Oral Questions

1. to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does he agree with Mainfreight founder and Chairman Bruce Plested that housing is a “social disgrace”, that the market cannot sort out this problem, and that real leadership and intestinal fortitude is needed now?

I agree with Mr Plested’s full statement on housing, which identified the three main problems. Firstly, planning restrictions make it difficult to increase housing within city boundaries, which we have addressed through Auckland’s new unitary plan. Secondly, he cites the problem of the metropolitan urban limit restricting growth outwards, which we have addressed through the special housing areas and the Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms. Thirdly, he highlights the problems of funding infrastructure, in which we are about to announce $1 billion in support for councils. Ironically, the member opposed all of the measures that Mr Plested has fought for.

💬 Phil Twyford: If he agrees with Bruce Plested that the urban growth boundary has stopped Auckland growing, why has the Government twice voted against Labour’s amendments to abolish the urban growth boundary—amendments that have been supported by every other party in this House?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, the member’s claim is simply not true. The metropolitan urban limit was abolished with the new Auckland Unitary Plan. This Government has put in place the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, which specifically prohibits there ever again being the metropolitan urban limit. I would draw the member’s attention to the fact that the metropolitan urban limit had legal effect only when the majority of his colleagues voted for the 2004 RMA amendment bill that actually blocked Auckland’s housing growth.

💬 Phil Twyford: If he agrees with Bruce Plested that part of the problem is a lack of finance for infrastructure, why has he done nothing to reform infrastructure financing, except offer Auckland Council debt that by law it cannot take on?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Because the member is simply wrong. In 2012 this Government changed the local government amendment Act to provide greater flexibility about the funding of infrastructure and, specifically, to provide for the private sector to be able to partner for the provision of that infrastructure. It is this Government that has provided the billion dollars for the Housing Infrastructure Fund; and, ironically, this Government has just passed an RMA reform bill that changes the way in which infrastructure is funded, which that member voted against.

💬 Phil Twyford: If he will not take Bruce Plested’s word for it, does he perhaps agree with Kim Campbell of the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) when he calls for a large-scale housebuilding programme and says that the Government’s current plans are not working?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that Auckland has had 6 straight years of increasing house construction. That has never occurred at any time previously in history. In fact, the last 6 years of the previous Labour Government saw a decline in the number of houses that were built in every single year. The simple view is this: if you want more houses, vote National. If you want less construction, vote for the nobs on the other side.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: When were the urban limits that Mr Plested describes as a social disgrace put in place, and how has the Government removed them?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Auckland metropolitan urban legal limit bit in Auckland with the passage of the Resource Management Amendment Bill in 2004, which said that regional plans trumped district plans. That saw new home construction drop from 7,000 to just under 3,000, to the lowest level ever in 2008. We have systematically dismantled that Auckland limit with the special housing areas, the new Auckland Unitary Plan, our RMA forms, and the new urban development national policy statement. This has reopened the pipeline of new home construction, and we now have building activity at the highest level ever in Auckland.

💬 Phil Twyford: Rather long answer, Mr Speaker?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will decide that. But if the member is going to ask another supplementary question, I would be grateful if he then listened to the answer, rather than just interjecting.

💬 Phil Twyford: If he will not take the word of the country’s leading business people on this, will he accept the word of 72 percent of New Zealanders, who say that the Government is simply not doing enough to control the housing market?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If there is a social disgrace, as Mr Plested refers to it, I think it would be a party purporting to care about the standard of housing, then putting cheap foreign labour into substandard, overcrowded housing. That, certainly, is a social disgrace.

Economic Programme—Family Incomes Package and Performance

2. to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on real after-tax wages rising in New Zealand?

Average after-tax wages have increased 33 percent, while consumer prices have increased only 14 percent, since December 2008. This compares with the period between 1999 and 2008, where New Zealanders’ real after-tax earnings improved by just 5 percent over that entire period. Furthermore, from 1 April next year Kiwis will benefit from the $2 billion Family Incomes Package in Budget 2017, which increases after-tax pay and provides additional income-related support. The Government’s strong economic plan is helping New Zealanders get ahead, whether it is helping people raise their kids or saving for a house.

