Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, why?

Yes, because I believe them to be correct at the time they were made.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he stand by his statement that he would “hate to see New Zealanders as tenants in their own country”; if so, why did his Government so avidly support Shanghai Pengxin Group’s purchase of farms in the central North Island and now 10 dairy farms south of Kaikohe in Northland?

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

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Opposing investment in Northland again.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, here is “Big Ears” again. He lost in Northland pretty badly.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am going to invite the member to stand and ask the supplementary question.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why has his Government encouraged China to control so much of New Zealand’s dairy infant formula, from production testing through to marketing and sale of New Zealand’s premium agricultural product?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The position of the Government is not necessarily to encourage investment from anywhere but to allow a framework whereby if people want to invest they are free to do so, but they have to meet the conditions set out in the Overseas Investment Act. They have to be approved by the Overseas Investment Office. Actually, the Government thinks investments by Inner Mongolia Yili Industrial Group Co. Ltd, Yashili New Zealand Dairy, and Bright and others have actually been sensible investments in the same way that we think Fonterra’s investment in Beingmate was also a sensible investment.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: When will the National Government understand the law of supply and demand, which sees Auckland housing demand massively inflated by record levels of immigration into Auckland and record levels of buying Auckland homes by offshore interests, and do what the Australian Federal Government has done?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I understand it, in Australia what they have done is they have stopped, in theory, non-residents from buying existing properties, but in fact the actions of the Australian Government over the weekend essentially are saying that those measures were not working and required greater enforceability—a testimony to why those things are very difficult to enforce. The second thing is that despite the steps the Australian Government has taken, I am pretty sure I am right in saying that Sydney house prices have risen at the same rate as Auckland’s, but I actually think they have risen at a faster rate.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Do not all those answers add up to the fact that this Government, whilst making dog whistles about foreign ownership before the general election, has done absolutely nothing to stop it since?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There is foreign investment. If one looks at a table—and, funnily enough, I looked at one this morning—the bulk of that foreign investment actually comes from Australia. China, if the member is being specific about China, is quite a small investor in New Zealand. But, interestingly enough, what I think is really important is that anybody who comes to New Zealand from overseas to invest follows the Overseas Investment Act. I am interested to note, of course, that the author of that Act was the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Answers to parliamentary questions are meant to be terse and to the point. That last statement was a demonstrable lie.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would also be grateful if the member could, equally, ask short and terse supplementary questions.

Inflation—Crown Revenue

2. to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on low inflation in New Zealand, and how does that benefit households and businesses?

As the published figures have shown, New Zealand is experiencing very low inflation—or, more accurately, in the last 6 months actually we have had deflation. Usually in an economy growing at 3 percent, inflation is rising, not falling. However, it is good news for New Zealand households and businesses, which can expect to see interest rates and inflation stay lower for longer than they expected, and this is likely to help to reduce unemployment and sustain real wage growth.

💬 Tim Macindoe: What impact does lower than expected inflation have on Government revenue?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Very low inflation and lower interest rates and lower commodity prices mean that growth in the dollar value of what New Zealand produces each year is a bit lower than expected. Treasury now expects that the dollar value of what we produce each year over the next 4 years will be around $15 billion less than forecast in Budget 2014, even though the economy will actually grow slightly faster than we expected in Budget 2014. This poses some real challenges for Government revenue, because it means less PAYE, less company tax, and less GST. In total, Treasury expects the Government will collect $4.5 billion less tax revenue over the next 4 years than it expected at the last Budget.

💬 Grant Robertson: In light of that question and answer, is it in fact correct that “lower than expected inflation” actually means lower Government expenditure as well?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: As it turns out, the inflation impact on Government expenditure is considerably less than the impact on spending and the impact on tax revenue. That member had better figure it out, because his other members are always advocating more spending when he is advocating bigger surpluses.

💬 Tim Macindoe: How is lower revenue having an impact on the Government’s ability to return the books to surplus in 2014-15?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Back in December Treasury forecast that the deficit for the 2014-15 year would be around $570 million, which is just 0.2 percent of GDP. It is fair to say that the forecast for the 2014-15 year has deteriorated a little since December, so we expect the Budget to forecast a slightly bigger deficit for 2014-15, and a slightly smaller surplus for 2015-16. So, while progress is slower than expected, we remain on track to achieve surpluses and to start repaying debt.

