Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister with respect to achieving surplus, “Yeah, for a few hundred million we could go and slash you know, fundamentally, health, education and welfare. They’re the only big areas where you could take money. I think most New Zealanders would say that’s a bit short-sighted”?

Yes, I do agree with that statement by the Prime Minister. Not only has the Government moderately increased spending in those areas, it has focused on getting much better results, particularly for the most vulnerable New Zealanders. We have taken a considered approach to understanding the drivers of spending, not just the spending.

💬 Grant Robertson: Why was $444 million of funding for earthquake claims reassessed as a negative insurance expense in the Crown accounts yesterday?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: You would have to address that question directly to the accountants and the Auditor-General, who signed off the accounts. If you go through the accounts, you will find any number of accrual accounting adjustments, all of which add up, fortunately, on top of the Government’s good managing of spending, to a surplus of $400 million.

💬 Grant Robertson: Is the Minister of Finance telling the House that he does not know why $444 million dollars’ worth of funding for earthquake claims was reassessed as a negative insurance expense, especially given that that amount is larger than the surplus that he announced yesterday?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I am telling the House that. Across a $70 billion Budget there are an enormous number of adjustments; each one of them is checked by the Auditor-General. These are the audited accounts of the New Zealand Government. If the member is suggesting that there is something dodgy about those accounts, he should take it up with the Auditor-General.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: In successfully meeting its target of returning to surplus in 2014-15, what has been the Government’s overall approach to managing its finances?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government’s overall approach has been to manage our finances by doing a better job—that is, a better job of new capital investment, a better job of managing our existing $250 billion of assets, and a better job of providing services to 4 million New Zealanders. We have found that what works for the community works for the Government’s books.

💬 Grant Robertson: Is he really comfortable with cutting $444 million out of the Budget for Earthquake Commission repairs, given that Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment audits have revealed that thousands of Canterbury houses have dodgy repairs that will need to be redone, and work on increased flooding risk claims has barely begun?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may be surprised to know that accounting adjustments are not a matter of political pushing and shoving. It is possible they were under the previous Labour Government, but, actually, under this Government any accounting adjustment has to meet the criteria laid out in the rules and overseen by the Auditor-General. And whatever that adjustment is, I can be almost absolutely sure that it meets the criteria, because the accounts have been signed off by the Auditor-General.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: How does the achievement of surplus in the latest year compare with the fiscal situation inherited by the National-led Government in 2008?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The fiscal situation in 2008 was driven mainly by a very rapid increase in public expenditure of around 50 percent in the 5 years leading up to 2008-09, and then the global financial crisis and the earthquakes exacerbated the problem with drops in revenue. So the Government has slowed considerably the growth of Government spending, its tax reforms have helped underpin an increase in revenue, along with a growing economy, and that is how we have got to surplus.

💬 Grant Robertson: Does the removal of more than $400 million from the Earthquake Commission claims budget mean that insurance repairs in Christchurch are finished?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would not want to speculate on the connection between that adjustment in the accounts and the services provided in Christchurch, but people to whom the Earthquake Commission is liable to pay insurance and ensure that their repairs are done will get the service that the Earthquake Commission is obliged to provide to them.

💬 Grant Robertson: When John Key was giving him a high-five for achieving a $414 million surplus, did he tell him that it would not have happened if he had not cut $444 million from the projection for Canterbury Earthquake Commission payouts?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, because the member is just wrong. I mean, he can go on an Easter egg hunt, where he finds every accounting adjustment that exists that is around $400 million, but it will just make him look like a little bunny.

💬 Grant Robertson: Does he think the people of Canterbury will be wanting to give him a high-five when they hear that he got his surplus by cutting money from the already inadequate budget for Earthquake Commission earthquake repairs?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think they probably intuitively grasp the way the Government’s finances work a bit better than the member does. Actually, people all over Christchurch high-five the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery because he is overseeing 400,000 insurance claims, the rebuilding of thousands of new homes, and the planning and the revival of the central business district. Many people in Christchurch are pretty pleased with the Government’s $15 billion contribution to the rebuilding of their city.

Government Financial Position—International Comparisons and Fiscal Strategy

2. to the Minister of Finance: How does New Zealand’s fiscal position compare to other advanced economies?