💬 Jonathan Young: How else will the Family Incomes Package benefit New Zealand families?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The four elements to the Family Incomes Package in Budget 2017, when taken together, are expected to reduce the number of children living in families receiving less than half of the median income by around 50,000, or almost one-third. That is just in one package. It is truly hard to believe that the largest Opposition party voted against the Family Incomes Package. This year’s Budget builds on Budget 2015’s $790 million package to reduce hardship amongst children in New Zealand’s poorest families by, amongst other things, boosting the main benefit rates for families with children by $25 a week—the first increase in 40 years.

💬 Jonathan Young: How has the minimum wage increased in recent years compared with inflation?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Since 2008 the minimum wage has increased from $12 per hour to $15.75 per hour, which, for a full-time worker on a minimum wage, means their annual income has increased 31 percent, from just over $25,000 a year to $32,850 a year, currently. This is a real increase in the take-home pay of minimum wage workers, because, again, inflation has been only 14 percent over this period, compared with the increase of 31 percent. In addition, the economy is currently adding 10,000 new jobs a month, with New Zealand recording the highest employment rate in our history amongst adults, and the second-highest employment rate in the whole of the OECD.

💬 Jonathan Young: What other reports has the Minister seen on wages and employment conditions in New Zealand?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Just before coming down to the House today I saw a report that called for improvements to wages and conditions, and it claimed a small number of bad employers were undercutting good employers. It also called for more labour inspectors. I agree with some of the concerns in the report. In fact, I have seen recent examples of a bad employer taking advantage of foreign workers, exploiting them by housing them in substandard conditions, paying well below market wages—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That question, as I now listen to the answer, conflicts quite seriously with Speaker’s ruling 197/6—that question was designed for no purpose other than to attack the Opposition.

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do think it is an important issue—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I hope the Minister is not attempting to argue with me when I have just given a ruling. That would be very serious. I could get exceptionally grumpy.

Schools, Canterbury—Closures and Mergers, Ombudsman’s Report, and Student Well-being

3. to the Minister of Education: Will she apologise on behalf of the Government for the flawed handling of the Canterbury school mergers and closures after the 2011 earthquakes; if not, why not?

on behalf of the Minister of Education: I am advised that she has personally liaised with the Ombudsman on his findings and committed to learning relevant lessons from his report. It is the intention of the Minister of Education and the Secretary for Education to meet with Canterbury schools. This is likely to be in August but could be earlier, depending on when people are available. In this meeting, she also intends to personally apologise for the initial mishandling of the communications to schools, to reiterate the previous Minister’s apology, and to listen to any ongoing concerns of schools as a result of the report. It is also her intention to update the schools on the $1.137 billion Canterbury rebuild programme and the working group that is being established to work on guidelines for future mergers and closures. I am advised that in addition to changes the Ministry of Education has already made to its merger and closure process, the Minister has asked it to work with civil defence expertise to ensure that appropriate lessons have been learnt regarding the ministry response and the recovery from the major earthquakes.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Does she agree with the editorial in the Press that stated that her predecessor “became notorious in Christchurch for a stubbornness and insensitivity that bordered on arrogance.”; if not, why not?

What I will say is that the former Minister apologised in person—community by community, school by school, face to face, to the people who counted. She was also responsible for ensuring $1.139 billion of investments to make sure we have the most modern learning environments for the learners and schoolchildren in Canterbury.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Why was student well-being and mental health not regarded as a pervasive factor by the Government when deciding whether to merge or close schools, and does she now agree with the Press editorial that it added to the impression of bureaucratic heartlessness and cold inflexibility?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: There are two supplementary questions there. The Minister can address one or the other.

As I have said, the Minister and the ministry intend to meet with Canterbury schools to talk about what other opportunities there are to already changed processes around mergers and closures, to look at what else has to occur. But I will remind the House and remind that member that the series of earthquakes had a devastating impact across the region, across the country. No one had prepared for them. No one could have anticipated them. I think the Ministry of Education did an extraordinary job under very, very challenging circumstances.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question that I asked the Minister was around why the Government did something at the time, not what about it is doing in the future.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I am not going to assist the member at this stage. It was quite a convoluted question, and there were actually two parts to the question. There should really be only one. As far as I am concerned that question has been addressed.

💬 Chris Hipkins: What additional support will she now put in place given the Ombudsman’s finding that the impact of the trauma caused by the earthquakes and the ensuing social upheaval on young children’s learning and behaviour is becoming more evident as time passes?

