ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Question No. 1—Housing and Urban Development
1. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Will he commit to ensuring that the 800 tenancies terminated or otherwise affected by Housing New Zealand's previous
approach to meth testing receive compensation that genuinely reflects the level of harm done, and takes account of both
direct costs and emotional distress?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yes. Housing New Zealand has outlined an assistance package that is flexible and will take account of each tenant's
individual circumstances. It will cover costs incurred, debt that may have been charged, or possessions that may have
been lost, but it will not cover emotional distress. Other forms of assistance will focus on activities that Housing New
Zealand can offer through its operations, including housing affected tenants who are on the public housing register and
formally apologising to tenants.
Marama Davidson: Is the proposed payment of between $2,500 to $3,000 only reimbursement, or is it intended to be compensation for the
harm suffered by families forced out of their homes through no fault of their own?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: So the compensation package that will be tailored to the individual circumstance of tenants could end up being several
thousand dollars more than the base $2,500 to $3,000. It's designed to address actual costs and losses incurred.
Sometimes that refers to possessions that were lost and costs involved with losing a tenancy and having to find
somewhere else to live.
Marama Davidson: Will the Minister urgently prioritise finding homes for the over 90 tenants and their families in unsuitable housing
and on the social housing register as a result of inhumane meth-testing policies?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes. Housing New Zealand is working on ensuring that every tenant who is eligible for public housing who was on the
public housing register is rehoused. The assistance package includes rehousing tenants who used to be Housing New
Zealand tenants but moved because of methamphetamine contamination and who are currently on the register.
Hon Judith Collins: Has he seen any report that shows a house can test positive for meth at any level if no one has been smoking or baking
a highly dangerous and illegal class A drug in that house?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the meth-testing approaches that have been used over the last few years have a very high level of sensitivity,
and there are many cases where contamination or residue from meth consumption in a house has registered in the testing.
In fact, it's sometimes been above the threshold in the guidelines that were earlier provided by the Ministry of Health,
but independent scientific experts have pointed out that that level of contamination is equivalent to the contamination
of methamphetamine that you might find on a banknote in ready circulation.
SPEAKER: Order! No, I am going to ask the Minister to—it was a very tight question. I can't insist on a yes or no. He gave a
very good answer but not quite to that question.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Would you mind repeating it?
Hon Judith Collins: Has he seen any report that shows a house can test positive for meth at any level if no one has been smoking or baking
a highly dangerous and illegal class A drug in that house?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.
Marama Davidson: What is the Minister doing to make sure affected tenants not on the register have somewhere decent to live and get the
compensation they are entitled to?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Housing New Zealand has urged any former tenant who was affected by this situation to get in contact by either calling
0800 006 077 or emailing . They will also be partnering with other agencies and groups to find people who have been
affected. Over the last few weeks, there's been an extensive effort to track people down through Government databases,
to get in touch with them and ensure that assistance can be provided where appropriate.
Marama Davidson: Does the Minister agree that the report released today demonstrates a series of significant failures by Housing New
Zealand over an extended period of time, and what steps is the Minister taking to ensure this never happens again?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The report that Housing New Zealand released today makes it clear that there were significant mistakes made over a
number of years, mistakes that included applying a meth contamination standard that the Ministry of Health designed for
properties where meth had been manufactured in a home, which was then applied as a threshold for decontamination.
Housing New Zealand now acknowledges that, in hindsight, that was wrong. They have acknowledged that they applied a
zero-tolerance approach to this issue that caused undue hardship to hundreds of tenants, many of whom were made
homeless. They were, in some cases, denied natural justice. They were thrown out on the street not only on the basis of
a bogus contamination standard but often without reasonable evidence that the tenant had in fact been responsible for
the contamination. The report identifies some failures of governance and overseeing of this policy over a number of
years. This is an exercise in Government accountability. Housing New Zealand is stepping up, acknowledging that it got
it wrong, and putting things right.
Hon Judith Collins: Is the Minister saying that it is wrong to end a tenancy when someone is using a house to break the law?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We're saying that it's wrong to make innocent people homeless on the basis of bogus science and no decent evidence of
responsibility or culpability. Hundreds of people were made homeless under this policy, people who, in some cases, were
vulnerable—people with addictions who were made homeless. The worst possible thing that you could do to someone who has
an addiction is to make them homeless.
