Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Police: Has she, or the former Minister of Police, been briefed by Police about any political interference or obstruction of justice in the Police investigation into allegations that MP Todd Barclay recorded a private conversation at his electorate office; if so, when?

No, and I have spoken to the immediate former Minister of Police, and she had no briefings, either.

💬 James Shaw: Have police briefed her about any instances where Bill English discouraged police from publicly releasing his statement or text messages regarding the allegations against Todd Barclay?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, and the statutory independence of the Commissioner of Police from Ministers is clearly laid out in section 2 of the Policing Act 2008—so, no.

💬 James Shaw: Does she agree that if they were asked to do so by the then Deputy Prime Minister, Bill English, police would have had little choice other than to withhold the statement?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: I do not deal with hypothetical or speculative questions like that. At the end of the day, the police commissioner is independent, and I respect that.

💬 James Shaw: Can she explain why police did not serve Todd Barclay with a search warrant after Bill English told police that he knew that Todd Barclay had recorded his staff?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there may be ministerial responsibility, the Hon Paula Bennett.

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, I cannot, because I have no responsibility for that whatsoever.

💬 James Shaw: Can she explain why police decided that there was not sufficient evidence to issue a search warrant for a National MP—Todd Barclay—when he recorded his staff members’ conversations, but when journalist Bradley Ambrose recorded former Prime Minister John Key’s conversation, police chose to raid the offices of TVNZ, TV3, and the Herald on Sunday?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think there is a point where a Minister clearly has absolutely no responsibility, and that is, I would submit, this question right now. It is entirely out of order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No. I have listened to the question, and the essence of the question to me is that, as Minister of Police, can she explain why the police did not take a particular course of action. To me, that is a legitimate question to ask the Minister. It is a relatively easy one for the Minister to answer.

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, because the police commissioner and the police have statutory independence, and a Minister—it is not appropriate for them to be involved.

💬 James Shaw: Has she or any other Minister, including Bill English, had conversations with police about allegations that a National Party board member politically interfered by threatening Glenys Dickson’s family over her complaints against Todd Barclay?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: I can only speak in my capacity as the Minister of Police, and no.

💬 James Shaw: Has she or any other Minister, including Bill English, discouraged police from investigating the allegations that a National Party board member threatened Glenys Dickson and encouraged her to drop the complaint against Todd Barclay?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: As the Minister of Police—the police have statutory independence. I know of no such incident, so, no.

💬 James Shaw: Does she expect New Zealanders to believe that police have not been influenced in their investigations by senior National Party figures, including the now Prime Minister, Bill English, who would rather the whole affair just went away?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, I do, because the police are independent, and the statutory independence of the police commissioner from Ministers is clearly laid out in section 2 of the Policing Act 2008. I kind of find it offensive to police, his insinuations.

Budget 2017—Social Investment Initiatives

My question is to the Minister of Finance. How did Budget 2017 support social investment—[Interruption]

Order! There is a fair bit of interjection coming both from my right and my left. I invite the member to start that question again.

2. to the Minister of Finance: How did Budget 2017 support social investment initiatives?

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Budget 2017 provided a $321 million social investment package with 14 initiatives designed to help our most vulnerable improve their circumstances. From reducing youth offending to contraceptive access for low-income women, we are funding high-quality social investment initiatives that evidence shows will help make a difference in the lives of target groups of New Zealanders. This social investment package means we can target integrated services at those individuals, families, and communities who face the highest long-term social and economic costs. We want to get in earlier with the right interventions to help change their lives.

💬 Jono Naylor: How were these initiatives assessed?

Budget 2017 included the most rigorous investment criteria we have used for social bids, to ensure funding went to proposals with the strongest evidence base that will deliver long-run benefits for vulnerable people and for taxpayers. The funded initiatives are about supporting better cross-agency ways to target some ingrained and complex social issues. They are based on a citizen-centred approach and judged against a whole-of-life understanding of cost and benefit. The bids were assessed against the case for change, value for money, and effectiveness in delivering results.

💬 Jono Naylor: How does social investment improve lives and reduce costs to taxpayers?

This Government is supporting—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am having trouble hearing the answer. There is one particular member who has not stopped interjecting since question time started. I will not name him, but he knows who I am talking about, and if he continues with that amount of interjection, I will have to ask him to leave. The Hon Amy Adams, to start that answer again.

