Annual Review Debate — Finance and Government Administration Sector

I am delighted, as chair of the Government Administration Committee, to follow the highly memorable member, Stuart Smith, who has just resumed his seat. I want to acknowledge other members of the committee. We have had a lot of turnover in personnel over recent times. We have just lost Brett Hudson, and today we had the pleasure of Todd Barclay sitting on our committee. So I know that a number of members will now want to be present at our next meeting—10 o’clock next Wednesday, room No. 5. See you there!

Some of the issues that we deal with that I want to touch on in my contribution are sport, broadcasting, and civil defence. We have got quite a wide brief in our committee, but those are the three that I just want to touch on, given that we have such a short time to contribute. But before I get into the detail of those, I want to talk about the increasing concern that I get, not just from my constituents but from people around the party, that New Zealand is feeling a bit rudderless at the moment. We lost John Key as the Prime Minister, and now we have got a new Prime Minister, but someone who is clearly not a leader.

It is a bit like—where is Bill English taking the country? I do not think he is up to dealing with the issues that we are confronting, and those issues are real and serious. I am not even sure that he cares about them, or that he understands them. Things like the fact that in the next generation of New Zealanders there will be a really high percentage who will not be able to afford to buy a home—I do not understand how that is acceptable—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am now going to interrupt my friend and colleague and ask her to come to the report of the committee.

💬 Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not want to take up too much time in this debate, but this section covers finance and Government administration, and I can assure the Chair that in the discussion of Treasury and the Government accounts, which appears on page 11 of the consolidated document, this exact topic that my colleague was about to talk about—homeownership—was discussed in some detail.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): While I thank my other friend and colleague for his advice, and will not condemn him for arguing with the Chair, if the member who was speaking had referred to that, I might have been convinced that she was speaking to the report of her committee.

Speaking to the point of order, can I just ask for a point of clarification. So when we are doing this in a sector, but you are a member of a specific committee, is your ruling that we can discuss only—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No, no. If the member can refer to the other committees’ specific points, that is fine, too.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

I want to move on to the issue of sport, which the presiding officer may find of interest, and this is specifically before the Government Administration Committee. One of the concerns that has been raised during the appropriations debate in this round is the fact that the Labour members, and the Green Party members too, I think, had a clearly expressed view that the National Government’s sports policy and its investment have been far too focused on the elite and high-performing sports at the expense of participation in physical activity. We know that the Government has turned away from much in the health area. We know that it is no longer concerned about obesity. It is no longer concerned about many preventable conditions that are increasingly costing our health services money, but it has also done the same thing in the sports area. So the policy and the funding investment going to the high performance and elite—which, of course, we all love to celebrate—is at the expense of broader participation.

The other area of considerable concern is that of civil defence. We have seen responses in a number of our civil defence situations that caused our committee extreme concern. The most recent was the tsunami warnings related to the Kaikōura disaster. I want to pay a tribute to everyone who responded to the needs of people, not just in the Kaikōura quake but, obviously, in my home town of Christchurch through our series of quakes, as well. This is not a criticism of them in any way, in the same way as it is not a criticism of the civil defence structure and the response to the Port Hills fires, but it is very clear that our civil defence system needs a major shake-up. I am pleased that we have got a cross-party group working on that, and I hope that it comes up with some serious recommendations that are then able to be followed through on.

There is a lot that this country needs. There is a lot that is being ignored by the current Government. Mental health cries out for better support, as does the rest of the health system. We have seen abuse—abuse is not too strong a term—of some Government funding, tragically, through the recovery organisation in Christchurch. I hope the new Minister is able to step up to the mark with the new recovery organisations and ensure that that culture that was bred under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority structure is not replicated under the new recovery agencies. We have had total inaction on Government projects, particularly the anchor projects, in our city. We need a bit of leadership, and our city is looking to the new Minister for that.

I want to focus my comments today around the finance sector part of the finance and government administration Sector. I want to start by recalling a debate that happened in the committee when we were discussing this and the Minister and Treasury came to us and told us about New Zealand’s growth rates. They told us that we should be very proud because New Zealand was growing at a faster rate than many other countries that we looked at. It took only a couple of minutes for that to unravel when we looked at the numbers, which showed us that, in two core areas, New Zealand was falling behind. In labour productivity—in what we get for the hours of work that New Zealanders put in—what are the outcomes of that? New Zealanders are working longer hours than ever, but our productivity at the other end—our output at the other end—is not keeping up, to the extent that we now have the fourth-lowest labour productivity in the OECD.