•Question No. 2—Housing and Urban Development
•
2. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Is it acceptable for Housing New Zealand tenants to smoke methamphetamine in Housing New Zealand houses?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Methamphetamine is, of course, illegal and is doing immense damage to communities across New Zealand. Our Government
does not condone the smoking of methamphetamine anywhere; however, the member needs to understand the counterfactual: it
is not acceptable for the Government—for any Government—to throw tenants and their children on to the street and make
them homeless. We recognise that making people homeless does not solve a tenant's problems or help people overcome
addiction; it just moves the problem to somewhere else and makes it worse for the person involved, their family, their
children, the community, and the taxpayer.
Hon Judith Collins: Where meth testing showed residues exceeding previous standards, can this meth have gotten into Housing New Zealand
houses any way other than smoking or baking meth?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, but there was no consistent baseline testing done by Housing New Zealand over those years. There is no way of
knowing whether the hundreds of people who were made homeless under this policy had any personal responsibility for the
contamination of those houses. Frankly, I'm shocked that the member, who used to be a lawyer, would think that that is
OK. Is this the modern, compassionate face of the National Party?
Hon Judith Collins: When he said that "800 tenants suffered by … losing their tenancies," is he saying that these 800 tenants were all
wrongfully evicted from Housing New Zealand houses?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It depends what you mean by "wrongfully evicted". Clearly, some of the 800 people—and I believe many of those
people—had their tenancies terminated and were evicted without natural justice, without proper evidence of the case, on
the basis of a bogus scientific standard. All of those people—all of the people who were evicted, bar some for whom the
standard of contamination was more than the 15 micrograms per 100 centimetres that Sir Peter Gluckman recommended as a
sensible standard—were convicted on the basis of a scientific standard that the previous Government allowed to persist
for years on the basis of no scientific evidence that exposure to third-hand contamination posed any kind of health risk
to anybody.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the housing ministry restored the fundamental principle that one is judged to be innocent until proven to be
guilty?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I believe, with the report released today, Housing New Zealand has embraced basic concepts of natural justice, of
scientific evidence - based policy-making, which is the exact opposite of what that Government allowed to persist for
years. In fact, they campaigned to drum up the moral panic, and every day got up in this House and vilified State house
tenants.
Kieran McAnulty: What reports has he seen on Housing New Zealand's meth report?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There are many contradictory reports swirling around on this issue, but one that I've seen that makes a lot of sense
is where, and I quote, "people were unfairly removed. If that's the case, they should be compensated, and Housing New
Zealand management should answer for it." That's exactly what today's report does, and that quote is from Judith
Collins.
Hon Judith Collins: Will people who smoked meth in Housing New Zealand houses now be given $2,000 to $3,000 compensation?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The point of the compensation is to compensate people who wrongly had their tenancies terminated and their possessions
destroyed and who, in some cases, were made homeless. Those are the people who will receive a payment under the
assistance programme.
Hon Judith Collins: Will people who sold meth in Housing New Zealand houses now be given $2,000 to $3,000 compensation?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.
Kieran McAnulty: What reports has he seen on alternative approaches to meth contamination in Housing New Zealand properties?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I've seen reports of an approach to meth contamination where Ministers have said, and I quote, "We will not
tolerate any meth use in [Housing New Zealand] properties", and I quote, "[State housing] is a privilege, and abuse of
that privilege won't be tolerated", and then who gloated over the fact that Housing New Zealand were, "focusing more on
meth use as opposed to previously targeting only home-based drug manufacturing". That approach led to Housing New
Zealand wasting the best part of $120 million, and it made hundreds of people homeless. And those statements were made
by the Hon Paula Bennett.
•Question No. 3—Finance
•
3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of the statements, actions, and policies of the Government in relation to the New Zealand
economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in their context—particularly when they are backed up by solid, broad-based growth data, like the GDP figures out
today showing the strongest quarterly and per capita growth since June 2016.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he saying he's pleased that after we've had five years under National when New Zealand grew faster per person than
Australia, we have now fallen well behind?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member might be interested to know that our quarterly growth in the June quarter, of 1 percent, was higher than
Australia's.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will he today rule out applying a capital gains tax to the 2.8 million Kiwis with KiwiSaver accounts in New Zealand?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The working group's report was released today. It is their report; it is an interim report. What we are focused on is
making sure that we get a fairer and more balanced tax system than the one we inherited.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister confirm—
SPEAKER: Sorry, a point of order, the Hon Paul Goldsmith.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: I asked whether he'd rule out something and he made no reference to that whatsoever.