This Government is supporting social investment because intervening earlier and more effectively is the best chance to change the lives of New Zealanders with some of the most complex and ingrained challenges. However, it is also about reducing the long-term cost to taxpayers by supporting people to lead productive and more independent lives. A good example of this is the social investment approach to welfare, which has already lead to a $4.1 billion reduction in welfare liability since mid-2014.

Todd Barclay—Southland Electorate Office Allegations, Ministerial Conduct

3. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his answers during Oral Question No. 2 yesterday?

Yes.

💬 Andrew Little: Is it an acceptable moral standard for a former finance Minister to say on Radio New Zealand on 1 March 2016 that he was not aware of any specific problems between Mr Barclay and his former staff, when, in fact, he was aware that Todd Barclay had recorded Glenys Dickson?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Speaker’s ruling 173/2 is quite clear that the Prime Minister has got no responsibility for a member of the caucus—a ruling by your good self. I would suggest here that is exactly where we are going with this question.

💬 Grant Robertson: I have two points to make. The first is that these matters were indeed traversed in question No. 2 yesterday, hence why it is a supplementary question that Mr Little has asked. Secondly, the first words of Mr Little’s question were about acceptable standards for Ministers. The Prime Minister is responsible for that. He gave an illustrative example of a behaviour of a Minister, and I believe that question is in order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am going to invite the member to ask the question again, but my first inclination, as I heard the question, is that because it was asking the Prime Minister a question in his former ministerial role as a Minister of Finance around radio comments, the question is in order. The question can be asked again. I will listen again very, very carefully and allow it to proceed if I determine it is indeed in order.

💬 Andrew Little: Is it an acceptable moral standard for the former finance Minister to say on Radio New Zealand on 1 March 2016 that he was not aware of any specific problems between Mr Barclay and his former staff, when, in fact, he was aware that Todd Barclay had recorded Glenys Dickson?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: At the time the matter was under investigation and, in fact, the facts of it had not been established. Some of them were covered by a confidential employment settlement to which I was not a party and they were under investigation by the police, and at the time I was not sure what I could or could not say about that.

💬 Andrew Little: When Prime Minister John Key said on Radio New Zealand on 7 March 2016 that he had had “a bit of a discussion with Bill”, did the former finance Minister tell the then Prime Minister that Todd Barclay had been recording his staff’s conversations?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the issue here is that I accept that the Opposition leader is dressing these questions up as being about the former Minister of Finance and so on, but what is quite clear is that the Prime Minister, the former Minister of Finance, was answering these questions on radio as the former member for an electorate. He is not responsible, therefore, as Prime Minister or as the former Minister of Finance for these matters. It is quite clear in terms of the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings that he should not be answering those questions, therefore, on a non-ministerial basis nor should he be speaking or answering questions about a member of the caucus.

💬 Grant Robertson: I am not sure whether the Leader of the House heard the question correctly. The question asked about a statement the Prime Minister made. The current Prime Minister is responsible in this House for those questions. It was about something the Prime Minister said, and it is a legitimate topic for these questions to be asked.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Again, I am going to ask the member to repeat the question. The question, as I understood it, is very much around ministerial responsibility. Mr Bridges raises the possibility that the question was answered in the Prime Minister’s capacity as a former member of that electorate. That is possibly the case but I doubt it. He was on Radio New Zealand, I would think, because he was, then, the Minister of Finance. The question can be asked again. [Interruption] Order! I have called Andrew Little to ask his supplementary question.

💬 Andrew Little: When Prime Minister John Key said on Radio New Zealand on 7 March 2016 that he had had “a bit of a discussion with Bill”, did the former finance Minister tell the then Prime Minister that Todd Barclay had been recording the staff’s conversations?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am sure I would have talked to the former Prime Minister about matters that were relevant to the management of the caucus, but I cannot recall either the discussion or the content of it.

💬 Andrew Little: In light of that answer, and given that, according to the former Prime Minister, former finance Minister Bill English “just said a couple of his former staff members had left. That was it.”, is it acceptable that he covered up this incident from the Prime Minister?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I come back to it, because now what you have had is a reference to his former staff members. They were his staff members in his capacity as a local member of Parliament. The Speakers’ rulings are incredibly clear in regard to that. They are not in a ministerial capacity, and he is not responsible for what he did as a former member for an electorate. It is quite clear he does not have responsibility for that as Prime Minister of New Zealand.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion, I do not agree with the member. The question, to me, is about the actions of a former Minister of Finance talking to the then Prime Minister. That is in a prime ministerial capacity; the Prime Minister has responsibility. The question will be asked again by Andrew Little.