💬 Tim Macindoe: What steps has the Government taken to get on top of spending and return the books to balance?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has been very thoughtful about its new spending, and very thoughtful about what drives existing spending. If you want a measure of that, in the last six Budgets, the total annual cost of new initiatives has been just under $3 billion. By comparison, the last six Budgets of the previous Government totalled $20 billion of extra costs—$20 billion as opposed to $3 billion. But despite the fact that we have had very constrained spending, we have been delivering better public services with better results for New Zealanders.

Ministers—Conduct

3. to the Prime Minister: Does he enforce high standards of conduct on all his Ministers, including himself?

Yes. However, in respect of my actions at a Parnell cafe, my conduct clearly upset the staff member in question. I sincerely apologised to her at the time that I became aware of that, and I have continued to do so publicly.

💬 Andrew Little: Does he accept that repeatedly pulling a woman’s hair who was just trying to do her job, despite her indicating to him to stop, was unworthy of any grown man, let alone the Prime Minister?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I accept I misread the situation. I have apologised for that.

💬 Andrew Little: Does he accept that through his embarrassing and weird behaviour he has now made the office of the Prime Minister of New Zealand an international laughing stock?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, but I do accept I have to take responsibility for my own actions.

💬 Andrew Little: Has he read the section of the Cabinet Manual that states: “incumbent Ministers should ensure that any requests they make for advice or information from their officials is for the purposes of their portfolio responsibilities and not for party political purposes.”; if so, was the advice and information Simon Bridges sought from the New Zealand Transport Agency used in National’s Northland bridges policy?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Information.

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: My understanding is that information was asked for—I might need to check that—and that is appropriate.

💬 Andrew Little: Why is he allowing a Minister whose portfolio conflicts with the alleged actions of his own brother to remain as Minister, and why does he not follow the high standard I set in temporarily standing down Carmel Sepuloni in similar circumstances?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a very marginal call. I am going to allow the Prime Minister to deal with it.

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, because I took advice on the day that I became aware of it. The advice was very clear that there had been no conflict up to that point and any potential conflict could be managed. I think all members of this House appreciate that there are potential conflicts, as an electorate MP right through to a Cabinet Minister, and they need to be managed. In relation to the actions that he took with Carmel Sepuloni, I personally think he made the wrong call.

💬 Andrew Little: Does he stand by his statement made after Mike Sabin resigned that Mr Sabin could have been a Minister, and what does that say about the standards he sets for ministerial office?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I do stand by that statement. In the time that Mike Sabin was part of our caucus I actually found him to be a very thoughtful, hard-working member of Parliament. He had good policy ideas and I think he could have made a very, very good Minister.

💬 Andrew Little: Is it not true that he is allowing Ministers off the hook because he has lost his moral authority and that is why Judith Collins is sharpening her knives?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just before I call the member, I am waiting for a bit of assistance from my left.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does this mean that his subterranean standards are so low that Judith Collins, despite the appalling Oravida scandal and numerous gaffes, is soon to be welcomed back into Cabinet?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The great news on this side of the House is that we have a caucus full of talent and opportunity. Judith happens to be one of its members. There are many others, and if one day an opportunity opens itself, I am sure that Judith, along with many others, will be wanting to put her hand up. It is nice to have some fantastic people to choose from.

New Zealand International Convention Centre Act 2013 Repeal Bill—Fiscal Impact

My question is to the Minister for Economic Development and reads as follows—[Interruption]

Order! There is just too much noise from my left-hand side. I will ask the member to start his question again.

4. to the Minister for Economic Development: What are the fiscal risks to the Crown from Tracey Martin’s New Zealand International Convention Centre Act 2013 Repeal Bill, if any?

If the bill was to pass—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am about to lose my patience with one member in particular. There has just been perpetual interjection from one member, particularly, in a very loud voice. If it happens again I will be asking that member to leave the Chamber.

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: If the bill was to pass and the New Zealand International Convention Centre Act repealed, the risks would be high. In terms of direct Crown liability, to begin with, the Government would be liable for half of the design costs up to a maximum of $10 million. But following the signing of a building works contract that liability would rise potentially to the value of the concessions, which would be in excess of $400 million, as set out in clause 22 of the agreement. Also important is the reputational risk. If a Government is to be able to contract, other parties to that contract need to be able to trust that the Government will follow through. Subsequent cancellation of a contract of this magnitude would mean that other parties would be less likely to contract with the Government in the future, or price in that risk. I am pleased, therefore, that that member and others on this side of the House will not be supporting the repeal bill.