SPEAKER: The member can ask it again. I think the inference to be taken was pretty clear, but have another go.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Thank you. Will he today rule out applying a capital gains tax to the 2.8 million Kiwis with KiwiSaver accounts in New
Zealand?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I repeat: what's happened today is that the independent working group have produced their report. We will take our
time to work through that report and ensure that we get a tax system at the end of it that means that all New Zealanders
pay their fair share of tax.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister confirm with today's truly outstanding growth figures that the ship of State is now strong and not
floundering from a leak?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I most certainly can, because what today's GDP numbers showed was broad-based growth across all but one sector
measured, showing that while we have a long way to go to reach a more productive and sustainable economy, the coalition
Government and our confidence and supply partner have got us, finally, on the right path.
Hon James Shaw: Can the Minister explain how GDP growth can be as strong as it has been reported today, when the apparent sole
determinant of GDP growth, namely the ANZ business confidence survey, is at record lows?
SPEAKER: I am going to allow the question, but I'm going to warn the Minister who asked it that irony is not allowed as part of
questions.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe that's probably because the GDP data is based on real data in the real economy, and we will continue to
focus on that.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why will he not rule out putting more tax on Kiwi savings?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because today there was an interim report from the Tax Working Group. What we want to do is encourage more New
Zealanders into saving, and, in fact, on this side of the House we're particularly proud of the introduction of the
KiwiSaver scheme, which has actually meant that millions of New Zealanders now have a nest egg for their retirement. I
would back our record on this side of the House, when it comes to saving, over that member's party.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he think taxing KiwiSaver more with a capital gains tax will help Kiwi's get ahead?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that on this side of the House we have a proud record of ensuring that
millions of New Zealanders actually have a nest egg for the future. We're determined to continue to grow KiwiSaver and
support more New Zealanders to come into it.
Hon Damien O'Connor: Can the Minister confirm that strengthened primary industries, including dairy, forestry, and fisheries, drove the
exceptional economic growth we've seen in the figures released today?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm that agriculture, forestry, and fishery lead the growth, up 4.1 percent in the quarter, and that this
was boosted by strong dairy production. In fact, agriculture had its strongest quarter of growth since September 2014.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think it would be fair to tax capital gains from, say, a Northland couple's rental house worth $300,000 but
not from John Key's home in Parnell.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: If the member is suggesting that a capital gains tax should be applied to the family home, that's a very interesting
development indeed.
•Question No. 4—Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti
•
4. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Crown/Māori Relations: Te Arawhiti: What recent announcements has he made on the scope of his new portfolio?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Crown/Māori Relations: Te Arawhiti): This week, I was proud to announce the new scope and name of the Crown/Māori relations portfolio. We changed the name
to "Māori/Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti". The name reflects feedback from the hui that Māori should appear first in the
relationship. Te Arawhiti refers to the transition phase we are in—that is the bridge between Māori and the Crown. I'm
proud of the work we as a Government have achieved so far, but as Sir James Hēnare said, "Kua tawhiti kē tō haerenga mai
kia kore e haere tonu. He nui rawa ō mahi kia kore e mahi tonu."—you have come too far not to go further; you have done
too much not to do more.
Rino Tirikatene: How did he ensure that a Māori voice was reflected in his final scope and priorities?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Māori wanted the portfolio to have its own agency with its own mana. This week, the Government agreed to establish an
agency to oversee the Government's work with Māori in a post-settlement era. The agency will be called the Office for
Māori/Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti and will help facilitate the next step in the Treaty relationship, moving beyond the
settlement of Treaty grievances into what it means to work together in partnerships.
Rino Tirikatene: What does the scope of the new portfolio include?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: In addition to finishing Treaty settlements and marine and coastal area applications, the new agency, based on the new
scope of the Māori/Crown portfolio will provide strategic leadership across the public sector to ensure the Crown meets
its Treaty obligations and develop a new engagement model and guidelines for the Government and public sector. It will
co-design partnership principles and frameworks to ensure that agencies generate the best solutions for issues affecting
Māori. It will ensure public sector capability is strengthened across the board. That's just to name a few of the things
we'll be doing.
Hon Christopher Finlayson: Is an important role of Te Arawhiti to ensure that the Treaty of Waitangi is a successful partnership between Crown
and Māori?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes.