💬 Andrew Little: In light of that answer, and given that, according to the former Prime Minister, former Finance Minister Bill English “just said a couple of his former staff members had left. That was it.”, is it acceptable that he covered up this incident from the Prime Minister?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Allegations of a cover-up are ridiculous. The statements made to me regarding this were reported to the relevant party official—that is on the record—and then to the police. It is a weird world when the Labour Party says that reporting a matter to the police is a cover-up.

💬 Andrew Little: In light of that answer and what the former finance Minister knew throughout last year, and that at times another MP was making statements that, to his knowledge, were incorrect, did he not do anything to ensure that the law was properly observed?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I participated in a police investigation, and made a statement about the limited knowledge that I had. The police investigated; you would have to talk to them about what they did, how they did it, and what they established. That is a matter for them, and the same matters were actually canvassed extensively in the media. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member, I do not want continued interjection from Mr Grant Robertson.

💬 Andrew Little: Is it an acceptable standard for a Minister to be aware that a public figure is lying and to cover that up for 18 months?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I simply do not accept the member’s assertion.

💬 Andrew Little: Given his statement yesterday that it would not be acceptable behaviour to illegally record a staff member and his police statement that Todd Barclay did record Glenys Dickson, is it the Prime Minister’s view that Todd Barclay acted illegally?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. That question is definitely out of order. The Prime Minister does not have a prime ministerial responsibility for a member of caucus.

💬 Andrew Little: Why did a member of his office tell several journalists yesterday that what Glenys Dickson had told police did not stack up, when his own police statement shows that her account does stack up?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have no knowledge of that particular assertion, but the police had many months of investigation of these matters, and the member is free to ask them what they thought about it. I answered the questions I was asked by the police.

💬 Andrew Little: Is he aware of whether former finance Minister Bill English requested that police withhold his police statement from the Official Information Act responses about the Todd Barclay investigation?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I understand there has been an Official Information Act process. I was aware of it. I did not really take part in it. My statement is in the public arena, and I think it contradicts directly the member’s assertion of a cover-up. I answered the questions to the police with the knowledge that I had.

💬 Andrew Little: Given the police statement that—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again, please, less interjection from one particular quarter. Andrew Little is to start the question again.

💬 Andrew Little: Given the police statement that “Police consulted those individuals who provided statements as part of the investigation. The redacted file that was released took into account the views of the individuals consulted.”, why did he ask for his police statement to be withheld?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate we have discussed this issue now in points of order, but what we have got here is questioning about a police statement that was made by a former electorate member of Parliament. It has to have been, because it was as the electorate member of Parliament that the Prime Minister had the information in the statement. It is quite clear in those Standing Orders and the rulings that I outlined to you earlier that in that regard, therefore, he is not responsible for them and he should not be answering as Prime Minister.

💬 Grant Robertson: The police statement specifically identifies Mr English as the Minister of Finance. The police statement was given as the Minister of Finance.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, no. I am not convinced by the point raised by Grant Robertson. I am going to ask for the question to be repeated—or I invite the member to change the question. As I listen to it a second time, I suspect on this occasion the Hon Simon Bridges is absolutely right in that the police statement would not have been given as an official prime ministerial or ministerial statement. I will listen carefully to the question, but unless it has changed, it is unlikely to meet the test of my allowing it to be put.

💬 Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are two points I want to make. The first is that yesterday we had a number of discussions and questions around the police statement. The Prime Minister has answered questions around the police statement just now. Just moments ago he contested Mr Little’s view about the police statement. I reiterate: he identified himself in that police statement as the Minister of Finance. It is legitimate, if only as a follow-up to previous supplementary questions, for Mr Little to be able to ask that question today.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I think the difference, Mr Speaker, is that right now what we have from the Leader of the Opposition is questions in regard to the information in that statement, and that information came to the Prime Minister not as Prime Minister but as the former member of Parliament for Clutha-Southland.

