Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the level of confidence in the New Zealand economy?

The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research today released its quarterly survey of business opinion. It shows business confidence is high, with a net 23 percent positive about New Zealand’s economic outlook. This level of confidence points to GDP growth of between 3 and 4 percent. All key activity indicators remain above their long-term averages. The survey highlights increased investment in plant and machinery, and indicates employers are willing to invest in the equipment they need to boost productivity, increase production, and expand into new markets.

💬 Joanne Hayes: What other indicators has he seen of positive momentum in our economy?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The ANZ bank released its Business Outlook figures last Thursday, showing that 25 percent of businesses are optimistic about the year ahead. That is up 10 points on the previous month. When it comes to their own business, a net 43 percent of businesses expect better times ahead. That is up five points and is the highest level since July 2014. Westpac’s Employment Confidence Index, released on Friday, shows people are increasingly upbeat about the state of the labour market. The index increased 3.5 to 113.4. That is the highest level recorded since before the global financial crisis in 2008. That means workers are increasingly confident about their job security and new job opportunities opening up.

💬 Joanne Hayes: What is underpinning the strengthening confidence of employees and businesses?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This Government’s strong economic plan is delivering concrete results, whether it is the 137,000 new jobs added in the last 12 months or average after-tax wages rising faster than inflation. In addition, businesses can see the benefits of this Government’s large investment in infrastructure to boost productivity and help get goods to market. The opening of the $1.4 billion Waterview tunnel is already proving beneficial, for example, for moving between South and west Auckland or making a trip to the airport.

💬 Joanne Hayes: What examples has he seen recently of employers and of exporters using the current favourable economic conditions to expand and get ahead?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Over the last few weeks, I have had the honour of attending many export awards ceremonies around the country, showcasing innovative companies increasing their productivity and growing new markets. At the Bay of Plenty awards, Dominion Salt showed how a company founded in 1942 can reinvent itself and generate high export growth on the back of targeting premium products for the pharmaceutical industry. And at the Auckland-Waikato awards, ABE’S Real Bagels won its category with successful expansion into Australia. It is now shipping five container-loads of bagels to Australia every week.

Housing Affordability and Availability—Auckland Special Housing Areas and Hutt Valley Development

2. to the Prime Minister: Has he asked his housing Ministers for a report of how many affordable houses have been built in the Auckland Special Housing Areas; if not, why not?

No, but I would expect that Auckland Council, which argued vigorously for those requirements, will collect the information. I do regularly receive reports from Ministers on the impact of special housing areas and many other Government initiatives. These impacts include almost 5,000 consents for new homes in special housing areas, 10,400 consents issued over the last 12 months, flat house prices in the last 9 months, and improving housing affordability according to Massey University, none of which has been assisted by the Labour Party’s opposition to the Point England development.

💬 Andrew Little: In light of that answer, and focusing for the moment just on things that people actually live in—called houses—why is the Government unable to say how many affordable homes will be built in the Auckland special housing areas?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have just said, I expect that Auckland Council will be able to collect that information. It is in by far the best position to do so. The Government focuses on the broader picture of housing affordability, and with flat house prices and rising incomes, housing affordability is now gradually improving. If the Labour Party had not opposed the Three Kings development and the Point England development, we would have made even more progress.

💬 Andrew Little: Why is the Government also unable to say how many affordable homes will be built in its cynical Hutt development?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I just disagree with the member’s assertion. He can ask the Minister about the detail, but the Hutt Valley has one of the highest concentrations of traditional State housing in the country, and some of the worst State housing stock, and the irony is that the Labour Party wants to leave it how it is, whereas we want to rebuild the Hutt Valley.

💬 Andrew Little: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister had finished answering that question at the end of his first sentence. He should not have been allowed to carry on.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I do not agree with the member on this occasion. There has been a lot of interjection, and if the members to the left and right of the Leader of the Opposition are going to continue to interject through the answer, then they have got to expect a little bit back in return.

💬 Andrew Little: Thank you, Mr Speaker—it is a relief to see I am in the centre again! Will overseas speculators be able to buy any of the houses built in the Hutt or the Auckland special housing areas; if so, why does he allow that?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I know the Labour Party is very focused on, I think, the 3 percent of overseas resident taxpayers, many of whom may or may not be what he calls speculators. What you know is that in a market where more supply is coming to the market more quickly than ever and house prices are flattening, then the room for speculation is very minimal.

💬 Andrew Little: How can he expect to be believed on housing, when CoreLogic says the number of sales to first-home buyers is at its lowest level in 20 years?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: There may be arguments about what those numbers actually mean. What we know is that the housing market is going through an adjustment, and that will have—

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, those members were against the prices going up, and now they are against them not going up, which is, on “Planet Labour”, logical, I suppose.

💬 Andrew Little: Given that he, along with the rest of New Zealand, must undoubtedly agree with Nick Smith’s self-assessment—that he is not a miracle man—could he encourage Nick Smith to at least become a mediocre Minister who actually builds some affordable houses?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: If we are looking for examples of mediocrity, we do not need to go any further than the Labour Party, that is for sure—there are plenty of them. Minister Smith has delivered special housing areas, HomeStart grants, the new Auckland Unitary Plan, the Crown building programme in Auckland, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity, the Resource Management Act reform bill, unit title corporate reform, urban development authorities, and Building Act liability reform. What an outstanding contribution from a team led by Nick Smith.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! A little less interjection from both sides, thank you.

💬 Andrew Little: Notwithstanding his list of things that have contributed nothing towards greater housing affordability, given that after 9 years his Government is delivering the lowest level of homeownership in 66 years, and houses built on public land are being snapped up by speculators, when will he wake up and see that it is time to build truly affordable houses, stop the speculators, and ensure that every Kiwi family has a place they can call their own?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is just wrong about what he is saying. I mean, he is even unhappy about the announcement today of 700 new houses in the Hutt Valley, which will be reasonably priced houses. But the good news for the Hutt Valley is that it is just the start, because there are thousands of houses in the Hutt Valley that can be rebuilt, land used more efficiently, and over the next 10 years we are going to rebuild the social housing stock in the Hutt Valley.

Todd Barclay—Southland Electorate Office Allegations, Ministerial Conduct

3. to the Prime Minister: Before making a statement on the Clutha-Southland electorate office issue, does he check all the facts?

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

I have no ministerial responsibility for that issue. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I want substantially less interjection from my immediate right.

💬 Ron Mark: When asked last week whether he “can categorically rule out that no current or former Minister has listened to the recording”, why did the Minister of Finance, speaking on his behalf, say last Thursday: “I doubt that any member would have been listening to that in their ministerial capacity.”?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have already said, I have no ministerial responsibility for the issue being raised by the member.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I actually asked—the guts of the question was why did he say that he doubted that any member would have been listening in their ministerial capacity—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just have—I do not need a reread; I just want to know what the point of order is.

💬 Ron Mark: Well, he did not answer the actual question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, no, the Prime Minister definitely addressed the question. Whether the member is happy with the answer—that is his business. I am not responsible for the quality of the answer, but the question definitely was addressed.

💬 Ron Mark: If that answer confirms Ministers in his Government have heard a recording, who are they, given that paragraph 2.55 of the Cabinet Manual states: “A Minister of the Crown, while holding a ministerial warrant, acts in a number of different capacities: a. in a ministerial capacity … b. in a political capacity as a member of Parliament … and c. in a personal capacity.”?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I agree that is what the Cabinet Manual says. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Supplementary question, Ron Mark.

💬 Ron Mark: Was he referring to his ministerial colleagues when he sent a text message saying “Everyone unhappy.”; if not, can he categorically say that no current or former Minister in this Parliament has listened to that recording?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said in answer to the first question, I have no ministerial responsibility for issues related to the Clutha-Southland electorate office.

💬 Ron Mark: I seek leave to table a written parliamentary answer from the Speaker that is not yet publicly available, dated 30 June 2017, confirming legal expenditure was funded from the National Party’s leader’s budget in relation to Glenys Dickson’s settlement.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular answer. Is there any objection? There is objection. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! This is about the third or fourth time I have risen to my feet to ask people not to interject. It is occurring on both sides of the House, and it is to cease.

💬 Ron Mark: If his involvement in statements are in his capacity as leader of the National Party, then why did taxpayers cover the legal costs associated with this matter from the Prime Minister’s budget?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, that question is definitely out of order. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 173/1.

Economy—Productivity, Wage Growth, and Inflation

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the statement, “New Zealand’s productivity story is continuing to worsen, relative to our previous history and relative to Australia and our major trading partners”; if not, what specifically in that statement does he disagree with?

No, I do not agree with Mr Bernard Hickey in that statement. While New Zealand’s labour productivity had been in decline since the early 1990s, the recent OECD report on New Zealand shows that GDP per capita, which is one indicator of productivity, has increased since 2010 relative to the top half of OECD countries. What this means, as the OECD has noted, is that we have stopped the long-term productivity decline. We do, of course, still need to lift productivity if we are to close the gap with leading OECD countries, and this is a priority for the Government. The good news for the member is that progress on many of the OECD’s recommendations on how to lift productivity is in train.

💬 Grant Robertson: Is it correct that according to Statistics New Zealand and Treasury figures, output per hour worked has been falling for the last 2 years and is now at a record low?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, knowing the member, I would have to go away and check those particular numbers, but all I can do for him is quote the OECD, which is a definite dispassionate observer of the New Zealand economy, unlike some. The OECD points out that New Zealand has stopped the long-term productivity decline and that we are now working to lift productivity to close the gap with OECD countries.

💬 Grant Robertson: Is it correct that GDP per hour worked fell by 1.3 percent over the last year?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not have GDP per hour worked, but I do have GDP per capita, and that has increased by just under 1 percent over the last year. I know the member has a propensity to try desperately to find reasonably obscure statistics to back up his claims, but GDP per capita, which is his normal method of complaint, is just under 1 percent.

💬 Grant Robertson: Is it not, in fact, correct that New Zealand is now in a productivity recession, and that this is one of the main contributing factors to two-thirds of workers getting a pay rise less than inflation in the last year?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. The member is literally wrong. New Zealand’s wages have been growing faster than inflation over the last several years, and New Zealand has been seeing real wage growth at a higher level than countries like the US. But I would suggest, rather than Mr Little listening to Mr Robertson, he perhaps go and get a dispassionate observer like the OECD so that he does not get the wool pulled over his eyes.

💬 Grant Robertson: Is he telling the House that it is incorrect that two-thirds of working New Zealanders got a pay rise less than inflation in the last year?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, inflation last year—the calendar year 2016—was zero. It is difficult to get a pay rise less than zero, and, in fact, I think, from memory, the average pay rise was around 2 percent last year. All of that, therefore, was a real wage increase given that, during that year, inflation was zero.

State and Social Housing—Hutt Valley Development

5. to the Minister for Social Housing: What recent announcements has she made regarding social housing in the Hutt Valley?

Today I announced an extensive work programme to build and refurbish more than 700 homes in the Hutt Valley over the next 5 years, with the first new homes to be completed by mid - next year. The programme includes 30 new social houses that are commencing immediately on four sites in Lower Hutt; master-planning for around 300 further new homes across four sites in Ēpuni, Naenae, and Waiwhetū; and refurbishing 383 existing homes to make them warm and dry and to bring them up to standard. This is on top of the work already completed by this Government in the Hutt Valley with the transformative 109-house urban regeneration development at Pōmare, which was completed last year, and 179 homes that we have seen earthquake-strengthened and modernised over the past 4 years.

💬 Chris Bishop: How will the refurbishment programme help the local housing stock in the Hutt Valley?

