Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on the Clutha-Southland electorate office issue; if so, how does he do that?

Yes, in the context in which they were given. However, I point out that my statements were not made in my ministerial capacity as I do not have ministerial responsibility for this issue.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which statement is he standing by today—is it: “It’s never been established that the alleged incident around the recording actually occurred.”, or “It was avoidable; it did not need to have all these implications.”, or “I don’t know what happened.”?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said, those statements were not made in my ministerial capacity, and in the light of police reopening their investigation, I do not intend to add to them.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact, Prime Minister, that he turned down an opportunity to listen to the recording because Mr Barclay had already confirmed with him what was on that recording?

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

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have no ministerial responsibility for that, and I do not intend to add to the comments.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: When he said: “He left a dictaphone running that picked up all conversations in the office.”, and Mr Barclay offered to let him hear the recording, then why did he later say that he was unsure whether it even existed?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there may be prime ministerial responsibility, the right honourable Prime Minister.

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have said, those statements were not made in my ministerial capacity, and in the light of a reopening of the police investigation, I do not intend to add to the comments.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: If there is no sub judice rule around this matter at this point in time, and he claims he had no part in the employment dispute, and the settlement is confidential—his words—then why did he discuss details that he later claimed never to have been aware of?

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

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have already pointed out to the member, I do not have ministerial responsibility for the matters to which he is referring. In the light of the reopened police investigation, I have nothing to add.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is he persisting with this line of ignorance, when in Glenys Dickson’s own words she says: “This is the same information that I had received from Bill English.”?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can only repeat the substance of my previous answer.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: When he is, by the media’s judgment, guilty of misleading both them and Parliament regarding his involvement in this matter, why does he not just stand down like Todd Barclay did; or is there one rule for him and another for everyone else? [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! That question is completely out of order and I just refer the member to Speakers’ rulings 48.

Budget 2017—Commentary

2. to the Minister of Finance: What feedback has he received from the public and businesses on Budget 2017?

Since the Budget’s release, just over a month ago, it has attracted a positive response from a number of business organisations and from the public. International ratings agency Moody’s recently said that the Government’s prudent fiscal plan will continue to give us options to share the benefits of growth, as we saw with the Family Incomes Package. Recently, the OECD, in its country report, noted New Zealand’s strong economic growth and high employment as well as the low-inflation environment.

💬 Melissa Lee: How have businesses in the regions reacted to the Budget?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Since 25 May I have given briefings to around 32 different business groups, social service provider groups, community groups, and iwi groups around the country, and the feedback has been very positive. The regions are performing well. Under this Government’s economic management, the New Zealand economy is up on its foils. Budget 2017 continues the Government’s strong plan to keep the economy growing, giving households and businesses the confidence to make further long-term investments in their future. There are still some challenges, though, notably the shortage of skilled workers in regional New Zealand.

💬 Melissa Lee: What evidence are we seeing of further business growth?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: New Zealand’s stable economic plan and pro-trade policies mean that Kiwi companies and entrepreneurs are more outward looking than ever before. We see that in official figures but also at an individual firm - level. Last Friday, at the Bay of Plenty Export Awards, I met the entrepreneurs behind George & Willy—a local furniture company exporting to over 20 countries every year, and all at the tender age of 25 and as a result of an idea they had while at university in Dunedin. This is another example of how new New Zealand businesses are shaping globalisation to their advantage.

💬 Melissa Lee: What risks are there to businesses’ confidence in the economy?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There are both external and internal risks. Externally, we are subject, of course, to global events, but we are bolstering our resilience to these shocks by keeping the Government’s books in good order and reducing debt as a percentage of GDP. Internally, the biggest risk would be reversing the policies that have given businesses the confidence to invest and grow exports, such as closing the door on new trade deals or turning away skilled workers at the border. There are some commentators who do want a breather, and they want to slow down the economy to their pace. That is not the Government’s plan. Our plan is to drive New Zealand’s prosperity—something that everybody can share in.

Todd Barclay—Southland Electorate Office Allegations, Prime Ministerial Conduct

3. to the Prime Minister: Have all the answers given by him and given on his behalf to questions in this House regarding Todd Barclay been fully accurate and complete?

Yes, to the best of my knowledge and in the context they were given.