The slim surplus yesterday of $414 million as an operating balance, excluding gains and losses, means that New Zealand is one of seven advanced countries—out of 35—that achieved surplus in 2015 on that measure. The operating balance, including gains and losses, was a surplus of $5.8 billion, but that includes a lot of re-estimates of values of assets. We choose the more conservative measure.

💬 Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What is the Crown’s net debt as a percentage of GDP, and how does this compare with other OECD countries?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Treasury’s measure of net debt is 25 percent of GDP—

💬 Hon Member: How much?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: 25.2 percent, which compares well with other countries. If you use the IMF international comparisons, which include Crown-owned financial assets that are excluded from Treasury’s conservative measure, New Zealand’s net debt would be the sixth lowest among advanced economies. Either way, we are in a pretty strong financial position, and the importance of that is that people do not have to worry about the Government’s finances so much, and they know that if they are dependent on our services or on income from the Government, then that will be sustainable.

💬 Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What are the next steps in the Government’s fiscal strategy?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The next steps are not to change too much, because it is working pretty well. We now need to generate ongoing surpluses in order to reduce debt levels. We need to continue, though, to focus particularly on improving the effectiveness of our spending, because when the Government does a good job of changing people’s lives with health and education services, corrections services—when that is done well, we almost always save money by avoiding costs in the future.

💬 Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What reports has the Minister seen on alternative approaches to fiscal policy?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Some confusing alternative approaches, which on the one hand accuse the Government of running up too much debt one day, and then on the other accuse us of cutting spending too much. Both of those reports come from the Opposition spokesman on finance.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Reduction Targets and Environmental Impact

3. to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Will he take a more ambitious climate target to Paris than the current target, in light of new evidence showing “only the most ambitious effort to curb emissions will stop Antarctica’s ice shelves from collapsing”?

No, we will not, because there are going to be 5 years of negotiations after Paris to determine the detailed rules, which are extremely important to New Zealand. We will not be changing our intended nationally determined contribution and converting it into a nationally determined contribution until we know what the deal is.

💬 James Shaw: Does the Minister accept that if every other country matched New Zealand’s emissions reduction target, the result would be 3 to 4 degrees of warming?

💬 Hon TIM GROSER: Another example of throwing numbers around without context. The reality is this: given that 80 percent of the emissions in the upper troposphere are carbon dioxide, and given that they are by far the most lethally dangerous—they stay around in the atmosphere for hundreds of years—and since they are derived overwhelmingly from the production of energy, if the rest of the world adopted New Zealand’s renewable electricity figure of 80 percent, the problem would be solved on a global level.

💬 James Shaw: So, given that somewhat obfuscatory answer, is the Minister saying—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I invite the member to continue his question.

💬 James Shaw: —that he is prepared to freeload on other countries’ emissions reductions, even though New Zealand has also agreed not to allow more than 2 degrees of warming?

💬 Hon TIM GROSER: I am not absolutely sure that I understand the question, but we will take a position in Paris that is absolutely fair and reasonable, and contribute to the conference in many other ways than just a number on a piece of paper.

💬 James Shaw: Given that the combined pledges of the world’s Governments currently lock the planet into 3 degrees of warming, at which point Antarctica’s ice shelves will collapse, why will the Minister not show some real leadership and increase New Zealand’s target?

💬 Hon TIM GROSER: We have been watching the Green Party in recent days on this Antarctic issue. What has happened is that a New Zealand climate change scientist has come out with a study that my science advisers tell me is consistent with the one of the working party of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is the institution that provides the collective science for the world. There is no inconsistency in this report. I can elaborate further on this issue, but what strikes me as extraordinary is that it takes this finding, which says that it is likely that sea levels will rise between 28 centimetres and 98 centimetres, and then adds on the top of this a headline saying that the Government plans to melt Antarctica. When you think about the idiot’s position that the Green Party has just put itself into over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, you have to ask yourself whether it ever worries—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is now wandering from the answer.

💬 James Shaw: So is the Minister aware, given how closely he has been watching the Green Party in recent days, that the Science magazine report states that losing the Antarctic ice shelves could mean that in 30 years New Zealanders will every fortnight experience floods as devastating as those that hit Wellington and Whanganui earlier this year?