The ministry has made a number of changes to improve its processes generally as a result of the lessons learnt from the devastation in Canterbury. In addition to the Ombudsman’s report, there is further work that is occurring in terms of what else can occur and, very importantly, it is working closely with the civil defence emergency teams, because it is a wider response than just the Ministry of Education. There is a significant amount of work that has gone on, and continues to go on, in supporting the children in Christchurch.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was quite specific about the additional support for youth mental health as a result of the earthquakes—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I am going to invite the member to repeat his question.

💬 Chris Hipkins: What additional support will she put in place given the Ombudsman’s finding that the impact of the trauma caused by the earthquakes and the ensuing social upheaval on young children’s learning and behaviour is becoming more evident as time passes?

I said—if the member had listened to the answer that I gave to the first question—very clearly that the Minister of Education and the Secretary for Education are going to be in Christchurch, talking to Canterbury schools. They will be listening to any ongoing concerns they have, and I would expect that there might be changes as a result of those conversations.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Does she think that telling the House today that the Ministry of Education handled the process exceptionally well given the circumstances is somewhat in contradiction with her statement that the Minister is now going to apologise, and in contradiction with the fact that the Ministry of Education has apologised for a process that is widely regarded as wrong and adding to the trauma that people had already experienced?

As I have said, there has been an apology already made for the process that had occurred—

💬 Dr Megan Woods: You said you did it well.

No, I said in my supplementary answer to the question the member raised, that there was a set of exceptional circumstances and challenges in Canterbury. In this instance, the report has found that there were some areas that were not done well, for which apologies have been given, and further work is ongoing. So I would appreciate that the member should take that into consideration.

Housing, Rental—Methamphetamine Contamination Standard Changes

4. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What progress has the Government made in improving the tenancy laws and guidance for dealing with the problem of methamphetamine testing and contamination?

Today’s new standard for meth testing and decontamination is a huge step forward for homeowners and tenants dealing with this problem. It sets clear standards for sampling and testing, and competency requirements for both samplers and decontamination contractors. It complements the legislative proposals introduced last month in the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2), which gives landlords the right to test and enables tenancy agreements to be terminated when levels are unsafe. The intention is to reference the standards and regulations to provide a comprehensive solution to this problem. I want to acknowledge both the member and Alastair Scott for their advocacy in this area and the work they did on a member’s bill to similarly address this problem.

💬 Andrew Bayly: How do the new standards compare with the old guidelines, and what impact will this have on housing supply and the cost of decontamination?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The standards committee looking in depth at the science and the health risk has concluded that the 0.5 microgram per 100 square centimetres limit was excessively cautious. The old guidelines were based on the risks associated with clandestine laboratories rather than use. The new 1.5 micrograms per 100 square centimetres standard will mean hundreds fewer homes will have to be vacated and will save millions in unnecessary decontamination work. There is no single magic answer to the pressures in the housing market, but this is just one of dozens of sensible regulatory changes that the Government is making to improve how housing is regulated.

💬 Andrew Bayly: How was the new standard for dealing with methamphetamine contamination funded?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This new standard was funded from the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, which this Government passed in 2009. This early reform by this Government, opposed by parties opposite, required that offenders contribute to addressing the problems that are caused by their crime. Property owners of meth-contaminated homes are often innocent and further victims of drug crime. It is entirely appropriate that this new standard has been funded from criminal proceeds.

💬 Phil Twyford: Now that the Minister has acknowledged that the old methamphetamine contamination standard was, in his words, “excessively cautious” and is about to be replaced with a new standard, what is the Government going to do about the $30 million that Housing New Zealand has wasted based on the faulty methamphetamine standard, the hundreds of families that were evicted from their homes, and the hundreds of State houses that have been left vacant around the country for years in the middle of a housing crisis—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to a conclusion, please.

💬 Phil Twyford: —because of this Governments incompetence?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Such decisions on an issue like chemical contamination need to be based on the best science of the time. I would remind the member that Labour members of Parliament 5 years ago were asking what the Government was doing to get people out of P-contaminated houses. The Government set up the standards process 18 months ago. We have now found a good quality standard that ends up—and the difficulty for the Labour Party members is that they spend half the time arguing that we were not doing enough to get people out of P-contaminated houses, and then argue when we put a new standard in place.

Emergency Housing—Motel Purchases and State Housing Sales

5. to the Associate Minister for Social Housing: What motels has the Government purchased in response to the increased emergency housing demand, and how much has this cost?