Hon Christopher Finlayson: Can he confirm that he's fully explained to his Cabinet colleagues all the constitutional implications of some of the
new roles of Te Arawhiti?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: In terms of constitutional arrangements, that's under the portfolio of the Minister of Justice, but we have
futureproofed the partnership. The constitutional change is not on our radar, but we have futureproofed the relationship
in that if there are any discussions by Governments in the future, we want Māori to be part of those discussions.
Hon Christopher Finlayson: Will Te Arawhiti have any new or additional powers over the public sector; if so, what will they be?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Te Arawhiti will be working alongside the public sector to become a better Treaty partner.
•Question No. 5—State Services
•
5. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of State Services: What are the dates and contents of all work-related electronic communications between former Minister Hon Clare Curran
and the Prime Minister since the decision in Cabinet last year "that the CTO be appointed by, and accountable to, the
Prime Minister and the Ministers of Government Digital Services and Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media"?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): on behalf of the Minister of State Services: The Prime Minister's office have advised me that there are two email communications that they have identified between
the Prime Minister and Clare Curran that relate to the Chief Technology Officer. On 9 February 2018, Clare Curran sent
an email to the Prime Minister providing an update on the CTO recruitment process, including the appointment panel's
thoughts on candidates in round one of the recruitment. On 27 May 2018, the Prime Minister forwarded, without comment,
to Clare Curran, correspondence that she had received from a member of the public on data rights which also made a
passing reference to the CTO role, but not to any candidate. I'm advised by the Prime Minister's office that they are
working through other electronic communications to identify those that are with Clare Curran and are relevant to the CTO
role. I will make sure that these are provided to the House when they are available, in accordance with the public
interest. I can confirm that the former Minister communicated with the Prime Minister to keep her updated on the process
of the CTO selection in a manner that would be expected for a position of this type.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Were there any communications between the Prime Minister and Clare Curran, or their offices, around the time that
Derek Handley texted the Prime Minister in April this year, seeking the Government's Chief Technology Officer role?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in that answer, I cannot answer that with respect to electronic communications, other than emails. But
emails, no—I've listed those. That information will be provided to the House when it's available.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Were there any communications between the Prime Minister and Clare Curran, or their offices around the time that Derek
Handley emailed the Prime Minister's private email address on 7 June this year seeking the Government's Chief Technology
Officer role?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I just simply have to repeat the answer I've previously given. With respect to communications other than those of
emails, I'm unable to answer that today, but that information will be provided to the House when it is available.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Who was being referred to when Derek Handley tweeted the then Minister Clare Curran, saying that he had been
encouraged by "friends" to apply for the Government's Chief Technology Officer role, and was one of those "friends" the
Prime Minister?
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I've allowed quite a broad approach to this question, as the member is aware, but responsibility for Mr
Handley's tweets is not something that this Minister has.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: What was the date that Mr Handley was offered the role of the Government's Chief Technology Officer, and what date did
he accept that role?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In terms of the first question, I would want to make sure I get the date exactly right. It was a date in early August.
I will come back to the member with the exact date. I cannot answer the other part of the question.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister accept that the responsibility for the debacle over the appointment of the Chief Technology Officer
rests equally with both appointing Ministers: Clare Curran and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why, when both Ministers were clearly given responsibility b Cabinet for the appointment, and given the extensive
communications, including by the Prime Minister's own private email, does the Prime Minister not share some
responsibility for this debacle?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I'm not the Prime Minister, though.
SPEAKER: No, I think it's a reasonable question.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my primary answer, the Prime Minister was kept in touch with this process by the former Minister, as
would be expected, and only as would be expected.
•Question No. 6—Finance
•
6. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What is his reaction to the Independent Tax Working Group's interim report released today?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Today, the independent Tax Working Group released its report on the structure, balance, and fairness of New Zealand's
tax system. The report had two main findings: New Zealand continues to have a relatively narrow tax base when compared
to our OECD peers, and New Zealand's tax system reduces income inequality by less than the OECD average. The Government
has published its response to the interim report today and asked the working group to undertake further work on the
topics that we gave it.
Dr Deborah Russell: What is the Government's response?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has reaffirmed the areas that are out of scope for the review, including any income tax rate or the
rate of GST increasing, inheritance tax, any other to changes that would apply to the taxation of the family home or the
land under it, and the adequacy of the personal tax system and its interaction with the transfer system. We have asked
the group to come back to us with their final report in February with a package of proposals to meet their terms of
reference and have encouraged them to undertake further work on areas that they have highlighted. This includes proposes
that would not increase the total amount of tax collected—in other words, a revenue-neutral package.