💬 Hon Member: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I need no further assistance. It is time to move forward. The Clerk has now handed me a copy, actually, of the statement. In it Mr English is asked what his occupation is, and he says he is a member of Parliament and the Minister of Finance. That does not mean to say that he continues to make a statement in a ministerial capacity. If the member wishes to change his question, that would be the wisest way forward, but if he wants to place it again and let me make a very definitive decision, I give him that option.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to appear to be relitigating, but there is an additional point, and that is that the decision to withhold the statement was the police’s, and the question is whether it would take more notice of the view of the Prime Minister—

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: That’s not a point of order.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, the Prime Minister interjects, but it is a matter that has, really, two points. One is whether or not the police would take more notice of the Prime Minister’s request than any individual’s request. The second point is whether any ministerial staff whatsoever were involved in the communication, because if they were involved in the communication, it then squarely has to be answered.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Mr Speaker—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need any further assistance. That does not really help the position at all. Whether police would be more influenced by a Prime Minister or somebody else I have no idea. That is over to the police.

💬 Andrew Little: In light of the most recent answer the Prime Minister has just given, and given the police statement that quotes “Police consulted those individuals who provided statements as part of the investigation. The redacted file that was released took into account the view of the individuals consulted.”, does he accept that it is acceptable ministerial conduct that he requests his police statement to be withheld?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am sure that all discussions were conducted consistent with the Official Information Act, and the police, in the end, have statutory independence. In addition to that, like any other agency, it makes the decisions about what information it releases, taking into account whatever factors it thinks are relevant.

💬 Andrew Little: Why should New Zealanders place any trust in him as Prime Minister, given he has told media things that are untrue about his contact with Glenys Dickson, told media things that are untrue about his knowledge of Todd Barclay’s actions, and consistently failed the moral standards that New Zealanders expect of their elected leaders?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I simply disagree. The confidentiality of the original discussions had to be respected. It would be a breach of the law to breach those. Then it was a matter that was subject to police investigation, and I participated in that investigation.

Todd Barclay—Southland Electorate Office Allegations, Prime Ministerial Conduct

4. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements even if facts known to him make doing so extraordinarily difficult; if so, how?

Yes, I do stand by all my statements in the context they were given, with the information that was available at the time.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well if that is remotely true, when he was asked by the media about Todd McClay MP’s actions—

💬 Hon Members: Todd McClay?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Sorry, Todd Barclay. [Interruption] What a terrible relief!

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! All members make the occasional mistake. I will allow the question to start again.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I have no doubt Todd McClay knew as well, but anyway. Ha, ha! When he was asked by the media about Todd Barclay MP’s actions, and against the now Prime Minister’s statement to the police in April 2016, why yesterday, when he was first questioned by the media, did he simply not tell the truth?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I explained just before—and, actually, yesterday, at the time I was asked that question yesterday morning—I was asked about a statement that was made, I think, some 12 or 15 months ago. I had not checked that statement, and as soon as I did check it to see what I had said, I made it public.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: He can’t even remember yesterday.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, I can remember you. Ha, ha!

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is a level of interjection coming from all quarters that must cease so that I can hear the question from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does it not make sense to sack someone who has breached professional standards and broken the law, as soon as that is known to the leadership of a party; if so, why did it take him so long to get some guts and do just that?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! That question is not in order. There is no prime ministerial responsibility as the leader of a party, and I refer the member to Speakers’ rulings 172 and 173 , which I quoted yesterday.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that he deliberately did not tell the truth when first questioned yesterday because he himself was deeply complicit in trying to avoid legal action, with taxpayers’ hush money, and he knew full well that a confidential agreement or contract to cover up a crime is an illegal contract?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The right honourable Prime Minister, in so far as there is prime ministerial responsibility.

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. The employment dispute is between the employer and the employee. I was absolutely no party to that, and I do not know what the dispute was or how it was settled.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: When the chronology of events and the communications have his DNA all over this story, including the cover-up and the hush money, how can anyone possibly trust him on these matters or, for that matter, on the economy, about which he speaks so much spin?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can only repeat what I have said to the member. There was an employment dispute that was settled between the employer and the employee. I was no party to that dispute or the settlement.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: When it is clear to every independent commentator that this Prime Minister is complicit in a cover-up, why does he not resign? [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The Prime Minister can proceed to answer that question.

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Oh, I simply reject the member’s assertions. The fact that he wants to keep on saying it does not make it true. I made—[Interruption] My statement to the police stated what I knew of the circumstances, and I would have thought that making the statement to the police was not a cover-up.