I would like to thank the member for the opportunity to speak about this innovative new transitional housing approach, which is making a real difference to the lives of New Zealanders. The Government has purchased two motels and, in the next few days, will settle the purchase of a further two motels. These motels will provide warm, dry, and safe transitional housing for those in need. That is helping 220 families. The total cost of those two settled purchases is $4.8 million.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Supplementary question. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! If we had less response coming from my right, then I could assist.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: How does he reconcile the purchase of a motel in Gisborne that provides 19 emergency housing spaces with a loss of 62 State houses in the area, and would it not make more sense to provide long-term State housing than short-term emergency motel accommodation?

💬 Hon ALFRED NGARO: What would make sense is providing accommodation for the needs of those—even in that area. Motels accommodate large numbers of people in multiple units, located centrally, and are often close to other services that are provided.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: How does he reconcile the purchase of a motel in Blenheim that provides 17 emergency housing spaces with the loss of 29 State houses in the area, and would it not make more sense to provide long-term State housing rather than short-term emergency motel accommodation?

💬 Hon ALFRED NGARO: I do not know all the details of that motel, but what I can say about that motel—it is still in the early stages. The negotiations are still in place.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: How does he reconcile the recent purchase of one emergency housing space in the Hawke’s Bay with the loss of 137 State houses in Napier alone, and is he looking into the purchase of two more motels for emergency accommodation use to make up for the shortfall?

💬 Hon ALFRED NGARO: I can confirm for the member, as was in a press release last week, that there are two purchases. These are still to be settled in the Bay of Plenty area. Those will be purchased very soon, and those settlements should be made in the next few days.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Will he admit that if his Government had not reduced the number of State houses by 2,500, then his Government would not need to spend $100,000 a day putting homeless New Zealanders up in motels?

💬 Hon ALFRED NGARO: What I would admit to is that this is the first Government, in the 2016 Budget, that has committed $354 million to emergency housing—the first Government that has made a commitment around housing in the Housing First initiative, which I know the member actually supports.

Todd Barclay—Southland Electorate Office Allegations, Ministerial Conduct

6. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on the Clutha-Southland electorate office issue even if facts known to him make doing so extraordinarily difficult?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there may be prime ministerial responsibility, I call the Hon Steven Joyce on behalf of the Prime Minister.

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Those statements were not made in his capacity as Prime Minister.

💬 Ron Mark: With regard to recent comments made by him in the media relating to texts sent by the former Minister of Finance that read “Everyone unhappy”, other than the Prime Minister, who else was he talking about?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Again, in so far as there may be prime ministerial responsibility—the Hon Steven Joyce on behalf of the Prime Minister.

Those statements were not made in his ministerial capacity.

💬 Kris Faafoi: Different phone, was it?

💬 Ron Mark: Good point. Since 18 May, can he categorically say that no current or former Minister has listened to the recording Mr Barclay offered to play to him, which allegedly talks about sex and illicit drug use?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Again, in so far as there may be prime ministerial responsibility, the Hon Steven Joyce, on behalf of the Prime Minister.

I doubt that any member would have been listening to that in their ministerial capacity.

💬 Ron Mark: How can New Zealanders have confidence in a Prime Minister who, in his role as Deputy Prime Minister, told the media he had no knowledge of any tape, only to be countered shortly thereafter by the then Prime Minister, who told the media: “I only know what Bill told me.”?

I think the public can have confidence not just in the Prime Minister but in his Government. Indeed, they regularly show that they do have that confidence, and, of course, they will have the opportunity to reconsider that confidence and decide whether they continue with it in September. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will just stand and ask his questions without that unnecessary introduction.

💬 Ron Mark: Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have made my point to the member. It does not need to be reinforced by members on my right-hand side.

💬 Ron Mark: Will the Prime Minister go on Hansard to confirm that when the former Minister of Finance confirmed the use of the National leader’s budget to settle a former staff member’s privacy breach, it had a parliamentary purpose and that such payment was compliant and legal?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! That question is completely out of order and conflicts with Speaker’s ruling 173/1.

Budget 2017—Rehabilitation and Reintegration of Offenders and Victim Support

7. to the Minister of Corrections: How is Budget 2017 investing in rehabilitation and reintegration outcomes for offenders?

Budget 2017 will invest $18.6 million over 4 years to expand industry, treatment, and learning programmes for offenders. The Government is committed to reducing reoffending through interventions that are aimed at addressing the drivers of crime. We want offenders to be better equipped for life in the community when they come out. Corrections will expand four of its most effective programmes: education, alcohol and drug treatment services, intensive rehabilitation for violent offenders, and reintegration support for offenders when they leave prison. These programmes will reduce further offending and the subsequent harm to both individuals and communities.