💬 Andrew Little: Why did he tell the House last Wednesday that he reported the matter to the police, when he knew that that answer was not truthful?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: That particular use of words was corrected by my colleague Gerry Brownlee, because it was correct to say that I answered the police’s questions—that is, I made a statement to the police.

💬 Andrew Little: Why did he say last Tuesday that he did not know who told him about the tapes, when he knew that that answer was not truthful?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I disagree with the member’s statement, but I do agree with another one he made: “we must stop the abuse of the system by dodgy employers”—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! When I rise to my feet it is important that all members, including Ministers and Prime Ministers, then cease their answers. Further supplementary questions?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the beginning of question time today, you were at pains to point out the rules. Could you please tell me what part of the Prime Minister’s responsibility that was when he answered that question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member should go back and study Hansard like I do when it is published later on, and he will see—[Interruption] If the member is going to ask the point of order, then he should show some manners and wait for the answer. Then, if he goes back and studies, he will see that as soon as I saw the Prime Minister deviate off track, I rose to my feet immediately and his microphone was switched off so he could not continue with an answer that was not relevant to the question asked.

💬 Andrew Little: Why did he say he did not know whether the tapes even existed, when, in fact, Todd Barclay had offered to play them for him, meaning he knew that that answer also was not truthful?

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

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: In response to the leader of the “Free Foreign Labour Party”, can I say—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just want an answer—[Interruption] Order! I just want an answer that addresses the question.

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: There has been plenty of comment on that matter, and, in light of the police investigation, I do not intend to add to that comment.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Rt—Andrew Little. [Interruption] Order! We will just have the question without the interjections from my right. [Interruption]

💬 Andrew Little: How many Young Nats have gone to help the Republicans? [Interruption] Given—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I do not want to be asking a senior Minister to leave the House, but Andrew Little was then responding to an interjection. It would be far better for the order of this House if there were substantially fewer interjections coming both from my right and from members to my left.

💬 Andrew Little: Given the contents of the tapes have now been revealed to concern Todd Barclay and sex and drug matters, does he accept the tapes exist, and when was he aware of their contents?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there may be prime ministerial responsibility, the right honourable Prime Minister.

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have said, I have no comment to add to what comments have been made. But the member should, I would hope, be as forensic with his own statements about the free foreign labour and the idea—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I have asked for less interjection. I am not getting much cooperation from either side. If I therefore have to ask a member to leave the Chamber because the member continues to interject, then I would suggest that person not complain to me afterwards.

💬 Andrew Little: Putting aside the Prime Minister’s admiration for my exemplary truthfulness—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will have the question.

💬 Andrew Little: Why did he say—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Andrew Little: Why did he say he did not know anything about Glenys Dickson’s settlement, when he had earlier texted Stuart Davie that the settlement was larger than normal, meaning he knew that that answer also was not truthful?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the Prime Minister to address it, but it—[Interruption] Order! It is marginal that it does not breach—I suspect it breaches Speaker’s ruling 173/1, but I will allow the Prime Minister, if he wishes to address the question, to do so.

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Those matters have all been publicly commented on, and I do not intend to add to it.

💬 Andrew Little: Is this an accurate time line of his statements as Prime Minister on this issue: last Tuesday he said he did not know who had told him about the tapes; later that day he said he remembered Todd Barclay had told him; last Wednesday he said he had reported the matter to the police; the next day he remembered it was the police who contacted him; on Saturday he did not know whether the tapes existed; and by Sunday he remembered that Todd Barclay had offered to play him the tapes? If so, why does his version of events about a potential crime committed by one of his MPs just keep on changing?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: If it comes to time lines, that member had better be clear about the scale of immigration fraud—the scale of immigration fraud—to which he may be a party.

💬 Andrew Little: Bearing in mind his own statement as Prime Minister that Ministers should be truthful, can he be straight with me: does he know whether any person suggested Todd Barclay destroy the tapes that were the subject of a now reopened police investigation; if so, who was that person?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there may be prime ministerial responsibility, the right honourable Prime Minister.

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I certainly have no ministerial responsibility for that, although that leader has responsibility—

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

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Carmel Sepuloni will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that interjection immediately.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Now, point of order—Grant Robertson.

💬 Grant Robertson: Point of order—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is—[Interruption] Order! I do not want to keep reminding members on my right that this is a point of order.