💬 Hon TIM GROSER: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists tell us, including their predictions of what will happen on the Antarctic ice sheets, that the sea level will rise between 28 centimetres, roughly what happened in the previous 100 years, and 98 centimetres. They say that if more dramatic action occurred on the Antarctic ice shelf, it could have the effect of increasing that by a few tenths of a metre. Well, a tenth of a metre is 10 centimetres, so a few—I do not know what they mean precisely—is presumably less than 50 centimetres, so it could be between 48 centimetres and 1.2 metres. That is the basis of the science. There is nothing new in this whatsoever.

💬 James Shaw: So is the Minister therefore saying that the report in Science magazine, underpinned, as he said, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, says that although the sea level rise itself may be a mere 10 centimetres, that does not mean that we will see flash flooding and extreme weather events?

💬 Hon TIM GROSER: No, that is not my view. My view is actually consistent with the substance of the member’s question. New Zealand does need to prepare better for a higher number of extreme weather events, so in that sense the answer is that I agree with the underlying point the member is making.

💬 James Shaw: So to recap, does the Minister agree that if every country had a target for emissions reductions as low as ours, then not only could we lose Antarctica but also the Pacific Islands, New Zealand’s coastal communities, global food supplies, and more?

💬 Hon TIM GROSER: No, I do not agree.

Benefits—Cancer Patients and Long-term Medical Conditions

4. to the Minister for Social Development: What percentage of cancer patients receiving benefits have been found to not really have cancer due to the requirement that they submit regular medical certificates to Work and Income New Zealand?

I regret I am unable to answer this as the ministry advises that this information is held within individual client files. However, I can say that I am unaware of any case where a patient has been found to not have cancer after they have provided an additional medical certificate to Work and Income. Medical certificates have been a requirement since 1972. The purpose of providing them to Work and Income is to ascertain the client’s ability to work, not whether they have cancer, which is a decision for their medical practitioner. This Government is committed to making sure that those who are unable to work are granted an exemption from looking for work while they undergo treatment.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Does the woman who spoke to Radio New Zealand, who had to get the hospital to fax through evidence of her breast cancer surgery on the day of her surgery, deserve special consideration?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: All people who are eligible and receiving support through a benefit, who are on a job seeker health condition and disability benefit, have to provide medical certificates, as they have done since 1972. It is unfortunate when that occurs on the same day as their treatment. I have met with the Cancer Society of New Zealand, and I have guaranteed it that the Ministry of Social Development will work to make sure that this process is handled as sensitively and carefully as it can be.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Does Robyn Kilpatrick, who is currently undergoing chemotherapy and radiotherapy and will be having two surgeries, deserve special consideration given that she is planning to return to work in January, all going well?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I think all of us would accept that people undergoing such a difficult treatment process need special consideration. However, as I say, medical certificates have been required since 1972. What I have asked of the ministry is that it makes sure that these people are treated with sensitivity and that the system is made as easy as possible for them.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: I seek leave to table a letter to Robyn Kilpatrick dated 2 October 2015 from Work and Income requiring her to go in for a meeting to discuss how she is preparing for work.

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

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

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Does a person with aggressive ovarian cancer deserve special consideration or should they also make themselves available for work?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: If they are on a job seeker health condition and disability benefit, they are not required to be looking for work. If the member has any examples, as I have said to the Cancer Society yesterday, if there are any examples where that is happening, please let my office know and we will make sure that it finishes as quickly as possible.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Why does this Government not show some compassion and common sense and expand the supported living payment to people with a serious illness?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well, the supported living payment is for people with a serious illness that means that for more than 2 years they will be ill. It is a specific benefit that is focused on those who have long-term illnesses, long-term disabilities, or a terminal illness, and it is based on medical advice. So they are required to provide proof of that illness at 2 years, 5 years, or never, depending on the advice from their medical practitioner.

Accident Compensation Corporation—Levies

5. to the Minister for ACC: What recent announcements have been made on ACC levies?

The ACC board has announced its levy consultation, which proposes to reduce ACC levies by $450 million in 2016-17. I have also announced a number of issues that I will be consulting on as Minister, including a potential reduction in the motorcycle safety levy. On top of this, I am consulting on a long-term funding policy. It is about ensuring that we can withstand economic shocks, while not over-collecting levies. The proposals include potential reductions across all three levied accounts and another potential dramatic reduction in the average motor vehicle levy from $190 to $130. The indicative reductions, if confirmed, will take total levy cuts since 2012 to around $2 billion. These reductions are possible only because of good financial management. This is great news for New Zealand.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Why is the Government able to deliver significant ACC levy reductions?