Dr Deborah Russell: What are the next steps in this process?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The group is seeking feedback from the public on its interim report over the next six weeks, and I encourage New
Zealanders to engage in this process. The group will make its final report in February 2019, and Cabinet will consider
the recommendations of that report. I can confirm that no changes from any legislation arising from this will come into
force until 1 April 2021, after the next election.
Kieran McAnulty: Does the Minister agree with the recent suggestion from the Hon Paul Goldsmith that a capital gains tax should apply
to the family home?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely not, and that was clearly excluded from the terms of reference of the group. I am somewhat surprised to
hear the member opposite now make this policy. This will make for a very interesting discussion about the future of tax
in New Zealand.
•Question No. 7—Education
•
7. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: How many communications has she received from teachers or principals in the last three days regarding teacher
shortages, relief teacher issues, and increases in class sizes, and is she confident there will be no more primary
teacher strikes this year?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Acting Minister of Education): In the last three days, in the midst of bargaining with NZEI and the Post Primary Teachers' Association, my office
informs me that up until midday today, we have received approximately 100 submissions from teachers and principals
across the country. Given that there is a vote taking place right now on the new offer for NZEI, it would be
inappropriate to speculate on further strike action.
Hon Jacqui Dean: What does she say to the principal of Waitaki Valley School, who is struggling to get adequate levels of learning
support and enough relievers to cover release time and resource teacher of learning and behaviour meetings, and teachers
who come to school ill as there is no cover for them?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I would acknowledge the principals, such as the one mentioned there, and their frustration, considering that this
topic was raised—for example, as reported in the New Zealand Herald in 2016—with the previous Government, who, if I recall correctly, said, "There is no crisis." and promptly did nothing.
But I also want to give these principals and teachers the assurance that this Government is, unlike the previous one,
taking action to rectify this issue as quickly as possible through measures such as the $370 million in this year's
Budget to fund 1,500 more teacher places; a teacher supply package of $9.5 million announced in December 2017, with a
further $20 million over the next four years; and a funded more than 1,000 teacher refresher places to remove cost
barriers so that teachers can return to teaching faster.
Denise Lee: How does the Minister plan to respond to the emails she received from a teacher at Onehunga Primary School that stated
their roll has increased by 50 students in the past year but, because of teacher shortages, they've only been able to
add one extra teacher?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I will address a personal response to that particular email as soon as I return to my office.
Jan Tinetti: What is the offer on the table for primary teachers and principals?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The current offer is $569 million for primary teachers and principals. For teachers this is a cumulative increase of
9.3 percent over three years. I would note that this offer is more than the three settlements combined under the
previous Government.
Jan Tinetti: What other actions has this Government taken to attract New Zealand teachers overseas to return home?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The member may recall the shocking situation in October 2012 where a complete graduating class of primary teaching
students were told there were no jobs here in New Zealand and were advised to go overseas. That is why on 17 September
this Government announced a targeted campaign to attract New Zealand - trained teachers to return home and
overseas-trained teachers looking to move to New Zealand.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Will she consider additional funds to primary school teachers prior to Wednesday's vote to include reducing class
sizes and having special education coordinators in schools to try and prevent the future strikes?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: It would be irresponsible for a member in this House to answer that question considering that the negotiations are
going on right now, an offer is on the table, and a vote is taking place.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, precisely how long does it take to train a teacher; and what was the deficit she inherited?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The exact numbers of teachers that are required in this country whether full-time or part-time I do not have on me
right now, but it takes between three or four years depending on the level of mastery that we are seeking, so we cannot
snap our fingers after nine years of neglect and just magic up a teaching workforce. However, this Government is doing,
on many levels, as much as we can to work with the sector to ensure that we futureproof this workforce.
Hon Nikki Kaye: In light of the 100 principals and teachers that have written to her within 72 hours, will she do something to ensure
that there is additional funding for special education coordinators in schools?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The 100 or so form submissions that have been sent to our offices are being responded to. With regard to this
Government's intention to provide greater support for the diverse learning needs of our students across New Zealand,
there will be an announcement tomorrow.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Has her Associate Minister Tracey Martin advocated strongly—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Now, the member's got to get that question right. Someone can't be their own Associate Minister.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Well, OK. Has she—
SPEAKER: She is the Minister.
