Questions for Oral Answer

1. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that a publicly-owned insurer is a “dumb idea”?

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: The Minister stands by all his statements that he has made about the idea of a taxpayer-owned insurer. In addition to calling it dumb, he also said the idea was stupid and crazy. Furthermore, he stands by another part of his statement in the House yesterday, which was: “A billion-dollar impost on New Zealand taxpayers arises exactly from financial institutions taking too much risk and loading it on to the Government. That is why his proposition is stupid.” He particularly stands by this other part of his statement: “we want to avoid the taxpayer having to take the kinds of risks that have destroyed public finances in other developed countries. That is why the Government taking on even more insurance risk than it currently holds is crazy.”

💬 Hon David Parker: Is he calling Ross Armstrong, the former president of the National Party, dumb for supporting a publicly owned insurer like KiwiAssure?

Are you referring to the former Labour Party first mover, Ross Armstrong? That is right. Look, I have been here for 5 years now but I must admit that I have not actually met Ross. Possibly the Minister of Finance has, but I suspect he is not actually getting the advice from Ross Armstrong at this point in time.

💬 Hon David Parker: Is he calling the 850,000 customers of Kiwibank, the vast majority of whom would like to have a New Zealand-owned insurer—is he calling those hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders dumb?

I cannot put words in the mouth of the Minister of Finance, but on behalf of the Minister of Finance I say that what I think he is calling dumb is the idea that you would want to take on a whole lot more risk on behalf of taxpayers. Private sector insurers are paying out $20 billion as a result of the Christchurch earthquakes, and the only question is how much of that $20 billion would Mr Parker like the taxpayers to take on.

💬 Hon David Parker: Was it a dumb idea for John Key to say that he was considering an investment by the Crown in Chorus on the same day Steven Joyce and the Minister of Finance were saying that investments like that would be a radical shift into a State-controlled economy reminiscent of the 1970s?

Generally, when the Opposition fires out a gag that misfires because it is incorrect and the quote is wrong, it does not come back for another smack the next day. The reality is the Prime Minister did not say that. He just did not rule out options and you are the ones—the Opposition—who are trying to put words in his mouth.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he calling Adam Hamilton, Sid Holland, Keith Holyoake, John Marshall, and Robert Muldoon—the last four being former National Prime Ministers—dumb for supporting a State-owned insurer?

The difficulty for the member is that we are 40 years on from the last of those Prime Ministers. I appreciate that the member is not, but the rest of the world is, and in a modern, open economy where New Zealand does well, more State-controlled influence in the economy would only damage the New Zealand economy at a time when it is performing very well relative to the rest of the developed world and, frankly, performing better every month.

💬 Hon David Parker: Is he calling the editors of the Press, the Southland Times, the Dominion Post, and many others who have written editorials supportive of Labour’s KiwiAssure dumb?

I must have read a different paper. I read the Dominion Post and also the New Zealand Herald, which is the one that the member forgot to mention. I think the New Zealand Herald comment, and I am not quoting verbatim, said something like “Let us hope this thing is forgotten as quickly as it has been thought up.” The Dominion Post sat there and said “Oh, we don’t know about this—sounds risky.”, or words to that effect. The reality of this half-formed, half-baked proposal is that all it would do is create significant additional fiscal risk for New Zealand taxpayers at the very time when the world has worked out that that sort of fiscal risk can be highly damaging to economies, to families, and to any people in a country.

💬 Rt Hon John Key: Not only has he seen any reports on establishing, potentially, a new State-owned insurance company but also has the Minister of Finance seen any reports on what was the last political party to actually sell a State-owned insurance company?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister of Finance will have no responsibility for that.

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

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon Gerry—[Interruption] Order! This is a point of order. It is entitled to be heard and will be heard in silence.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: We had an interesting ruling yesterday that suggested that the Prime Minister could not be asked a question that related to advice from officials if that advice related to a privately owned company. I think that is a ruling that will need to be looked at in the future, but what would appear to have happened here is that we have a question from the Opposition asking whether or not the Minister agrees with its proposition that it is a good idea to set up a State-owned insurer. He is now simply being asked the question in reverse, which is whether there has been an incidence of a Government selling a State-owned insurer. That surely cannot be out of order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the point the Minister is making. I had a look at the Hansard yesterday. As the Deputy Speaker found yesterday, the Speaker needs to quickly ascertain whether he thinks it is within the responsibility of the Minister to whom the question is asked. I have determined that it is not. I have ruled the question out of order and that is the end of the matter.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: In reaching—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I certainly want to hear the supplementary question.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: In reaching his conclusion that a State-owned insurer being established by any future Government would be a dumb idea, did he consider any past actions by a Government relating to the sale of a State-owned insurer?