💬 Hon NIKKI KAYE: The Government and the ACC board have, through a series of measures, improved the performance of the scheme, from a $4.8 billion hole in the accounts in 2008 to being fully funded. These measures include improvements in rehabilitation rates, sensible changes to entitlements, improvements in investments and assets, better management of claims, improved injury prevention, and the appointment of an excellent people and leadership position such as the outstanding chair Paula Rebstock. The ACC board has been very successful in growing—

💬 Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. On several occasions New Zealand First members have been asked to sit down due to the length of their questions. I understand that under the Standing Orders, answers should be somewhat concise also. These are patsy questions from the Government to its own Minister.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I thought the member was present yesterday when I gave a very clear ruling that it is my job to adjudicate on the length of answers, and I will do so. The member may, at some time in the political future, have the opportunity to occupy this Chair, at which stage she will be the adjudicator. The Hon Nikki Kaye—has the answer been finished?

💬 Hon NIKKI KAYE: No.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just want to give a very clear ruling to the member. If he wants to relitigate that ruling in any way, I will take a very dim view of it.

💬 Ron Mark: In those rulings and in the advice that you gave us yesterday, you referred to our needing some training. It would help. We have booked in some training—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is—

💬 Ron Mark: It would help to have available for that training the criteria upon which you make your assessments, if you could do that, please.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I look forward to the opportunity. I was unaware that the member is booked in for training. I look forward to the results of that training being very fruitful to the way that this House runs. [Interruption] Order! No, the member is only wasting time, and he will be leaving the Chamber in a minute. Does the Minister wish to complete her answer? [Interruption] If the Minister could complete her answer quickly.

💬 Hon NIKKI KAYE: The ACC board has been very successful in growing the scheme’s assets from around $10 billion in 2008-09 to around $31 billion now. That is because of a good National Government.

💬 Andrew Bayly: What is different about the levy consultation this year?

💬 Hon NIKKI KAYE: This year’s levy consultation is notable in that ACC’s proposed levy rates factor in the removal of residual levies. The combined effect of removing the residual levy and the proposed work levy reductions could see around 75 percent of businesses paying fewer levies. This year’s levy consultation also features a website for the first time—www.shapeyouracc.co.nz—where people can submit their own ideas and discuss ideas put forward by others.

💬 Sue Moroney: If she fixes, through this consultation process, the many problems and errors with her new motor vehicle levy risk rating system, will she refund the overcharging of the errors made in levies charged this year as a result of those errors?

💬 Hon NIKKI KAYE: I disagree with the statements she made in that question.

Overseas Investment Office—Good-character Test

6. to the Minister of Finance: Does he intend to issue a new directive letter to the Overseas Investment Office; if not, why not?

No, because there is no reason to.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: Is the Minister aware that we have sold two farms a week to foreign investors in the last 8 months of this year alone—41,000 hectares?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Whatever sales there have been will have complied with the Overseas Investment Act. As the member is aware, whether or not they comply can be reviewed judicially.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: Would a company engaged in corruption and bribery meet the Overseas Information Office’s good-character test?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: If it was the case that a company was involved in that behaviour, I would suspect it would not meet the criteria. If the Overseas Investment Office mistakenly indicated that a company had passed that test, that could be reviewed in the courts.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: Is the Minister aware that Hunan Dakang, which faces allegations of corruption and bribery, was an approved buyer of the Crafar farms, Synlait farms, and, potentially, Lochinver Station; if not, why not?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: In responding to the answer, I do not want any mention of the last farm mentioned, because I understand that is now before the courts. I will invite the Minister to comment on the rest.

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am aware that that is the usual standard of New Zealand First—making allegations about things it does not like, but any applicant is tested under the Overseas Investment Act. It is a very transparent and robust process.

💬 Stuart Nash: Will the Minister direct the Overseas Investment Office to start collating the benefits of overseas investment in our farmland; if not, why not?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is part of its function under the Overseas Investment Act.

Veterans—Repatriation of Remains

7. to the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs: Will the Government support families who want to repatriate the remains of family members buried in Malaysia who died while on deployment between 1956 and 1969; if not, why not?

