Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the outlook for the New Zealand economy?

More positive reports on the outlook for the New Zealand economy. Treasury released its Monthly Economic Indicators report for April. It says that economic growth looks set to continue over the first half of 2015, supported by business and consumer confidence and elevated levels of investment and hiring intentions, despite recent easing of those measures. The cost of living has fallen in each of the last two quarters for the first time since 1999, and inflation expectations and the expectation of businesses to increase their prices remain subdued. With no sign of emerging inflation or interest rate pressure, which might normally be expected when an economy is growing at 3 percent, the economy is exhibiting capacity for further sustainable growth.

💬 Chris Bishop: What are some of the current challenges and opportunities for New Zealand businesses and households?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: One of the challenges is, of course, the reality of lower commodity prices. This includes the fall in dairy prices, which has continued in April. Dairy prices are now back at levels last seen in December 2014. However, it is worth putting this in an international context. Between mid-2011 and December 2014, New Zealand terms of trade have actually increased by 3 percent. In the same period, the Australian terms of trade fell by 23 percent, due to a large fall in the iron ore price. So, although dairy prices are down, overall our terms of trade are roughly flat, and that compares favourably with Australia, where the terms of trade have fallen by 23 percent.

💬 Grant Robertson: In light of those answers, how does the Minister reconcile his trumpeted 3 percent growth figure with the fact that in Northland unemployment is 9.9 percent, in Manawatū and Wanganui it is over 7 percent, and in Gisborne and Hawke’s Bay it is over 7 percent, and that wage rises over the last period have been the lowest that they have been in 2 years—where is the benefit in growth in the economy for working New Zealanders?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: At any given time the growth rate is an average across the country. The member, I presume, is not suggesting that someone is making up the growth numbers. They come from Statistics New Zealand, which has statutory independence. If the member wants to use anecdotes, unemployment in the South Island is under 4 percent. I have to say, coming from the South Island, we would welcome people from Wanganui, Gisborne, and Auckland turning up to fill the empty jobs in the South Island. One of the surprising things about this cycle is how sticky unemployment appears to be in some areas where, clearly, there are not as many jobs as there are in the South Island.

💬 Chris Bishop: What reports has he received showing how growth in the economy is helping to deliver more jobs and higher wages for New Zealanders?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Labour market statistics released today show that 16,000 more people were employed in the March quarter, meaning that in the year to March 74,000 jobs were added to the economy. Labour force participation is now at an all-time high of 69.6 percent and New Zealand has the fourth-highest employment rate in the OECD—that is, the fourth-highest proportion of the working-age population actually in work. Average wages increased by 2 percent over the same period, well ahead of inflation of 0.1 percent.

💬 Chris Bishop: What were the main drivers of employment growth over the last year?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Employment growth has been reasonably broad-based. Construction added 23,000 additional jobs. Retail, accommodation, and food services added 14,000 jobs, and we know that Labour’s “manufacturing crisis” continues, because the manufacturing sector added 16,000 jobs in the last year. Members in the House may recall that in 2011 the Budget forecast 170,000 additional jobs by about now, and the economy is over 20,000 ahead of that forecast.

💬 Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library, dated yesterday or today, which—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Dr David Clark: Yesterday, I am pretty sure. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is making a point of order. I wish to hear it. So it is dated today, we have established.

💬 Dr David Clark: Either yesterday or today. It came into my in-box overnight.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: All right. Just quickly describe the document and I will decide whether to put the leave.

💬 Dr David Clark: The document is clear that a third of the economic growth is attributable to the—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need any more. The point of tabling that document is to make a political point. It is not to inform members.

💬 Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is the member attempting to relitigate a decision I have just made? Because that will require the member to be leaving the Chamber immediately.

💬 Dr David Clark: It is a point of clarification.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am not interested in a point of clarification. If it is a fresh point of—[Interruption] Order! The level of complaints I had because of the noise coming from this sector yesterday means that I intend to do something about it. I have ruled that I am not interested in putting that piece of information to the House. It does not require a point of clarification. My mind is absolutely clear. If the member has a fresh point of order I will hear it, but I am not going to have arguments continuing on that particular point of order. If the member wants to leave the Chamber, he is certainly welcome to do so.

💬 Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order. It had better be a fresh point of order.

💬 Hon Annette King: Do you intend to rule on the length of answers we are getting from the Minister—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will also resume her seat. I will judge, as I have said on many occasions, the length of answers. But when there are constant interjections coming from my left-hand side to the Minister who is answering the question, clearly that gives the opportunity for the Minister to then be responding to those interjections.

Whānau Ora—Auditor-General’s Report

2. to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Ministers’ implementation of the Whānau Ora programme in light of the Auditor-General’s report finding $42 million of its $138 million budget in its first 4 years was spent on administration?

Yes.