The second statistic that emerged in that discussion in the committee was around what GDP means. What does that mean for us? The Government was very pleased to say: “Oh, we have got GDP up, you know, 3 percent. Growth is happening.” Actually, GDP per capita is 8 percent below the OECD average. Just adding more people into our country does not mean that we are sustainably growing—8 percent below the OECD average. So what we would have looked for and what we hoped for when officials and Ministers came to discuss the activities of their departments was some kind of plan or vision for lifting our per capita wealth, for making New Zealanders feel as though not only will they get wealthy from selling houses to each other but there might actually be jobs with higher wages. Today we got the example again—Steven Joyce stood up in the House, just as the Government has on growth figures, and crowed about the employment figures. Look at the wages figures that were announced today: 1.6 percent on average wage increase in the last quarter, and 2.2 percent inflation. Wages are not keeping up with the cost of living.

That is certainly the case when it comes to housing costs, another matter that was debated at length in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Housing costs last year, according to Statistics New Zealand’s household economic survey, wiped out wage increases for most New Zealanders. New Zealanders were a dollar a day better off on average—$1 a day better off on average—because housing costs have gone through the roof. Today, here in Wellington, we discovered that house prices went up by 20 percent in 1 year. That is unsustainable. It cannot carry on that way, and it will push people further and further away from owning their own home.

In this section, we were looking for a Government with a vision for sustainably growing the economy, for making sure that New Zealanders get a fair share in prosperity, and it is not there. What we have seen consistently from this Government is complacency and lack of leadership when it comes to making sure that everybody gets a fair go. We are about to get a Budget in which again the Government will say: “Look at that surplus.” Well, underneath that surplus is a series of deficits: a massive infrastructure deficit, lack of investment in housing and our rail services, lack of investment in rural and regional roads. All of that is adding up to Steven Joyce now being able to say: “I have got to put $11 billion in over 4 years.” Not even $11 billion over 4 years will make up for the deficit in infrastructure that has been built up by this Government.

Then there are the social deficits. It is the people in New Zealand who look at the economy growing and say “Where is my fair share?” who are constantly faced with more costs for housing—the 41,000 who are homeless, the young parents who are asked every single day for more donations so that their kids can be part of what used to be called our “free” education system. And then there is the health sector, where every organisation that works in the health sector is being squeezed and squeezed and asked to provide more with less. Those are the social deficits that sit underneath what this Government would like to claim is a great success in the economy. The economy is not an end in itself; it is about what it delivers for our people. It is time that we actually made that our priority, and when we look at what the Government has done over the last couple of years, it has not put people first. It is time to put people first in the economy and make the outcomes we deliver for everyday New Zealanders the most important thing.

What a pleasure to be able to speak to, particularly, the financial side of the appropriations debate. It is great to see—when I think back to some of the challenges that this Government has had to deal with over the years, whether they have been natural disasters or the global financial crisis, I actually think the Government has done extremely well, and so have the people of New Zealand by working hard, by paying their taxes, and by, in most cases, being really good citizens of this country. We are very lucky in New Zealand to have such decent people.

I think one of the interesting things, when I have been looking at this going forward, for the appropriations, is to think about the fact that—I think we all remember what happened when we said as a Government that we were going to float 49 percent of some of the big State-owned enterprises (SOEs), particularly in the electricity sector. Of course, this is absolutely crucial to our economy, the electricity sector, as South Australia is finding out. What was going to happen? Well, there were marches on the streets, there was all sorts of talk from the Opposition—it was going to be the end of the world, we were selling out New Zealand. Well, actually, what has happened is, in some cases you might expect that we would have got a reduction of about half of the dividends from these SOEs.

I think it is important just to note that part of the reason we are actually in a much better position as a Government and as a country is that now, for instance, just as an example, Genesis is now paying us not half the dividends it used to pay us when we owned the entire number of shares—the 100 percent of the shares—but it is now actually paying us twice as much as it ever used to do. Actually, I think that is one of the great things out of this Government, and if I look at it, I think that, really, we have put a tremendous amount of taxpayer money and thought and effort into asking how we can make Government work better, how we can make Government-owned assets work better, and how we can do better for people.

If I look at the Inland Revenue Department area—and I just need to do this, because revenue does not get enough points for trying so hard, and, as I said to the Inland Revenue Department when I became its Minister: “It is all right, I just want to turn you into the most popular of all Government departments.” I am going to read to the Committee today a little skite note, an email received yesterday. This is your new reporting system. This is not my email; this is to the Inland Revenue Department: “I cannot believe how you keep improving this service.” Oh, is that not lovely? “This is the most simplest”—I think they meant most simple, but you know—“and effective way of reporting GST. Congratulations to those who implemented it.”

This is a genuine email from a genuine person, although the Inland Revenue Department did delete all of the details so I did not know exactly who it was, but it assured me it was none of its staff, and it was not me or anyone connected to me—that I am aware of. I actually think that is part of the Business Transformation project, that we have invested—last year we put $1 billion, essentially, into making the Inland Revenue Department work more simply and better for New Zealand taxpayers.

So GST came online, on this new system, on Waitangi weekend this year. Next year we will have in place, sometime during that year, a new system to allow businesses, small businesses that currently pay provisional and terminal tax—which I have to say, as a former business owner, is a complete bane of any small-business owner’s life. We are going to turn that around so that it can be paid on a monthly basis, just like a PAYE-type system. So every month, on the new accounting systems that so many of us have, we will be moving into, basically, a pay-as-you-go type system for small businesses.

This will take out one of the major reasons that many small businesses fail in their first 2 years, and, actually, this is about using technology in a smart way to help New Zealand. One of the big complaints I have had from big businesses is: “When can we have it too?”. Well, we are working on that. Let us get the small businesses done first. Let us move down that process. So this is what we are trying to do: make Government work better for New Zealanders. That is what we are after. Also, along the way, we are putting in a bit of effort around the multinationals and how they could also help add to the tax pool, and I am very pleased with the great support I have had around the House for that.

I rise to address the Committee as a result of the reviews undertaken by the Government Administration Committee and, in particular, I want to focus on one of the reviews, which is of the State Services Commission. We do not, I think, often enough in this House, talk about the processes of Government themselves. One of the issues that we addressed in this departmental review was to raise questions of the State Services Commissioner about the independence of the Public Service. Now, this is important because of the unprecedented politicisation of our Public Service in recent years.

We asked the State Services Commissioner what provisions there are to ensure that there is maintained independence and integrity of the Public Service. We need to ensure that there is not undue political pressure, interference, and bullying by Ministers. On page 454 is the answer from the commissioner and, frankly, the answers were not reassuring. There is the aim that political neutrality should be the cornerstone of the Public Service, but we did not hear about what will actually make that happen. Just as one example, we saw the disgraceful vilification of Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials just over a year ago, with reports of micro-management, bullying, and blaming of civil servants. That is just one example from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. We hear of other examples as well.

The ethos of public service that we would like to ensure is part of the pride and the job satisfaction of every civil servant is being rapidly eroded. The report of the Controller and Auditor-General, in the reflections on audits this year, acknowledged this issue and said that there needed to be attention given to this. So as part of this agenda we have seen a huge rise in the number of political advisers. Their role is political spin. Their role is not neutrality.

We have seen political appointments across quangos; we have seen boards, councils, and committees of universities, of educational institutions, of institutions across our society, stacked full of political appointees. We are having the politicisation of a whole new level of quangos in our society, and they wield tremendous amounts of power, often without accountability mechanisms. We have seen Ministers deliberately withholding potentially embarrassing reports under the Official Information Act. We have seen secrecy in negotiations like trade agreements, on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, and even on an agreement like PACER-Plus, which is apparently in the interests of the Pacific Island countries. But it is all kept secret.

So what we are seeing is that the very principle of open government, which should be at the heart of the work of this House, is not being implemented. We have seen the abuse of political fund-raising and large political donations from recipients of visas issued under ministerial discretion. We need a proper code of conduct for MPs, and we need rules on lobbyists. So the State Services Commission says that the public needs to have trust and confidence and that the Public Service should remain politically neutral. I say, from my understanding, that the public has totally lost confidence with the neutrality of the Public Service. They have lost confidence with the integrity of our political system. I can undertake that the Green Party, if elected to Government, will restore honesty in Government—that is so vital. Thank you.

I just want to address a statement from the Minister who was in the chair, Judith Collins. She spoke about the electricity sector. It was not what I was going to get up to talk about, but I just want to point out that since the reforms, electricity prices in New Zealand have gone up 146 percent. I give her credit, in that she acknowledges the efficiency of big business. I will tell you what it has been really efficient at: it has been incredibly efficient at cost saving, and not passing a cent of that on to New Zealand households. How do I know this? It is because prices this winter have already gone up, or are pegged to go up, yet again. So what the Minister is actually proud of, and what she is extolling in this Committee this afternoon, is a tax by stealth. Yes, Government revenues have gone up because those dividends have gone up, because of the efficiency of big business to take money away from households, create those savings, and pass them on to, essentially, what will, in the main, be overseas investors.

What I wanted to talk about was the Reserve Bank. I want to congratulate it on acting independently—I speak specifically to loan-to-value ratios. I want to acknowledge it because it was running counter to the Government’s ineptitude and casual disregard of what is causing this country’s housing crisis. If it were not for the Reserve Bank’s actions—and we see this in the report from the committee earlier this year—we would be in dire straits right now. This country and its people are suffering from a market that is shutting them out. New Zealanders are not able to buy homes, and to add insult to injury, effectively, what that means is rental prices have gone through the roof. So if you cannot buy a home—which is almost impossible in Auckland, because, what is it, it is still over $1 million despite the quietening of the market, and that is only thanks to the Reserve Bank. It is so expensive to rent.

So here we are, struggling through the situation—a housing crisis is just one example—and what does the Government do? It continues with unsustainable immigration numbers, it blames councils, and it describes the scramble by private developers to build homes, next to none of which will be affordable, as a success of the Government. I think now the continued denial, coupled with the absurd spin, has angered the everyday people of New Zealand enough for them to at least question their historic loyalty to that tired and out-of-touch Government.

That Government’s disdain and disregard for people is perhaps best typified in one of the reports we received, and that was around the $1,000 kick-start package to do with KiwiSaver, managed by the IRD. At the time, New Zealand First got up and spoke to the detrimental effect that it would have on the uptake of people signing up to KiwiSaver. We were literally laughed at and abused by that side of the Chamber, yet not a month later—and this continues to be proven to be true—sign-up rates have decreased. And what do you know; it is actually the children who have been missing out, as parents are now opting to not sign their kids up to KiwiSaver, because they are not getting that kick-start package.

The National Government is shirking its responsibilities with regard to bank guarantees—another Vote issue brought up in select committee. Kiwi depositors are now missing out. Clearly, the National Government could not care less about ordinary New Zealanders and their savings. I say this because—and I quote Mr Mortlock, a banking expert, who says: “Depositors in New Zealand have no protection in a bank failure. [We are] the only advanced country in the world without any form of depositor protection.” That typifies the thinking of the National Government today.

And so it is that I say in closing that the National Government has lost leadership. It has lost the ability to shirk off the responsibilities and the decisions that it is not making. Those three or four examples that I have given the Committee this afternoon are just a small snippet from the appropriations debate that highlights that fact. Thank you.

It is my pleasure to take a call here, and to look at the report of the annual review of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. DPMC, or the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, has three functions: national security and intelligence coordination, the management and oversight of the civil defence emergency management, and, of course, what I will focus on, the monitoring of the Greater Christchurch regeneration programme, which now sits within DPMC after the disbandment of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) with the legislation that was passed last year. This was an important annual review for DPMC, because this is one of the first times that Parliament, through the select committee process, got to question the chief executive about how the new entities of Ōtākaro Ltd and Regenerate Christchurch were performing in relation to DPMC and the regeneration of Christchurch. The questions that were asked at the Government Administration Committee, which are covered off in the report, are wide ranging.

First of all, there are the lessons from the Canterbury earthquakes. This is something where I am eager that we do not sweep under the carpet some of the more difficult bits of what has been, first of all, our crisis period, and then our recovery, and now our regeneration, and not learn all the lessons that need to be learnt from this. This was covered off when the chief executive came to the select committee and questions were asked, as was the very vexing issue of the insurance industry. I wonder whether one of the Government members, when they take a call under this theme, may give us an update about the report that is mentioned in the select committee report, which was expected to be completed by 31 March 2017, which will include lessons about the insurance industry and how that performed, and whether or not that would include, of course, the Government insurers, both through the Earthquake Commission, and through, of course, the Crown-owned insurer Southern Response.

Of course, we know that the Earthquake Commission itself has thousands of unfinished claims, whether they be claims that have not been begun, or claims that are having to go back and be re-repaired. This is something that is stopping many thousands of Cantabrians from getting on with their lives, and this is something that certainly needs to be examined whenever we are thinking about how it is that our regeneration and our recovery is going in Canterbury.

Another area that was canvassed was the East Frame anchor project. The East Frame, of course, was one of 13 anchor projects that were CERA-led and have now transferred to Ōtākaro in various forms—none of which have been completed according to the original time lines, as were set out in the cost-share agreements. As they were reconfigured—they all have needed to be re-negotiated—what we have seen is the private sector going gangbusters in Canterbury and some really exciting developments growing in the CBD of Christchurch, but what we have now is the Government anchor projects being the kind of anchors that weigh things down. We can look at the empty lot where the East Frame has sat vacant for many years. We can look at the hole in the ground in Cathedral Square where we should have a convention centre. We can look around and see that, really, we need some impetus from the Government—so, being able to talk about that, and talk about what the expected time frames are when we could finally see some of the stimulus that we were promised from these anchor projects come to fruition.

Most concerningly, this was also a chance to question DPMC about the various serious allegations of conflicts of interest in the former CERA organisation. Further to those serious allegations of conflicts of interest, we now know, in addition to the original three—two of which have been referred to the Serious Fraud Office, given how serious they were—that there are at least a further three individuals within the CERA organisation who are being investigated by DPMC for conflicts of interest. This is a great concern to us. This is the kind of way in which we are not used to seeing Government operate in New Zealand, and it is not something that we in Labour are willing to tolerate. We call on the Government repeatedly to have a wide-ranging inquiry into this. Why it is that it thinks it can confine it to a shopping list of three names that have been supplied by the original three under suspicion is beyond me. We must learn the lessons of what has happened in Canterbury, and I think that the report that the select committee has produced there makes it clear that we need to see that leadership from the new Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration that will make sure it is a success.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. Ngā mihi ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to take a call on the review of the Treasury part of this debate. I want to focus in particular on page 11, which is the alternatives to GDP discussion that James Shaw had in the committee and which is in the report with the Prime Minister. But I want to start with a bit of a story.

At the time that Tāne Māhuta, the great kauri tree in the Waipoua Forest, was just a sapling growing up North, on the other side of the planet, a great city was being sacked and a new noun was being added to our lexicon. In AD 455 Genseric, the king of the Vandals, along with his army, stood outside the gates of the city of Rome. At the time, the emperor and half the population fled the city in terror, and for 14 days the Vandals sacked the city. They destroyed and damaged buildings, including the great temple, they carted off loads of treasure, and for ever their name was immortalised with the act of vandalism. They are also famous across the Greek world, because what they would do to get the little bit of lead inside the Greek temples was dismantle the great marble blocks—just to get that little bit of lead. When we do not measure the real things, when we do not look at the big picture, when we measure only those short-term little inputs or costs, we miss out. This is why I want to talk about the risk of the vandals today.

That tribe became synonymous with vandals, but, 1,500 years on, the vandals are not at our gates anymore; in fact, they are in charge of our country. The vandals do not wear warpaint or carry swords anymore; they wear suits and they carry resource consents. These environmental vandals, who do not have an idea of the big picture or the important things that we should be measuring, are wrecking our waterways, are plundering our forests, and are throwing our “clean, green” brand on a bonfire of ideology. You can see it in the report when the Prime Minister says: “We’re thinking about it. We have been thinking about measuring broader things than just gross domestic product since 2011, but we’re not going to do it.”

Take what it means in the real world. When you look at our rivers and lakes, our kids are getting sick because they are just so dirty. Everyone knows what the problem is. The problem is that we have got the equivalent of 90 million people releasing their effluent into the environment and we are treating only 10 percent of it. We are counting only the economic benefits; we are not counting the economic costs. What we see instead of making our rivers and lakes swimmable—we are not focused on measuring and counting and fixing, or on making them swimmable—is, in fact, a changing of the definition to “just swimmable”. That is just like someone scratching your car and calling it art as an excuse.

You can see the same with our conservation estate. Rome was not sacked in a single day, and we are seeing the same thing with our conservation estate—death by a thousand cuts. When we do not measure the important things in life, we see what the Vandals did—taking it out. The Department of Conservation is the guardian of our national estate—$20 billion in economic benefit to New Zealand has been estimated because of our “clean, green” brand. But instead of protection or counting the important things, what we get are slogans—a War on Weeds, a Battle for our Birds—and targets that are so ridiculously far in the future that those who will actually be responsible when their call is due will be ancient history.

You can also see it in the vandalism of our climate when we do not measure the important things, because then you do things like promoting and subsidising oil drilling, promoting coal mining, and opening up the Maui’s dolphin sanctuary and the shores of Lake Te Anau to oil drilling. That is what happens. This is worse than fiddling while Rome burns in the midst of a climate crisis. In fact, it is just like pouring petrol on the fire. Now, the Prime Minister has had 9 years to address this—to count the impacts of our toxic rivers, the species going instinct, the conservation estate being degraded. But, instead, what we saw was a Prime Minister who stood before us and said: “I came, I saw, and I squandered.” How will historians look back at this generation and the actions and inactions contained in this report? We have all the advice, all the science, all the experts telling us what we could do, but instead of acting to protect our environment, the Government simply made it worse.

I talk about Rome because we do not have those gigantic, great temples, and we do not have cartloads of gold and treasure; but we have got something more important—our natural environment. And that is more valuable than any gold. Our forests and our rivers, they are our temples. The birdsong is our choir. As New Zealanders, these are the important things, and if we do not measure it, we are not protecting it. We can build, protect, and restore. The environment and the economy do not have to be in conflict or traded off just to get a quick buck, like those Vandals did, pulling out the iron from between the marble blocks. In this debate, I wanted to talk about the things we can do better. We can measure the important things in life.

It is a pleasure to stand and speak on this, the finance and government administration Sector of this appropriations debate. First, I would like to acknowledge the chair of the Government Administration Committee, who so kindly noted that I am a former member of that committee. I have, in fact, switched across to the other committee in this sector or theme, which is the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

I would like to just begin by referencing a contribution by Mr Tabuteau a few minutes ago. I would note that he had a lot to say, and as with the economic development and infrastructure sector yesterday, I would just like to offer a suggestion: that he might like to actually try to sit on the committees whose reports he pontificates upon, so that he might be able to give a little more detail and factual basis to his comments.

For instance, one thing he raised was a decline in the number of sign-ups to KiwiSaver from children. Before the change came into place it had been shown that this is a group that would sign up to receive some free Government money and then not make any more contributions or deposits for many years. New Zealand First thinks that their no longer signing up to get some free money from the rest of the taxpayers and making no personal contributions for years is somehow a bad thing. In the spirit of good, sensible fiscal management, I would just encourage the constituents of Ōhāriu to pay very close attention to the ideas of New Zealand First and how they would squander taxpayer money, and to think very deeply about what it would mean for this country if New Zealand First were to form part of a Government after 23 September.

As to the rest of this contribution on this theme, I would like to draw upon elements of the report from the Government Administration Committee on the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC). We had a lot to ask the head of that department and others about the things that had been learnt from the Christchurch earthquake, what had worked well, and what had perhaps not worked as well as people would have liked with the Kaikōura earthquake last year—which not only deeply affected that part of the country but also had some effects here in Wellington.

One thing that was certainly reinforced to us is that the model of the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management (MCDEM) at the moment—which is that you have coordination at the centre, going out and devolving responsibility and action to the local areas—is the most effective way of dealing with those sorts of events, emergencies, and needs, because the people on the ground in those areas are in the best place to assess immediate need.

DPMC and MCDEM did acknowledge that there were still some areas that need further refinement. One of them that was noted was some inconsistency around tsunami alerts in the immediate aftermath of the Kaikōura quake. It is very pleasing to see that after the review—and it was highlighted in the review—the Government made it very clear that we will be investing in an early warning system and looking to take advantage of the broadcast capability across the cellular network to reach as many New Zealanders as possible to give them timely and appropriate information. That is a good example of actually taking something that did not work as well as we would have liked in the moment but that we could, in very short order, improve upon.

I would just like to talk about the effects in Wellington, and, in particular, the note that the State Services Commissioner, in that report, had to make to us. While Wellington was quite adversely affected by this quake, one of the things the State sector responded to a lot more effectively was rehousing employees and also getting systems operational again, particularly its IT systems. That is valuable not only for their internal activities but also for the ability for citizens to interact with those agencies, with the Government, particularly as more and more services are being delivered over online platforms. In fact, this Government announced today an even greater target for even more services to be delivered over online platforms into the future. So I am very, very pleased to be able to present and talk on those reports. Thank you very much.

As the new Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration, I would like to take this opportunity to give the Committee a bit of a progress update on what has been happening in Christchurch and Canterbury. Some of the key topics of the annual review of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet were around the regeneration of Christchurch and how it was progressing, and also about some of the lessons that we learnt in that process.

I will start by looking at the legislation. As the chief executive, Andrew Kibblewhite, noted, we are already using what we learnt in creating the Canterbury legislation. We are using that in response to new disasters. In particular, we were able to draw on its strengths for the two bills that we created to assist Kaikōura in their post-earthquake stages. We have managed the Kaikōura situation better because of what we learnt in Christchurch and Canterbury, and we do need to ensure, and I think everyone agrees, that we learn those lessons and we make sure that we can manage natural disasters in a better way in the future.

Actually, I was speaking to some of the leaders of Ngāi Tahu this morning, and they were saying that because of their experience in Christchurch, they were able to have a much better local response in Kaikōura. But they also said that there is more work to be done, particularly in futureproofing their marae on the West Coast as we learn more about the Alpine Fault. We also learnt that active outreach and good communication is absolutely essential in supporting people following a natural disaster. What we have learnt is that people must know what is going on in their communities, they must know what services are available, and they must know how to access them. What we also learnt in Canterbury is that we need to be able to communicate in multiple ways and often in multiple times. Communication has to be ongoing.

There were also learnings from Christchurch that we can apply in the insurance sector. The annual review notes that we need to ensure that our insurance organisations are more people-friendly and customer-focused. Certainly, the new collaborative model, which the Earthquake Commission and the insurance companies are working with in Kaikōura, is improving their customer service, is streamlining the process, and will make the outcomes of claims much faster.

I would also just like to take a moment to comment on the Ōtākaro Ltd annual review. Ōtākaro Ltd is the organisation that is responsible for the Crown land holdings and the Crown anchor projects in Christchurch, and it is using that work to support the regeneration of the city and the handover of the assets to local control and governance in the long term. One of the issues that we talked about was East Frame. East Frame is a fantastic Christchurch City anchor project. It is about creating a vibrant, people-friendly community in the centre of our city. It will be building 900 homes, and we expect over 2,000 people to live in that area. The whole project will be staged over an 8- to 10-year period. It has already begun, they have started work on the first super-lot, and those 20 homes will be completed by mid-2018, which is actually a little bit ahead of schedule in terms of the contract. Then the next stage of 200 homes on top of that will be completed by mid-2019. That will give the whole city centre a real shot in the arm.

I think it is important we give Ōtākaro Ltd credit for getting the planning of this big project right, but also I would like to acknowledge Fletcher Living, which has committed to making all these homes accessible, which will mean lots of people will be able to use them in the future, regardless of their age or stage of life. We will also be staggering the construction of these homes so that it fits in with demand. As the new Minister, I have been able to eyeball both Ōtākaro Ltd and Fletcher Living, and both the CEOs have given me an absolute assurance that it will be finished on time and on budget, so I am looking forward to that.

Ōtākaro Ltd has also been working with the city council, and it will be working towards creating the assets that we can hand over in the long term. This is about a process of regeneration, a process of the Crown handing over to local governance, and it is good for Christchurch. Kia ora.

I am very pleased to speak in this debate because it gives me an opportunity to talk about the Public Service and how public service is now targeted and is highly prioritised by this Government to improve its interaction with small business and enterprise. In fact, Result 9 of the Better Public Services targets is to do with small business and provides New Zealand business with a one-stop shop for all Government services and support. It is a large target—a reduction in effort for small business in New Zealand in doing business with the Government by 25 percent. It is an aspirational target but it is one that, as the small business Minister, I am committed to working towards.

Result 9: Better for Business takes the form of collaboration with a number of Government agencies quite effectively. I have seen it in action, and I will mention it briefly in a moment. But the agencies that are in the Better Public Services Result 9 partnership are the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, ACC, Callaghan Innovation, IRD, Ministry for Primary Industries, the Customs Service, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, the New Zealand Transport Agency, Statistics New Zealand, and WorkSafe New Zealand.

Those ministries are all collaborating with each other, with a view of doing better business with small business in New Zealand, which arguably is the most important sector of the New Zealand economy. Of course, I would say that as small business Minister, but you will find small businesses ranging from a single person who has a wonderful idea and wishes to take it up, and then finds themselves needing to interact with the Government because they do need to pay PAYE and provisional tax, and they do have Inland Revenue Department obligations and WorkSafe obligations. We do want those very small start-up businesses, which are one person who has developed a wonderful product and wishes to sell it and make a living—we want to make it easier for those people, as much as for the local car dealership or the local restaurant that has five or six or more employees, to do business with the Government.