💬 Tracey Martin: Can the Minister confirm that Mr Seymour was in support of my bill until, one, he saw the polling in Northland, and, two, he received a phone call—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, there is no ministerial responsibility for the bill in that question. If the member wishes to ask a question that relates to the ministerial responsibility I will accept it. The way it is phrased at the moment it will be ruled out of order.

💬 Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I rephrase the question to meet the—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have given the opportunity for the member to rephrase it.

💬 Tracey Martin: Thank you very much. Can the Minister confirm that Mr Seymour was in support of my bill until he received a phone call from the Minister himself?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question is not in order.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the Minister’s answer he introduced the bill and said that the ACT Party member was supporting it. It is perfectly reasonable for a follow-up supplementary question to address the answer that the Minister gave.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will listen again to the question. The way it was phrased, in my mind, I have made absolutely the correct decision. There must be a ministerial responsibility. If the member can relate it to the ministerial responsibility, then I will accept the question. I am trying to assist the member.

💬 Tracey Martin: Can the Minister confirm—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Start again.

💬 Tracey Martin: Can the Minister confirm whether he has seen any reports indicating Mr Seymour’s support of the bill until he received a call from the Minister himself, pressuring him to change his position?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is absolutely no ministerial responsibility—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I listened to the question. It is a very easy question for the Minister to address. The Minister was asked whether he had seen any reports.

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, I have seen reports. I am not sure that I could verify those reports, exactly; they were from a media outlet. But I have seen the reports.

💬 Tracey Martin: Can the Minister explain why he and the questioner, David Seymour, are now asserting the sanctity of contract law around my bill, in light of the fact that Skycity has already indicated that it is in breach of a core platform of this particular contract? [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister did not hear the question I can get it repeated.

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure that that member is correct. What I can tell her, though, in relation to her bill, is that she does say at the outset of her bill, I understand through the press release, that she is very keen to minimise costs to taxpayers. I agree with her that that is important, but the simple reality is that the bill that she is proposing would actually dramatically increase costs to taxpayers.

💬 Tracey Martin: Can the Minister confirm that it was he who negotiated this contract, which included clause 22, and whether it will cost the New Zealand taxpayer more or less than they have paid for the Novopay contract debacle he was supposed to be fixing?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I did not personally negotiate the contract with Skycity. I did sign the contract on behalf of the Government, and I can confirm that the Skycity contract as constructed says quite clearly that the concessions are in response to the construction of the New Zealand International Convention Centre, and as such it would be considerably cheaper than the Novopay contract signed by the previous Labour Government.

💬 David Seymour: What can we learn about the role of Governments in commercial enterprises, and has the Minister seen any reports of other parties proposing such enterprises in their manifestos recently?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think the—[Interruption] Order! The first part of the question can be answered.

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think Governments should always be careful in their involvement with commercial enterprises and be seeking to transfer the risk to, for example, the private sector, as has been done, for example, in the ultra-fast broadband contract that is being supported by this Government. That has transferred the risk to the private sector and resulted in a very competitive development of ultra-fast broadband in this country, as compared with, for example, Australia, where the taxpayer took on the commercial risk and it has cost masses and masses of billions of dollars.

Business Research and Development—Funding

5. to the Minister of Science and Innovation: What is the Government doing to grow business-led research and development?

Recently the Prime Minister and I announced that, as part of Budget 2015, the Government will invest an additional $80 million in research and development growth grants over 4 years, to encourage more private sector research and development and grow New Zealand’s research and development ecosystem. Research and development growth grants are non-discretionary and meet 20 percent of the cost of an eligible firm’s research and development programme. To qualify, they must commit to spending at least $300,000 and at least 1.5 percent of revenue a year on research and development, conducted in New Zealand. The new funding is equivalent to a 14 percent increase in Callaghan Innovation’s total research and development grants budget, and contributes to the almost $1.5 billion the Government will be spending and investing in science and innovation in the coming financial year.

💬 Paul Foster-Bell: How does investing more in business-led research and development further diversify the New Zealand economy?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Research and development growth grants are a crucial part of our efforts to boost levels of private sector research and development in New Zealand and lift innovation. A strong emphasis on research and development helps to diversify and strengthen the New Zealand economy and ensure our companies maintain competitiveness internationally. This is borne out by the range of industries investing more in research and development in New Zealand these days. The top two industries, by value, in 2013-14 were manufacturing with 54 percent, and information and communications technology with 23 percent, of the research and development growth grants funding. This compares favourably with countries where research and development tax credits are in place and where the research and development tends to simply match the profile of existing industries—for example, in Australia, where mining and financial services are apparently the most innovative industries.

💬 Paul Foster-Bell: What examples has he recently seen of New Zealand companies growing internationally through their investment in research and development?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Hundreds of New Zealand companies are now succeeding on the world stage through their research and development, in many cases supported by Callaghan Innovation. For example, just last week I was privileged to be in Latin America and officially open the new Sao Paulo offices for growth grant recipient Tait Communications, which is succeeding very well in Latin America. [Interruption] I also visited research and development project grant recipient ADInstruments from Dunedin, which is doing a great job producing data acquisition and analysis systems for the life sciences industry, and is expanding its presence in South America. The success of these and other innovative Kiwi companies around the world is lifting New Zealand’s export revenue and growing jobs and incomes for Kiwis, including for people from Dunedin, Mr Clark.

Government Financial Position—Return to Surplus

6. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in relation to achieving a surplus that it is like “landing a 747 on a pinhead”?

Yes, because history shows that fiscal forecasts and out-turn move around quite substantially. For example, in Budget 2008 the then Minister of Finance was forecasting a $1.3 billion operating balance before gains and losses surplus in 2008-09. As it turned out, he left the Government books in deficit by $3.9 billion that year, and Treasury told us that we faced never-ending deficits under the previous Government’s policies. So, yes, forecasts can move around a lot, but this Government is making good progress on fixing up the hash of it that Labour made.

💬 Andrew Little: Why is he trying to minimise the importance of achieving a surplus this year, when he has made it a core part of his Government’s credibility for the past 4 years; why can he not just admit he has failed?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We are not trying to minimise it. We are pointing out that there are a number of factors that make it a little bit trickier—and that is, for instance, that inflation is so much lower, which is great for consumers, and that there are a number of areas where there has been a re-evaluation by Treasury. But if we just take a step back for a moment and say that in 2011 what the deficit was, the answer was $18.4 billion. The Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update forecast for this year’s deficit is $585 million. I will point out that every single attempt to either raise revenue or cut expenditure by this Government has been opposed by the Labour Opposition.

💬 Andrew Little: Does he accept that he would now likely be on track to surplus if his Government had not spent $36,000 on sending Ministers to Northland, had not wasted tens of millions of dollars on Novopay, had not lost hundreds of millions of dollars in dividends due to the asset sales, and was not blowing the Budget on everything from charter schools to Inland Revenue Department computers?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. I will point out that Novopay was something that came along under the previous Labour Government. When it comes to the hundreds of millions of—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the answer with that sort of noise.

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: When it comes to the hundreds of millions of dollars more that we might have got under the mixed-ownership model, that was money that was literally blown by the reckless policies of Labour, so firmly rejected by the New Zealand public.

💬 Andrew Little: Why does he say that low inflation is to blame for his failure to reach surplus, when low inflation saves the Government money just as it saves the taxpayers from paying more tax; why does he always greet failure with excuses rather than fronting up?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am hugely fearful that the Leader of the Opposition is getting his economic advice from Grant Robertson. He needs to go and read a decent speech on economics, and he would see one from the Minister of Finance where he quite accurately pointed out that because of lower inflation over the next 4 years, the Government’s revenue will be $15 billion less and the tax revenue the Crown receives will be $4.5 billion less. Low inflation is great for consumers, great for business; it just ain’t great for Government revenue.

💬 Andrew Little: When will he admit that his Government acting as a bystander at the dairy auctions rather than building a more diverse economy is the real reason his economic promises are falling away as fast as the milk price?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not know whether I misinterpreted the question from the Leader of the Opposition, but he seems to be saying that the Government should be in there buying milk powder in the auction. If he is, that is an interesting use of Government resources.

Budget 2015—Employment Standards

7. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: How will Budget 2015 help strengthen compliance with minimum employment standards?

Today I announced that Budget 2015 will invest $32 million more over 4 years to support employment relations services to help strengthen compliance with minimum standards. It will boost the labour inspectorate, strengthen education and information services, and address breaches of employment law. The funding will see six new labour inspectors for Auckland, building on last year’s Budget, which funded six more in Christchurch. The latest boost shows that the labour inspectorate staff numbers comprise a 57 percent increase on the size of the 2008 inspectorate that this Government inherited.

💬 Sarah Dowie: How does this announcement build on other work the Government is doing in this area?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: This funding will support the recently announced package of measures to strengthen the enforcement of minimum employment standards, including tougher sanctions. A bill to put these measures in place is expected to be introduced mid-year. It also follows the passing last week of the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2), which imposes heavy penalties on employers exploiting migrant workers including 7 years’ imprisonment and a $100,000 fine, or deportation. This Government is committed to protecting the integrity of the labour market and ensuring fair and productive workplaces. Budget 2015 will provide an excellent example yet again of that commitment.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: How will the fact that he has allowed migrant workers to work in New Zealand for 6 months without the protection of New Zealand employment law, and supports labour inspectors being told to “butt out” when they try to enforce the Minimum Wage Act, impact the ability of the six extra labour inspectors to strengthen minimum employment standards?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: As the member knows, it is the Minister of Immigration who has allowed those workers to come in under special purposes, but I stand by the labour inspectorate’s investigation into the welfare of those workers. Their welfare has been well supported, and I accept that.

Housing Market—Auckland

8. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements?

Yes, in the context in which they were made.

💬 Kevin Hague: As the Minister is happy to have the problems of success, as he told the The Nation television programme on the weekend, could he tell the House whether it is a mark of this Government’s success that the homeownership rate is at its lowest since 1951, and whether he is happy about that?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I know the Greens do not like any kind of economic success; they regard it as an attack on the environment. But we think that on balance it benefits most people, so, yes, in answer to your first question, we are happy to have the problems of success. Secondly, with regard to homeownership rates, the member may not be aware of the HomeStart programme, launched on 1 April—I hope he is advising his constituents about it—which will assist particularly young New Zealanders into homeownership. The steady decline in homeownership since the late 1950s tells us, I think, a bit more about demographic change—the change in the nature of households and so on; particularly, say, for instance, in the fast growth in the sole-parent household—and is probably a stronger explanation than some others that the member has in mind.

💬 Kevin Hague: Is it another mark of this Government’s success that the median house price in Auckland has now reached $753,500, with an average sale of more than $800,000, and is he happy about that?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I am not happy about it, and I am particularly unhappy with the kind of planning approach that the Greens advocate, which is part of the cause of the rapid escalation in house prices. The Greens have advocated anti-growth and anti-densification policies for years. They have been far too influential, and that is cutting low and middle income Aucklanders out of the possibility of decent housing or of owning their own house. I hope that the Greens will change their views and help us to change the Auckland Council’s views so that we can allow Auckland City to grow and to have affordable housing.

💬 Kevin Hague: Is it a problem of this Government’s success that its housing accord partner, the Auckland Council, has put the building of 2,000 to 3,000 supposedly fast-tracked homes on hold around Huapai because the Government refuses to properly fund much-needed transport links to this area?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am sure that there will be ongoing discussion with the Auckland Council, but my understanding is that, quite independent of the Government, it appears at least to have reduced its own infrastructure budget at a time when the city is under pressure to grow. That is a wee bit hard to understand, and I am sure we can have further productive discussions with the city, but it should be clear—as the Greens should be clear—that the long-term answer to affordable housing in Auckland is more houses on the ground, faster, and the Government will relentlessly focus on that objective.

💬 Kevin Hague: Is it a problem of success for this Government that the Auckland Council is actually caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to housing, with Auckland ratepayers being the rock, and working with this Government being the extremely hard place?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Auckland Council would not have to work with the Government if it built enough houses fast enough for the people who want to go to Auckland and pay rates. But it is also caught with dealing with community groups fostered and encouraged by the Greens to oppose new building of houses in Auckland communities when we need them.

💬 Kevin Hague: Does it make the Minister happy that he and his Government wilfully ignore the advice of organisations such as the OECD and the Reserve Bank and rule out introducing a capital gains tax to curb property speculation, which is driving up house prices in Auckland?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may be aware that New Zealand already has tax law that taxes gains from speculation, as if it is income, at the marginal income tax rate. So, no, I am not unhappy to be considering OECD or Reserve Bank advice and not necessarily taking it, because what we have discovered in this whole process is that planning law—such as that advocated by the Greens—that tries to restrict the growth of Auckland creates inequality for low and middle income households that cannot afford housing, and it creates very high and volatile house prices. We will continue to work hard to undo the damage of the previous 20 years, when that philosophy was put in place. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] I am just waiting for Mr Twyford.

💬 Kevin Hague: Is it not insulting to tell young Aucklanders who are desperately trying to buy a house and are being outbid at auctions week after week by property speculators that this Government’s policies, which do absolutely nothing to address the demand side of the housing market, are a success?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: What would be insulting to tell young Aucklanders is the Greens saying to them that they should have cheap houses but the Greens are opposed to roads, to cars, to digging up the ground, to creating subdivisions, and to building houses. That is what is insulting to young Aucklanders. It is Labour and the Greens saying: “You should have cheap houses but you’re not allowed to do any of the things that ensure that more houses get built faster.”

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that that answer does not fulfil the requirements of the Standing Orders where ministerial answers are concerned. It was all about some other party’s so-called stance—totally irrelevant to the question being asked.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion, when I consider the start of the question, “Isn’t it insulting”, the Minister, I think, has addressed the question. It would have been helpful if he had not used it as an opportunity to attack the Green Party to the extent he did. I accept that point.

Surgery, Elective—Waiting Lists for Orthopaedic Services

9. to the Minister of Health: Are New Zealanders who require elective surgery receiving it in a timely manner?

Yes, the number of elective surgeries has increased by 44,000 a year in the last 6 years under this Government—a remarkable turn-round, given that elective surgeries fell by 2,000 between the years of 2000 and 2006. By doing more and more operations, the number of New Zealanders waiting over 6 months has reduced from nearly 7,000 New Zealanders in 2006 to a handful today.

💬 Hon Annette King: In light of that answer, why did Dr John Cullen, a highly respected clinical leader at Waitematā District Health Board, tell the chief executive officer less than 1 month ago that in addition to raising the threshold at which people can get an operation that leads to clinical risk, “The situation is controlled by the use of a suspended list.”?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: If any member reads that article in the New Zealand Herald on Saturday morning, they will know that Mr Cullen then retracted his statement. Over the last 6 years at Waitematā District Health Board, elective surgery has increased by 51 percent. That is a total of 6,500 more operations every year, 21,000 extra operations for people in that district health board area in total, and we have delivered more than 13,000 more first appointments there. The answer to increased demand is to do more operations, and nationally we have done 44,000 more operations and delivered 50,000 more first specialist appointments—a lot better than that person’s record when she—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a letter from Dr John Cullen, clinical leader, Waitematā District Health Board, dated 10 April 2015, entitled “An impossible situation”, setting out why the management of both elective and acute surgery is increasingly difficult.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been described. It is a letter by Dr John Cullen. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is not. It can be tabled.

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

💬 Hon Annette King: Why did Dr John Cullen send an email to the chief executive officer of Waitematā District Health Board on 10 April 2015 saying that the operations manager of orthopaedic surgery is concerned at the potential adverse publicity following the return of patients to their general practitioner even after they were given certainty for surgery?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member would have to ask Mr Cullen that, but he has actually since retracted his statement. What we do know is that those people who were sent back to their general practitioner went back because there was incomplete information in the referral, because more testing was needed, and also, very importantly, because surgery was not appropriate. This member is trying to make something out of nothing, but what remains is that we are doing more surgery at Waitematā District Health Board and providing more appointments, whereas that member actually provided fewer.

💬 Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the email from Dr John Cullen dated 10 April 2015 raising concerns about sending patients back to their general practitioner after being given certainty—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular email. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

💬 Hon Annette King: Is he aware that district health boards are either raising the threshold at which patients can get surgery or introducing measures such as suspended lists and patient pathways in an effort to meet the Government’s targets, which are virtually impossible to meet with the financial resources they have?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look, that is completely incorrect. The information I have is that there are no hidden lists. What I can tell you is that people go back to their general practitioner because surgery is not appropriate, because the referral is incomplete, or because they need more testing. But we are doing 44,000 more operations and 50,000 more appointments, so more surgery, more appointments—a lot better than that member’s record.

💬 Hon Annette King: Is another way to manage the waiting lists to refer patients back to their general practitioner, like the Taranaki District Health Board, which has increased the number of people refused an orthopaedic first specialist assessment by 142 percent under the last 3 years of this Government?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: What I do know is that that data is very incomplete. But what is a fact is that there have been 1,216 more electives performed in Taranaki under this Government and there has been a 5,000 cumulative increase in first specialist appointments, unlike when Annette King was Minister, when—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has completed his answer as far as I am concerned.

💬 Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act release from the Taranaki District Health Board dated 19 March 2015 showing a 142 percent increase over the last 3 years of letters refusing first specialist appointments for people wanting orthopaedic surgery.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular Official Information Act release. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I seek leave to table a document showing that we are doing 1,216 more electives a year in Taranaki and delivered—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need the source of the document and the date.

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: This is current information compiled by health officials. You will not find it anywhere else, so I suggest—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is it very recent information?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Very recent.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave.

💬 Hon Members: What’s the date?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It is very recent. That will do on this occasion. [Interruption] Order! The members themselves can decide. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table this—[Interruption] Order! Leave is sought to table this particular information from the Ministry of Health of a recent date. Is there any objection?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is compiled by health officials, including advisers, and the date is today.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is of assistance. We have now dated it to be today. 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.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption]

💬 Hon Annette King: You show yours and I’ll show mine.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have no intention, I can assure you.

Sign Language Fund—Sign Language Week

10. to the Minister for Disability Issues: How is the Government’s investment in the New Zealand Sign Language Fund helping sign language users to promote and maintain the language during Sign Language Week?

Sign Language Week is a chance to celebrate one of New Zealand’s official languages. It is a language that is spoken by over 20,000 Kiwis every day. The Government has invested $350,000 to raise awareness about this unique language during Sign Language Week 2015 and provide all New Zealanders with an opportunity to get involved and connect with the Deaf community. This is in addition to the $11 million the Government has invested over 4 years to support deaf children and their families by helping school-aged and preschool children learn sign language and provide more sign language support and tutors in schools.

💬 Stuart Smith: How can New Zealanders take part in New Zealand Sign Language Week?

💬 Hon NICKY WAGNER: Hundreds of events are taking place across New Zealand this week. There are tours of galleries and museums with sign language interpreters, comedy shows, pop-up sign language cafes, and over 745 New Zealand Sign Language taster classes being available. Raising awareness of sign language helps the Deaf community and other users of the language to connect with all New Zealanders. I encourage us Kiwis to get out and give it a go. Happy Sign Language Week.

Climate Change—Native Species

11. to the Minister of Conservation: Does she agree with Professor Mark Urban that New Zealand’s indigenous species are at greater risk of extinction from climate change than species in many other parts of the world; and if not, why not?

Yes.

💬 Eugenie Sage: Has she ever tried to convince her Cabinet colleagues to protect our native species at risk of extinction from climate change by adopting policies that reduce New Zealand’s emissions; if not, why not?

💬 Hon MAGGIE BARRY: I have spoken to my Cabinet colleagues and caucus and this House on many occasions about the need to preserve and protect more of our endangered species. In terms of the climate change part of your question, that is best directed to the Minister for Climate Change Issues.

💬 Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister accept that if New Zealand contributes to a more than 2-degree warming of the planet by our emissions increasing by 50 percent over the next 10 years, as the Ministry for the Environment predicts, this will increase the extinction risk for our indigenous species?

💬 Hon MAGGIE BARRY: I refute the so-called facts in that member’s question and disagree with them.

💬 Eugenie Sage: Well, how can the Minister, as the Minister of Conservation, stand by while climate change increases the extinction risk for our threatened species to 14 percent, as Mark Urban predicts?

💬 Hon MAGGIE BARRY: This Government and I as the Minister of Conservation are certainly not standing by. An example I would draw the member’s attention to is the Battle for our Birds, which was a direct response to what happened with a masting—that is, a very extensive seeding of the beech trees. Many people understand that the reason that triggers the mast of a beech forest is to do with temperatures. Warmer temperatures mean higher seeding, which means plague proportions of rats—25 million. We planned for that, we analysed it, and we unrolled a strategy called Battle for our Birds, which resulted in the successful turn-round of the decline of at least 12 of our native species. It was a highly successful campaign.

Government Financial Position—Return to Surplus

12. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “returning to surplus and repaying debt are among the most important things the Government can do to ensure New Zealand can withstand future shocks and build a more competitive economy based on exports and new jobs”; if so, will there be a surplus for the 2014/15 year?

In answer to his questions, yes, I do stand by my statement and, no, there will not be a surplus for that year. But I want to thank our public servants for their role in the very substantial progress the Government has made on getting back to surplus. They have worked hard to provide more for less, and despite the fact that for many public services there has been no new money, public trust in public services is higher than it has ever been—certainly, it is higher than the period when the previous Labour Government was pouring cash into every service.

💬 Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, why did he make the promise to New Zealanders in September last year that No. 1 of his five fiscal priorities for the next 3 years was “Return to surplus this year and maintain surpluses over the next 3 years”?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because it still is our very high priority to get back to surplus. The analogy I used the other day was if you set out to lose 10 kilos and you lose 9.9 kilos, you are almost there, and we are almost there with the surplus.