💬 Grant Robertson: Mr Speaker, in both of the first two questions, when the Prime Minister moved outside matters that were his responsibility or, indeed, his answer to the question, you drew that to his attention. I just wondered how long he goes on defying your instructions as Speaker without being pulled into line by you.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Speaking to the point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any assistance, but I do thank the member for offering it. I will watch that very, very carefully, but when I consider the tone and length of the question, and look at Standing Order 380, it did give some licence to the Prime Minister when he took the opportunity of addressing the question.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In his answer, the Prime Minister said he had no ministerial responsibility. The question that the Leader of the Opposition asked him was whether he knew of any person—in other words, is he aware of something. How a Minister becomes aware of something does not matter. In what capacity they become aware, if they have any form of ministerial responsibility for it—and in this case, the Prime Minister is responsible for the statements he has made as Prime Minister. How he became aware of a piece of information is neither here nor there. Ministers, when they are aware of something, are aware of it in their ministerial capacity.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have two problems with the point the member is raising. First of all, it is just that the length and tone of the question was substantial. It was very difficult for me to actually decipher the essence of the question the member was asking. Then, I do point out to the member Speakers’ rulings 198/5 and 198/6. The Prime Minister—my job is to judge whether he has addressed some of that question, and in my opinion he has. I do not accept any responsibility for the quality of the answer that has been given.

💬 Andrew Little: Why did he sit for a year on an issue that was so bad it forced the honourable member for Clutha-Southland to retire from politics once it became public and is now the subject of a new police investigation, and is that the moral standard by which he now governs?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: There are two supplementary questions there. The Prime Minister can address either.

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is simply wrong. I took part in the previous police investigation over a year ago. How long did that member know about the 85 free foreign workers—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! It is not the Prime Minister’s right to ask me when I knew any such issue.

Food Safety—Food Control Plan Compliance Costs

My question is to the Minister for Food—[Interruption]

Order! Right, I now need to start issuing some final warnings. I will not on this occasion, because the member knows exactly whom I am talking to.

4. to the Minister for Food Safety: What is the cost to restaurants of a bespoke custom Food Control Plan for a burger in time and money?

Like many people, I like a burger, and assuming the restaurant already has a general food plan, if it were to add a rare burger to its plan, it is likely to take 1 to 4 hours of chefs’ time and 1 to 2 hours of independent checking—approximately $300 to $500 for that checking. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) also has a responsibility to protect public food safety, and in this case it is in the process of developing a specialist procedure for rare meat burgers to be included in a template food plan. This is something that restaurants can use without the need for the independent evaluation process.

💬 David Seymour: Has the Minister’s enjoyment of burgers extended to burgers prepared using the sous-vide method, and does he agree with his own officials, who recommend this method, or does he agree with Duke of Marlborough Hotel owner Dan Fraser, who asks who the Frank-N-Furter would want a sous-vide burger?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: There are, I think, three supplementary questions; the Minister can address one or three of them.

💬 Hon DAVID BENNETT: No.

💬 David Seymour: Then does he agree with MPI food and beverage manager Sally Johnston, who says: “People have died from under cooked burgers, there is a genuine food safety risk here, we’re not doing this to take the fun out of food.”; if so, how many deaths have been attributed to medium-rare burgers in New Zealand?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Hon David Bennett can address either of those two supplementary questions.

💬 Hon DAVID BENNETT: It has been a generation since the last food safety regime was considered, and so there have been some teething issues, but MPI tries to balance the need for public safety with the requirements for producers, and so I have instructed MPI, in this case, to find a flexible and responsible way to achieve this balance.

💬 David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was asking for a very simple piece of information: how many people have died—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No—[Interruption] Order! No. The member has been here a while now. He knows better than that. He asked two supplementary questions; the Minister can address one of them, and he did.

💬 David Seymour: Then, if 19 reported cases of E. coli from this 2015 report from his department are due to undercooked meat, 103 are due to contact with household pets, and 53 are due to contact with children wearing nappies, what will his department be doing about those other, much greater sources of the same disease?

💬 Hon DAVID BENNETT: Those issues are not relevant to my ministerial portfolios. In this case, we have directed MPI to look at that balance, and it is working towards that to achieve that with the restaurant in this case.

💬 David Seymour: Could this whole sad bureaucratic overreach not be resolved by him directing his officials to rule that it would be much simpler if New Zealand restaurants could simply issue a written advisory requirement, as is found in places like New York and the rest of the world, so that New Zealanders can make up their own mind what they eat, instead of his bureaucrats and officials?

