Category: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially this Government’s efforts to rebuild the economy after years of economic mismanagement. The huge increase in spending in recent years has pushed inflation higher, interest rates higher, it’s kneecapped economic growth, and it’s sent unemployment higher as well. It’s obvious that we need a new approach, which is why we’re taking action to make doing business in New Zealand easier, and whether it’s building, construction, farming, or financial services. So whether you’re a farmer or a tradie, an entrepreneur or an innovator, my message is simple: we’re a Government for you.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Have representatives of the four peak bodies representing building and construction firms written to his Government expressing concern that his Government’s decision to cancel or defer projects is leading to a significant slowdown in work, a collapse in business confidence, and the risk of an exodus of skilled workers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m aware that they have, but we have a big pipeline coming of infrastructure which we’ve started to talk about.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did those same infrastructure providers express concern that his Government’s rhetoric isn’t matched by action; in particular stating “many hundreds of businesses [are] caught in this gap between intention and getting work to the starting line”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can reassure them and what I have reassured them is to say that this is a Government that’s going to get things built in this country. We don’t believe in phantom projects. We don’t believe in taking six years to do Auckland light rail—to think about it, to talk about it, to do some post-it note sessions, to have a lovely strategy. We don’t believe in Let’s Get Wellington Moving, that didn’t get Wellington moving. We don’t believe in Lake Onslow, which was a phantom post-it note idea as well. We believe in getting things done in this country. We’re going to build a 30-year pipeline of proper projects, not just ideas, and we’re going to get things done.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has he asked for an estimate of the economic impact on the building and construction sector of the Government’s decision to stop, pause, or defer projects like school rebuilds and upgrades, hospital rebuilds and expansions, road works, water infrastructure improvements, and public transport investments; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I’d just say to that member is that the school infrastructure and buildings programme was a very interesting one to be inheriting coming into Government, because it’s lovely, again, to go off and say the words, but you actually have to follow up with a plan, and, ideally, you’ve got to have the money there to do it, and that didn’t happen for 350 school buildings, sadly.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was whether the Prime Minister has asked for an analysis of the economic impact on the businesses affected by those decisions. I don’t think the Prime Minister came even close to addressing that.

SPEAKER: Well, the only problem is that the primary question asks if he stands by all of his Government’s statements and actions. And while that might be an action that you’re questioning, as soon as he said that he didn’t have any money, that was probably the end of the position. But I tell you what, I’ll give you an extra question to be able to tease things out a bit further, if you can.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he plan to provide local authorities with the resources they need to bridge the infrastructure gap they currently have, or will he continue to leave them, as the industry told his Government, in “challenging financial predicaments”, with “a lack of funds or a need to await direction or decisions from central government before proceeding with planned works.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I think the member is really—it’s an outrageous set of questions from this member, who has talked a big game and delivered so little, right? Let’s take an example of local government funding and financing, if you want to do that. How much do you reckon the previous Government spent on three waters? $1.2 billion. Do you think there was any improvement in the three waters assets? Nope. What did we do? We partnered with local government, we found a solution for Auckland Watercare, and we’ve got a great outcome. Now Auckland Watercare has certainty and a pipeline of future projects; Auckland Council has $800 million to spend on other infrastructure. We have plans. We don’t just do bumper stickers and slogans; we get things done.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister as to whether or not his Government’s plan is to build on the plan that was made yesterday by Mr Hipkins that the last Labour Government had built more houses since the 1960s, or was a totally baseless plan from them and as shallow as most of his statements?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can say in answer to that member’s question is that Kāinga Ora debt went up $10 billion, the social housing wait-list went up four times, house prices went up, I think, over 50 percent, and average rents went up $180 a week. So either way you look at it, the previous Labour Government failed on housing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If his plan is so successful, why are 70 percent of building and construction firms expecting to see increased attrition over the next 12 months because of his Government’s inability to provide certainty to the sector?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I would just say—I mean, it’s quite outrageous. You had six years in Government, and you did nothing. You drove inflation up, you drove interest rates up, you put the economy into recession for four of the last five quarters, and you have the audacity to ask me economic questions. Give me a break.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he adopt the infrastructure sector’s suggestion that the Government pursue an accelerated and immediate package of renewals work, particularly in the water and transport sector, to bridge the gap, retain essential skills and knowledge within the New Zealand border, and attract top-tier infrastructure construction talent to New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I’d just say to you—to the member—that there are 62,000 potholes that we inherited from the previous administration. We’re working very hard on renewals and maintenance. And, importantly, we’re working on a 30-year pipeline of proper infrastructure projects, not Post-it note ideas. We’re working on 10-year city and regional deals, which we’ll be talking about shortly, and we want to form a national infrastructure agency that gets the right funding and financing tools so that, actually, local government and central government can work together instead of the Punch and Judy show that happened under your watch.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is there more economic activity in the building and construction sector today than there was six months ago?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, well, I’ll just say to that member, thank you very much for overspending by 84 percent Government spending, thank you for driving up inflation to record highs, thank you for driving up interest rates to record highs, thank you for putting the economy into recession for four of the last five quarters, and thank you for raising unemployment—no wonder construction firms are doing it tough, as are many, many New Zealanders. And wait for the Budget, tomorrow, delivered by an excellent finance Minister to find out how you run an economy. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: It’s done. Calm those outbursts down quite considerably.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I’d like you to review this question exchange, because every— [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I tell you what: points of order are heard in silence, and everyone in the House will observe that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —Mr Speaker, because every question that I asked the Prime Minister was about his Government and the actions taken by his Government, and every answer didn’t address the question by talking about his Government; they talked about the previous Government. Now, while I accept that question time is a robust exchange, the Prime Minister should at least make some effort. This is a big issue. The building and construction sector have written to the Government with a list of concerns that I think are legitimate concerns that they deserve to have answers on, and I have raised some of those in the House today. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that the Prime Minister should address the actions of his Government, rather than the previous Government. He has been the Prime Minister for over six months now.