Hon Nikki Kaye: OK. Well, has she advocated strongly throughout the last number of weeks, given the fact we've already had one set of
strikes for additional funding for special education coordinators in schools?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I have worked collegially with Minister Hipkins and other members of Cabinet to ensure that tomorrow we are able to
make an announcement
Hon Nikki Kaye: Will she listen to the number of teachers and principals who are raising issues around relief teachers and additional
short-term supply measures to ensure that we try and prevent future strikes in our school system?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I can guarantee all teachers, principals, and educators in this country that this Government will listen to them, will
work with them, will introduce workforce planning—something they have not had for at least the last decade. And I can
also guarantee them that we will not insult them, as they have been for the last nine years.
•Question No. 8—Biosecurity
•
8. Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Biosecurity: How many inbound passengers arrived at Auckland International Airport yesterday between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m., and how
many dog detector teams worked on the Green Lane at this time?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): Five international flights arrived between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. yesterday. Three of these flights were cargo and two were
inbound passenger planes. All of those flights were appropriately checked. The two small passenger flights were risk
assessed and screened. One flight was from Doha, with 215 passengers, and there was a Melbourne flight with 220
passengers, plus pilots plus crew.
Hon Nathan Guy: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: No. No, I don't think we need a point of order. I think the Minister will answer the second part of the question. How
many drug detection dogs?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: None.
Hon Nathan Guy: For how long has the green lane at Auckland international airport had no detector dogs working between 2 a.m. and 5
a.m.?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I'm aware that was the situation last night. I'm not aware of that being a regular situation. Can I say that—look,
that member's idea of a high-tech biosecurity system may be a detector dog. We on this side of the House have a
multi-layered, sophisticated biosecurity system. We have $10 million of additional funding into biosecurity to buy X-ray
technology. We're not totally reliant on detector dogs like the previous Government.
Hon Nathan Guy: When did he find out that detector dogs aren't working on the green lane between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m., and what has he
done about it?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Can I say I'm very grateful that I'm not rung at 2 a.m. in the morning to be told that there's not a dog in the green
lane at Auckland Airport. These are operational matters. I am confident that the multi-layered system that we have in
place for biosecurity is far more robust, more sophisticated, and more effective than the system that he ran.
SPEAKER: Order! The member's now going to answer the supplementary question. When did he become aware?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I was made aware this morning.
Hon Nathan Guy: Is there a bullying and toxic culture within management running the dog detector teams at Auckland's international
airport?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I have not been made aware or received a complaint of bullying at all. I'm aware that—a journalist raised that with me
on my way into the House. I have to say that we are making some changes to the biosecurity system. I have to say we were
left with what was called a dog of a system, run by that previous member. Can I say that we don't believe our
biosecurity system relies on 38 dog detector teams; it is far more sophisticated. There will be change, and I expect
change in the biosecurity system. If that results in some personnel issues, I expect the director-general to deal with
it.
Hon Nathan Guy: Apart from cutting the ribbon on the new dog-handling facility earlier this year, what else has he done to enhance
border security at Auckland's international airport?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Firstly, in our first Budget, we added $10 million to the biosecurity system in this. Much of that money—much of it
will go into better offshore intelligence, better risk-assessment systems, and if I could say and quote from
Horticultural New Zealand, an industry that is entirely dependent upon the security of our biosecurity systems, "The
Agriculture and Biosecurity Minister and MPI are doing an excellent job holding the line at the border. All of us in the
primary industries need to support them to keep doing their job and become even more vigilant. The loss to New Zealand"—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! That's enough. It might be a good answer for a Government patsy, but it's too long.
•Question No. 9—Housing and Urban Development
•
9. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What steps is the Government taking to ensure Housing New Zealand is a compassionate landlord focused on tenant
well-being?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Housing New Zealand's report into methamphetamine contamination has found that Housing New Zealand applied the
guidelines wrongly and adopted a punitive, zero-tolerance approach that compromised tenant well-being. In all, 800
tenants lost their tenancies and were not rehoused by Housing New Zealand—many of those people were made homeless. The
Prime Minister has asked us to put compassion back into Government, and that's why Housing New Zealand is now focused on
sustaining tenancies, wrapping support around vulnerable families, and allowing them to live their lives with dignity.
We know the counterfactual: that making vulnerable families homeless is the worst-case scenario for the families, their
neighbours, community, and the country.