💬 Hon DAVID BENNETT: In this case, the verifier could have communicated the options better to the restaurant involved, but MPI has a role now to find a flexible approach in this case, and I look forward to trying one of those burgers and a beer in the future.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a letter written to the most senior of those two Ministers, dated 27 June, about the food safety bureaucracy getting out of control, demonstrating what a real MP does, rather than just showboating—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last part is irrelevant to me putting the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is.

Bovine Blood Products—Market Access

5. to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding market access for bovine blood products?

Last week I was at the Proliant plant at Feilding to announce that access has been approved for 16 New Zealand premises to export bovine blood products into China. Formal access for these products opens up enormous opportunities for our red meat producers, and it is estimated to be worth $50 million to $100 million a year. It is very welcome news for our red meat processors and comes off the back of recent access that we have gained for chilled meat products into China. Hopefully, we will see the first consignment heading to market this week.

💬 Stuart Smith: What are our bovine blood products used for?

💬 Hon NATHAN GUY: A good question. In factories such as Proliant, blood is processed down into serum and protein products. These products are used in the pharmaceutical industry for manufacturing vaccines and a range of other specialist products. We have a relatively free disease status here in New Zealand compared with other countries, which means our blood products are widely sought after by a range of markets across the globe. This is a fantastic example of this Government helping industry take products out of commodities into value add.

Economic Programme—Homelessness and Access to Services

6. to the Minister of Finance: Is the New Zealand economy delivering for all New Zealanders, in particular the 41,000 who are homeless, the 533,000 who could not afford to go to the doctor last year, or the 90,000 young people not in employment, education, or training?

I do have to note the member for misrepresenting his statistics. There are around 1,400 people who do not have a place to live; 2.1 million New Zealanders have access to free or low-cost GP visits; and the unemployment rate for 15- to 24-year-olds is actually 4.7 percent of the total age group, which is lower than the general population rate of 4.9 percent. Yes, New Zealand’s economy is delivering around 10,000 new jobs each month, real wages are increasing, and this Government will further boost incomes with the Family Incomes Package, which delivers around $45 more per week to two parents on the minimum wage, before adjustments for the accommodation supplement—and, of course, the member’s party voted against it.

💬 Grant Robertson: Can he confirm that the number of 41,000 homeless in the primary question comes from the census produced by Statistics New Zealand and is, in fact, the Government’s definition of “homeless”?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. In fact, the member should go back and look at the data, because the data refers to 41,200 people who are living in a range of situations, including temporarily resident with friends or family, in boarding houses, motels, emergency housing, or women’s refuges. The amount of people estimated to be living rough or in improvised dwellings is 1,413. The member needs to get his figures accurate.

💬 Grant Robertson: What exactly is his Government delivering to Maariri Pakuria, who is homeless and pregnant, and has been told that she cannot have an appointment about a social housing place until after her due date?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I would encourage the member to take that case up fully with the Minister for Social Housing. The Government is investing very significantly in emergency housing through this Budget. We have committed $354 million now for transitional places, providing housing for around 4,000 families a year in need of warm and safe housing. That is the first time that transitional housing has received ongoing funding from the New Zealand Government. We are also increasing the number of social houses and investing in affordable houses around the country. Again, I would encourage that member to take up that person’s case with the Minister for Social Housing.

💬 Grant Robertson: What exactly is his Government delivering to the children staying in an Auckland caravan park, who have moved four or five times this year and have not spent more than a few weeks at any one school because their family cannot find anywhere permanent to live?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again, I would encourage the member to take that up with the Minister for Social Housing—that family’s case and their details.

💬 Grant Robertson: You’re the Government. What are you doing?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I told the member in the last answer that the Government has committed $354 million for emergency housing places for around 4,000 families a year—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the Minister, but there is little point in trying to yell above that interjection level.

💬 Grant Robertson: Why, after 9 years in Government, is he trying to claim that he is delivering to all New Zealanders when there are thousands of New Zealanders who are homeless, thousands of children who are not staying in school regularly, and thousands of New Zealand young people who cannot access mental health services? How is that delivering for all New Zealanders?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Budget is delivering for those New Zealanders by increasing the investment in mental health services—something like $244 million. This Government is doing work in social investment to give young New Zealanders who are vulnerable a better start in life by getting them into school. This Government is assisting unemployed people by getting them into work and, mostly, providing the jobs—the 10,000 jobs a month that this economy is producing. That is a range of things that this Government is doing through Budget 2017, which shows, and the public know, that this Government is delivering for all New Zealanders.