💬 Maureen Pugh: What results has the Government’s investment in rehabilitation and reintegration delivered?

💬 Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We have made great strides in helping offenders to get the life skills they need to turn their lives around. Corrections will invest around $190 million in rehabilitation and reintegration this year. That is a 60 percent increase since 2008. The total number of offenders in a rehabilitation programme has risen, from 9,300 in 2008 to over 33,500 this year. That represents an increase of around 260 percent. The September 2016 Better Public Service targets results show a 4.4 percent reduction in reoffending and a 26 percent reduction in the number of reoffenders. This means there have been over 9,400 fewer offenders and almost 38,000 fewer victims of crime since 2011. We will continue to invest in rehabilitation and reintegration programmes with the goal of breaking the cycle of reoffending.

💬 Mahesh Bindra: What is Budget 2017 providing to the victims of crime, or is the Government interested only in the rights of prisoners?

💬 Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This Government is clearly, through the Better Public Service targets, reducing the number of crimes against people, and clearly that is focused on victims, because we want fewer of them.

💬 Mahesh Bindra: What assurance can she give victims of serious and sexual assaults that their interests will be put before criminals’?

💬 Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Since we came into office in 2008, there have been a raft of measures we have put in place to support victims. As I said in my answer, the fact that we have been focused on reducing reoffending—we have 38,000 fewer victims of crime. If that is not a result, I do not know what is.

Drinking-water Contamination—Havelock North

8. to the Minister of Local Government: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s answer yesterday that drinking-water contamination in Havelock North was “about local government performance and overseeing ratepayer-funded assets whose purpose is to deliver clean and healthy water to its local people. The extensive inquiry into that incident was warranted by widespread illness in the area … it is about local body performance in overseeing their clean water system”?

Yes. Stage 1 of the inquiry into the Havelock North water contamination, commissioned by the Attorney-General, identified that whilst no single organisation was at fault, there were a number of shortfallings in the way councils undertook their duties in relation to drinking-water management. That is why I have written to all councils and mayors setting out my expectations that they carry out their obligations to provide a safe and clean water supply to their residents, to the highest standards. Whilst I have no responsibility for it, stage 2 of the findings will provide a wider view of the systems that surround the supply of drinking water.

💬 Hon David Parker: Does she agree with the inquiry finding that the district council did not implement the high standard of care required of a public drinking water supplier, particularly in light of its history of a high number of prior E. coli transgressions?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes. The inquiry found that several parties—the regional council, the Hastings District Council, and the drinking-water assessors—failed to adhere to the high levels of care and diligence necessary to protect public health.

💬 Hon David Parker: Does she recall that after the Cave Creek tragedy, the local Department of Conservation manager resigned, the chief executive of the Department of Conservation resigned, and the Minister of Conservation resigned, thereby taking responsibility for the organisation that they were responsible for?

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

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have no ministerial responsibility.

💬 Hon David Parker: Does she believe that the mayor of the district council that infected 5,500 of its residents with campylobacter, causing premature deaths, Guillain-Barré paralysis, and terribly painful reactive arthritis, amongst other complications, was responsible for the council he has led for more than 15 years?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well, again, in so far as there may be some ministerial responsibility—

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If you are implying that the Minister of Local Government does not have responsibility to offer an opinion as to whether the mayor of a district council is responsible for the institution he has led for 15 years, I think that is an inappropriate hint for you to give the Minister.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just pointing out that the Minister, under Speaker’s ruling 176/2, has no responsibility for operational activities or the decision making of the local authority. I am not saying the question is out of order, and have never attempted to. I am just calling the Minister to answer in as far as she may have ministerial responsibility.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, no. I need the answer first of all, if the Minister wishes to answer.

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I repeat that the inquiry found that the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, the Hastings District Council, and the drinking-water assessors all failed to adhere to the high levels of care expected. But it also made the point that none of the faults, omissions, or breaches of standards directly caused the outbreak.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has the Minister seen the statements from Opposition parties last year saying that the water contamination in Havelock North was caused by intensive dairying, when, in fact, the inquiry found that it was not intensive, that it was sheep—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The latter part of the question is completely unnecessary. The first part of the question was “Has the Minister seen such statements?”. I am prepared to let that part stand.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is not responsible for statements by Opposition members of Parliament.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The question did not ask whether she was; it simply asked whether she had seen statements. I have said that that part can be answered.