Transport Infrastructure, Auckland—Waterview Connection

5. to the Minister of Transport: How many people were involved in the construction of the Waterview tunnels in Auckland?

Around 11,000 people were employed during a 5-year period at over three different worksites during construction of the Waterview tunnels. Construction began on the project in 2012 with Alice, the tunnel-boring machine, excavating enough dirt to fill 320 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Twenty-four thousand concrete segments to line both 2.4 kilometre tunnels have been installed, along with 400 kilometres of cabling and wiring. The end product is a world-class piece of infrastructure that will deliver the biggest change in Auckland’s transport system since the opening of the Auckland Harbour Bridge in 1959.

💬 Dr Jian Yang: What reports has he seen on the expected wider economic benefits of the Waterview tunnels?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: When the tunnels open very soon they will provide more options for Aucklanders travelling around the city, particularly between the west and the south. The new connection will also provide more efficient links to and from Auckland Airport, Ports of Auckland, and inland freight hubs, reducing costs for people and businesses not only in Auckland but throughout the country. The estimated wider economic benefits of all of this are estimated to be worth $430 million, to improve productivity and reduce travel time and also include the creation of more than 18,000 jobs.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Just before I call the member—and I apologise—I say to Darroch Ball and Fletcher Tabuteau that I have warned them once about their level of interjection, but it has continued. If either of them interjects again during the balance of question time, I will be asking them to leave.

💬 David Seymour: Does such a large number of people being required to build one tunnel point to low productivity in the New Zealand construction sector?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No. It refers to a massive project, the biggest we have ever seen in New Zealand.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Minister believe that increasing vehicle occupancy rates would increase the productivity of New Zealand roads, such as the Waterview tunnel?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Yes, and that is why the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) is making its way merrily through the House and will be in the Committee of the whole House, I think, later on today.

💬 David Seymour: How will the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) help increase vehicle occupancy rates?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: By providing a legal and fair playing field for ride sharing, carpooling, and all of the new kinds of technological innovations we are seeing in the small - passenger service space.

💬 David Seymour: Has the Minister had any discussions with any other political parties about including new legislative initiatives in the bill he mentioned?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Yes, and I know that the member is a vigorous proponent of really enabling ride sharing and better occupancy of vehicles. The discussions between him and me have been very fruitful in that regard.

💬 David Seymour: Given the fruitfulness of those discussions, why has the Minister declined to include any of the matters discussed in the bill?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am still thinking it all through.

💬 David Seymour: Supplementary?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just rule first—the member has used his supplementary questions.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: That was certainly going to be my point of order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is very perceptive of you, but it is actually not a point of order.

Child Poverty—Unicef Report, Measurement, and Definition

6. to the Minister for Children: Is it acceptable that New Zealand has been ranked 34th out of 41 high-income OECD countries for child well-being in the UNICEF report - Building the Future: Children and the Sustainable Development Goals in Rich Countries?

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

Whilst in relation to this report, I have ministerial responsibility only for the indicators of child poverty and child abuse in goals 1 and 16, and not the well-being of all children, I have no responsibility or control over how UNICEF determines its rankings. But I would note that the report itself states that it is limited by the lack of comparable data in some domains, and “The Report Card cannot provide an in-depth analysis of the reasons behind differences,”. However, this Government is absolutely committed to child well-being, which is why we have increased childcare support for low-income families; increased benefit rates for families with children, for the first time in 40 years; increased Working for Families for low-income working families; and introduced a $2 billion-a-year Family Incomes Package in Budget 2017, which will lift families’ incomes by an average of $26 a week and reduce by 50,000 the number of children living in families receiving less than half the median income. We have introduced free doctors visits and prescriptions for children under 13, extended paid parental leave, and increased parental tax credits—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the answer to a conclusion.