Budget 2017—Youth Crime Reduction

7. to the Associate Minister of Justice: What announcements have been made as part of Budget 2017 about the Government’s investment to reduce youth crime?

Budget 2017’s $2 billion law and order package includes $46.9 million over the next 4 years to help prevent youth offending and burglaries. This will include a range of measures from employment support and family therapy through to counselling for offenders to address violence or antisocial thoughts. Our clear focus and priority is public safety combined with initiatives to tackle the root causes of crime. Everyone should be safe in their homes and businesses, and we are focusing on what works to ensure that this is the case.

💬 Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What other ways will Budget 2017 help keep Kiwis safe?

💬 Hon MARK MITCHELL: Budget 2017’s $2 billion law and order package includes $46.9 million—sorry, Mr Speaker, I have got the wrong piece of paper. Budget 2017 includes a $14.1 million boost to support victims against repeat targeting, by installing additional security features such as window locks or security lights. We are also investing $3.2 million in more youth mentoring because it is clear that many troubled young people lack good role models to guide them in their formative years. Young burglars are most likely to go on to live a life of more serious crime, so addressing their problems early means our homes and businesses will be safer now and in the longer term.

💬 Darroch Ball: How can he think including 17-year-olds in the youth justice system will reduce youth crime when that very system has delivered a 40 percent increase in youth robberies, a 15 percent increase in youth burglaries over a year, a concurrent decrease of convictions in court for that age group, and a 60 percent reoffending rate by young offenders with almost half reoffending three or more times, or does he want 17-year-olds to be exposed to that utter failure too?

💬 Hon MARK MITCHELL: It is proven that putting 17-year-olds into the adult system for low-level crime will not assist them or prevent them from going on to serious crimes. If 17-year-olds do commit a serious crime—e.g., an aggravated robbery—then they will be dealt with in the adult court.

💬 Clayton Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister sounds like he was quoting some official figures, or a report that he was referring to. Could we ask the Minister—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is very easily checked. Was the Minister using an official document when he answered that question?

💬 Hon MARK MITCHELL: No, Mr Speaker.

💬 Darroch Ball: I seek leave to table a number of documents compiled by the library that show that there has been an increase in serious crimes committed by 15- to 19-year-olds and a concurrent decrease in convictions in court for that same age group over that same—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that series of documents that have been prepared by the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection to them being tabled? There is not; they can be tabled.

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

Freshwater Management—Bottled Water Exports

8. to the Minister for the Environment: Tū ai a ia i runga i te mana o tana korero: “There is a real fairness problem with charging bottled water for export”?

[Does he stand by his statement that “There is a real fairness problem with charging bottled water for export”?]

I stand by my full quote, and that was: “There is a real fairness problem with charging bottled water for export in isolation from other users”.

💬 Metiria Turei: If that is the case, is the Minister intending to extend subsidies to water bottlers, like his Government subsidises irrigation in this country?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This Government is investing in water infrastructure, such as irrigation schemes, in many instances where there are substantive dividends for water quality, and by increasing minimum flows in rivers, including an example in my own area. I am surprised the Green Party is opposed to those.

💬 Metiria Turei: Does he not think the real unfairness is that NZ Pure Blue could take nearly $23 million worth of water from Blue Spring, near Pūtāruru, every day and yet pay only $6,900 a day for the privilege?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The total amount of export bottled water is about 9 million litres per year. Total water takes are 10 trillion litres a year. The Government’s point is that if you are going to have a sensible discussion about pricing and allocation, you include all water users and do not separate out bottled water for special treatment.

💬 Richard Prosser: Will he immediately adopt New Zealand First’s unique policy, announced 15 months ago, of the only charge to be applied volumetrically to consented water takes being in the form of a royalty only, on any and all exports only, of water as water only, or do we have to wait another 88 days?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The problem I have with New Zealand First policy is that every time I look, it is a different policy. At the last election, New Zealand First’s policy was that nobody would be charged for water. How it has suddenly changed since then—I just think it is part of the nimble-footed approach that New Zealand First’s policy is whatever the last poll said.