💬 Grant Robertson: In light of that answer from the Minister, if he was trying to lose 10 kilos to fit into a suit for his brother’s wedding and he lost only 9.8 kilos, he still does not fit into the suit, and is that not a failure?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well—

💬 Tim Macindoe: He can just borrow one of yours.

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes. It was my niece’s wedding and the suit was a bit tight, but I wish I had borrowed the member’s.

💬 Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, and as someone with some knowledge of weight loss in recent times, can the Minister finally admit that he has failed to meet the promise he made to New Zealanders at the last election to get into surplus this year, and will he finally ditch the excuses and front up?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are no excuses. I mean, before Christmas the Government published the updated forecast, which showed a deficit. The member might have only just figured that out, but that was actually 6 months ago. So in 2014-15 we will not quite get to surplus. In 2015-16 and the following years, the member will just have to wait for the Budget. But we are on track. Actually, I have a much easier life than that member, who gets up in the House every day saying the surplus should be bigger, when all his caucus are saying that we should spend more money.

💬 David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm Treasury reports that this Government will be in surplus every year from the mid-2020s for decades, and is that a greater priority than making surplus this year; if so, what is the Government doing about it?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Bill English—any one of those three supplementary questions.

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I admire the way the member makes us all look very “short termist” here. We are focusing on a surplus now, but the member is quite correct to have understood that the Government is making decisions, particularly around the way it is approaching long-term welfare dependency, that will be having an impact on surpluses in the 2020s. For instance, the number of sole parents under 20 has dropped by 40 percent in 3 years. New Zealand will be making savings because of that intervention for the next 20 or 30 years.

💬 Grant Robertson: Can the Minister guarantee a surplus for the 2015-16 year?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will just have to wait for the Budget. But I can anticipate that in the Budget, whatever the operating balance is, the Government will be pointing out that these numbers move around according to economic conditions. What is under our control is Government expenditure, and that is certainly on track.

Questions to Members

New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill—Submissions

1. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: How many submitters on the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill have asked to be heard by the committee and of those how many has she requested to attend to give evidence?

The committee has received 256 submissions on the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill, which includes one form submission. The committee has agreed to hear 34 oral submissions.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Did she, before she exercised her power to decide whether to call witnesses, read the submissions she has described as form submissions, to ensure that all former service personnel and individuals who had made distinct and different arguments are heard; if not, why not?

It is normal established committee practice to treat large volumes of submissions that are identical or nearly identical as form submissions. A sample representing these submissions is placed on the committee record as representing the views of all those who submitted in this way. This, by the way, is a process that has been followed for other bills, such as the marriage equality bill.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question, I think, was quite a simple one. It asked whether she read them. I do not think that was addressed.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If the member had made it a simple question like that, it might have been easier for the matter to be addressed. It was not as simple as that, but I will ask the member to simply answer whether she has read all of the form submissions.

The committee treated some 1,500—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Has she read them!

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Will the member give me a chance to answer? The answer is I sampled, as did the clerk of the committee, a number of the form submissions. It was determined that the vast majority of those 1,761-odd submissions were either similar or essentially the same. That is why they were treated as form submissions.

New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill—Submissions

2. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: How many submitters to the committee on the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill requesting a yes/no vote has she requested attend to give evidence out of those who made submissions on this point?

The committee will be hearing from 34 submitters, a number of whom have indicated they will be speaking on the yes/no vote, and some of whom we heard from last week. We will also be hearing from that member, who will be speaking on his yes/no vote petition to the bill when the committee sits on Thursday.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Is there anything preventing her from exercising her power to request further submissions from the 747 individuals who have asked to be heard, including former servicemen, who have yet to hear from her to give evidence; if so, what is it that is preventing her from doing that?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Either of those supplementary questions, Jacqui Dean.

It was the committee’s decision not to hear oral evidence from those who submitted a form submission.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your assistance. A member has conveyed to the House a decision that was made by the select committee, and that is in itself a question for you to consider. But she has also incorrectly conveyed that it was a decision made by the committee as a whole, when that was not the case. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has raised a point of order. She knows very well the procedure if she feels an incorrect answer has been given in this House.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In light of the answer given by the chair of the committee, can I ask you to consider a ruling about whether it breaches privilege to pass that answer on to the submitters who are apparently not to be heard but have not been told?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member is asking me to give consideration to the question that was asked and the answer that was given. I will do so.