SPEAKER: I will review it, but in the light of the primary question itself.

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

SPEAKER’S RULINGS

Contributions from Gallery—Rules and Practice

SPEAKER: Members, I wish to address a situation that arose in the House last night on the occasion of the third reading of the Whakatōhea Claims Settlement Bill. The Assistant Speaker interrupted a kaumātua in the gallery who was speaking prior to the performance of a waiata to celebrate the third reading. According to the Standing Orders, the Assistant Speaker was correct in doing so—the practice of the House since the 1990s has accommodated celebratory contributions such as karanga and waiata, but not contributions in the nature of a speech, such as a whaikōrero. See Speaker’s ruling 11/2. An important principle underlies that practice, which is that the House is the forum for elected members to speak and represent the diverse views of the people.

The incident affected a momentous occasion on the passing of the bill, which was unfortunate. It was also unfortunate that the Assistant Speaker was placed in that situation. The ruling I just mentioned notes that the Speaker presides on such occasions in light of the mood among members present. It also provides flexibility for the Speaker to agree beforehand to celebratory contributions.

I ask that Ministers and members, when facilitating arrangements for people to attend an event in the House such as a settlement bill, discuss with attendees what celebrations are intended, so that the tikanga of the House and of the parties to the settlement can be aligned. This was not fully disclosed on this occasion.

In the future, greater clarity about what is agreed would allow the presiding officer to know what to expect, and to ensure things run smoothly. It also will enable those attending to understand what to do and when.

Ultimately, it is for the Speaker to maintain order and preside in a way that facilitates the House’s business, guided by the Standing Orders. Members should support presiding officers in doing so. It is highly disorderly for members to demand apologies from presiding officers when they are applying the rules and practice of the House. I strongly advise, where members consider the House’s rules and practice need to evolve, those members should address a proposal to that effect to the Standing Orders Committee.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order, Mr Speaker. With regard to the ruling that you have just made, I have been both a whip, a Leader of the House, and an Opposition member of Parliament, and in the entire time I have been here very supportive of the Treaty settlement process and have worked—including with you in your previous roles—to ensure that those occasions were celebratory in nature, that the mana of the House was upheld and the mana of the people who came here for the third readings was upheld.

On many occasions, those who have sung waiata from the gallery have also engaged in karakia as part of that waiata—it is not a new practice. What happened yesterday was not new; it has happened many, many times before. I have never seen—I wasn’t in the House when it happened, but I have never seen a Speaker interrupt that in the way that we saw yesterday.

Whilst I accept the ruling that you have made, and I don’t wish to challenge you or your ruling, I do want to make sure that in the future we don’t undermine what is an occasion where the Parliament comes together in the spirit of unanimity to support the Treaty settlements process with something like that happening again. I don’t think the mana of the House was upheld, but I don’t think the mana of the people in the gallery were being upheld either. And I think the spirit of the third reading was somewhat undermined by what then unfolded.

