incredibly nervous about having a good census data set that tells them what sort of catchment they are working in and the needs of that catchment"?

Hon JAMES SHAW: No, I do not agree. I do not agree with him, and I do not agree with him because—and I repeat—as the Government Statistician said on Monday, we have a more accurate population count file than we have ever had before. And that is the kind of information that gets used for DHB funding and electorate boundaries. And if the National Party want to continue to try and undermine—

SPEAKER: Order! I think that it now certainly meets any definition of tedious repetition.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That part of the questioning today is extremely important. The prospect of there being electoral boundaries drawn on information that many people have less than a high degree of confidence in is, I think, quite dangerous for our democracy.

SPEAKER: The member has asked the member to have an extension of time and feels like he wants to have more, I'm happy to grant Mr Brownlee his point of order and ask Mr Shaw, in fact, to start that supplementary answer again.

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, certainly. I'd be quite happy to do that—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon JAMES SHAW: —and maybe if Mr Brownlee had been paying attention, he would have understood why—[Interruption]. Well, he's clearly not interested, so I'll sit down. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Now, part of the problem I have is that there are a number of members who complain when the answers are extensive, and then we have very senior members on my left asking Mr Shaw to take us through it. [Interruption] Well, Mr Shaw, can you take us through it quickly.

Hon JAMES SHAW: One more time—just one more time. So, by using administrative data, Stats NZ has been able to create a data set that includes records for 4.7 million people. This is 1.2 percent lower than their estimated population for census day, compared to 2.4 percent lower in the 2013 census. Now, what Mr Brownlee is asking about is whether we can trust administrative data. What I am saying is that if he cannot trust administrative data, there is literally no data in the Government that he should ever have been able to rely on while he was a Minister in Government, because that administrative data is the kind of data that the Government collects all the time. The long-term business case that that Government signed off on in 2014 called for the increased use of administrative data over the next two or three census cycles, and what we are now doing is what that Government had planned for the 2023 census, and it is working.

Dr Jian Yang: Does he agree with Brian Easton, who described the census mess as so serious that "the response gap was so large it could make the data useless for research"?

Hon JAMES SHAW: No.

Dr Jian Yang: Does he agree with former Labour Party president Mr Mike Williams that Census 2018 was "an industrial-strength fiasco"; if not, why not?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, I didn't agree with that the first time the member put it to me a couple of months back, and I still don't agree with it now.

SPEAKER: Has the member finished? That concludes oral questions.

© Scoop Media