💬 Andrew Little: After the $42 million spent on administration and the untold millions eaten up by service providers, how much Whānau Ora money is actually reaching families in need?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have the exact number, but I can quote the Auditor-General’s report where she talks about the success Whānau Ora has had for the many families that they spoke to.

💬 Andrew Little: Why, when 2 years ago the Government announced Whānau Ora was being overhauled because it was wasteful and ineffective, has nothing changed?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Quite to the contrary, actually. I acknowledge that there were some early teething issues. When you try something new against a very complex and complicated environment, and an environment that actually had not been delivering for those families, I accept that there were some teething issues. But there are now joint agencies, and what has happened is there are now three commissioning agencies. I think the new structure that is in place is seeing a greater provision of services for those families with those complex needs.

💬 Andrew Little: When did senior Ministers on the Crown-iwi Whānau Ora Partnership Group advise him that there were issues of wasteful spending in Whānau Ora?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I simply do not have those dates, but I do know that over time there have been reviews. As I said, the system was new and it was trying to tackle these needs for complex families. I think it is actually building into a programme that has been very successful for those families. In fact, if you go and have a look at the Ministry of Health, for example, it has done a review of Whānau Ora general practices and compared them with mainstream general practices, and it has gone on to say that Whānau Ora performs as well or better. This is a new way of doing things—putting families at the heart of solving those issues, with a navigator, with these commissioning agencies, and I do think it is building into a programme that is delivering results.

💬 Andrew Little: Why has it taken the Auditor-General’s office and an expensive audit report by her to identify the wasteful spending and the $42 million spent on administration, when he had Ministers such as Bill English and Steven Joyce sitting on the Crown-iwi Whānau Ora Partnership Group who were there to advise him on the progress of the implementation of Whānau Ora?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think the member accurately categorises things. What has happened is there were some one-off costs and there has been a new way of doing things. I think that came with those costs and with some early teething issues. But the changes that took place took place because of the review work done by a variety of Ministers, including the work done by Te Puni Kōkiri and by Tariana Turia, when she was in Parliament. It actually led to these commissioning agencies, and I think they have done a much better job of tightening up the system and delivering the results we want.

💬 Andrew Little: Having spent $137 million of taxpayers’ money on Whānau Ora, does he agree with the Auditor-General that “It was not easy to describe what it is or what it has achieved.”; if so, what consequences will his Ministers face?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, as I said, the Auditor-General’s report does not cover, for the most part, the phase where now you have got the commissioning agencies. So that is the first point I would make. Secondly, what I would say is that this is an area where we have always spent a lot of money—successive Governments have, and actually they have failed to deliver results. One of the reasons is that these families have very, very complicated needs. So when you look at Whānau Ora, which nowadays has commissioning agents, within that it has the providers that go out there and it has navigators—the people who actually sit alongside the families and help them navigate a range of different agencies and support measures. Actually, I think that is the right way of tackling a very complicated and difficult area.

💬 Andrew Little: Does he accept that had he bothered to get value for money out of Whānau Ora and other Government programmes he would now be in a position to keep his promise to post a surplus in the Budget?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, quite the opposite, actually. This Government, over the course of the last 6½ years, has challenged the siloed approach that was in place under the previous Government. Actually, what it has delivered are far better results. That is why the Government is actually quite happy to have Better Public Services targets, why it actually measures those targets, and why, from everything from health to education to welfare, we are delivering better results for New Zealanders. We are doing things a different way and, frankly, it is a more integrated and better way.

State and Social Housing—Sale of Housing Stock

3. to the Minister for Social Housing: What recent announcements have been made about the next steps of the Government’s Social Housing Reform Programme?

Bill English and I today announced that Tauranga and Invercargill have been selected as the first regions for the proposed transfer of Housing New Zealand houses into community ownership. This is another important step in creating a more effective and efficient social housing sector, and is a fantastic opportunity for community housing providers in these areas to deliver housing services locally. No decisions have been made on the number of houses that will be transferred into community ownership.

💬 Todd Muller: Why have these areas been selected?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Tauranga and Invercargill have been chosen because they have active community housing providers, as well as stable demand for social housing.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: And docile MPs.

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: And I might add to that member that they have also got fantastic members of Parliament in both places who actually understand their communities and are able to do that. Actually, what is really important is there are very good local people who understand local needs and are able to deliver services locally. We want to back that, and that is part of this programme.

💬 Todd Muller: What does this announcement mean for tenants?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think it is really important that tenants understand that they will continue to be housed for the duration of their needs, that their rent will not go up if houses are transferred, and that their eligibility for income-related rent will not change unless their own circumstances do. These are tenants in these regions with long and medium-term needs, which gives community providers the opportunity to integrate housing with other services that they might provide, like mental health and disability support and alcohol and drug counselling. The whole Social Housing Reform Programme is about helping more low-income and vulnerable New Zealanders receive the support that they need.

Budget 2015—Return to Surplus

4. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements in relation to the Budget?

Yes, in the context they were given. I particularly stand by my statement that Budget 2015 will be delivered in the context of a strong and growing economy and improving Government finances.

💬 Andrew Little: Having failed to keep his promise to get the books into surplus this year, will he guarantee New Zealanders that he will not be breaking any other promises?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think New Zealanders are smart enough to work out that this is a Government that has picked up a hell of a mess from the previous Labour Government. It was a disaster that it inherited—a pile of unfunded programmes and, frankly, economic leadership that would be welcomed in Greece but actually is not welcomed in New Zealand—and it has tidied the shop up.

💬 Andrew Little: In light of his backdown on getting to surplus this year, when will he be honest with New Zealanders and give a real date on when he will finally post a surplus?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is important to understand that the data that will be in the Budget, like the data that is in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update and all the others, is put together by Treasury based on the best estimates it has. As I said to the House yesterday, interestingly enough, the revenue number for the Crown over the next 4 years is $15 billion lower than it would have been, because of low inflation. It happens to be great for businesses and for consumers—

💬 Hon Member: Take some responsibility.

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, actually, I will take responsibility for the fact that the economy is growing, we have got the fifth-highest employment rate in the OECD, and New Zealanders are flocking back to New Zealand having left in droves under the previous Labour Government.

💬 Andrew Little: Can he confirm that he also has not kept his promise to lift exports from 30 percent of GDP to 40 percent—in fact, exports have fallen back to just 29 percent of GDP?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am truly ambitious for New Zealand and for myself, but I never realised that Andrew Little was so ambitious for me, because that is our 2025 target. He is clearly expecting me to win quite a few elections between now and then.

💬 Andrew Little: In light of the consistent slide in prices in recent global dairy auctions, when can New Zealanders expect him to finally keep his export promise?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I thought we traversed this in the House yesterday, but the Government is not responsible for dairy prices. I know that the Opposition might want to blame us for them; it certainly did not want to give us any credit for them when they were going up, but it does seem to want to criticise us when they are going down. But, actually, here is a pretty simple test. We want to grow our exports. Let us sign up to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We are in. Are you in?

💬 Andrew Little: Having failed to keep his promises, when will he stop making excuses, front up, and admit he has let New Zealanders down yet again?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We are not making excuses; we are actually presenting the Government’s books. Actually, if the member wants to look at any indicators from consumer confidence, business confidence, right indicators, wrong indicators, the election result, the exchange rate movements—all of those things are indicators that it is not me who is telling New Zealanders that the country is going well; it is actually New Zealanders who are indicating to pollsters and others that the country is going well.

💬 Hon Member: Give them some credit.

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, so give those New Zealanders credit; they know what they are talking about.

Human Rights, Saudi Arabia—Trade Agreements

5. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in relation to trade with Saudi Arabia that an “… FTA gives us yet another reason for those relationships to grow and be closer together …”?

My statement actually referred to the potential free-trade agreement with the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, which covers six Gulf States. I stand by my statement: a free-trade agreement with that group gives another reason for relationships to grow and be closer together and more focused for our businesses.

💬 James Shaw: Why is he giving preferential treatment to a regime that has beheaded 72 people this year—three of whom were beheaded the day he flew out?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think you can say we are giving preferential treatment. What we are doing is trading with Saudi Arabia and with other countries that make up the Gulf cooperation council. That is not actually new. The member probably knows that our trade with the Gulf States is our fifth largest. In fact, we sell more exports to the Gulf States than we do to the United Kingdom. Actually, we have been doing trade for a long period of time. Eighteen senior business leaders came with me because they actually see this as a market of opportunity. In the last question I just had the Leader of the Opposition telling me he wanted us to do more in terms of exports. Well, that is what we were doing last week: leading a trade delegation to grow our exports.

💬 James Shaw: Has he raised human rights with the Saudi regime, and will he make any preferential trade agreement conditional on human rights being improved and beheadings being stopped?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In terms of the latter part of the question, no; in terms of the former part of the question, yes. In fact, we had quite an extensive discussion with King Salman, and we did raise human rights. And, actually, I might make the point that not only did we raise it and have a reasonably extensive discussion but we did more than President Obama did, who did not actually raise human rights when he went to Saudi Arabia. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Supplementary question, James Shaw—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. I have called for order again, to allow Mr Shaw to ask a supplementary question; the barrage continued. I will next be asking somebody to leave the Chamber, to demonstrate that we have got to have a level of decorum while questions are being asked.

💬 James Shaw: Given that he has raised beheadings and human rights abuses with the Saudi regime, what evidence does he have that the Saudi regime is improving its human rights and stopping beheadings as a result of our trade agreement with them?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have with me the details of their record in this area over time. But what I would say, though, is that there are two ways of approaching these things, are there not? One is, ultimately, one of isolation, and one is engagement. And if the member is suggesting that we should put Saudi Arabia into the camp of isolation, then that is a legitimate argument you can make. But I would say that we also do not agree with the death penalty in countries like the United States, and is he really arguing that because Texas executes people we should actually have an isolationist policy when it comes to the United States? My experience as Prime Minister is that when you have good trading relationships, when you get to know people better, you can have more fruitful discussions. And, actually, over time, I think you genuinely see change. I am not saying Saudi Arabia has a record that we want in human rights, but the evidence that people on the ground, at least, suggested to me, is that over the last few decades it has improved a bit.

💬 James Shaw: So does he stand by his statement to this House “I will not … stand by … when people out there are being beheaded”, or does that apply only to non-trading partners?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I absolutely stand by that statement. And there is a difference between a country that has its own constitution, its own laws, and decides to follow those laws, and the actions of a terrorist group. I might not agree, and I do not agree, with the death penalty, but, as I said to the member, it is not solely unique to Saudi Arabia. It is also true in the United States and other countries. It happens to be true, as we know from last week, in Indonesia. In the end, actually, there is quite a lot of difference between a country and a terrorist group like the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

💬 James Shaw: Does he think it makes any difference to the people who are being beheaded whether they are being beheaded by the Saudi regime or by ISIL?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member is actually better than a sort of somewhat flippant question. When people die it is a terrible thing, and I do not agree with beheadings. But I am just saying that people live in that country and those are the rules and laws of that country, just like we have rules and laws over here that people might not agree with.

💬 James Shaw: How bad would human rights abuses have to be in another country for New Zealand not to give preferential trade treatment to that country?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think we are giving preferential treatment. What we are trying to do is negotiate a free-trade agreement, which allows access on a more beneficial footing to both parties—and this happens to be the Gulf States, Saudi being one of those six partners. If the member’s argument is that we should not actually negotiate free-trade agreements with countries that have human rights records that we do not agree with, then you could apply that to quite a number of countries—and they are countries that the previous Government also signed free-trade agreements with.

Whānau Ora—Auditor-General’s Report

6. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in regards to Whānau Ora, “They have to be ambitious themselves—it’s a higher trust model and it has the potential to deliver better results not only for families, but also for taxpayers who are not currently getting the value for money they should be.”?

Yes.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he agree with the Auditor-General in regard to Whānau Ora that, using her words, “It was not easy to describe what it is or what it has achieved.”, or that “We could not get a consistent explanation of the aims of the initiatives in Whānau Ora”, or that “the situation has been unclear and confusing”; and what, if anything, has he done about it?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In terms of the latter part of the question, quite a bit, actually. There has been a tightening up of the system with the commissioning agents and various other reviews that have taken place. In terms of the former part of the question, as I say, improvements have been made, but it is a new way of doing things in a highly complex area. The member happens to be the MP for Northland. He probably knows that in Northland there are some very complicated cases with families that need help across a range of agencies. I am sure that when he is in his electorate office on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays, when he is not in Parliament, seeing those constituents, he will have many of them coming to him talking about those complicated needs. I look forward to seeing those constituents seeing him—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is too long.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Talking about Northland, how come a third of all payments made to Whānau Ora provider collectives went to just two of Te Puni Kōkiri’s 10 regions, and those two regions also happened, by sheer coincidence, to be where two former Māori Party Ministers come from; and what did he do as Prime Minister to stop this blatantly preferential treatment?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I reject the member’s proposition. Section 5 of the report has where all the money was spent and the different agencies that got them.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked him a very serious question, and I am waiting for an answer. It is no use saying to me that section 5 has got where the money was spent.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister rose to his feet and disputed the figures that the member had given in his question. That is an answer.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: If he wants to dispute that fact, which is easy to analyse—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just ask the question.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am asking the question—all right?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. Now he will stand and withdraw that remark immediately or leave the Chamber.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which remark, Mr Speaker?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Stand and withdraw, without embellishment.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, I withdraw the remark if it was offending you, but I had two remarks there.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just withdraw the remark, otherwise I will be—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Now the member, when I ask him to take a supplementary question, will stand and simply ask the supplementary question.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware, if he wants to put that graph of expenditure into contention, that nearly a quarter of all individuals accessing Whānau Ora funding through the Whānau Integration, Innovation and Engagement Fund between 2010—

💬 Hon Member: Is this English? Who wrote this?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, I wrote it myself, unlike that clown up there. I am able to do my own homework.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! My patience will expire very quickly with this member. The question should be concise. I will allow the member to start the question again, but would he refrain from commenting, even if there is an interjection.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware that nearly a quarter of all individuals accessing Whānau Ora funding through the Whānau Integration, Innovation and Engagement Fund between 2010 and 2012 went to just one of Te Puni Kōkiri’s 10 regions, and that that region was where the former Minister for Whanāu Ora came from; if so, what, if anything, did he do about that bias?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have two points. As I said in my earlier answer, the Office of the Auditor-General report breaks down on a year-by-year basis the costs in regions and the distribution of the money in Part 5 of the report. I go on to say that the report says that there is no suggestion of misspending or other unscrupulous activity. In relation to the second point the member made about the Whānau Integration, Innovation and Engagement Fund that was established, the point is that Whānau Ora was established in about 2010. It had to start in one place. It did not roll out everywhere because there just was not that capability all around the country from day one.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which is a better use of Government resources: $20,000 spent on special needs education to support children with dyslexia and other conditions; or the $20,000 his Government spent through Whānau Ora on Dunedin gang members, who then used the money to buy cannabis; or $80,000 to Whānau Ora for the Palmerston North women’s refuge, without one client, with the rest going, of course, to the European women’s refuge; or $60,000 for Ōtaki’s Rahui rugby club for a 1-day hooley?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have the details of every individual one of those, but what I can say is this: if you go back and look at the history of New Zealand and the complications of these families and where that leads, you can see that if we have somebody who goes to prison, it costs $105,000 a year to have that prisoner there. When we have children growing up in very dysfunctional families—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. I have been waiting, and I am waiting for—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. The question asked which one was the better use of taxpayers’ money, and then the member gave quite a number of examples. The Prime Minister is attempting to explain the use of taxpayers’ money, if you would allow the Prime Minister to finish his answer.

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: My main point is really that these are families that have high needs. They have complicated needs, and there are a lot of costs incurred by the Government and successive Governments as we try to support these families. Actually, I think the way we have dealt with these issues in the past has not proven to be good value for money for taxpayers.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I set out one alternative and three options. When will I get my answer? I am not hearing it yet.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member, if he had been listening, has had his answer. The question has been addressed. If he wants to continue with a supplementary question, I suggest he try.

Government Financial Position—Return to Surplus

7. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his answers to Oral Question No. 12 yesterday?

Yes, and I particularly stand by my statement where I said that I stand by my statements.

💬 Grant Robertson: Has he received forecasts from Treasury that show a deficit for the 2015-16 year?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have indicated a number of times, the forecasts in the Budget are likely to show, compared with the half-yearly update, a slightly increased deficit for 2014-15 and lower surpluses for 2015-16.

💬 Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table an Official Information Act document released by Treasury, dated 7 November 2014, which forecasts a deficit for the 2015-16 year.

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

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

💬 Grant Robertson: Is it correct that Treasury advised him that even if he made the cuts to the Budget forward-spending allowance that he did, the surplus in 2015-16 would happen only if the fall in dairy prices significantly rebounded?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Treasury may have given that advice at some stage; I do not recall it. What I can tell the member is that the Budget is a fairly dynamic process—that is, it is an interaction of Government decision-making and new information—and he will just have to wait for the Budget later in May to see exactly where Treasury and the Government ended up.

💬 Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, does the Minister recall paragraph (e) of the paper dated 7 November 2014, which says that a Budget surplus in 2015-16 could happen only assuming dairy prices rebound as currently forecast?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I do not recall that particular paragraph, and in any case, I would not say the advice is wrong; I would say it is partial. As we have discussed in the House before, there are a lot of factors that lead to the operating balance of the Government—the whole sweep of $73 billion of expenditure and what is happening with that—and, as we have discussed a lot over the last couple of weeks, other factors that were not known in November, such as the inflation rate being a lot lower than expected, and the impact of that on the total size of the economy.

💬 Grant Robertson: Is he aware of the Goldman Sachs report from July last year that indicated that there was a 5-year global milk glut, and that with the further fall in milk prices last night, there is now a $7 billion hole in the New Zealand economy, and did he take that into account when assessing whether a surplus was possible in 2015-16, even with a reduction in spending?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: There have been any number of reports about where dairy prices might or might not go, but I am a bit surprised at the Opposition attitude, because those members are usually advocating that we have too much dairy, and so presumably they are pleased when the prices are lower and the industry is not doing so well.

💬 Grant Robertson: Is it correct that not only has he failed to deliver his promised surplus for 7 years but he is actually on track to fail for an eighth year in 2015-16, unless there is a major rebound in global dairy prices, which no one is predicting?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, but I can tell you that 8 years of political failure by the Labour Party must be a lot more painful.

Broadband, Ultra-fast and Rural—Progress

8. to the Minister for Communications: What progress can she report on the rollout of the Ultra-Fast Broadband and Rural Broadband Initiatives?

Today I have released the latest quarterly update on our ultra-fast broadband and Rural Broadband Initiative programmes, showing that both continue to be ahead of schedule. With 46 percent of the build complete, 618,000 homes, workplaces, and schools are now able to connect—10 percent ahead of schedule. Eighty percent of the towers to be upgraded under the Rural Broadband Initiative programme are complete, with an estimated 239,000 rural households and businesses now able to connect. Uptake continues to be strong, with 85,000 end users connected to ultra-fast broadband, giving us an overall uptake rate of 13.8 percent.

💬 Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What reports has she seen on the response of global industry experts to the ultra-fast broadband programme?

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: I have recently seen a report from international technology company Alcatel-Lucent, which has evaluated the ultra-fast broadband and Rural Broadband Initiative programmes in light of its international experience. The Alcatel report is a glowing endorsement of the ultra-fast broadband and Rural Broadband Initiative programmes, describing them as “uniquely well managed and cost effective”. It singles out the effective use of public and private partnerships to deliver the programmes, a flexible regulatory framework, and tender processes that create, in its view, “a pioneering project designed to position New Zealand at the forefront of global innovation and economic transformation”, and, I have to say, I agree.

Building and Construction Industry—High-alkali Cement

9. to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he still accept assurances from officials that concrete used in New Zealand is fit for purpose?

The member some months ago sought assurance on whether imported high-alkali cement was fit for purpose. The current issue is not about the standard of cement but concrete. One of Firth’s batching plants in Auckland had a malfunction due to a faulty load sensor, resulting in the incorrect mix and about 1,000 cubic metres of substandard concrete being supplied to 35 customers. The cement used was not high-alkali, was not imported, and was not at fault. The member seems confused about the difference between cement and concrete. The former is costing—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It will be apparent to you that this was a very simple question. How the member could be confused with anything else, which is what he saying now, is surely nothing to do with the question. I have asked him a simple question—is the concrete fit for purpose—and he is now attacking me for no good reason at all. I have not started on him yet.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Speaking to the point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need any assistance. The issue of the question is, has he accepted the assurances that everything is in order? If that could be addressed, I would be happy.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes, I will hear from the member.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The question is in respect of “does he still accept assurances”. The assurances that I gave in the question in February, as you will clearly see from Hansard, was in respect of cement, not concrete. I have given this member—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can the member simply answer the question today—has he accepted the assurances? That is the question that is being asked. I will invite the Rt Hon Winston Peters to re-ask his question.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he still accept assurances from officials that concrete used in New Zealand is fit for purpose?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have not given the member any assurances in respect of concrete. I did give him assurances in respect of cement. It is a pity the member does not understand the difference. Perhaps I will take him to a building site.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: You sound like a concrete block right now. Is he—

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: Says the member who’s named after one.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, lighten up, honey. Is he aware that a batch of imported cement in 2014 exceeded the 0.6 percent alkali safety level; if so, what did he do in response to this issue at the time?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I sought advice from my officials. The member has not produced a single qualified engineer who has concern about the high-alkali cement. The concern is that if the cement is used correctly—as per the New Zealand standard—and is mixed correctly, it produces perfectly safe and credible concrete.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is the case, if his officials were able to assure him that imported cement is meeting the standard and does not pose a safety risk to the public as he has stated again today, why, then, have officials in his office on 22 July 2014 stated that they were in a state of panic on getting questions on this issue?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Last year I asked for advice from officials about the cement. They said that it complied with the standard. I made the point to ask whether there were any engineers—people who are actually qualified in this subject—who were concerned about it. The answer was there were not. My simple challenge to the member is if he has got a concern about high-alkali cement, rather than talking to those parties who do not want to have imported cement competing with that in New Zealand, give us an engineer’s report that has got concerns.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: If it is good enough for Firth to do full plug inspections of its concrete to ascertain the quality of it, why was he not prepared to do that on the buildings that allegations of faulty cement were made about, rather than rely upon industry-conflicted assurances?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I relied on the advice of officials, who I do not believe are conflicted. In respect of the difficulty that has occurred with Firth, it is not an issue with the integrity of the cement. The issue is that a weighing device failed, the correct mix did not occur, and the concrete is not up to strength. That has been picked up in the testing, and the responsibility rests with Firth to work that issue through with the 35 customers who were supplied with the understrength concrete. I stress that the cement that was used in the Firth issue is perfectly up to standard.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: When will the Minister understand that this is not a question about Firth but about substandard concrete from imported cement that itself was substandard, and why has he not conducted one test on any of the buildings in which it is alleged this concrete cement was used?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I repeat the simple challenge I gave the member at the time to table a single qualified engineer’s report of concern about the alkali cement, and I am happy to then seek a review of that. Without that evidence the member is simply playing a game of competition within the industry.

Health Services—Access

10. to the Minister of Health: Are patients receiving through New Zealand’s health care system the health care recommended by their medical practitioner; if not, why not?

Yes, they are, and there have been remarkable improvements over the last 6 years. This is reflected in the extra 50,000 first specialist assessments and 44,000 elective surgeries that are now being delivered each year compared with 2008. Patients who are recommended for cancer treatment are also receiving that faster and without being flown to Australia, as was the practice prior to 2008.

💬 Hon Annette King: If patients are receiving the care their medical practitioner recommends, why did general practitioner Dr Tony Farrell from the Bay of Plenty come out publicly on Saturday and say: “people whose X-rays showed bone on bone and were in terrible pain were not being seen in a timely manner.”?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: General practitioners do not direct treatment; they seek a specialist opinion from a surgeon at the hospital. When they put that referral in, there might be various reasons why there is not actually a specialist appointment or a surgery. The information might be incomplete, there might be a need for further testing, or it may actually be that that condition, like bone on bone arthritis, is better treated in the community. So the situation is exactly not what she represents it as.

💬 Hon Annette King: Has he replied to Mrs Logan, who wrote to him on 17 April asking why her husband has had to live with an internal catheter for the past 7 months, which has blocked nine times, with severe effects on his health and daily life, and still does not qualify for elective surgery?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Obviously, I am not familiar with that individual case, and, as Annette King said when she was the Minister: “It’s better to help people than to use them.” But that notwithstanding, if Mrs King would like to send me the details of the case, I can look into it to see what the real truth of it is.

💬 Hon Annette King: What was his response to Mrs Leota, who wrote to him, the Prime Minister, and her local member of Parliament 3 weeks ago highlighting the number of people in Invercargill living “with extenuating pain because they don’t have enough points to qualify for a hip operation” and asking for urgent action?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: If the member just waits till 3.30, she might get a very nice surprise as to what is happening in the community for people with orthopaedic hip pain.

💬 Hon Annette King: What reply did he give to Grey Power Hastings, which wrote to him and the local member of Parliament, Craig Foss, on 4 March telling him how concerned it was about the rejection letters older people in the Hawke’s Bay were receiving and asking for “more honesty and fewer weasel words. Why pretend you can offer a service that you can’t?”

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: In the Hawke’s Bay, the percentage of first specialist appointments has increased by 41 percent over the last 6 years, and there has been a major uplift in elective surgery as well. There have been an extra 1,278 operations performed each year. So I am sure that if the former Minister goes and asks her close relative the chief operations officer of Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, she will be able to hear the truth, because I am sure this information is not being leaked by him—surely not.

💬 Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am wondering whom I have to ask.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. If the member wants to have a supplementary question, use it.

💬 Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member asks a question of me. What is my response to that? He said to go and ask the chief executive officer of Hawke’s Bay District Health Board.

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, the COO.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member resume his seat.

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No question was asked; I made a statement.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I too was unaware of any question asked, either, but if the member wants to ask a question, she has got the perfect opportunity.

💬 Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to make a point of order and ask whether the Speaker heard my question. I asked what was the Minister’s response to Grey Power—nothing to do with—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the question, in my opinion, was addressed. I think that when you put down a primary question like that and then you list a whole lot of potential correspondence that has come out of the office of a Minister over the last 2 months, it is not unrealistic that he cannot recall the content of the letter.

National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarships

11. to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing today to recognise the educational achievements of young New Zealanders?

This morning I was honoured to join the Prime Minister and many MPs in acknowledging the top National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) scholars, who came from schools all over New Zealand. Westlake Boys High School student Joshua Hansen was this year’s recipient of the Prime Minister’s Award for Academic Excellence. This scholarship is presented annually to the student who has shown the highest overall level of academic excellence. In addition, 35 top subject awards were given, as well as 10 premier awards to students who achieved scholarships in at least five subjects, and from those at least three outstanding scholarships with one or more top 10 performances. To give the House an idea of how accomplished these young people are, only around 3 percent of year 13 students studying each subject at NCEA level 3 are awarded a scholarship, and less than 0.5 percent will achieve outstanding scholarships. The premier scholars are truly the best of New Zealand’s high academic achievers at secondary school level. Let us all celebrate.

💬 Melissa Lee: How are we achieving educational success for all young New Zealanders?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: Across the country, every day, students are getting a better education. The 2014 provisional results show that 86.8 percent of students achieved a National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 qualification. This means that in 2014, 1,600 more students achieved NCEA level 2 than in 2013. The 2014 data shows that more than—

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: What about UE? What about the reduction, the 10 percent reduction, of Pacific getting UE?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes, of course the Opposition is not interested in success, because it went out as a Government when Māori achievement was a shameful 44 percent. Under this Government in every year that achievement has gone up. And for Pasifika, that party in Government was happy to settle at—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! When I call the Minister to order she will resume her seat. There will be a general debate shortly.

Trade in Services Agreement—Education Franchises

12. to the Minister of Education: Has she been consulted on education being included in the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA); if so, have any concerns been expressed that this agreement could lead to foreign corporations suing New Zealand in relation to education provision?