I respect the views of those families, but, no, this Government is continuing the policy of previous Governments, most recently reconfirmed by that member’s Government in 2007.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: What considerations does the Government think should take precedence over the wishes of those families whose husbands, brothers, and sons died while serving their country in Viet Nam and in Malaysia who want their remains brought home?

💬 Hon CRAIG FOSS: I am sure those matters are the same as those that the previous Government considered when it recently reviewed this policy and reconfirmed the policy that this Government has picked up. There are many issues in and around this matter. There are many complex matters that I am sure that member is aware of.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about what considerations should take precedence. I think the Minister is bound to give more than: “Oh, the same ones that somebody else did.” I think he should be more specific.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Simon Bridges.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: The member asked about, as he said, the considerations. The Minister then went on to outline the same considerations as the previous Government. That in itself was a full answer, but he then went on to also talk about a range of complex factors.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I thank both members. I agree with the points made by the Minister in this case. I think that the question has been addressed.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: When the Australian Government has offered to repatriate the remains of Australian soldiers who died in Malaysia and Viet Nam and who are buried in Terendak in Malaysia, why is it not possible or appropriate for the New Zealand Government to do the same thing for Kiwi soldiers buried there whose families desperately want them home?

💬 Hon CRAIG FOSS: Yes, I became aware of the Australia initiative in—I do not know—March this year. The Australians are absolutely able to do what they choose to do in their affairs. They did not recently review the matter themselves, as far as I understand it, as New Zealand recently reviewed the matter in 2007.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Given that the position of the RSA, which represents the interests of veterans, has changed since the Government last considered this issue in 2007, and that it is now calling for a change of policy and a full review of the repatriation of those—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I have the question, please?

💬 Hon Phil Goff: —who are buried overseas, why will he not back the RSA’s call for that review and for a change?

💬 Hon CRAIG FOSS: I am aware that when that member was interested in this issue and took papers to Cabinet in 2007, which were picked up by the Hon Rick Barker, the points around the RSA point of view at the time were for the status quo. I am not aware of any official change in the RSA’s position, although I am aware that some members are considering it.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: I seek the leave of the House to table two emails. One is from the RSA setting out its change in policy, and the second is from the Minister’s own department asking for a copy of the RSA’s change of policy. How he does not know—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table those two emails. Is there any objection? There is not. They can be tabled.

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

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Does he accept that if the Government rejects the wishes of the families who want their loved ones brought home, its claims to honour the fallen veterans and their families on whom the burden of their loss fell most heavily will sound rather hollow to those families?

💬 Hon CRAIG FOSS: I take offence at that, actually. I carry out my role, and I carry the burden of this office and the respect of veterans and their families, and the values that they stood and fought for for this country, very, very seriously.

Trans-Pacific Partnership—Horticulture Industry

8. to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports has he received on how the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement will benefit New Zealand horticulture?

The horticulture industry is worth around $7 billion, and it is a very important part of the overall New Zealand economy. The good news is that all tariffs will be eliminated on New Zealand’s horticultural exports once the Trans-Pacific Partnership is fully implemented. This will save our growers around $26 million a year in tariffs once fully implemented, and indeed I agree with Horticulture New Zealand, which says that this is a very significant trade agreement and a new era of trade for New Zealand’s horticulture industry.

💬 Todd Muller: Which parts of our horticulture industry will benefit the most from the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement?

💬 Hon NATHAN GUY: That is a very important question from the local member. One good example is the removal of kiwifruit tariffs, which will save the industry around $15 million a year, equating to an average of around $6,000 for each grower per year. For the wider industry, the Trans-Pacific Partnership will have a positive impact for growers of crops like apples, capsicums, squash, onions, and virtually all other horticultural exports. This improved market access will be a key part of the industry’s goal to achieve its $10 billion industry growth target by 2020.

Women—Representation in Cabinet

9. to the Prime Minister: Is he satisfied with the number of women who hold Cabinet positions in the Government?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, but he is even more satisfied with the outstanding performance of all the women who hold Cabinet positions.

💬 Jan Logie: Of the 1.8 million working-aged women in New Zealand, are there 10 who are qualified to be Cabinet Ministers under this National Government?

Of the 1.8 million working-aged women, I think there would be literally thousands who could carry out the functions of a Cabinet Minister. However, many of them choose to exercise those capacities in running their own businesses, in studying, and in looking after families, and some of them, fortunately, enter politics and end up in the Cabinet of a National-led Government.