💬 Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Quite apart from being wrong, the Minister has no responsibility for New Zealand First policy.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty is that on this occasion, when Mr Prosser asked his question, he asked specifically whether the Government would adopt New Zealand First policy, which gave every chance for the Minister to then answer it.

💬 Metiria Turei: Will the Minister guarantee that NZ Pure Blue will pay a fair rate of royalties, like it would if it was extracting or selling off oil, gas, coal, or any other natural resource?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Each resource needs to be carefully managed and considered. The key difference, of course, with fresh water is that there is 500 trillion litres of new water that comes into New Zealand’s system each year. Last year the Government set up a technical advisory group on both the allocation and pricing of water. The issue of bottled water exports is one of the specific issues on which the Government has asked for advice on how it might proceed with reform.

💬 Metiria Turei: Is it not the case that his Government’s oil and gas export strategy is failing, with revenue declining, and so now it is moving on to try to flog off our most precious natural resource—water—but without a fair return to New Zealanders?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am so confused about the Green Party’s position on oil and gas. Half the time it complains about the amount of revenue it generates for New Zealand, and now it is complaining that the industry is going backwards. I just think it is typical of the Greens—all over the paddock.

💬 Metiria Turei: Does the Minister genuinely believe it is fair that a company will pay less than $7,000 a day for a public water resource that has a retail price of $23 million a day once it is bottled? Does he think that is fair to New Zealanders?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I dispute the member’s numbers. Statistics New Zealand says that, in total, last year 9 million litres of water was exported. That compares with a total extraction from New Zealand of 10 trillion litres for water users, more than 1 million times as much. What the Government is simply arguing is that if we are going to have a sensible discussion about water pricing and allocation, you need to consider water users over and above those who are for bottled water.

Housing Affordability—First-home Buyers and Foreign Ownership of New Zealand Properties

9. to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does he think the number of sales to first-home buyers in Auckland falling to the lowest level in 12 years is a “problem of success”?

No. The proportion of first-home buyers, both in Auckland and nationally, has been increasing since this Government’s KiwiSaver HomeStart scheme was announced in 2014. I also note that the proportion of home sales to first-home buyers, according to CoreLogic, is currently 21 percent nationally. That is actually better than when we became the Government in 2008.

💬 Phil Twyford: Does he agree with Quotable Value that lending restrictions have meant “Cash buyers purchasing property in New Zealand from overseas often have the advantage over New Zealanders”; if so, why is he content for New Zealand first-home buyers to be at the back of the queue?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Quite the opposite. It is this Government that has introduced the most generous scheme for first-home buyers, where we have seen, through KiwiSaver HomeStart, the amount of support grow from $200 million a year to, this last year, $600 million, and the HomeStart grants increase by treble, to over 15,000 young New Zealanders helped into their first home under the most generous scheme that has been offered in a generation.

💬 Phil Twyford: Supplementary question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Metiria Turei. Oh, sorry—Phil Twyford. Supplementary—Phil Twyford.

💬 Phil Twyford: We all look the same, Mr Speaker. Does he think it is reasonable, after 9 years of his Government being in office, to expect first-home buyers to take out a $500,000 mortgage just to buy an entry-level home in Auckland today?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is why this Government is working so hard to grow housing supply and why I am so dumbfounded that today the members opposite are going to oppose new housing in Point England, why they oppose housing in Hobsonville, why they have opposed houses in Māngere, and why they have opposed houses in Three Kings. I just do not get how he has got the audacity then to complain that there are not enough houses being built.

💬 Phil Twyford: Does he agree with Andrea Rush of Quotable Value, who says: “because the Government does not accurately measure the number of residential sales to foreign buyers there was no way of knowing what share of sales were going to those offshore.”, and why, after all these years, is the Government still not gathering accurate data on foreign buyers?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: With the legislative changes that this Government made last year, we have better information on the number of houses that are being purchased by those that are tax resident offshore. The problem for Mr Twyford, after his Chinese-sounding name debacle, is that the numbers are so small and his embarrassment is so great that he now wants to invent some other set of numbers to try to justify his Chinese-sounding name debacle. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Phil Twyford: So, in light of that answer, if the Government’s data on foreign buyers is so good, why does Quotable Value say that it is not gathering accurate data on foreign buyers?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We have absolutely accurate data on the number, right down to the very last number of the number of tax resident overseas buyers. The number is so intifely small that it is even less then the number of foreign-paid slave workers that the Labour Party has recruited—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! No; I do not think we need to go there. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Grant Robertson will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that interjection.