SPEAKER: Well, I thank the member for his contribution. It largely is in line with the ruling that I’ve just made.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Point of order. I do thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I, too, don’t disagree with the technicalities of the ruling that you have made and don’t wish to challenge you on the ruling at all. I have seen successive Speakers—I believe including yourself—have the respect and the wisdom and the discretion of understanding that the stand that was made yesterday by a rangatira of Whakatōhea was a mana-uplifting stand for this House and was a respect for this House and all of its representatives in it on the passing of a very significant bill that, after 100-plus years of raupatu and Crown breaching of their lands, asking for some minutes or seconds of a whakamana mihi to this House.

I would have expected that there is a basic minimum cultural understanding that the discretion allows and understands the vein and the wairua of what was being offered. While I also take on board you have offered a pathway for us to have our visitors and manuhiri far more prepared, there may be a longer conversation about how the rules of this House can also work. We’ve seen spontaneous karanga happen in this House, haka and waiata, but in the spirit of what was being passed at that time, we have allowed that to go through.

My last point—thank you, Mr Speaker—is that we have seen the rules be fiddled in here on the floor of this House, including every day in question time, with some quite weird points of order. I know we want to uphold the mana of the House, but I ask us: are we always consistent in that? Thank you.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you. I think the member makes the point that there is a pathway. I make the point again that there was communications that were not full, and that the disclosure of all that was to be stated was not known to the presiding officer at the time.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Speaking to the point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m not going to challenge you on the Standing Orders and I understand that your ruling mentions karanga, but I will challenge you on tikanga. Karanga is not only reserved for women—and those who are representative of iwi who use karanga and waerea to be able to do that would attest to that and affirm that that is actually a common practice where karanga and waerea are used in the same vein. This is the challenge to you, it’s about tikanga and whether the Assistant Speaker at the time would have ended up in that predicament if she had used the tools that are available to her to ensure that she was getting the cultural advice that the Speaker deserves to have. This is the issue we have. It’s still a breach of tikanga. It may not be a breach of Standing Orders, but it’s absolutely a breach of tikanga to ask somebody to sit down whilst doing a waerea or a karanga. That’s the point I’d like to make today.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you for that, and I’m sure that you will want to discuss that with the Standing Orders Committee when the opportunity arises.

Hon SHANE JONES (NZ First): Point of order. Your ruling has been made. When the inevitable discussions take place, either this is a House of Representatives serving the primary purpose of us who are democratically elected, or circuitously it’s going to change. It cannot change and should not change unless we abide by what you have to say. I want to share, sir, with you one thing. I personally sent a message to Whakatōhea, as a long serving member of this House: “By all means, sing your waiata. If you depart from the waiata template, you will strike problems.” I think the situation reflects both poor communication but also a creeping level of change in the House that has not been mandated within the rules of the House.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Well, hang on. We could go on for a while here. Remember that I have made a ruling and your contribution will need to be in the context of that. I call on the Hon Willie Jackson, with a point of order.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I heard your ruling. This is a very important kaupapa for our people. I was listening to Minister Jones. The tikanga of this House has changed considerably through the years. We never had babies being nursed in the Speaker’s Chair before—never.

SPEAKER: We may not for some time in the future!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We never had. We now no longer wear ties in this House.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s something which you changed too.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We now have waiata being sung from the gallery, Mr Speaker. My question to you—and, again, I respect what you’re saying—is: what place does our tikanga play in this House? That’s the question, Mr Speaker, and I apologise that we haven’t been able to have a private audience with you to have a good kōrero about this. But this is an overriding question for us, as Māori. When we have a rangatira insulted like that, as he was yesterday—

Hon Shane Jones: Come on, Willie, you’re not at Oxford now!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —we don’t want to be listening to Shane Jones’ bloody nonsense.

SPEAKER: That sort of comment kind of starts to disrupt the order of the House and also the intent of what’s said here. I make it very clear in what I said today that there is a place for this discussion, and that’s where this discussion should take place.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Point of order.

SPEAKER: A final point of order from the Hon Marama Davidson.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Thank you. It is a final point, it’s both in response to Mr Jones, but you made a very valid point, Mr Speaker, about the order of the House. My final plea is that the disorder was actually created when the Assistant Speaker failed to use her discretion to allow for the mihi to go through. The disorder and the escalation actually began as a result of many other MPs recognising the harm of her call.

SPEAKER: Yeah, with respect, this is not a place to determine that. I’ve made a ruling, and, as far as the House is concerned, that is the end of the matter. There is an open door for all of these discussions to take place at the Standing Orders Committee, which will be convened in the next short while.

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard