Questions for Oral Answer

1. to the Prime Minister: Does he agree with his Minister of Finance that workers have an expectation that they “will be doing better than zero pay increases”?

Yes. I imagine all workers would like a pay rise, and on average wages have been rising faster than inflation. For example, average weekly hour wages went up by 2.5 percent over the last year and average weekly wages went up by 3.2 percent. At the same time, the CPI went up by only 1.5 percent.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Complimenting the Government on its sartorial elegance for once—does he instead support the widening gap between chief executive officer pay and that of the average workers, which rose from 21.9 percent in 2010 to 26 times that just 2 years later?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: For a very, very long period of time this country has had a pretty significant gap between chief executive officer pay and what others earn. I will say, though, that that gap is considerably smaller in New Zealand than it is in a lot of countries around the world.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Will the Prime Minister support the pay increase for the quarter of a million workers who would directly benefit from Labour’s minimum wage changes, which will provide a significant boost to the economy through boosting workers’ spending power?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In a word, no. The reason for that is I am not so irresponsible that I would say to 6,000 New Zealanders that they are losing their jobs because the Labour Party is polling at 25 percent—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Why does the Prime Minister oppose higher minimum wages when evidence shows that that leads to workers staying in jobs longer, higher productivity, higher standards of living, more spent at the corner dairy, greater consumer demand, and more, not fewer, jobs?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: A few things. First, the Government has supported higher minimum wages each and every year we have been the Government, but we have done so responsibly. All I can say to the member is that when he sends those 6,000 people to the dole queue, he should be ashamed that he is doing that because his own leadership is leading the Labour Party down the toilet.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Why does the Prime Minister oppose policies that would see our lowest-paid workers receive an additional $4,000 a year?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Labour Party will be known as the “Anti-jobs Party”. This is a party that does not support what we on this side of the House support, which is a 90-day trial period. I am actually a bit surprised the Labour Party does not support it, because if it had, it could have booted out Cunliffe after 89 days.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will appreciate that the Prime Minister has no right to refer to any member of Parliament in the way he just did. This late in the day, I suggest you do your job. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I suggest to that member that if he again raises frivolous points of order, he will not be here for the balance of question time.

💬 Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, it is not a frivolous point of order about what people are called.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Grant Robertson: I will finish my point of order, please.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I have just ruled that I said it was a frivolous point of order. [Interruption] Order! The member can freely disagree with me, but he has to accept my decision.

💬 Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is it a fresh point of order? If it is a fresh point of order, I will be delighted to hear it.

💬 Grant Robertson: Can I clarify that you are now changing a very longstanding ruling of this House that members have to be called either by their full name or by their title as a representative of their electorate? That is what you have just done. The Prime Minister used only the surname of the Leader of the Opposition and nothing else. This is a substantially changed ruling you have just made.

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If I could intervene, I say that the member is actually right. I was remiss in doing that. I should have called him Mr Cunliffe. In the heat of the exchange I did not do that. I apologise and correct my answer.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Prime Minister for that. The difficulty I have is that I actually did not hear that he was not referred to as Mr Cunliffe, and that is because of the level of noise and barrage that is coming across the House. I appreciate that we are very close to a general election. That is no excuse for members not showing some courtesy to the House so that I can hear the questions and the answers.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Given the Prime Minister’s comments and his opposition to raising the minimum wage—and it will not be long before he is out of a job—why is it acceptable that there are 100,000 children living in poverty in this country whose parents are in work; if not, why does he oppose policies that will end poverty wages?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member seems be of the opinion that he can simply, through the stroke of a pen, make a difference to labour rates in New Zealand with no repercussions for those workers. If that is what the member really believes, then he should not have stopped at $16.25 an hour; Mr Cunliffe should have stopped at $50 an hour.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Given that answer, does the Prime Minister accept that a minimum wage rise has a perfectly proper place alongside a package of measures, like Labour’s economic upgrade, which will lead to increased levels of productivity, exports, and employment?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: This Government, every single year, including through the global financial crisis, has carefully increased the minimum wage, at the same time growing jobs and the economy. If the member seriously thinks that putting a capital gains tax on every single business and doing all the things the unions wanted him to do—and that is why they backed him to be the leader—are going to grow the economy, he is dreaming. Oh, and by the way, I am more than happy to call him Mr Cunliffe. He should worry about what his caucus colleagues call him.

Child Poverty—Economic Policy and Cross-party Talks

2. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree that the Government’s economic policies have failed, given that more than a quarter of a million children are living below the poverty line in Aotearoa?

No.

💬 Hone Harawira: Does he agree that finding long-term solutions to child poverty will require all parties in Parliament to work together; if so, can he tell us why National is the only party that refuses to take part in cross-party talks on child poverty after the coming election?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: That member had the opportunity, as a partner to the current Government when he was in the Māori Party, to talk about solutions but, actually, he prefers talking about problems, and that is why he left.

💬 Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was can he—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I heard the question. There were actually two questions, and one of those questions was definitely addressed. You have a further supplementary question if you wish to use it.

💬 Hone Harawira: Can he please explain why his Government has invested so heavily in building roads of national significance instead of houses for low-income families, many of whom are clearly living below the poverty line, when statistics show that decent, warm homes will help reduce the serious health problems that many of these families face and heavily reduce the cost of health care and other societal problems that inevitably flow from the existence of a growing underclass?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have invested in all those things. We need decent roads so we can have export industries so we can have jobs so that people can get off welfare. If the member had been willing to shoulder the responsibility of finding solutions, he would have been part of this Government’s extensive efforts to invest in insulating houses, protecting vulnerable children, and getting young people back on track so they can get jobs.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Why has his Government turned down offers of finding solutions to child poverty via a cross-party group?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because we believe that that cross-party group is obsessed with measuring poverty and has nothing to offer as solutions to it.

Economic Programme—Policies and Results

3. to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government’s plan to lock in the gains from a growing economy helping to deliver more jobs and higher wages for New Zealanders?

The programme is focused on locking in gains over the next 3 to 5 years from a growing economy that could, under sensible management, deliver sustained growth. So our plan includes responsibly managing the Government’s finances, continuing to build a more productive and competitive economy that supports higher wages and more jobs, investing in better public services so we can have a better community as well as sound Government books, and supporting the rebuild of Christchurch, including $15 billion of Government support.

💬 Paul Goldsmith: What is the outlook for the New Zealand economy over the next 4 years, and how will this be supported by the Government’s economic programme?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The economy has built good momentum and there is considerable confidence among businesses and households about the outlook. We have the opportunity, if the economy is well managed, to get through the next cycle of growth with relatively low interest rates and possibly a lower exchange rate. That could lead to a significant rebalancing of our economy in favour of exports. Average wages are forecast, for instance, to increase to $62,000, up $7,000 in the next 4 years. The economy is expected to grow just under 12 percent in the next 4 years, and we are on track to reduce Government debt back to 20 percent of GDP by 2020.

💬 Paul Goldsmith: What lessons has he taken from the previous economic cycle, when house prices doubled and floating mortgage interest rates reached nearly 11 percent?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government learnt some sharp lessons from the economic management of the previous Labour Government. By 2008 mortgage interest rates had reached almost 11 percent, house prices had doubled in 7 or 8 years, and inflation—that is, the cost of living—was rising at 5 percent. We are focusing on avoiding a Government spend-up, even though it is election year, and on influencing the housing market so that we can have a more balanced economy. Those are sharp lessons from the mismanagement under the previous Labour Government.

💬 Hon David Parker: How can he say his plan is working when after 6 years wage rates are stagnant, 147,000 people are still out of work, youth unemployment is over 13 percent, Auckland house prices under his watch have increased in real terms at a 50 percent higher rate than under the previous Government, and we are having billions of dollars sucked out of the economy through a collapse in our export commodity prices?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: My opinion of it is, I suppose, interesting, although I have had the opportunity to share it with the House several hundred times in this last session. But it is the opinion of the New Zealanders who have stopped leaving to go to Australia that really matters. Three years ago there was a net flow of 40,000 New Zealanders to Australia. Last month there was zero. So the battlers in the regions have decided it is working, and they are staying because they can get work here with appropriate pay and they know they cannot get it in Australia.

💬 Paul Goldsmith: How are the lessons taken from the previous economic cycle being built into the Government’s programme for responsible economic and fiscal management?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Those lessons that I referred to earlier are really quite important. It is important, for instance, that we maintain the discipline of economic spending but also that we maintain a strong focus on the economic policy that has given businesses and households the confidence they now enjoy to invest, to save, to work more hours, to save more money, and to go and ask for a wage increase because they can see the productivity. So we will be sticking to careful fiscal management, a broad programme of microeconomic reform, and, in particular, we will avoid the mistakes made by the previous Labour Government, the damage from which we are still cleaning up 6 years later.

💬 Brendan Horan: Will the Government consider the New Zealand Independent Coalition’s policy of a financial transactions tax of 0.1 percent on banks and foreign exchange, just as Germany and 10 other European countries are mooting as good fiscal management?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: No.

Oil and Gas Exploration—Cost and Outcome of Promotion

4. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What is the breakdown of the $240,000 of taxpayers’ money spent entertaining oil company executives in 2011, and specifically how much of that money was spent on food and alcohol?

The total spend for the 4-day New Zealand Oil and Gas Summit 2011 was $237,000, including around $22,000 on catering, $37,000 on accommodation, $12,000 on Rugby World Cup hosting, $10,000 on other activities, $20,000 on a welcome reception for over 100 guests—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Wardrobe expenses.

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —and $40,000 on a 1-day seminar, Mr Cunliffe. I can also tell the member that the biggest spend on investment in oil and gas promotion in the last decade was in 2008 when Labour, propped up by the Greens, spent $745,000.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: So can the Minister confirm that he spent $22,000 on food and booze for the wealthy oil company executives, using taxpayers’ money?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, I was not the Minister, but be very clear that spending on promotion is not unusual. Actually, as a small country at the bottom of the world we do this in a range of areas from tourism to renewables to trade, and I would remind the member that when his party was propping up Labour, in 1 year they spent $745,000.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: When was the last time he spent a quarter of a million dollars, wining and dining clean-energy company executives—when was the last time he spent a quarter of a million dollars wining and dining clean-energy executives?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I personally never have. I have already said that promotion is not unusual. I will remind the member that maybe he should be grateful for the hard work I am doing, given that he wants it to fund his so-called green bank slush fund.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: How many jobs have been created as a direct result of the oil executives’ $240,000 trip to New Zealand?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think we can say with some certainty that Statoil entered the country after that event. It is spending $20 million, but, of course, promotion has been going on for a very long time under successive Governments. In 2012, $1.3 billion was spent by international companies on exploration—last year, $1.5 billion. I think, as I said, that the member should show a little gratitude given all the money we are working on getting that one day he will get to waste.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: So is the Minister’s answer to the last question that zero jobs were created as a result of the oil executives’ $240,000 trip to New Zealand, which happens to be exactly what he told the New Zealand Herald yesterday, when he said that there was no job creation in oil and gas production as a result of the $240,000 spent wining and dining the rich oil company executives?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The member misleads the House. That is not a quote from me. What is very clear in the oil and gas industry is that it creates 7,000 jobs directly. They are the highest-paying jobs in the New Zealand economy—on average, $105,000 per annum. Actually, I think that places like Taranaki are really glad that we have this industry. The member opposes it, but that is not the position—as David Shearer has said, although his leader disagrees—of most New Zealanders.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: With the fourth-lowest oil royalty rate in the world and 90 percent of the profits going offshore according to the Government’s own reports, is it not the case that deep-sea oil drilling is all about New Zealanders taking the risks while the foreign oil corporations take the profits?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Eight hundred million dollars a year in taxes and royalties is earned to pay for schools, for hospitals, and for infrastructure directly from this industry. On the issue of the royalties, we get 42c in every dollar of profit. It is lower than the Norways of this world, but were there significant finds we could well review that.

Roading, Wellington—Transmission Gully

5. to the Minister of Transport: Has he received any reports on the benefits of the recently confirmed Transmission Gully motorway?

Yesterday the New Zealand Transport Agency announced that an agreement has been reached for the construction and operation of Transmission Gully’s motorway north of Wellington. There are many benefits to the motorway. The time savings are in the region of 10 to 15 minutes and the safety benefits well outstrip the current safety record on State Highway 1. Transmission Gully will be a four-lane motorway with a central median barrier the entire length of the route and will be constructed to a KiwiRAP rating of 4 stars. Its construction also means that there is an alternative route into and out of Wellington in the event of a disaster.

💬 Paul Foster-Bell: Has the Minister seen any comments regarding the progress on the Transmission Gully motorway?

💬 Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have. Wellington Regional Council chair, Fran Wilde, says it is a much-needed shot in the arm for Wellington. Automobile Association spokesman Mike Noon says the road will save lives. The Road Transport Forum says Transmission Gully is the right move. The Porirua deputy mayor says Transmission Gully is fantastic. The positive comments have been many. However, comment from the Greens leads me to this conclusion: a National-led Government will build Transmission Gully; any other Government will not.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: Can the Minister confirm that the signing of yesterday’s public-private partnership contract between the New Zealand Transport Agency and the Wellington Gateway Partnership is the culmination of the provisions of the United Future - National coalition confidence and supply agreement in 2005 and 2008, and that this contract-signing confirms that Transmission Gully will proceed and is here to stay?

💬 Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I firstly would like to acknowledge that the leader of United Future, the Hon Peter Dunne, has been a tireless campaigner for this road. It is one that has been talked about for literally decades, but now its time has come, largely because of the efforts of local Wellington National MPs alongside Mr Dunne, and all credit to him for his long advocacy for this road, which will make a big difference to the region. This is a contractual arrangement, and it will hold unless a future Government decides to breach contract, which would be an appalling thing.

Finance, Minister—Performance

6. to the Minister of Finance: Has he achieved all his promises in his last six years as Minister of Finance?

Yes, despite challenging circumstances and, of course, with the support and effort of so many New Zealand households and workplaces. For instance, we inherited a Budget outlook of a $3.9 billion fiscal deficit in 2009 and forecasts of never-ending deficits thereafter, and now we are on track to surplus. We said we would protect the most vulnerable New Zealanders through the recession and ensure that the tax system is fairer, and we have done that. We said we would create an economic environment where business was confident to invest, supporting more jobs and higher incomes, and we have done that. But, of course, there is still much work to be done, partly to complete fixing the damage of the previous Labour Government but, more important, to realise the true potential of so many New Zealanders who aspire to a brighter future.

💬 Hon David Parker: Why has the wage gap with Australia, which he promised to close by 2025, widened since he took office in 2008, using the methodology that the Prime Minister promotes, by close to $70 per week and is now over $190 per week?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is wrong, but here is a measure of it. Are New Zealanders getting on planes in their thousands to go to a labour market where they think they can get paid more? Last month the net outflow of New Zealanders to Australia was zero. That is, the Kiwi battlers are staying home because things are better here.

💬 Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library, based on the methodology used by John Key, that shows that the wage gap has widened by $68.85—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular document prepared by the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

💬 Hon David Parker: Does he regret promising to raise $5 billion to $7 billion from the sale of State assets to spend on schools and hospitals, when he raised less than that amount and then spent the money on things like fixing the roof of the Beehive, bailing out Solid Energy, and a new computer system for Cabinet?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. No regrets about that whatsoever. The Government has $4.7 billion in the Future Investment Fund and we are proudly spending that on other public assets, such as the largest, most complex construction project in New Zealand: the rebuilding of several hospitals in Christchurch. We are very proud of the fact that we have been able to sell shares to New Zealanders. They gave us their money and now we are spending it on other public goods.

💬 Hon David Parker: Does he still stand by his promise to lift exports to 40 percent of GDP by 2025, when since he took office exports have fallen from 33 percent to 29 percent of GDP—

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: It’s wrong. He’s wrong.

💬 Hon David Parker: —and Treasury forecasts them to keep falling? Mr Joyce, read your numbers. That is right.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, given the choice, I agree with my colleague Mr Joyce that the member is wrong. But I can tell the member this. There is no way exports would grow if we adopted a policy of shutting down the dairy industry and the oil and gas industry. That would not only be bad for exports but devastate our regions, the economies of which are overwhelmingly resource-based. That is the Opposition’s policy.

💬 Hon David Parker: Given that exports were 33 percent of GDP when he took office, what percentage of GDP are they now?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot answer that question in detail because exports are at record levels. In the last quarter, in the last 3 months, New Zealand recorded one of its best-ever trade surplus results. Rather than criticising the export sector, we support it. It has been remarkably resilient over recent years—

💬 Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Minister begins his answer by saying “I cannot answer this question.”, why does he then continue to answer the question?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will judge the length of the answers. As I have mentioned to this House on many occasions, I take into account the length of the question and the tone of the question, but it is for me to judge that, not for Mr Prosser.

💬 Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table a table prepared by the Parliamentary Library showing that exports have decreased from 33 percent to 29 percent of GDP—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The documents have been described. Leave is sought to table the research document prepared by the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

💬 Hon David Parker: How can he say he has fulfilled his promise to rebalance the economy away from housing speculation, when Auckland house prices have increased at an annual growth rate that is 50 percent higher in real terms than it was under the previous Government, when average house prices in Auckland are now touching $700,000, and homeownership rates are at their lowest level in over 50 years?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member will know, the Government has worked pretty hard over the last 3 years to do almost everything, short of taking housing decisions off Auckland Council, in order to free up supply in the Auckland housing market. Unfortunately, the Opposition has not supported us on all the measures that we have taken, but help is on its way. The housing market is cooling, supply is growing, and New Zealanders can look forward to more affordable housing if they re-elect the National Government.

Māui’s Dolphin—Preservation

7. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies?

Yes.

💬 Metiria Turei: Does he agree with the summary of the Associate Minister of Conservation, Nicky Wagner, of his Government’s policy to save the Māui’s dolphin that said: “We’ll all cross our fingers.”?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am sure the member has taken the Minister out of context, but what I am guessing the Minister would have been talking about is the quite significant steps the Government actually has taken to protect the Māui’s dolphin, which include now allocating effectively 100 square kilometres of set net bans for every one of the estimated 55 Māui’s dolphins, a total of 6,200 square kilometres; making sure an observer is on all fishing vessels; and essentially working very hard to ensure that we do the best that we can for a species that is endangered.

💬 Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister stand by his Government’s policy to allow fishing methods lethal to dolphins, mineral mining exploration, and dangerous seismic surveying for oil and gas in the marine mammal sanctuary where the Māui’s dolphins live?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the member might have a little credibility on the topic if she stuck to fishing, because there is no evidence to support, actually—

💬 Hon Annette King: That’s arrogant, isn’t it?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, no, it is actually factually correct. There is no evidence to support the claim that mining or exploration is endangering Māui’s dolphins, and if there was, Annette, your Government would not have carried on doing it over that time.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Sorry, Annette King—your Government would not have continued to support it. So when it comes to set nets, that is an area that could potentially endanger Māui’s dolphins, and that is exactly why the Government is taking the steps that it took in the policy statement it supported in 2012.

💬 Metiria Turei: If in the marine mammal sanctuary for Māui’s dolphins you can still mine for minerals, drill for oil and gas, fish with methods that kill dolphins, what part of his pollution economy are the Māui’s dolphins safe from?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In the last 40 years, they have been undertaking oil and gas exploration in Taranaki, and there is not a single example of a Māui’s dolphin that has been killed as a result of that. That really is fundamentally the problem with the Greens, and that is that they are going to try to hoodwink a bunch of New Zealanders that an industry that supports thousands and thousands of jobs, and produces the better part of a billion dollars in royalties and taxes—which go towards paying for all the things that the Greens constantly say that they want people to have more of, like health, education, and welfare support—should all be put in jeopardy for a misguided belief that oil and gas is affecting the plight of Māui’s dolphins.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: It’s just a tiny dolphin—who cares? You don’t care about a tiny dolphin.

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, you see, this is the problem, is it not? When you do not know what you are talking about, you make up policies that will not work.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is now long enough.

💬 Metiria Turei: Is the reason that National is failing to follow the International Whaling Commission’s recommendations to prevent all of these lethal and potentially lethal human activities, including the seismic surveying within the marine mammal sanctuary, in order to protect the last 55 Māui’s dolphins in the world—is it failing to follow the International Whaling Commission’s recommendation because it is too busy wining and dining the oil and gas industry?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: When it comes to “whining” the member just needs to look to her right.

💬 Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order, and I require it to be heard.

💬 Metiria Turei: That is no answer to the question. The Prime Minister needs to address it.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I cannot agree with the member.

Tertiary Education—Promotion of Engineering Qualifications

8. to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What is the Government doing to increase the number of people going into engineering?

Engineers make a critical contribution to our society and our economic growth. They allow our industries to compete on the world stage. We need to be training significantly more engineers to meet industry demand today and in the future. As part of Budget 2012 we increased funding for engineering at tertiary level by $42 million over 4 years, and a further $9.34 million over 4 years in Budget 2013. Last week I launched a new Engineering - Education to Employment initiative to promote engineering technologists and technician qualifications to students, with bridging courses, work placements, and scholarships. The Engineering - Education to Employment initiative is about industry, schools, the Tertiary Education Commission, and our polytechs working together to increase the number of students training as engineers.

💬 Louise Upston: Why is the Government focused on growing the number of people studying engineering at polytech level?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What a silly question.

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Go and have a cup of tea, Winston. Since we boosted our investment in engineering provision in Budget 2012 and—[Interruption] It is like having an angry old uncle in the building, is it not?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just answer the question.

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Since we boosted our investment in engineering provision in Budget 2012 and Budget 2013 we have seen a very good pick-up in enrolments at the professional level in universities. Unfortunately, many people still think the only option for becoming an engineer is as a university graduate. Although having more graduate professional engineers is important, companies tell us there is a need for engineering technicians and technologists who have studied to diploma or degree level at institutes of technology. This announcement will create a big push for more enrolments in level 6 and level 7 engineering courses at the country’s institutes of technology and polytechnics.

Welfare Reforms—Sanctions and Impact on Children

9. to the Minister for Social Development: How many children were in households affected by the 15,079 sanctions against people receiving benefits with dependent children since her welfare reforms were introduced on 15 July 2013?

The number the member refers to is the number of sanctions applied, not the number of beneficiaries. This is because beneficiaries can have sanctions applied to them more than once. We know there is at least one child living in each of these households, but the total number of children per household is not centrally collated. It is held in individual case files, and could not be compiled in time to answer this question. However, what we do know is that people often quickly re-comply, so the number of sanctions in place at any one time is much lower. For example, at the end of June 2014 there were 575 households with children being sanctioned. This does not necessarily mean—

💬 Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order might be obsolete now, but the Minister said that she did not know the answer to my question, and I fail to see why she continued.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I accept that the Minister answered that she could not answer it exactly because it is a massive job to collate the information, but I would have expected the member to appreciate that the Minister was attempting to give quite relevant information, which certainly was of interest to me, if not to the member herself. I would be grateful if we could hear the answer. Has the Minister now completed the answer?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, that is fine.

💬 Sue Moroney: Why does the Minister for Social Development not want to know how many children are affected by her policy to halve their parents’ benefit, reducing the household income by $150 per week?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I was trying to tell her, it is at a point in time, so what we do know is that, actually, when a sanction is applied, it does not necessarily mean that they lose money out of their benefit. Most actually re-comply—

💬 Hon Member: Yes, it does.

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, it does not, actually. What it means is that most actually re-comply in a relatively short period of time, and it does not actually affect their benefit payment.

💬 Sue Moroney: Does she realise that cutting the household income by $149 a week means that children go hungry, doctors visits are cancelled, prescriptions are not picked up, power is cut off because the bill cannot be paid, and families get behind in their rent payments; and is this the brighter future she promised?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually, the brighter future we promised is having 30,000 fewer kids on welfare now than there were 2 years ago. What we promised is the lowest number of sole parents on benefit that we have seen for nearly 20 years. Before any sanction is applied, a person is told that they have failed their obligation, and they are given 5 days to re-comply. If they re-comply in that period, they will not be sanctioned.

💬 Sue Moroney: What if they don’t?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: And if they do not, their sanction then applies, but if they can re-comply between that and their benefit payment being made a week later, then it does not affect their actual benefit.

💬 Sue Moroney: And you have no interest in knowing what the impact is.

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually, it is very fair and reasonable to expect people to turn up for their appointments and to actually be looking for work if that is the expectation.

💬 Sue Moroney: Well, what is her explanation, then, for the fact that in the latest household income report, we now have the highest proportion of children in severe poverty this century?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is about helping those people into work and seeing their incomes increase. As I have stated, we have fewer sole parents on benefits now than we have had for over 20 years. That substantially makes a difference to them, their children, and their community, and we will back them into work because, quite frankly, the hand-wringing sympathy of the Labour Party does not work for them.

💬 Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very clear. It was asking her for an explanation for the fact that in the latest household income report, we have now got the highest proportion of children in severe poverty. The Minister’s answer was denying that fact.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No. The Minister answered by saying that, in her explanation, it was helping people into work.

💬 Sue Moroney: Well, if she is going to deny that, then has she asked for any advice or reports about the plight of the 5,822 people who have had their entire benefit stopped under her welfare reforms in the year ended June 2014, and whether that has contributed to the increased homelessness, to the increased begging, and to the increased poverty that we see on the streets of New Zealand?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, no, because we have not actually changed the eligibility to benefits. So, actually, those people are eligible for benefits if they meet the criteria where they do not have a job or do not have an income. The reality is that they—

💬 Sue Moroney: But you’re cutting them off.

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, we do not know what the reasons are for them leaving their benefit, and they are many and they are varied.

Health Personnel—Nursing Entry to Practice Programme

10. to the Minister of Health: What investment has the Government made in training places for nurses?

Can I firstly just note that the standard of dress on this side of the House today is vastly improved from normal. Today the Government is announcing that we will fund $2.8 million for an additional 200 training places for nurse graduates on the Nursing Entry to Practice Programme. The Nursing Entry to Practice Programme offers professional and educational support for graduate nurses in their first year of practice. This additional $2.8 million will provide an extra 160 training places at New Zealand public hospitals and another 40 training places at aged-care facilities across the nation.

💬 Shane Ardern: How many training places are now available for nursing graduates, and will it be a prerequisite for their entry that they must wear bright shirts and ties?

💬 Hon TONY RYALL: I had not thought of that. This $2.8 million investment brings the total number of places on the Nursing Entry to Practice Programme to 1,300. Ensuring we have a well-qualified nursing workforce to meet the future needs of our health service is important. We now have 3,200 more nurses employed by district health boards than when this Government was elected in 2008.

💬 Hon Annette King: How will his belated announcement days before the election period, at least 2 years after Health Workforce New Zealand warned of a nursing shortage, and just before he throws in the towel, help Kim, who wrote to me last week saying only one person—only one person—in her class of 40 has got a job offer now?

💬 Hon TONY RYALL: It would depend on which year that student graduated—

💬 Hon Annette King: They’ve just graduated now.

💬 Hon TONY RYALL: Oh, graduating now. If we look at the July 2014 graduates, already 42 percent of them have found jobs, which is pretty good compared with roughly between 80 and 90 percent of the previous cohort. We are making a lot of progress, and I am pretty pleased that we have found the money for these extra 200 training places.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Cost to Consumers

Can I begin by observing that the standard of dress on that side of the House is evidence that you can have lots of money but no class. [Interruption] Oh, I struck a nerve here, eh?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: And now we will have the question.

11. to the Prime Minister: Is he satisfied that the current Minister for Climate Change Issues is working for all New Zealanders?

Yes, and can I note that on that side of the House you can have lots of MPs but you never hear from them. [Interruption]

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, I know you are worried. They all know hope is on its way. How can this Minister for Climate Change Issues be working for all New Zealanders when an economic analysis by Infometrics just out shows households are being charged substantially more than the emissions trading scheme compliance costs being paid by energy and liquid fuel companies supplying them?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I have not seen that report, but what I do know is that if you look at the emissions trading scheme, New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world outside of the European Union that actually has an emissions trading scheme. I think that the emissions trading scheme, when you think about the fact that it applies effectively what is a floating rate for carbon—and that rate is very low—shows that while it is having some impact on the economy, the effect on households is relatively low.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Minister for Climate Change Issues be working for all New Zealanders when energy and liquid fuel companies have price gouged New Zealanders for almost NZ$1.4 billion by overcharging households an average 75 percent more than these companies paid in emissions trading scheme compliance costs, as shown by an economic analysis by Infometrics?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member is actually wrong in his numbers or, at least, the analysis is wrong. It is also dangerous making assumptions of what is actually happening, because it depends when those companies actually acquired the units. But, as I said, overall the system is a modest one, but I think it is working for New Zealanders.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table three papers by Infometrics, one dated 3 June on electricity costs, the second on 1 May in respect of Genesis Energy’s charging, and the third on 24 June on carbon prices.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those three particular papers. Is there any objection to their being tabled? There is none. They can be tabled.

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

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Minister for Climate Change Issues be working for all New Zealanders when energy and liquid fuel companies are purchasing foreign carbon credits for NZ$3, while overcharging New Zealand taxpayers an average of $11 per credit, and if this is not a financial rort as pointed out by Infometrics, what is?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member is wrong. We are not actually doing that. What I can say in terms of those foreign assigned amount units, which the member is talking about, is that actually the Government has moved to eliminate those being purchased by New Zealand companies.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Minister for Climate Change Issues be doing what was much vaunted by the National Party, working for all New Zealanders, when iwi alone have lost a further $600 million as a result of the collapse of the New Zealand carbon market, an opportunity to bring thousands of jobs to the regions at no cost to taxpayers?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is demonstrating, I think, that he does not actually understand how the system works. On the one hand, he is saying that those people who purchase carbon units at high levels and therefore pass that on to the consumer are somehow rorting the system, but those who did not sell their units and now the unit price has dropped are somehow also rorting the system, both of which cannot be right.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, I can see how Wall Street works! How can the Minister for Climate Change Issues be working for all New Zealanders when Genesis Energy, price gouging its customers by their electricity bills between 2010 and 2012, attained additional profits of $36.5 million and inflated artificially its share value; if so, why has he not done anything at all to stop it?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I reject the claim made by the member. But what I would say is that on this side of the House we have had a climate change policy that, I think, has been pitched at about the right level. I think it has been modest but fair for New Zealanders. If the member feels incredibly strongly about these climate change issues and about the amount that consumers might pay, I strongly suggest that he joins with his rejection of the Mana Party and drop kicks the Greens as well, because they will have the price of carbon at five times what it currently is.

Diplomatic Incident, Malaysian Official—Briefings and Waiver of Diplomatic Immunity

12. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Did his office receive an email at approximately 5.00 pm (New Zealand time) on 22 May 2014 advising that the Malaysian Government had refused to waive diplomatic immunity in Muhammad Rizalman’s case; if so, when was that email opened?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Minister, my office has been advised that this answer may be longer than normal.

As the Minister has already said publicly, one staff member from his office was copied into an internal Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade email on 22 May. The email reported that the diplomat had returned to Malaysia in light of a decision by Malaysian authorities to decline a request for a waiver of immunity. The staff member did not open the email when it was received, as she was travelling at the time with limited communications capacity and was not the usual contact point for such reports. The email was identified in June, when correspondence was reviewed in the office. The inquiry initiated by the Minister reflects the fact that the management of this case and associated events have had a serious impact on a young woman and have quite rightly undermined public confidence in the management of diplomatic immunity. The Minister expects the correspondence between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and his office to form part of that inquiry. He does not plan to comment further until that process is completed.

💬 David Shearer: Given that the Minister was travelling and was arriving in New York at the time, was communication that difficult in New York to prevent the opening of that email and having it read?

I think that question has already been addressed in the opening answer. Basically, they had limited communications capacity.

💬 David Shearer: If the Minister is saying that the email was received and not opened, when was it finally opened in June?

I do not have that exact information. What I have said is that the email was identified in the office in June.

💬 David Shearer: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question was on notice. It defies belief that this was not gone into before the Minister came to the House.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member is raising a reasonable point. It was a question on notice. We have identified that it was in June. I would have been hopeful that the date in June could also have been identified for the benefit of the House. The Minister is responsible for the answer; it is for the member to judge that answer.

💬 David Shearer: Given that revelation today, why do the terms of reference into the investigation into what happened at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade not extend to what was going on in the activities in the Minister’s office and the actions of the Minister himself, in light of that investigation?

It is up to Mr John Whitehead to consider how he undertakes this inquiry. The Minister expects the correspondence between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and his office to form part of that review, and he expects to be interviewed, as well as relevant members of staff.

💬 David Shearer: Given his answer to question No. 6 on 2 July that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade failed to inform its Minister, will he now admit that the failure was actually his and his own office’s?

The point is that there is an inquiry into all these matters, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs does not intend to comment further until that is concluded.