Tamati Coffey: How will Housing New Zealand deal with drug addiction in the future?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We are focused on the health and well-being of our tenants, and we intend to provide increased support to people
experiencing addiction and drug-related harm. Housing New Zealand will continue to report tenants who deal drugs or
manufacture P to the police, but drug use will be treated, in the first instance, as a health problem. As a
compassionate landlord, Housing New Zealand will make sure that tenants get the medical support they need to deal with
their addictions.
Tamati Coffey: What other projects does Housing New Zealand have under way to better support its tenants?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Housing New Zealand has been changing its policies and practices to improve outcomes for the people we house both now
and in the future. Housing New Zealand is partnering with other agencies and specialist NGOs to address the deep and
complex social issues like addiction and drug-related harm. For example, the new Greys Avenue development in Auckland
will have supportive housing, combining public housing with services, including 24-hour specialist services to support
people with addiction issues. Housing New Zealand wants to be a very different organisation now. We want tenants to live
their lives with dignity and respect.
Tamati Coffey: Why does the Government believe sustaining tenancies is so important?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: All of the evidence tells us that secure housing is critical to people's well-being, especially for children and for
people who are vulnerable in other ways—for example, with disabilities or illnesses. Throwing people with addictions out
on to the street is the worst possible thing that we can do to them.
•Question No. 10—Courts
•
10. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Courts: Is he confident that the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal will comply with all requirements of the rule of
law?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Courts): Yes.
Stuart Smith: On whose advice is he establishing a tribunal which will have the power to override contractual terms in an insurance
contract between the insurer and the insured?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member has confused the rights and powers of the proposed tribunal under the bill. No tribunal or court has the
power to override contractual obligations; their job is to interpret and enforce and uphold.
Stuart Smith: Why did he ignore the Ministry of Justice's advice, which says that "Enabling a tribunal to override contractual terms
would retrospectively change the legal basis for determining these disputes, breaching fundamental rule of law
principles."?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The role of the tribunal will not be to create new conditions or do anything other than is provided for in existing
policies, as between policyholders and insurance companies. This is about getting on with resolving the nearly 3,000
residual unresolved insurance claims arising out of the Canterbury earthquakes that were not resolved under the previous
Government, because it chose to do nothing about them.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: It's not true. That's a complete lie—an absolute lie.
Stuart Smith: On whose advice is he establishing—
SPEAKER: No, no. I think the member's—I'm not going to make him apologise twice, but he must withdraw and apologise.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: I hope it's not going to be in relation to that, because the member has, basically, lost his rights by his
intervention.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh well; I'll have a go later in the afternoon.
Stuart Smith: On whose advice is he establishing a tribunal which will have the power to override contractual terms in an insurance
contract between the insurer and the insured?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Mr Speaker, I think I've answered that question. There is no power to override contractual obligations.
Stuart Smith: Did the Minister inform his Cabinet colleagues about including a provision which would impede on fundamental
rule-of-law principles; if not, why not?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: If I understand the question, it's asking whether advice was given that was clearly in breach of the rule of law. No
such advice was given to ministerial colleagues, and, look, "why not?"—that is the most absurd tail to a question I've
ever heard.
•Question No. 11—Health
•
11. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Health: When did the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs give its advice that synthetic cannabinoids AMB-FUBINACA and 5F-ADB be
scheduled as Class A controlled drugs, and what action has he taken on this advice?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs met on 17 April 2018. I was advised of the outcome in the weekly report of 6 to
12 May, which also advised me that the ministry would consult with relevant stakeholders on the recommendation and
prepare a health report for consideration. On 13 August, I instructed the ministry to prepare a Cabinet paper to
progress this matter. I received that paper on 5 September.
Simeon Brown: In light of the advice from the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, will he commit to scheduling AMB-FUBINACA and
5F-ADB as class A drugs; if not, why not?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That matter is going to be considered in coming weeks. Reclassification has the advantage that it allows the police
wider search and seizure powers if it's then classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act, and I think that interrupting
supply is something New Zealanders could agree with.