Yes, of course you would do that, and the Minister of Finance has. Of course, there was a time in the past when we had a State-owned insurer and it was, of course, sold by a Government—

💬 Rt Hon John Key: Really?

Yes. In 1990, actually, it was sold by a Government. In fact, a Labour Government sold it at that time, which makes it slightly weird that Labour is asking to create another one now, but that is entirely consistent with its “yeah, nah, yeah” approach—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough of the answer.

Irrigation Projects—Treasury Analysis

2. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements regarding Government policy?

Yes.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Does he stand by his statement that “The Government supports irrigation because of its potential for significant economic advantages.”, and how does he reconcile that statement with advice from Treasury, which, in examining the proposed irrigation schemes, came to the conclusion that they generally promised poor to average rates of return?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: With reference to his answer to my last supplementary question, then how does he reconcile that support with the fact that Treasury, when analysing irrigation projects, came to the conclusion that these projects generally promised poor to average rates of return?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have not seen the specific advice—that would have been sent to other Ministers—but what I can say is that there have certainly been projects where irrigation schemes have made a significant economic difference to New Zealand. As we know with the South Island, probably one of the fastest ways, actually, to lift economic growth in the South Island would be to ensure that there is irrigation. A huge amount of water that falls on the South Island from snow or rain basically pours out to sea, and if that was stored it would allow for greater development of the South Island, as would be true in parts of the East Coast of New Zealand.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: How could it be economically prudent for a Government to spend up to $400 million—which is the number that has been floated—to support the irrigation projects that are on the agenda currently when Treasury analysed the projects and came to the conclusion that these projects generally promised poor to average rates of return? How could it be economically prudent to support such a project?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said, I have not seen the specific advice, but what I can say is that it is important to understand that although the Government is prepared to put in up to $400 million, it is actually as an equity player. So, over time, there is the expectation that cash would be returned. But if the member really wants to get into following, and being a worshipper of, Treasury advice—and that would be a great thing if the member decides he wants to do that—then he should go and ask Treasury what it thinks of his barmy idea about power.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Given that Treasury came to the conclusion that “farm gate analysis indicates that irrigating the proposed areas would (in aggregate) constitute a loss-making investment”, how can it possibly be economically prudent for the Government to put hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money into a loss-making investment?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, as I say, I have not seen the specific analysis, but over a long period of time there is no question, I think, that if there is greater irrigation in the parts of New Zealand where there is a shortage of water, that will have a significant impact not only on the GDP of New Zealand but overall on the jobs and opportunities. That member, as we now know, is a weekly participant on the Farmingshow. I know that, because David Cunliffe gave it the one-finger salute and decided—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! This has very little to do with the answer required.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table the Treasury papers from the Official Information Act request, with all the Treasury papers, for the Prime Minister’s benefit, about irrigation.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a volume of Treasury papers, I take it?

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Yes.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There was objection.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: With regard to the broader economic effects that the Prime Minister referenced in his answer to the last question, is he aware that in Treasury’s analysis of the broader economic effects it found that those broader economic effects arose principally from the stimulatory effects of the construction activity—so it was the construction activity alone, or principally, that produced the broader economic effects—and if you could construct anything and produce those kinds of stimulatory effects, why is the Prime Minister proposing to spend the money on these projects?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Maybe the answer to this question lies in the valuation of a property that has access to water and irrigation. If it is solely of economic benefit to both the farmer and the country to build an irrigation project and not actually use it, then maybe the member would like to explain why farms that are irrigated sell for so much more and have so much greater economic productivity. I think the member can sit there, if he likes, and probably misrepresent Treasury—I do not really know, I have not read the research—but the bottom line is that New Zealand would be well served if it advances irrigation. I encourage the member to go on the Farmingshow, on which he now has replaced David Cunliffe, and tell the farmers exactly what he thinks.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister honestly trying to tell the House that his approach to economic development is to identify things that the Prime Minister would just like to build—because he thinks they are good things—and that regardless of the analysis that is conducted by Treasury, whose job it is to analyse these proposals, he just happens to like those proposals so he is going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on them?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Let me make this challenge to the member, then. We will go over to Treasury and we will ask, on a scale of one to 10, how much it dislikes these things. If it dislikes irrigation more than it dislikes his power programme, we will stop our programme. But if it dislikes his power programme more, will he campaign on stopping his? I do not think so.

Economy—Business Confidence and Employment

3. to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy—and especially on further signs of improving economic momentum and increasing business and consumer confidence?

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I have received a number of reports providing further evidence of good momentum in the New Zealand economy and of improving confidence. For example, Treasury this week issued its monthly Economic Indicators outlook for October. It said that the positive outlook for the economy was reinforced by the latest trade data, which confirmed that the recovery from last summer’s drought is under way. It also highlighted rising net migration inflows, buoyant business sentiment in the September quarter, and other surveys reporting increases in confidence and activity. The Government is supporting these positive developments through its economic programme, and especially through the Business Growth Agenda, which is focused on creating the conditions for businesses to invest, grow, and create new jobs.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What does Treasury’s monthly Economic Indicators report say about business confidence among New Zealand firms and their intentions to hire more workers?