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: —as well as helping to serve an average of 125,000 KickStart Breakfasts a week to schoolchildren across the country.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Why did she state yesterday that “it is simply not possible to measure poverty”?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not think that characterises my answer. I was talking about a single measure of poverty. I recall explaining that hardship and poverty are on a spectrum, that we use multilevel multimeasures, and that there was no country that I was aware of that had successfully used one measure to measure poverty.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: When her Government signed up to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and pledged to halve poverty according to national definitions, what was her national definition?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Again, I can respond only with my ministerial responsibilities, but I am aware, and I have stated in this House before, that a whole-of-Government, cross-Government group is working on how we define those goals. There are a number of them—16. The group does not have to report until 2030, and the countries have to report twice between signing and 2030.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Is New Zealand on track to halve poverty by 2030, as her Government has pledged to do, when she cannot even tell this House what poverty is?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We do not have to define it any more than is done on an annual basis by the Ministry of Social Development over a number of measures. Whether it is by income, whether it is by household income before and after housing, or whether it is by hardship, this Government—and the previous Government—probably has some of the best data to get underneath the causes of poverty. As I said in the House yesterday, we are using those measures consistently, over Budgets, as the economy grows and gives us the ability to invest back into our low-income households to help those children and those families.

💬 Jan Logie: Was the Minister embarrassed to read about New Zealand being singled out in the UNICEF report as “proof that high national income alone is no guarantee of a good record in sustaining child well-being;”?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The difficulty with the UNICEF report is that it does rely, in its conclusions, on a number of measures that New Zealand was not able to provide data for. New Zealand was not the only country in some of those measures. In fact, one of the measures that were used, I am aware, was developed only for the EU. So that means that countries like Australia, the USA, New Zealand, and a myriad of others outside of Europe were not able to comply with them.

💬 Jan Logie: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question in relation to a quote in that report about high national incomes and poor outcomes for children. The Minister just—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The question was very much an opinion question: would the Minister be embarrassed by such a statistic? The question was addressed.

💬 Jan Logie: When the Minister spends all this effort on defending the poor outcomes for our children, is she seriously saying that this is as good as it gets; if so, where is her aspiration for our children?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This Government does not rest, and has not rested, and Budget 2017 showed exactly that, with a $2 billion investment in those families on the lowest incomes. We will continue with the myriad of policies and programmes that we have put in place, but they are guided by the tremendous data that this Government has—that this country has—to get underneath the drivers of poverty. It is not enough just to talk about it; this Government is doing something about it.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: As part of the sustainable development poverty goals, what is she halving by 2030?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am one Minister of a number of Ministers who have responsibility for this sustainability goal. As I said, there is a cross-Government working group looking to define what that will look like. But, in the poverty area, there will not be one simple measure. There cannot be, because poverty cannot be defined by that. There will be a number of measures by which we will define it.

Question No. 5 to Minister—Amended Answer

I seek leave to correct an answer that I gave to question No. 5. I said—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need to put the leave. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

I said that the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) is up later today. That is not the case. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! There will be substantially less interjection, please.

Fuji Xerox—Fraud Allegations

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, in respect of a matter I raised, you referred to “The External Reporting Board has not taken any action over the allegations, because it does not provide auditing and assurance services.” Mr Speaker, I am concerned about that because that External Reporting Board is the Crown agency that sets auditing assurance and accounting standards. That is what makes it relevant, and I want you to reconsider that.

Order! That was an application yesterday for a snap debate. I made a decision on it. I am very happy to discuss with the member the reasons I gave, at any time he wishes to call by. Does the member now wish to proceed with question No. 7?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’ll drop you a line. Thank you very much.

I will look forward to it.

7. to the Prime Minister: Before making a statement, does he check all the facts; if not, why not?

To the best of my ability, but, as I pointed out to the member yesterday, I am often asked about topics where there has not been that opportunity. I try to check the facts as soon as I can, and say at the time that I am going to do that.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: If “there are certainly problems with Fuji Xerox …”—his words—then what investigations is he ordering into Peter Thomas, the former head of all-of-Government procurement at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, who jumped ship to Fuji Xerox in 2015 and secured contracts from the Government?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am advised by my colleague that there was a thorough investigation of that and no issues came to light. But, of course, if there was any new evidence of anything that looked like inappropriate or fraudulent behaviour, then of course the Government would investigate it—sorry, the appropriate agency would investigate it.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: If there are “certainly problems with Fuji Xerox … financial reporting,” what is he doing to investigate Fuji Xerox managing director Gavin Pollard, who on 23 December enthused over getting the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) all-clear, but 4 months before Fujifilm Japan found an initial $285 million fraud, and now, again, the SFO is reopening inquiries?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The right honourable Prime Minister, in so far as there is prime ministerial responsibility.