A lot of that Government interaction now is being moved on to an online platform, and, if we had time, we could traverse some of the online web pages that the Government is providing. There is now a wealth of information and interactive functions on websites that do support making doing business with the Government more possible. I want to highlight, for example, business.govt.nz, which is the website that small businesses can go to, to have a look at a number of the functions that they have to undertake when they are interacting with the Government. For example, there is an employment agreement builder on business.govt.nz and a number of small businesses have used that tool to do an employment agreement. That is a functionality that is really working for New Zealand.

I want to make a bit of a plug for the small-business roadshows. My predecessor undertook 24 small-business roadshows, which brought representatives of Inland Revenue Department, WorkSafe, Work and Income, and a number of Government agencies to many towns all around New Zealand. I am continuing with that programme this year. The usefulness of that for small business is that they can come along to a forum at somewhere like Cromwell, and the Government literally comes to them. I plan to do 10 to 15 this year, as time permits, but overwhelmingly the feedback from those small-business roadshows is that it is so good to know that the Government is focused on doing a better job of supporting small business in New Zealand, and, equally, those ministries get excellent feedback from small business about their needs. If the Government is going to do a good job for small business, then it not only has to say: “OK, you can now go on to the IRD website and if you register, you can calculate your GST obligations, and then you can pay your GST without logging out again.”—not only is that functionality important to tell people, but we have to listen to small business in New Zealand. It is a very important part of our economy.

E Te Tiamana, kia ora tātou. In speaking in this appropriations debate I want to refer to the Government administration component, in particular—the Government Administration Committee is, of course, the committee that I sit on as deputy chair. This Government is undertaking a significant range of improvements to the services that are offered to New Zealand citizens, particularly in the digital transactions space. For the first time in our history, the majority—more than 50 percent—of the 10 most commonly performed transactions between citizens and the Government are now delivered in a digital format. This is incredibly useful in terms of efficiency, cost savings, making it easier, and the sheer convenience for the members of the public who want to renew a passport, for instance, or register the birth of their new child—these sorts of things.

But also I think it offers interesting opportunities for some of our citizens who are more vulnerable and have traditionally been less engaged. So, for instance, those with disabilities now can access online a service where a form can be presented to them in an accessible manner and they can have the information read out to them. This is wonderful for engaging members of our deaf and hearing-impaired community, for members of the blind population, and for others who have traditionally had difficulty getting to a Government office to undertake a manual, paper-based transaction. So I think this is a very positive measure. In fact, Kiwis are rightfully demanding access to these services online and, as a result of some of the convenience and the innovations that are being offered, there has been an increase in the uptake and compliance with some of the requirements—the bureaucratic requirements—that we impose upon our citizens.

To give an example, passport services are now almost entirely available online. Rather than going down to the pharmacy to have a photo taken and printed out on a polaroid, to post in, one can actually now take one’s passport photo on a smartphone and append it to an application. This has seen a real boost in the number of passport applications that are being delivered online. We are informed, and the departmental—well, certainly the select committee’s report on the Department of Internal Affairs appropriations is worth looking at because it reflects on the fact that nearly 23,000 passport applications were processed online in the month of September 2016. And, of course, people do not need to be reminded that their passport is now valid for 10 years—a very good cost saving and certainly a time saving that has been provided to New Zealand citizens, thanks to the foresightedness of this Government, this National-led Government, and, with other Government services, I think there have been real improvements made.

Another issue that the Department of Internal Affairs appropriations covers is the SmartStart programme. This is an integration of different digital services to effectively provide a one-stop shop for parents who are wanting to go through the paperwork side of having a new addition to the family—a new baby. This is where the Ministry of Social Development, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Health, the Inland Revenue Department, and even external agencies like Plunket and New Zealand midwives cooperate and work together so that as a new parent you do not have to go through the rigmarole and difficulty of actually finding out who it is you need to talk to about all these different processes.

This is everything from registering the name to make sure that your new baby is able to access the wonderful top-quality healthcare that is provided in our public health system, thanks in large part to the sterling work of the Minister of Health, the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman, but also the other things that you need to do—getting an IRD number so that your new addition to your family is set up for their first savings account, and these sorts of things. This has all been made much, much easier, all put together in a one-stop shop, and I think this is very much the way of the future. This is something that this Government is focusing on—making sure that our citizens, the people of our great country, have access to Government services in a very convenient way.

There are some other important issues in this area of appropriations, such as the reform of the New Zealand Fire Service into Fire and Emergency New Zealand, and I think these have been very well covered in this debate.

Reports noted.

Health Sector