💬 Jan Logie: Does Judith Collin’s comment “So don’t tell me that it’s easy being a woman in the National Party.” indicate to the Minister that there needs to be more than 16 women in National’s caucus and more than six women in National’s Cabinet?

It is actually the National Party and the voters who decide who is in the National Party caucus. But the Prime Minister is very impressed with the calibre and quality of women who join the National Party. In fact, I would say that one of the distinctive advantages that the National Party has over other political parties is the breadth of experience, the competence, and the achievement of our women politicians.

💬 Jan Logie: In sharing that esteem for your female colleagues, will he commit to making 50 percent of National’s Cabinet female in the next reshuffle?

I hope the member does share the Prime Minister’s esteem for the female members of our Cabinet, which would be quite a change for the Greens, who are generally pretty nasty about most people in the National Cabinet, including the women. And no, we will not be committing to a quota. The Prime Minister, as I understand it, selects Ministers on merit, and that is reflected in the excellent teamwork and performance of the current Cabinet.

Superannuation Fund—Government Contributions and Returns

10. to the Minister of Finance: What is the current value of the New Zealand Super Fund?

As at 31 August 2015 the value of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund is $28.8 billion.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have information prepared by the Parliamentary Library that contradicts—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. If the member now—[Interruption] If the member seeks leave to table it, I will consider it.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: I seek leave to table information prepared by the Parliamentary Library—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! On this occasion, I will allow the member to table the information. Are there further supplementary questions? [Interruption] Oh, sorry. Yes, leave was sought. 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.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: Is he aware that if he had continued capital contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, it would now be worth $47.8 billion—$18.2 billion more than it is now?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: In retrospect, that is possible. It is also possible that if we had trebled the contributions, it would be worth over $100 billion. If we could have trebled them, why could we not have borrowed 10 times the required contribution, and then it may have been worth over $1,000 billion. I mean, there is just no end to that calculation, and we do not waste our time on it.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: Is the Minister not ashamed that of the $14.5 billion of capital contributions made to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, the National Government is responsible for less than 2 percent of that; if not, why not?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: In answer to the member’s first question, no. The reason is simply this: the New Zealand Superannuation Fund was set up with the intention that surplus cash—of which there was quite a lot in the mid-2000s, actually—would be paid into it; in that case, mainly to protect it from the Labour Party caucus. But, actually, we do not have surplus cash. Even the $400 million surplus announced yesterday does not actually give us surplus cash to put into the fund.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: What does he believe is better for the country: potentially borrowing to pay for $1.5 billion worth of tax cuts in an election year or putting that money into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, which would return $100 million in interest by 2020?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The tax package was fiscally neutral; in fact, it was probably fiscally positive, actually. In respect of the second issue, I mean, this Government simply does not believe that it is prudent to borrow money to invest in overseas share markets. Households do not do it, very few businesses do it, except under particular circumstances, and we do not intend to do it. It is easy to say that looking back when the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has made very high returns, but the likelihood is that over its lifetime, half the time it is going to make very low or negative returns. In that case, the member would be asking a different question: why did the Government borrow money and invest it in the crazy casino of offshore equity markets full of corrupt Chinese? [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member wants to ask a supplementary question; I ask that Ron Mark control himself. [Interruption] Order! I will not be calling for order again. I am asking Fletcher Tabuteau to ask his supplementary question. I will not put up with the level of interjection coming from my left.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: Would the Minister prefer to generate a surplus to: a, pay down our very high nominal net debt; b, restart contributions to the neglected Superannuation Fund; or, c, pay $1.5 billion for an election-year bribe?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am pleased to see that the member understands two of our fiscal objectives, and those are to pay down debt and to start contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. The Government has allowed for the opportunity for moderate tax reductions, and we remain fixed to that policy.

Trans-Pacific Partnership—Small Businesses

11. to the Minister for Small Business: How will the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement benefit New Zealand small business?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement will enable New Zealand’s 6,000 exporting small businesses to sell more products and services to the world, creating more jobs and higher incomes for all New Zealanders. Of course, it will also benefit the thousands of small businesses that are servicing those same exporting businesses. Small businesses across New Zealand will benefit from being able to have better and fairer access to almost 40 percent of the global economy and over 800 million customers. This is especially important in areas such as Southland, Tasman, Marlborough, and Hawke’s Bay, where around 40 percent of all jobs in those regions are related directly to the export sector.