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not familiar with any of the detail that the member mentions, but if he has material that has not been presented to the appropriate authorities then I suggest that he do so.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: If it is all over the international business press, and if “Mr Fix-it” and his mini-me, “Where’s My Bridges”, missed $500 million of fraud—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need that part in the question at all. The member will ask his question without that sort of opinion.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: If it is all over the international business press, and if Mr Joyce and Mr Simon Bridges missed $500 million of fraud, will he at least promise taxpayers that he will investigate Neil Whittaker, known as the Bernie Madoff of copiers, or Dean Murray, the “Wolf of Carlton Gore Road”, or David Monnery, also known as “The Agent”?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not going to allow that question. There is just too much imputation and opinion in that question. I call question No. 8.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am willing to walk outside this House and say that. It is not imputation. There is a series of crimes that have been committed here, and I am trying to get some accountability.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is welcome to step outside and say what he likes. It does not worry me. I have looked—[Interuption] Order! I have ruled the question out of order.

Primary Industries, Ministry—Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries Report

8. to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports has he received on the positive outlook for primary sector exports?

The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has just released its Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries at the National Fieldays. MPI is forecasting that the primary sector exports will grow to $41.6 billion in the year to June 2018. This is an increase of 9.1 percent and would be the highest level ever. Dairy, forestry, and horticulture will lead the charge for this growth. New market opportunities and diversification into higher-value products such as chilled meat into China, retail-ready products, and nutraceuticals will help to further increase the value of our primary sector exports.

💬 Barbara Kuriger: What was the primary sector’s reception to the launch of this document at this year’s National Fieldays?

💬 Hon NATHAN GUY: Good question. It was extremely positive. Many farmers and growers have dealt with some very challenging times over the last 12 months, so it was great to feel this real mood of optimism at the Fieldays—133,000 people came through the gates over the 4 days, which was a record. There was a strong sense that many farmers and growers will be looking to use this extra forecast revenue to reinvest in their businesses. Ultimately, this will have flow-on effects into the wider economy—in particular, to those businesses that support our primary sector.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: In relation to the question, I just seek leave to table a summary of that report, which points to a reduction of almost 10 percent in—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. That information is publicly available to all members.

Economy—OECD Report and Performance

I seek leave for question No. 9 to be held over until the Minister of Finance is here.

Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.

9. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the OECD report on New Zealand that labour productivity is well below leading OECD countries, restraining living standards and well-being?

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Improving productivity is a longstanding challenge for New Zealand, which the OECD report notes. The report goes on to say New Zealand recently halted its productivity decline relative to other countries, and the challenge now is to make up lost ground. The Government is tackling this productivity issue with large investments in R & D and skills in recent Budgets. We are seeing big increases in business R & D through our growth grants, and we are now producing a record number of ICT and engineering graduates. Finally, data last week showed we now have the highest level of business investment in plant and machinery in almost 7 years.

💬 Grant Robertson: What responsibility does he take for the OECD further going on to say that “income inequality is above the OECD average,” that our child poverty rate is “more than double the rate in the best performing OECD countries.”, and that “Living standards and economic growth … vary considerably ethnically and geographically.”?

We, rightly and proudly, take responsibility for the economic performance of New Zealand, for the fact that it is growing really strongly, and for the fact that we have the second-highest employment in the OECD figures and some of the very lowest unemployment.

💬 Grant Robertson: But that’s actually not what I asked you about.

And, Mr Robertson, what that means is more people in jobs and, over time, better results for all New Zealanders—inclusive growth.

💬 Grant Robertson: Why has he overseen an economy where the export sector is in recession, with exports of goods and services having fallen in real terms for the last three quarters, and where per capita growth has declined for the last two quarters?

I simply do not accept that. Actually, if you look at what is happening, we have a strongly diversifying export sector where, for example, technology has gone from very small to very large—our third-biggest export. In our other sectors, high-value food is coming up very strongly. I think, in light of the global financial crisis, this is a country that is going incredibly well, with growth, with strong employment, with lowering unemployment, and with exports diversifying and going up the value chain quite well.

💬 Grant Robertson: Why under his watch are so many New Zealanders working more and more hours but feel like they are not getting ahead, and can he not see that relying on population growth and an overheated housing market is not actually an economic plan?