💬 Grant Robertson: I am not prepared to withdraw and apologise. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the Minister’s answer, he described something as being “intifely” small. Now, that is not a word I understand, and he is maybe swearing; I want to get it cleared up.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: And that is not a point of order.

Health, Ministry—Pacific Health Scholarships

10. to the Associate Minister of Health: What announcements has she made regarding the Pacific Health Scholarships?

This year a record 190 Pacific Health Scholarships are being awarded. It is a total of $1.4 million. The scholarships, which cover 80 percent of course fees, are awarded to outstanding students based on academic achievement, leadership qualities, community involvement, and commitment to Pasifika communities.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: How do these scholarships strengthen the Pacific health and disability workforce?

💬 Hon NICKY WAGNER: The Ministry of Health - funded scholarships aim to strengthen the Pacific health and disability workforce by providing financial assistance to Pacific students who are committed to improving the health of their communities. Boosting the Pacific health workforce will help address the diverse needs of Pacific communities and promote better health outcomes. Many of the students receiving scholarships may not have been able to achieve their employment goals without this kind of support, and I congratulate each and every student and wish them the best for their future studies. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Māori Language / Te Reo—Learning in Schools, Teacher Workforce Capacity Development

11. to the Minister of Education: Tū ai a ia i runga i te mana o tana kōrero, “we have some real issues in terms of the workforce around te reo”, ā, he mea tērā “looking at” e ia, nā, ka whakaūngia e Te Minita te tukunga o tētahi mahere e mea ana, ka pēhea tā Te Kāwanatanga whakawhanake i te raukaha o te opemahi ki te whakaako i Te Reo Māori ki roto i ngā kura?

[Does she stand by her statement that “we have some real issues in terms of the workforce around te reo” and that it was something she would be “looking at”; if so, will she commit to releasing a plan on how the Government will develop workforce capacity for teaching Te Reo Māori in schools?]

on behalf of the Minister of Education: Yes. The Minister is looking at the workforce issues around Te Reo Māori teaching and learning, and she is open to discussions about continuing to improve access to high-quality Māori language programmes for students. There is a lot of work under way to support the teaching and learning of Te Reo in schools, and the number of students learning Te Reo is growing. Overall in 2016 nearly 180,000 students were learning Te Reo, an increase of just over 30,000 students since 2010. We expect this number to grow as more schools come together to form communities of learning, and sharing the expertise of their teachers.

💬 Marama Davidson: Kei te whakaae ia, ko tētehi o ngā ara tino pai kia tutukihia te whakarauoratanga me te mahi whāngahia Te Reo Māori i Aotearoa, kia whakaako i Te Reo ki ngā tamariki katoa i roto i ngā kura?

[Does she agree that one of the best ways to ensure that the Māori language recovers and the work involved in feeding it to New Zealand grows is by teaching the language to all children in schools?]

I am sorry, but my headpiece was not working.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Can the member then access another headpiece and I will ask for the question to be repeated.

💬 Marama Davidson: Kei te whakaae ia, ko tētehi o ngā ara tino pai kia tutukihia te whakarauoratanga me te mahi whāngahia Te Reo Māori i Aotearoa, kia whakaako i Te Reo ki ngā tamariki katoa i roto i ngā kura?

[Does she agree that one of the best ways to ensure that the Māori language recovers and the work involved in feeding it to New Zealand grows is by teaching the language to all children in schools?]

Yes, and the Minister has acknowledged that a second language is of huge value to students.

💬 Marama Davidson: Kei te whakaae Te Minita, te maha hoki o ngā hua mō te ako i tētahi reo tuarua mō ā tātau tamariki katoa, ā, he nui ake ngā hua mō te tauira Māori i tana ako i tōna ake Reo me ōna tini tikanga ātaahua, ki te whakaae a ia, ka tautoko mai ki tā mātau, arā, ko Te Reo Māori hei kaupapa matua i ngā kura katoa o Aotearoa nei?