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Otirā, ki a koe e te mema. Yes, I have been consulted as part of the Cabinet decision to enter into negotiations on the Trade in Services Agreement and to establish parameters for which officials should engage in that process. The approach we are taking to these negotiations is consistent with New Zealand’s existing international trade commitments on private education and reflects the priority we have always placed on advancing the export interests of New Zealand private education providers. In regard to the alleged dispute settlement provision referred to by the member, I am advised that no such provisions are under discussion.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Has she been advised that if education is included in the Trade in Services Agreement, large foreign profit-making educational franchises could sue if New Zealand tried to stop them setting up schools here? Has she been specifically advised on that point?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do not have primary responsibility for negotiating trade agreements. This particular agreement has been in negotiation for 2 years. There have been 11 rounds of negotiation. The 12th is due in July. But as to the specifics, I have complete confidence in our Minister of Trade to seek any additional information should he require it. So, no.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The questioner asked whether the Minister was specifically consulted. She answered every other question but that.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No. Again, if the member would just wait for the answer to be completed—her final word was no. The question has been addressed.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If that is the case, and she did get to it at the end, my point is: why was she allowed to go so long without answering the question?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Because I felt that the information she was giving was actually helpful to the House, if members have a genuine interest in this matter.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Can she rule out any large foreign education franchises demanding entry to New Zealand under the Trade in Services Agreement and running schools that do not follow our curriculum, exclude kids on the basis of ability, and charge huge fees?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: Once again, I do not have responsibility for this trade negotiation, but what I can tell the member is that we provide for private education in this country and it makes up 3.7 percent of our schooling options. As to international students, schools able to attract those students really value them. In terms of exporting our educational expertise to other countries, we are able to do that because they value that expertise. So we will continue to seek those opportunities both here and abroad.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Why is she and the National Government so intent on signing New Zealand up to trade agreements like the Trade in Services Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which will open future Governments, wanting to protect the public interest, to being sued?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: Because unlike that member we understand that income allows us to purchase the things that we want, whether they are called education, roads, or hospitals. All the things that that member and her party bang on about do not happen by magic; they happen by earning income.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: I seek leave to table the Trade in Services Agreement’s leaked annex of professional services—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am having trouble hearing. Can the member start her point of order again.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: I seek leave to table the Trade in Services Agreement’s leaked annex of professional services document released today, just this morning.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The date of the document?

💬 Catherine Delahunty: It has been released today, and the original date was September 2014.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If it is being released today, it is going to be available to all members. There is no point in my tabling it.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: I do not think it is available.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

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: Further to her answer to Question to Members No. 1 yesterday, how many people has she requested appear before the committee who submitted using the process she described as a form submission out of those who submitted using the process she described as a form submission in total?

None of them. The committee decided to treat 15,970 very similar emailed submissions as form submissions. The committee also decided not to hear from those form submitters who wished to be heard.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: In making her decision whom to request to appear, did she regard people who made individual, unique submissions using links from their local RSA Facebook pages as a form submission?

I did not make the decision about who was to appear. The committee decided not to hear from form submitters who wished to be heard.

New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill—Submissions

2. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: Further to her answer to Question to Members No. 1 yesterday, how many people has she requested appear before the committee who submitted using the process she described as a form submission and how many people who made such a request has she not requested appear?

None. Eight hundred and one people making form submissions requested to be heard. However, it was a decision of the committee not to hear from form submitters.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: In making her decision not to invite the 774 people who asked to speak to their submissions, did she take into account the reputational damage to this Parliament and the select committee process?

I did not make the decision not to hear from form submitters. The committee decided not to hear from form submitters who wished to be heard.

New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill—Submissions

3. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: Further to her answer to Question to Members No. 1 yesterday, did she ascertain whether the individuals asking to appear were former services personnel by reading the submission before deciding whether or not to request their appearance?

No. The committee decided not to hear from form submitters. However, the committee heard from several former service personnel last week and will hear from several more this week, including a submission from the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association on behalf of several thousand concerned New Zealanders. The committee will also be hearing from that member, on behalf of 30,000 others, on the same point as was made in the form submissions.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: In making her decision whether to invite over 700 submitters to give evidence, did she take into consideration whether the select committee process should be seen as open and listening, as opposed to arrogant and predetermined?

It was not my decision whether or not to hear from form submitters. It was a decision of the committee 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 guidance. The member has continually referred to a decision of the committee, when in fact it was a majority—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That is just using a point of order to trifle with the House. [Interruption] Order! It was a decision of the committee, and whether it was a majority decision or not is not a point of order. [Interruption] Order! That concludes questions for oral answer. [Interruption] Order! I have a very good mind to be asking that member to leave. I am on my feet and I am about to make an announcement. I do not expect an interchange, which I do acknowledge was from both sides.