In fact, if you look at what is happening in wage growth, it is going up. Actually, it has been higher since 2015 than in the likes of the United States and the EU. We have got a way to go, but, actually, it is growing in a low-inflationary environment, and I think New Zealanders would be pretty pleased by that. Actually, in addition to that, if you think about what we have done through the Budget, as we have got the ability to do that, we have had the Family Incomes Package and so on, which, again, help the New Zealanders who need it most.

Budget 2017—Auckland Schools, Buildings

10. to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made following Budget 2017 on school property in Auckland?

I am pleased to advise the House that Budget 2017 will see a $240 million investment in school property in Auckland. This investment will see four new schools and kura, including a new primary school in Pukekohe—in the member’s electorate—the expansion of Stonefields School, the co-location and rebuild of two special education schools, 170 new and replacement classrooms, and five new special education satellite units.

💬 Andrew Bayly: How will this investment benefit students in the Auckland region?

💬 Hon TIM MACINDOE: This significant investment will boost capacity in Auckland by providing more learning spaces for students. As a result of the investment by the current Government, Auckland is on track to have an extra 21,000 student places by the year 2021. The $240 million investment announced under Budget 2017 includes funding for kura and special education schools, which reflects the inclusiveness within our education system. I am very confident that the new and replacement schools and classrooms will help to raise student achievement by providing innovative and stimulating learning environments.

Health, Ministry—Performance Improvement Framework Review

11. to the Minister of Health: Has a recent review of the ministry been undertaken by Paula Rebstock; if so, what were its findings?

As the State Services Commissioner has said today: “SSC started working with the Ministry of Health on a scheduled PIF review in February this year. The review is currently in progress and the review report is in the process of being drafted. Once the review report is completed, it will be published on the SSC website. This is expected to happen in the next few months.”

💬 Dr David Clark: How long has the Minister had a version of the report, and how long does he expect to sit on it before it is released?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have been quite clear, quoting directly the State Services Commissioner, that the report has not been completed and is still in the process of being written, so I think this question is rather premature. I would be happy to answer the question when the report is released, as the State Services Commissioner says, in the next few months.

💬 Dr David Clark: Has he seen a draft of the report?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look, I think the member needs to remember that this is the State Services Commissioner’s report. The report is not complete—as he said very explicitly, the final report is months away. It is still in the process of being written.

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

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well, I can imagine what it is. I am going to invite the member to ask the question again.

💬 Dr David Clark: Has the Minister seen a version of the report?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am aware of a draft copy of the report, but it is far from complete. It would be very premature, actually, to waste time on this before the report has been finalised. As the State Services Commissioner says, actually, it is months away. The important thing is, it is his report to release.

💬 Dr David Clark: Does he expect the report to paint a picture of performance at his ministry that he will be proud of?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The story with these Performance Improvement Framework reviews is they are all about looking for areas to improve, right across Government departments. There would be no point doing it if it was a rubber-stamping exercise. I expect that there will be a range of constructive suggestions there by which the Ministry of Health can raise its performance; otherwise, what would be the point of doing it?

💬 Dr David Clark: Has the Minister received a request from any of the district health board chairs to meet following the recent Budget misallocation; if so, when does he expect to meet with them?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have been in communication with the chair of chairs, Jenny Black, and we are looking at meeting sometime in the next few days. So, yes, I will be meeting with her, but I am in touch with her on a very regular basis. Would you like to come to the meeting?

💬 Dr David Clark: Well, yes, please. Supplementary question—have I got one?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: All supplementary questions have been used by the Labour caucus today.

Open Data Access—Funding

12. to the Minister of Statistics: What recent announcements has he made on open data?

On Sunday I announced funding of $7.2 million to further support open data access for information held by Government. I am committed to ensuring that data collected by the State is increasingly freely available and in formats that are easy to use. Opening data helps businesses, not-for-profit groups, NGOs, and individual citizens wanting to use the information to make their own decisions more easily.

💬 Paul Foster-Bell: How is open data good for an open democracy?

💬 Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: That is a very good question. In years gone by, Government data has been closely and tightly held. Today New Zealand is moving to an open data, open science environment where research findings, code, and tables are shared as a matter of course. Open data creates transparency, accountability, and more informed participation. Open data also helps everyone see how their tax dollars are being spent and how effective that spending is. I am delighted to hear that the Government Statistician has been emphasising recently the need to shift the conversation from “Will we open this data?” to “How will we open this data?”.