[Does the Minister agree that there are many benefits for all our children to learn a second language, and that it is much more beneficial for Māori students to learn their own language, with its innumerable beautiful customs; and if she agrees, will she support what we advocate—in other words, the Māori language should be the primary agenda for all schools in New Zealand here?]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Anne Tolley can address either one or both of those supplementary questions.

The Minister’s comments are that, yes, strong cases have been made for making Te Reo compulsory. In practical terms, there are simply not enough teachers of Te Reo as it is, and that is why the focus has been on encouraging more Māori to become teachers through initiatives like the Kupe scholarships.

💬 Marama Davidson: Kei te whakaaro tonu Te Minita, mā te pūtea taratahi noa ki a Teach First NZ e ora ai tō tātau nei Reo Māori, ahakoa, ēhara kei a rātau te mātauranga, ngā pūkenga ki te whakarahi ake i te hunga e mōhio pai ki te whakaako i Te Reo Māori?

[Does the Minister really consider that a one-off funding into Teach First NZ will give our Māori language life, despite the fact they do not have the knowledge and skills to increase the numbers who really know how to teach the Māori Language?]

Actually, in 2013 this Government committed more than $11 million to Te Reo Māori scholarships and awards. There are currently 350 places. Budget 2017 provided an extra $7.6 million for Māori language curriculum resources, in addition to the $2 million that is already spent each year. As I said in my primary answer, the number of students learning Te Reo is growing, the number of Māori immersion schools is growing, and this Government believes that access to that second language is increasingly being taken up by students throughout New Zealand.

💬 Marama Davidson: Ka whakaūngia e ia tētahi mahere ki te whakawhanake me pēhea te hanga a Te Kāwanatanga i te raukaha ki roto i ō tātau kura ki te whakaako i Te Reo Māori ki ngā tauira katoa i Aotearoa?

[Would she commit to developing a plan for how the Government will build capacity in our schools to teach the Māori language to all our students in New Zealand?]

The difficulty with committing to a plan is that one of the main difficulties is retention of teachers whom we have trained. So, prior to actually putting more resources into training teachers, the Minister is carrying out a pilot scheme to try to understand why we are losing trained Te Reo teachers from the system and how we can better support those who have been trained to teach Te Reo as they come into the education system and retain them in the education system so that we can grow the number of Te Reo teachers.

Police—Services, Delivery

12. to the Minister of Police: Does she believe her Government has to accept any responsibility for the fact that almost 60 percent of Police staff do not believe New Zealand Police delivers on the promises it makes to the public; if not, why not?

No. This Government does, however, accept responsibility for putting 1,125 more staff on the ground over the next 4 years so that they can raise the level of service provided to the people of New Zealand.

💬 Stuart Nash: In light of that answer, is it true that the first business case taken to Cabinet by Judith Collins, the hard-working former Minister of Police, asked for 1,165 sworn officers because this is what police said they needed to “reduce serious crime by 10 percent,” rather than the 880 officers delivered by her Government?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: There have been a number of business cases. Cabinet has made its decision, and I stand by it.

💬 Stuart Nash: Does she think her Government’s constant threat of cuts to road policing might have anything to do with the fact that road policing staff scored the lowest across every key measure in the 2017 workplace survey?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, and in fact the first part of the member’s question was absolutely incorrect. It is very much thanks to the Minister of Transport and the ministry itself, which had an extra $10 million, and none of those people were made redundant.

💬 Stuart Nash: What does she say to the 57 percent of hard-working police officers who say that the New Zealand Police does not provide adequate training for the work that they do?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: I say that more police on the ground, and those extra 245 other police, will free them up to get to do more of that training, and it is coming their way.

💬 Stuart Nash: Why, 9 long years after National made so many promises around addressing the issues of crime, is meth out of control in our communities, only 28 percent of police say they are engaged in their jobs, and 55 percent of police say that they have an unacceptable level of workplace stress?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: That, in fact, is not true, because what we do see is the Citizens’ Satisfaction Survey, which shows that 84 percent of the public is satisfied with police, that 87 percent have said that their expectations were met or exceeded, and that 78 percent of the public said that they have trust and confidence in our wonderful police. I will not be talking them down, even though the member might.

💬 Stuart Nash: I would like to table the 2017 Police Workplace Survey, which shows 28 percent of police say they are engaged in their jobs and 58 percent of police say—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] We do not need a further description. I presume it has not been publicly circulated to members.

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is a public document.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! If it is a public document, I do not intend to put the leave.