Treasury says that business confidence in the economic outlook has risen to the highest level in many years. It pointed to the Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, which showed that firms experienced an improvement in their own activity over the September quarter, and that even more businesses believed that activity would increase further in the December quarter. The survey reported modest employment growth, but hiring intentions were rising strongly and are positive. Activity in the manufacturing sector, in particular, continues to increase. This is supported by ongoing strong numbers in the Performance of Manufacturing Index.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: How is the higher business confidence being reflected in other economic indicators, especially in respect of the employment markets?

The household labour force survey and the quarterly employment survey both came out today. They confirmed that increased business confidence is being translated into more jobs and higher employment. The household labour force survey showed that employment was up by 1.2 percent in the quarter. As an annual figure that is 53,000 more people in work, or a 2.4 percent increase for the year. At the same time, unemployment dropped from 6.4 percent to 6.2 percent. Obviously, we are very keen to see that come down further, but the trend is encouraging and better than in many other developed countries around the world. It is also pleasing that the Māori employment rate rose over the year. It is now also worth noting that the “neets” rate—that is, young people not in education, employment, or training—fell over the quarter from 12.1 percent to 11.4 percent, which is the lowest level since December 2008, before the global financial crisis.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What do official employment statistics show about recent movements in incomes relative to the cost of living, and how is this assisting families to get ahead?

💬 Andrew Little: Real wages are stagnant.

I know I am going to disappoint Mr Little, who is always talking the place down. The quarterly employment survey shows that average ordinary time hourly earnings rose 2.6 percent over the year and were up from 2.1 percent in the previous quarter. This compares with inflation of 1.4 percent for the year, meaning that people in work—and there are more of them—have the conditions to make steady and consistent gains in their incomes. Adding in a long run of low mortgage interest rates, these are very helpful conditions for families and households to get ahead. It is also worth noting that not only are average hourly earnings up but the number of hours being worked has increased as well. Paid hours are up by 2.7 percent over the year. These improving figures flow from careful Government policies that support growth and jobs being translated into real-world situations for New Zealand families.

Broadband, Ultra-fast—Infrastructure Pricing and Contract with Chorus

4. to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Ministers?

Yes.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Has he advised Minister Joyce to inform Chorus that it has taken its own financial risk, and parking up dividends to its owners and managing its own debt is a better option than fabricating to the market a possible insolvency, thus hoping to get corporate welfare from the Minister for Economic Development?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not aware of any conversations that Minister Joyce has had with Chorus. In fact, I am now very recently advised that he has not had any conversations with Chorus. But what I can say for the benefit of the member, if he is interested, is that the Government is now assessing the situation. It is not a matter of whether there is corporate welfare or otherwise. The Government is committed to the long-term build of ultra-fast broadband, and in the course of time the Government will assess all of the options available to it and decide what the next course of action is.

💬 Clare Curran: Why is he, his former Minister Steven Joyce, and his current Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Amy Adams, so surprised at the Commerce Commission’s decision to drop the copper price given that Steven Joyce’s 2011 telecommunications company legislation clearly stated that there would be a 3-year moratorium before the move to a cost-plus model for wholesale copper pricing, which the Commerce Commission is now implementing, and that Chorus’ first prospectus clearly stated this as a risk, as did the regulatory impact statement for the Government’s only 2011 law?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Gosh, the member is a long way back these days.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Point of order—[Interruption] Order! This is a point of order and it will be heard in silence.

💬 Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very direct question about policy. You ruled the Prime Minister out of order in an earlier answer today, and he has now repeated the very thing you had ruled him out of order for in an answer that followed. I ask you to make sure that the Prime Minister adheres to the Standing Orders.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: And I will certainly do my best to make sure that the Prime Minister adheres to the Standing Orders. His start of the answer was unsatisfactory. I told the Prime Minister so. The question has now been asked and I invite the Prime Minister to answer it.

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I think it is very fair to say that no one back in 2011 actually predicted that there would be such a dramatic fall in copper prices. In fact, my understanding is that the member believed that copper prices would go up, not actually go down. So that fall has certainly caught the market by surprise. There were many, many analysts who looked at the situation as a result of the legislation that was brought in, and, in fact, at the contract that Chorus signed, and not one analyst actually noted that there was a significant likelihood that there would be such a dramatic decrease in the copper price.

💬 Clare Curran: I seek leave to table page 204 of Chorus’s first prospectus, which clearly sets out its awareness of—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not need any more description. I just want to clarify whether that document is clearly available if members want it.

💬 Clare Curran: It is an old document. It is difficult to access.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: On the basis—[Interruption] I think that members have the ability to access that if they want it.

💬 Clare Curran: Can he assure this House that neither Steven Joyce nor his ministry provided any kind of guarantee at the demerger of Telecom that has led Chorus to believe that its profitability would not be adversely affected by the legislated move to cost-plus unbundled bitstream access pricing?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: My advice is that the Minister made no such assurance.

💬 Clare Curran: In light of the statement by Chorus yesterday that it would “discuss with the Crown whether Chorus was still a credible UFB partner in the way intended at demerger …”, does he believe that all parties—all parties—tendering on the ultra-fast broadband contract did so on an equal footing; if they did not, will he sack Steven Joyce as the Minister responsible for that debacle?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: This will come as a huge disappointment to the member, but, no, I will not be sacking Steven Joyce any time soon. It is very important to understand—[Interruption]—any time soon. I am feeling good about it. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister now has a right to answer the question.

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What the member is clearly demonstrating is that she is not committed to the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband. I really look forward—

💬 Clare Curran: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very precise question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! It was not a very precise question. It was quite a long question that included a comment around whether a Minister would retain his job or not.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: When Minister Joyce told Parliament: “These new broadband networks will provide an economic step change as we leapfrog many of our competitors …”, did he add: “We will probably need to bail out a sharemarket company and twist the regulatory framework of the Commerce Commission.”?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think that, firstly, it is very important to understand that there is no bailout taking place. The Government has a strong commitment to ultra-fast broadband. The Government now has to look at the implications for the ultra-fast broadband programme as a result of the Commerce Commission’s ruling. If the member is basically telling New Zealanders that he does not support the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband, that is going to be a great discussion to have in 2014.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Can the Prime Minister assure this House that neither he nor “Mr Fix-it” will—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Can I ask the member to rephrase his question.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Can the Prime Minister and multi-millionaire former businessman—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I now invite the member to ask a question in line with the Standing Orders, and if he does not do so this time, we will be moving on.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Can the Prime Minister and the Minister for Economic Development assure or guarantee this House that his Government will not bail out this share market company, but, rather, will enforce the contract and not give in to their protestations for corporate welfare?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I can say is that it is highly likely that the Minister of Communications and Information Technology will have a little more to say about this tomorrow. She is likely to be able to give an indication of how the Government will now try to understand fully the ruling from the Commerce Commission and the possible alternatives and options available. But the Government is committed to ultra-fast broadband. The interesting thing with ultra-fast broadband is that it is going to be rolled out—both through the Rural Broadband Initiative and with fibre—up in that member’s part of the world, which happens to be one of the few parts of New Zealand that is actually not going ahead economically at the rate that the Government wants. Actually, I just wonder whether next year that member will be strutting his stuff, telling the good people of Northland that they do not deserve ultra-fast broadband. If they vote Labour, they will be on old technology.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My area is not actually in the grid that is going to get this broadband outreach.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is not even remotely accurate as a point of order.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting—Appointment of Sri Lanka to Chair

5. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What advice has he received on the call from Amnesty International opposing the appointment of Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa as Chair of the Commonwealth for the next 2 years, and host of next week’s Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting?

I have received a range of advice on the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) and the issues raised by Amnesty International. The decision to accept Sri Lanka’s offer to host and chair CHOGM was made collectively by Commonwealth countries in Perth in 2011. By offering to host CHOGM, the Sri Lankan Government knows that it is opening itself up to scrutiny on human rights and reconciliation issues. It is the New Zealand Government’s position that the most constructive thing that New Zealand can do is to engage and use the opportunity to examine progress. The Minister of Foreign Affairs will be visiting the north of Sri Lanka during CHOGM next week to do precisely that.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: Has the Minister seen the various reports of human rights abuses occurring in Sri Lanka, and has the Government sought to make any expression of concern about those issues to the Government of Sri Lanka in advance of next week’s CHOGM?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The Minister receives a range of advice on those issues. He has visited Sri Lanka twice this year, and he does raise those very points with Sri Lankan officials and politicians when he engages with them.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: What is the Minister’s reaction to claims that New Zealand’s overall approach to the Sri Lankan issue is a softly softly one, linked to its wider campaign for a seat on the United Nations Security Council?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I completely refute that assertion.

Earthquake Commission—Public Confidence and Auditor-General’s Report

My question is to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission, and asks—[Interruption] Are you OK? Are you all right?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member please just start his question again, without responding or interjecting himself.

6. to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Does he still believe that New Zealanders can have confidence in EQC?

Yes. In 2013, 18,315 claims have been made to the Earthquake Commission from throughout New Zealand. So far, over $7 million has been paid in settling those claims.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How can New Zealanders have confidence in the Earthquake Commission when the Auditor-General has confirmed the Earthquake Commission’s inability to communicate with its claimants, stating: “Homeowners have experienced inconsistency in information, and long periods without specific information” and “a lack of certainty while waiting for repairs,”?