Simeon Brown: Will his Government also support my bill which will increase penalties to supply other dangerous synthetic drugs,
following his statement on One News last night that "Disrupting supply is a good thing."?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Just increasing penalties alone is not a solution to the synthetic cannabis issue. The advice from the Ministry of
Health is clear: there is insufficient evidence that increased penalties will lead to reduced drug-related harm. It also
advised that increases in penalties do not necessarily produce a corresponding deterrent effect. I can put it no better
than the police, who are on record saying, "We will not enforce our way out of this problem." Drug abuse is a health
issue. This Government will treat it as such.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with the recent UN Human Rights Council recommendation that providing support, prevention, and treatment
measures instead of increased criminal penalties results in a decrease in drug use and the drug-induced mortality rate?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I agree that there is no convincing evidence that increased penalties will reduce harm. We need to treat drugs as a
health issue—so, yes; support, prevention, and treatment are the key. I think the public will also agree that
interrupting the supply of drugs which are killing people is also important; so widening the police's search and seizure
powers is also worthwhile.
Simeon Brown: How many deaths have been reported to the coroner caused by the consumption of synthetic drugs, which includes
synthetic cannabinoids AMB-FUBINACA or 5F-ADB, since he first received this advice from the expert advisory committee?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I can speak to the fact that the coroner has reported back and has estimated 40 to 45 deaths have happened—
Hon David Bennett: Oh! On your hands!
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —during the past year. I forget where the year runs to. Obviously, that was mostly before we took office, but we are
responding. This Government is taking action. One of the things that we did when we formed the coalition Government was
establish the Government inquiry into mental health and addiction, a powerful and broad inquiry that is looking directly
at the problem of addiction and access to drugs like synthetic cannabis. The synthetic cannabis issue was also taken to
the first Cabinet meeting following the release of the coroner's findings about related deaths. As a result of that
meeting, experts from the Ministry of Health, police, along with the Ministry of Justice, National Drug Intelligence
Bureau, and the New Zealand Customs Service were asked to find solutions to this tragic problem. A decision on possible
reclassification will be taken in coming weeks.
Hon Ruth Dyson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the Minister's answer to that question, a totally inappropriate
interjection was made—more inappropriate because we were talking about people who have died, and I'd ask you, as
Speaker, to ask the member responsible to withdraw and apologise.
SPEAKER: I called the member to order when he made the interjection. I don't propose to take it any further.
Simeon Brown: Given that he has claimed to be taking this issue seriously, how can—sorry, can I start again, Mr Speaker?
SPEAKER: Certainly.
Simeon Brown: How can he claim that the Government is taking this issue seriously given that more than 100 answers to written
questions show that he and his ministerial colleagues of the multi-agency working group have taken no action to address
this issue for months, the mental health inquiry does not include synthetic drugs in the terms of reference, and how
many more deaths from synthetic drugs will it take for him to take this issue seriously?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I reject a number of the assertions made in that statement. This Government takes the issue incredibly seriously. The
member may wish to dismiss the work going on between responsible agencies, but that work is how we will find meaningful
solutions. What I can tell the member is that we are working closely with the police and the New Zealand Drug
Foundation. We are talking to service providers and drug users to identify areas of need and how we can reduce them. We
are also focusing on community-based initiatives, such as those operating in Porirua and the Far North, that may be
expanded. Locking people up for longer may look like tough action, but we need to take measures that will actually
reduce harm.
•Question No. 12—Commerce and Consumer Affairs
•
12. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What measures has the Government announced to protect the public from unscrupulous wheel-clamping practices?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Recently, transport Minister Phil Twyford and I announced a new Government measure that will enforce a cap of $100 to
be charged for the removal of a wheel-clamp. This move has been done to protect consumers from the behaviour of
wheel-clampers, who have gone unchecked for years. We acknowledge there is a legitimate need to protect private
property, but the practices of what has become a cowboy clamping industry is causing significant harm to consumers.
Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Why has the Government implemented these changes?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Mr Speaker, the Government was tired of hearing about cowboy clampers using stand-over tactics to squeeze unfair fees
out of motorists. Stories of mostly elderly motorists being targeted by clampers within minutes of parking and being
charged as much as $700—
Hon Member: How much?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: —$700—for the removal of wheel-clamps were far too frequent. The charges were excessive and were causing financial
loss and emotional distress. The coalition Government is one that cares about protecting consumers, and I thank the New
Zealand First Party and the Green Party for their support.
Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What will the consequences be for cowboy clampers if they don't comply?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well, as I said, there is a maximum $100 charge for the removal of a wheel-clamp. Infringement fees of $1,000 for an
individual and $5,000 for a company can be charged, and a fine of up to $3,000 for an individual and $15,000 for a
company can be imposed if the matter goes to court.