💬 Brett Hudson: What reports has he seen from small business organisations supporting the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

💬 Hon CRAIG FOSS: I have seen many reports from those in the small business sector supporting the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. John Milford, Chief Executive of the Wellington Employers’ Chamber of Commerce, said: “This is one of the most significant trade deals New Zealand has ever signed and we must see it for exactly what it is—free access for many of our products to growing markets”. Phil Gregan, Chief Executive of New Zealand Winegrowers, says: “This is an excellent outcome for the New Zealand wine industry”. They are but some of the many comments.

💬 Brett Hudson: How can we ensure that small businesses are able to enjoy the benefits of the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

💬 Hon CRAIG FOSS: New Zealand small businesses can have confidence that this Government will adhere to the agreement, because of the benefits I have outlined previously and many others. This is in contrast to a report that I have seen that a “Government will make laws without regard to the … Trans-Pacific Partnership and if necessary face the consequences”. That is the position of Labour’s—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has no responsibility for that.

Early Childhood Education—Funding

12. to the Minister of Education: Why has early childhood education funding on a per-place basis failed to keep up with inflation in Budget 2015 when early childhood education costs for parents have increased by more than 7½ times the rate of inflation in the past year?

I do not agree with the member’s assertion that the Budget cost adjustments for early childhood education are not keeping up with early childhood education costs being funded by parents. Furthermore, the Government does not automatically provide an annual cost adjustment to early childhood education funding rates. The Government provides a substantial subsidy towards the cost of early childhood education provisions. Funding for early childhood education, even in a constrained fiscal environment, has nearly doubled since 2008. The total now stands at over $1.6 billion. The most recent survey of costs that providers pay shows that for every $1 that families pay for early childhood education this Government provides $4.80, compared with 2011, which showed that for every $1 a parent was spending on early childhood education the Government was spending $3.45. What is more, early childhood education is 32 percent more affordable than it was in 2007, and the level of affordability has been maintained—

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

💬 Chris Hipkins: Why did the National Government cut funding to centres that only employ fully qualified teachers, leading to yesterday’s announcement by kindergartens in Wellington that after years of underfunding they are asking teachers to either work part-time or face redundancy?

I make two points. Firstly, what I say is that although we have made changes and we have put needs-based funding in other places, there have been increases in terms of the salaries of kindergarten teachers this year. I think there has been a 0.56 percent adjustment, so there have been increases this year.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With all respect, that did not address my question, which was: “Why did the Government cut funding for centres that only employed qualified staff?”.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Because funding was moved to other places was the answer that was given.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Did the National Government cut funding for centres that employ only fully qualified teachers; if so, why?

As I said before, we did make changes in terms of funding, and we did reduce funding in some areas because we have chosen, for instance, in this Budget to spend $100 million. That additional money is going to some of our most disadvantaged kids. We believe firmly in those 41,000 children who actually need that funding.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Is she concerned that a recent survey of early childhood teachers found that a quarter of them would not be happy to have their own child enrolled where they are working, with many saying the conditions are like “factory-farming children”; if not, what will it take for her to be concerned?

Again, if it is the survey that I believe that the member is referring to, it was a survey sample size of about 600 people out of 25,000 teachers. My understanding was that the answers that they gave—

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: 600 is pretty big.

This is a very important point—this is a very important point. In the quarter figure that he quotes, some of those people said that the reason they did not want their children to be in those centres was that they wanted to look after them at home, which is actually their choice.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Has she seen the comment from Amanda Coulston, from Whānau Manaaki Kindergartens, that they are being forced to cut teachers and that “We wouldn’t put 80 per cent professional rugby players out in the World Cup and have the other 20 percent as big fans and think we’re going to get the same result as if we had 100 percent professional players.”; if so, why will she not properly fund the early childhood sector so it can have fully qualified teachers?

I have not seen the exact quote, but I have seen various media reports, and I make these points. The first thing is that we have doubled early childhood funding to $1.6 billion. The second point that I would make is that in terms of kindergarten funding, as I said, there has been an increase this year. The third point that I would make is that this Government believes firmly that it is not only about funding; it is actually about quality and participation, and meeting some of our most disadvantaged students’ needs, and that is what we are doing.