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes, I have seen those statements, and to date I have seen no apology for getting it so absolutely wrong.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to be clear, if we ask Ministers, about matters for which they are not ministerially responsible, whether they have seen statements—for example, statements by backbench National Party members of Parliament—will that be deemed to be acceptable?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I rule on everything on a case by case basis as I see fit at the time, as I always have.

💬 Hon David Parker: Does the Minister believe it is appropriate that the mayor who has been in charge of that council for the last 15 years has not taken proper responsibility for the institution by resigning, but rather is seeking election to this Parliament for her party?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The fact that a former mayor is seeking election to Parliament has got nothing to do with ministerial responsibility.

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

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] The member will resume his seat. If the member wants to raise a point of order, he is perfectly entitled to do so, unless it is a point of order that sets out to argue against a decision I have made.

💬 Hon David Parker: It is one thing for the Government members to stand and say they do not think there is responsibility; it is another thing for you to do that for them.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled the question out of order. I am saying there is no ministerial responsibility for the fact that a former mayor wants to stand for this Parliament. That is the end of the matter. The member might not like the way I have dealt with the question, but it is not up for debate. Does the member—[Interruption] No, I am not—[Interruption]

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just want to be absolutely clear—because I can see a course of action being charted here—that if the member wants to raise a fresh point of order on any matter, I am only too happy to hear it. But if the member is going to continue to argue and relitigate a decision I have made, I will be asking the member to leave the Chamber.

💬 Hon David Parker: My fresh point of order is that when you did not like the question from the Hon Nick Smith you said: “Stick to the first part of the question, delete the second part.”; in respect of mine, you just rejected the whole of my question, rather than just the end. I expect fair treatment across the House.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will now leave the Chamber. [Interruption] The member will leave the Chamber. That is a direct reflection on the Speaker of this Parliament.

Hon David Parker withdrew from the Chamber.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Does the Minister think regional councils would benefit from having a charge on water bottlers that was in part—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the member. I am having trouble hearing the question because of chatter coming from my left. I will ask the member to start the question again.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Does the Minister think regional councils would benefit from having a charge on water bottlers that was in part returned to them to help manage and clean up local water sources?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have no responsibility for that part of the drinking-water regulations, and I suggest the member direct it to the appropriate Minister. I would say, however, that that matter has been referred to a technical task force to consider.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Does she think it is wise for councils to allow stock grazing close to drinking water bores?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: What I would say is that up and down the country, I am well aware of the huge investment that the farming sector has put into preventing stock from entering into waterways.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think she may have misheard my question. I did not ask about waterways; I said water bores.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think that has been addressed in the answer that was given by the Minister.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Will the Minister support my bill to make aquifers and other drinking-water sources a matter of national importance in the Resource Management Act so that councils can manage them properly?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you indicate to the House—if a question contains a component that is in order and a component that is out of order, on what basis do you make the decision as to whether or not the Minister should be invited to address the part of the question that is in order? We seem to have had two examples of that today. In one example the Minister was invited to address the part that was in order, and in another question he was not.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I cannot—there is no set template by which I operate. I judge everything as it occurs at the time, depending on the decorum and the tone of the House. I do my best to be absolutely fair. The issue with regard to Mr Parker was not the question he raised; he just continued to argue with me. I warned him not to but he did not hear my advice.

Wellington—Disaster Preparedness

9. to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has she made regarding Wellington’s resilience to natural hazards?

This week, along with Minister Guy, we were pleased to announce a $12 million fifty-fifty partnership to shore up the Wellington region’s water resilience through funding 22 new community water stations throughout Wellington, Porirua, Upper Hutt, and Lower Hutt. Wellington City is unique, in the sense that it does not have its own water supply—nor does Porirua—and with the increased risk of seismic activity following Kaikōura, this was seen as a necessary project. It is a fantastic example of central and local government working together to address an extremely important issue. I am proud to be part of a Government that has delivered a strong and growing economy, which means we have the ability to partner in great initiatives like this.

💬 Brett Hudson: How will this investment futureproof Wellington’s water resilience?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Access to safe, healthy water is absolutely essential after a disaster. Parts of the Wellington region could be without tap water for up to 100 days following a major earthquake, as a result of damage to the water supply network and potential access difficulties. This new investment will ensure that adequate temporary water supplies are available in the end of a major disruption until the bulk supply can be restored. The 22 new local bore and stream-fed emergency water hubs are expected to be completed in the next 12 months. However, Wellingtonians should always be prepared and have water stored at home.

💬 Brett Hudson: What will this mean for residents in Wellington in the event of a major event?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The goal of this work is that there will be an improved level of service for the supply of emergency water, which will mean that no one will have to walk more than 1 kilometre, or 500 metres in hilly areas, to collect water. More than 300 water bladders will be purchased and stored at the water stations, which can be transported into communities in the event of a major disaster, giving people access to clean and safe drinking water.

Transport, Auckland—Rail to Airport

10. to the Minister of Transport: Will the Government start building rail to the airport sooner if Auckland hosts the next America’s Cup regatta or will Aucklanders still have to wait 30 years?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will stand corrected, but that is not the question that I had.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It is certainly the question that I have got. I will invite the member to repeat the question again. There appears to be some confusion, but that is the question that I have.

Will the Government start building rail to the airport sooner if Auckland hosts the next America’s Cup regatta or will Aucklanders still have to wait 30 years?

I think the position is that, actually, we need to get on with protecting a separate sole-purpose route right now. We also need to then get on with doing the construction. I think it is difficult to say exactly what the time frame is, because, for example, on the route protection there is quite an intricate legal process that needs to be gone through, with a notice of requirement that may take it into 2019.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: Given that airport rail has been the No. 1 transport priority for Aucklanders for over 7 years while he has been in Government, why has it taken so long to show some leadership and get on to starting the project?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I respectfully disagree with the member. The three projects that have been Auckland’s clear priorities for some time have been the City Rail Link (CRL), the East-West Link, and the Auckland-Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative. The Government is involved, certainly, in the first two of those, and has worked very hard on them. All of that said, I think we are not wedded to any one mode. We want to see it all happen, and that is why we are investing so significantly in our biggest city.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister may have misheard my question. I was talking about priorities for Aucklanders, not his Government.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No. There was lot in the question, and the Minister said he just did not agree with it.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: Why is airport rail not a priority for his Government and a project of national significance, given its importance to the city and to the country as a whole?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I do not agree with what the member is saying, actually. We are prioritising this by getting on and protecting the route—a separate, sole-purpose route from Auckland CBD through to the airport—right now. That is a complex and actually quite expensive process, and then we are going to get on with doing this. The issue of moving from rapid bus transit to rail is one that has got to be driven by the demand and the numbers that we see on this corridor, but we are getting on and doing the work that is required.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: In that case, will he commit to having airport rail or mass transit open by 2021, when Auckland hosts APEC and the next America’s Cup?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I commit absolutely to progressing this matter quickly, which involves the route protection, first, on a very significant corridor, and then getting on and doing the construction to have mass public transport on that. I think in terms of mode we have got to work through that and see how that goes. I would say, though, I know the member is very wedded to rail over roads. Actually, in this Government we have seen the most significant investment into metropolitan rail in Auckland ever, whether that is the electrification of rail at $1.7 billion or the biggest public transport project ever, the CRL, which we are making very strong progress on.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: Does he acknowledge that the number of people using Auckland’s trains has far exceeded his Government’s expectations when it was still delaying the start of the City Rail Link, and it is highly likely that the same thing will happen to rail to the airport—therefore, we should start building it as soon as possible?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, I think they have exceeded everyone’s expectations, and that is because we invested $1.7 billion in electrification at the start of our Government. That is why we are investing, with Auckland and ourselves, $3.4 billion in the biggest public transport project this country has ever seen, CRL. We have invested hugely in transport infrastructure, including public transport. It is a record this Government and, I think, New Zealanders should be very proud of indeed, because it is making a real—

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

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —difference.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: Why is a motorway in Warkworth a major priority and project of national significance for his Government when it is carrying just 13,000 vehicles each day, when light rail to the airport would move that many people in less than 3 hours?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Firstly, we are investing in all of those things. I mean, that is why we are protecting the route on this corridor—that is very important, I agree with the member. Secondly, I say what she says is insulting to the people of the north. They deserve, actually, a highway that gets them closer to the capital of commerce, Auckland. They deserve the really game-changing, nation-building work we are doing on that road of national significance. It will make a massive difference not just to the north but to New Zealand.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: Why will his Government not adopt the approach that has worked so well for Team New Zealand, set an ambitious goal to have rail to the airport open by 2021, and then work together and take the steps to make it happen, like the Green Party would?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think when it comes to transport infrastructure this is the most ambitious Government New Zealand has seen in many, many decades—$11 billion through the Crown over the next 4 years, some $32.5 billion going into public transport, into roads, and into rail. I think New Zealanders are noticing, with all of the construction that is happening at the moment.

Police Resourcing—Police Workplace Survey 2017

11. to the Minister of Police: Does she have any concerns about any of the results of the New Zealand Police Workplace Survey 2017; if so, what in particular?

on behalf of the Minister of Police: No. This is the eighth year this survey has been undertaken, and, overall, the organisation’s results remain fairly static. Of course, there are always areas in which we could improve, and the additional $500 million this Government is putting into Police in this year’s Budget will go a long way to help.

💬 Stuart Nash: Does she think the fact that her Government has funded 285 fewer police than the police themselves said they needed to “make a dent in serious crime” is the reason why over 50 percent of police do not believe that their contribution is valued, according to the workplace survey?

No. The Budget process is long and contested, but this Government has invested $500 million extra in Police.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: 10 percent increase.

A 10 percent increase, the Minister of Finance says. I think New Zealand is fortunate to have such a highly committed police service.

💬 Stuart Smith: What reports has the Minister seen about the help available for police doing what can be a stressful job?

In yesterday’s The Timaru Herald, I saw there was an article there saying that South Canterbury police believe they have good support systems in place. They are receiving more relevant training than ever before, driven by constant changes or improvements in technology. One the senior officers says: “If the chips are down, the Timaru and Canterbury District Police have access to plenty of resources and appropriate partners and agencies to help us cope with any challenges that confront us.”

💬 Stuart Nash: Does she think the fact that her Government gave Police $170 million less than it said it needed to “make a dent in serious crime” is the reason why nearly 60 percent of police across the country do not believe that New Zealand Police delivers on the promises it makes to its customers?

No. I think it is clear that the public do not feel that way, because the latest Citizens’ Satisfaction Survey shows that 84 percent of the public are satisfied with the police, and 87 percent said that their expectations were met or exceeded.

💬 Ron Mark: Does the fact that, unlike the Defence Force, police do not account for the ammunition they use or lose, do not keep any records of how many handcuffs, Tasers, or pepper sprays they have lost, and continue to lose pistols and major parts of their M4 Bushmasters—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can we have the question please.

💬 Ron Mark: —including magazines, not support police officers’ views that they do not get sufficient training on firearms, clearly evidenced by their lax controls?

No. This Government believes that we are very fortunate to have a highly committed and motivated police workforce that continues to show high levels of engagement and commitment to keeping our communities safe. This Government backs our police; it does not run them down.

💬 Stuart Nash: Is she concerned that only 50 percent of the police themselves believe that New Zealand Police cares about the well-being of its staff when the State sector benchmark is 65 percent; if so, why?

As I say, there is always room for improvement, and this Government is always looking for ways to support our police, because we know that they have an important job. They fulfil an important role, but they cannot act alone. We have to support them with a number of other agencies, and they have to be supported by our communities.

💬 Stuart Nash: Supplementary.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, the Labour caucus has used all of its questions today, I am sorry, Mr Nash.

Schools, Buildings—Wairarapa College

12. to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has he made to improve school infrastructure in the Wairarapa?

I am pleased to advise the House that the Government recently announced that we would be investing around $10 million to redevelop Masterton’s Wairarapa College, in the member’s electorate. This brings the total investment in school redevelopments in the Greater Wellington region to around $127 million in the past 18 months alone.

💬 Alastair Scott: How will this investment benefit students and teachers at Wairarapa College?

💬 Hon TIM MACINDOE: Wairarapa College is one of the oldest schools in the region and has some wonderful buildings with great heritage value, but, as a result of that age, some of the buildings are now, regrettably, in poor condition. The students and teachers of the school will benefit from significant classroom upgrades, new gymnasium changing rooms, a teaching area in that gymnasium, and the replacement of the school’s boiler. The school’s principal has been quoted recently as saying that this $10 million grant “will enable the school to continue to improve its commitment to providing the best education they can.” [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! That concludes questions for oral answer. [Interruption] Order! I do not have to keep calling for order from people who will not respect when I ask for a bit of cooperation. If I have got to ask another member to leave, I will not hesitate to do so.