💬 Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Auditor-General has been engaged in the Earthquake Commission process from the outset, largely at my request, so that we did get good information and an acceptable assessment of how that performance was going. The Earthquake Commission has, in fact, improved that performance quite considerably. It has repaired over 46,000 damaged homes in Christchurch and paid out in excess of $6.3 billion to Cantabrians to date. Further, the latest survey from the Earthquake Commission has got an 86 percent satisfaction rate on those repairs.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Oh yeah. What about the people you didn’t survey?

💬 Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, the honourable—

💬 Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Oh no, I had better answer. It will be easier if I answer.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does he believe that the Earthquake Commission—to quote him in this morning’s Press—is doing “pretty well” given that the Auditor-General notes that, 3 years on, the Earthquake Commission was not completing repairs to properties with vulnerable occupants any faster than the repairs to other properties, and that the reason for this provided by the Earthquake Commission was that 3 years on the “process for prioritising the vulnerable has yet to … bed in”?

💬 Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, the member can sit over there and say that we are 3 years on. The reality is—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The Auditor-General said that, not me.

💬 Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, that is right. The Auditor-General is closeted here in Wellington, doing a distant observation. The reality is that the decay curve on the seismic activity in Canterbury has shown a settled pattern only for a bit over 12 months. So, yes, there has been a fair bit of time elapsed, but do not forget that the Earthquake Commission was directly responsible for fixing up over 170,000 houses. So I think my comment that it has done pretty well is a reasonable one. The other thing, of course, is that I well remember the member who is asking the question predicting that we were going to see real estate values drop through the floor in Canterbury. That has not happened, largely because of the efforts of the Earthquake Commission.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does he believe that the Earthquake Commission is doing “pretty well”, given that the Auditor-General notes that 3 years on—and she is capable of counting 3 years—“some contractors were accredited and inducted before criminal, credit, and conflict of interest checks became a routine part of the accreditation process”, that “the issuing of performance improvement notices … to contractors has not been centrally recorded for most of the programme,” and that “the controls for ensuring compliance with the building code are not consistently followed;”, and that the reason given for this by the Earthquake Commission 3 years on was that these checks had only recently been implemented?

💬 Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The member is quoting selectively from the Auditor-General’s report, and it is available for anybody to read and to put into the right context. In the early days there may well have been contractors accredited who did not meet some of the strict criteria that are there now and have been there for the vast majority of the last 3 years. There are 1,287 accredited contractors employing thousands of people, and to characterise them in the way that Mr Cosgrove has is completely inappropriate.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that my word has been questioned, I seek leave—and it is a recent document; I accept that, given your recent rulings—to table page 33 of the Auditor-General’s—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need to hear any more. That document is very available if members wish to further inform themselves.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Will he now acknowledge, 3 years on, the genuine ongoing difficulties and struggles that the people of Canterbury are having with the Earthquake Commission, given that he has in the past brushed these issues aside and questioned their validity, in light of the Auditor-General publishing a 100-page report detailing evidence and facts independently illustrating the Earthquake Commission’s ineptitude?

💬 Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It does not matter how many flowery words the member might throw into his question to try and make it seem a little more reasonable and direct. The fact is that the Earthquake Commission is dealing with a very big problem in Canterbury. There are 170,000 houses that need to be dealt with. It is getting on with that task extremely well. In addition to that, it has done land assessments on over 180,000 individual properties and has settled literally thousands and thousands and thousands of contents claims, as well. The Auditor-General has noted a condition that existed in the Earthquake Commission at a point in time. The Earthquake Commission is committed to improving its performance. Frankly, every statistic that can be amassed around the Earthquake Commission does indicate a reasonable performance. I think it is worth noting that the old Department of Building and Housing did a survey on building work that was done while that member was the Minister, and found that 69 percent of people had a satisfactory outcome with their contractors. The Earthquake Commission has consistently been at the 80 percent mark and as high as 91 percent, and is currently at 86 percent. It is a very good performance.

Housing, Affordable—Options Paper and Cost of Building Materials

7. to the Minister of Commerce: What steps is the Government taking to introduce more competition into the housing construction market?

One of the five main contributors to the high cost of construction in New Zealand, as identified by the Productivity Commission last year, is the cost of building materials, which can be as much as 30 percent higher than in Australia. That is why the Minister of Housing and I have released the Residential Construction Market Study—Options Paper. This paper sets out options to introduce more competition into the housing construction sector, which can bring down the costs of home building materials. The options include proposing increased transparency, simplified compliance, changes to anti-dumping duties, and tariff concessions, which can bring down the costs of new-home building materials.

💬 Mark Mitchell: How will these options help to increase competition and lower the cost of building materials?

💬 Hon CRAIG FOSS: More competition in the building construction sector can lead to more choice and lower costs for consumers. Submissions to the market study earlier this year raised concerns that it was difficult for good quality and new products to come into the New Zealand market. The paper outlines options that could be made with changes to the regulatory framework and to promote competition to make it easier for these quality products to come to the New Zealand market. More choice and more competition is a win-win for all of New Zealand.

💬 Phil Twyford: After all the tough talk from the Minister of Housing, scapegoating local councils for his failed housing policy, will the Government now be brave enough to tackle the vested interests holding back competition in the building supplies market?

💬 Hon CRAIG FOSS: This Government certainly has the courage to deal with the crisis of housing that was inherited in 2008 by this Government, where building construction costs had increased by almost double, particularly in the period 2002-08. The suite of measures we are undertaking—freeing up land supply, Resource Management Act reform, reining in council contribution rates, halving interest rates for New Zealanders, and investing in skills and productivity—is the courage of conviction to help New Zealand families address their building construction costs.

💬 Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister whether he would tackle the vested interests in the building supplies market. He did not address that question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If the member wants to go back and look at his question, it certainly has been adequately addressed.

Sexual Offences—Pre-trial and Trial Processes

8. to the Minister of Justice: When she said, in response to whether the pre-trial and trial process precludes some sexual violence victims from complaining “quite clearly, it does not”, did she mean that few sexual violence victims are deterred from complaining by the process itself?

That member has misquoted herself from yesterday. The question she asked was: “Is justice denied to sexual violence survivors if the current pre-trial and trial system precludes them from making a complaint?”. Now she is trying to suggest that she put in the word “some”. Quite clearly, the answer, which I see from yesterday, was that it does not for all victims, because some people do, in fact, proceed with complaints, they go right through the court process, and the accused is found guilty. I am happy to table that member’s Hansard if she cannot remember what she said.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no need for that.

💬 Jan Logie: Thank you for the clarification, Minister. Does she agree that the system at least contributes to the Ministry of Justice finding that only 9 percent of sexual violence offences are reported to the police, and to the widespread view of lawyers and police that the process is “not healthy for complainants”?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think we can all realise that anybody who lays a complaint of rape is going to go through a very difficult time, and that is why we have gone to such efforts to make sure that there is, in fact, a tremendous number of support mechanisms around these victims, both male and female. I think we need to labour that point that not all victims of sexual abuse are women. In fact, young men, older men, and people who are vulnerable can be subject to this abuse.

💬 Jan Logie: I seek leave to table a statement by defence lawyer Paul Dacre, saying that he would never advise a member of his family to participate—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Enough of a description has been made. Leave is sought to table that statement by a lawyer. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not. It can be so tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

💬 Jan Logie: Will she consider a specialist sexual violence court and an alternative process for sexual offence cases, both of which received “very strong support” from judges, lawyers, sexual violence support services, and the public who submitted on the Law Commission’s work on alternative trial processes?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: As the member has relayed it, it is a very finite sort of question that she has asked. In fact, this is a very complex issue. I am happy to run through with her the differences between an adversarial and an inquisitorial method of justice, and why it would be wrong to completely change our system of justice in relation to one particular sort of offence and not to another. I know that there is work going on in the Ministry of Justice to deal with some of the issues that have been raised, and we are constantly looking at ways we can help victims of sexual abuse to be able to come forward and to get the help they need.

💬 Jan Logie: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That did not address my question. I gave—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I listened very carefully to the question, and the answer, in my opinion, certainly addressed the question. If it is not to the satisfaction of the member, the member can use supplementary questions.

💬 Andrew Little: Why did the Minister say in answer to a question from me yesterday that she would not implement the recommendation of the Law Commission in March this year, when that recommendation modifies the cross-examination process for victims of sexual offences merely by requiring questions to be posed to the victim to be lodged with the trial judge in advance of the trial?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Actually, that was not the question the member asked yesterday.

💬 Andrew Little: Yes, exactly, that is what it was.

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, he referred to the recommendations about particular sorts of evidence.

💬 Andrew Little: I’ve got the transcript, Minister.

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have got the transcript too, and that is not actually—the member was confused in his question, and, of course, I have already said that we are looking at this issue.

💬 Andrew Little: Does she accept that the way trials of sex offences are conducted is often intimidating to victims, that changes need to be made to ensure that sexual crimes can be prosecuted, and that this can be done without compromising the fundamental principle of criminal trials that a defendant is entitled to hear in full the allegations being made by his or her accuser?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I would say to that member that, actually, the most traumatic thing for a rape victim is being raped, and then to have to go through a process to have their day in court and to hold their accuser to account is a very difficult—

💬 Andrew Little: So you don’t want to change anything.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is actually really abusive to have that sort of language from that member. But having said that—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was asked, and the Minister is entitled to answer.

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —not only is it very important that we consistently look at how we can make it less difficult for victims to come forward to have their day in court but also we need to be able to preserve the fairness of a trial, because we will not and we should not encourage miscarriages of justice.

💬 Jan Logie: Is it true that although she is not to blame for the system, the Law Commission, the Ministry of Justice, and her predecessor, Simon Power, have outlined multiple ways to make it better for victims; if so, will she please put this work back on the Law Commission’s agenda so that she can properly consider the options?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am happy to give that member a briefing, but I am also happy to answer her question. Actually, there are lots of things that we, both the ministry and I, are doing and working on at the moment relating to these matters. But I am not going to take a holus-bolus approach that attempts to impose an inquisitorial system into our adversarial system for certain matters. As that member is now so interested in victims, I wonder why it is that her party never voted for the public safety—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not going to assist the order of this House.

💬 Jan Logie: I seek leave to table the summary of the Law Commission’s alternative trial processes, outlining three proposals—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The summary of any document from the Law Commission will certainly be available to all members.

Interislander Ferries—Aratere Malfunction

9. to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister for State Owned Enterprises?

Yes.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: How on earth can he have confidence in this Minister when just last night the ferry Aratere had one more event in a disastrous line of events—[Interruption]—“Big Ears”—and lost a shaft and a propeller, putting the lives of people on board at risk?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the matter is an operational matter for KiwiRail. We actually do not know what happened, but an inquiry will now be undertaken by the Transport Accident Investigation Commission. But I am advised that there was no risk to passengers or crew.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Aratere’s stabilisers do not work properly, that the radar has in the past failed, that the ship flexes in rough seas—in fact, it now porpoises through the water—that the cargo doors do not close properly, and that even the toilets do not often work?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, I am not aware of those matters. I am aware that around $45 million was invested in extending the Aratere in 2011 to increase its capacity in order to facilitate the movement of freight. As I said, I am advised that there was no risk to passengers or crew last night.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: When is the Prime Minister going to become informed about what his Ministers are not doing and that, in fact, more than $50 million was spent on extending the ship so that it could carry more freight, yet the problems are so great that it cannot carry any more freight now than it did originally?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think that the member is making a great many statements that may well in the course of time be proved to be not correct. I am aware that the chief executive of KiwiRail has given the Minister his assurance as to the maintenance of the ferries and the priority of passenger safety.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: When will the Prime Minister become informed about what his Ministers and the head of KiwiRail are not doing—[Interruption]. No, I am putting a complaint to you because you are the Minister. You should know what you are doing in this Cabinet—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member cannot bring me into this debate. The member may now ask his question.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am trying to ask my question. Your job is to stop that turkey—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I know very well what my job is. I will give the right honourable gentleman one more chance to ask a supplementary question.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: At what stage—[Interruption] At what stage—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: “At what stage”—would the member please ask his question.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: At what stage will they shut up?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If the member wants to ask his question, I invite him to do so. I will not give him another opportunity.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I wish to do that. I wish to be heard. At what stage will the Prime Minister recognise the threat to public safety and shipping created by the Aratere and the numerous incidents, fire his Minister in charge, fire those responsible at the head of KiwiRail, and call in experts to sort out this now $132 million lemon once and for all?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said at the start of my answer to this question from the member, we are unsure about exactly what happened, but there is a full inquiry and in the fullness of time that inquiry will be made public. The member is making a lot of statements that, I am pretty sure, in the fullness of time will not actually be supported as accurate. I say to this member that if he thinks the Minister for State Owned Enterprises should resign because a propeller came off the ferry, then maybe he should have resigned as the leader of New Zealand First when he, himself, lost a man overboard.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The unparliamentary nature of that comment would have been very obvious, but the response is that we do not prop up crooks like he does.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough. The member asked a fairly provocative question and he got a fairly provocative answer.

💬 Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence and ask that the member withdraw and apologise.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I cannot see what the member could have possibly taken offence at.

Prison Facilities—Redevelopment

10. to the Minister of Corrections: What recent announcements has she made on the redevelopment of prison facilities?

I recently announced that Auckland Prison (Maximum Security Division) is to be completely rebuilt to provide a more secure, safe, and modern facility. The maximum security wing is the only one of its kind in the country and houses this country’s most dangerous and most difficult prisoners. However, it is now 45 years old and is becoming increasingly expensive to maintain, and it simply does not have the capacity to deliver specialist rehabilitation and mental health services. The wing will be designed, built, financed, and maintained under a public-private partnership, but the Department of Corrections will continue to manage the prison’s day-to-day operations.

💬 Jacqui Dean: What unique features will the rebuilt maximum security wing have to allow corrections staff to better manage prisoners?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The rebuild will improve the conditions for staff so that they can work more effectively with prisoners to lower their security classification. The new building will also house a specialist mental health unit for prisoners with severe to moderate needs, which will provide care to offenders who currently have to be transferred back and forth from the Mason Clinic. This, in turn, will ease pressure on the Mason Clinic for the wider population. The facility, which is scheduled to open in mid-2017, will be a world-class maximum security unit, will put public and staff safety first, and will allow corrections to more effectively manage these very dangerous prisoners.

💬 Jacqui Dean: What other upgrades has she announced to prison infrastructure?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Today I announced that $81.3 million is being invested to upgrade another five prisons to improve their safety and security and to provide better facilities for prisoner rehabilitation and training. Major infrastructure works will soon begin at Invercargill, Whanganui, and Tongariro prisons, with work already under way at Waikeria and Rolleston prisons. Not only will the investment we are making in these five prisons improve their security but also we are making sure that they are in the best possible position to help the Government achieve its target of reducing re-offending by 25 percent by 2017.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Is her target to improve the safety of corrections officers by 50 percent through initiatives like this ambitious enough, when it is not even getting her back to rates before she came into office, with serious prisoner assaults on staff having almost doubled in the last 3 years?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I think it is a bit rich for an Opposition member from the previous Labour Government to address a question on the issue of prisoner safety to this Government, which has spent millions of dollars, has put in place an external advisory group to work with staff on staff safety, and has put out and set a target to improve staff safety, when the previous Labour Government did absolutely nothing over 9 years to address the concerns around staff safety.

Christchurch, Recovery—Housing Availability

11. to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement that the housing situation in Christchurch is “a challenge, not a crisis”?

on behalf of the Minister of Housing: Yes. Although as a result of the Christchurch earthquakes there was significant loss in that housing stock, building consents are now at a 37-year high, with almost 600 new dwellings and with 29 new homes being consented every day since September. The challenge is being met.

💬 Phil Twyford: How many affordable homes will be built in Christchurch, given that Gerry Brownlee says that the Government is already well on the way to delivering more housing in Christchurch at a scale and time line that equals Labour’s plan?

I do wish that the member would quote my colleague accurately. He said that we are ahead of the curve as far as the potential plan from the Labour Party is concerned.

💬 Phil Twyford: Does he agree with New Brighton resident Sue Davidson when she says that they have been forgotten, and why after 3 years has the Government never proposed anywhere in Canterbury the kind of innovative, hands-on approach that Labour has announced for New Brighton?

Although I do not have responsibility for the regeneration programme in the suburb of New Brighton in Christchurch, what I can tell the member is that there have been discussions going on for a very long time about urban renewal in Christchurch. What we have seen in the last few days from the Labour Party is a desperate attempt to get on the bus and start claiming that in 18 months’ time, should it be the Government, it may do something. By then they will be able to see the action well and truly started.

💬 Phil Twyford: With the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment estimating a shortfall of 7,000 homes in Christchurch, why is he refusing to get behind Labour’s plan to build 10,000 affordable starter homes in Christchurch when all of the evidence points to a crisis at the affordable end of the market?

As I said earlier when answering a question as the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission, it does not matter how many times you put emotive and flowery language into questions, because the reality of the facts that are presented is far more important. Rents in Christchurch, for example, remain significantly cheaper than they are in Auckland. There were also 1,100 houses available on the TradeMe website as of this morning. So when there is so much stock still available but a recognition that we do have to replace a good number of the nearly 8,000 houses that have been red-zoned, and we have got a programme to do it and we are seeing the consents coming through at a rate of about 5,000 a year, I say, of course, that the challenge is being met. It is not a crisis; it is a challenge.

World War I Centenary—Commemorations and National War Memorial Park

12. to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: How does the Government intend to mark the centenary of the First World War?

The Government has developed a comprehensive programme called WW100 to mark the First World War. WW100 has a very strong digital presence, and I know that Mr Grant Robertson will be delighted to visit the website—ww100.govt.nz—because he is a 21st century guy, and also on Facebook and Twitter. The centrepiece will be New Zealand Memorial Park in Wellington, which will be opened on Anzac Day in 2015. Funding has been allocated for national and local centenary projects. The Government is also supporting the Auckland War Memorial Museum’s Cenotaph database, which will provide a page for every New Zealander who served in the First World War. There is also an international component. Heritage trails in other countries will tell the stories of New Zealand’s involvement in battles from Gallipoli to Western Europe.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: How is the National War Memorial Park progressing?

💬 Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Brilliantly. The Minister of Transport and I recently visited the trench that will take State Highway 1 underground at the Buckle Street part of the park. Construction is 3 days behind schedule, which is a fantastic achievement for such a major project. It is a huge credit to Mr Brownlee, his transport officials, and those in the New Zealand Transport Agency.