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: The Hutt Valley housing stock is amongst the oldest in Housing New Zealand’s portfolio. That is why, as part of today’s announcement, $67.3 million has been committed to retrofit 383 homes throughout the Hutt Valley. The refurbishment plans include improvements and upgrades to kitchen and bathroom facilities, carpets, curtains, and heating sources throughout these homes. All of these improvements are critical to ensuring that Hutt Valley social housing tenants live in warm, dry, and fit-for-purpose homes.

💬 David Seymour: Minister, how much of this housing is suitable for students, because my campaign manager brought over some Americans and it has just got a bit out of hand?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. That question is completely out of order.

💬 Phil Twyford: How many of the new and additional homes announced for the Hutt Valley will be affordable?

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, of the 330 new homes, 130 will be social homes, which I know Labour is not interested in, and at least 60 will be affordable homes.

Special Housing Areas—Affordability and Availability

6. to the Minister for Building and Construction: E hia ngā whare ka taea te hoko, kua waihangatia i ngā Takiwā Waihanga Whare Motuhake, o Tāmaki-makau-rau?

[How many affordable homes have been built in Auckland’s Special Housing Areas?]

Special housing areas (SHAs) are making a huge contribution to increasing housing supply in Auckland, with about a third of the total new homes currently being built being in SHAs. About 5,000 homes have been consented and 2,800 have been completed to date in SHAs. We do not record the sales price of new homes in special housing areas or newly zoned areas under the new Auckland Unitary Plan. I do have information on sales prices in Government-initiated developments, and on the basis of these estimates, at least 400 of the new homes in special housing areas are under the KiwiSaver HomeStart cap of 650 grand.

💬 Metiria Turei: If the Minister is not counting the number of affordable homes and Auckland Council is not counting the number of affordable homes, is anybody counting how many affordable homes are being built in Auckland in the SHAs?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Productivity Commission, the Auckland Council, and the independent hearings panel all agreed that trying to use the Resource Management Act to regulate a portion of affordable homes was unworkable and would not work and that what we needed to focus on was the overall level of affordability. I do note that in the last 12 months there has been a significant improvement in the housing affordability index used by Massey University in Auckland, and that is to be welcomed.

💬 Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 David Seymour: Supplementary?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, sorry, I am dealing with a point of order first.

💬 Metiria Turei: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I specifically asked who is counting how many affordable homes are being built in the Auckland SHAs. It has got nothing to do with the Resource Management Act.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I again listened very carefully to the question and to the answer, and in light of the answer given to the substantive question, I think that in this case the question has been addressed.

💬 Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What positive signs are there that the Government’s reforms are addressing the housing challenges?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly, record new home construction. The latest Statistics New Zealand figures show 2,794 homes were consented in May. That is the highest number—

💬 Phil Twyford: They’re trending down, Nick.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —in 40 years. It is up 20 percent on last May, and how Mr Twyford says that is a trend down is truly remarkable. Secondly, house prices in Auckland have been dead flat now for 9 months, and the latest median price is actually down 1.7 percent on last October. Thirdly, housing affordability in Auckland, as measured by the Massey University index, has been improving for 18 months and is down from a peak of 38 to 32. This positive data shows our policies are on the right track and delivering for New Zealanders.

💬 Metiria Turei: Is the Minister afraid that if he did start counting how many affordable homes have been built in his flagship SHAs, he would be embarrassed by the low number?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Quite the opposite—quite the opposite. It just seems odd that you would measure just the house prices in the special housing areas and not the substantive number of new homes that have been built with the new unitary plan or all the other homes that are being built. What the member should be welcoming is that over the last 18 months housing affordability in Auckland has been improving, and I think every member of the House should welcome that.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Minister believe that the current rate of home building in Auckland is adequate to keep up with the number of houses required to keep up with population growth?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The rate of new home construction in Auckland has grown every year for 6 years, at an average rate of almost 20 percent. That is the longest and strongest growth in new home construction in Auckland’s history. At the moment we are at 10,400; we need to get to 13,000. The independent pipeline report says that we will get to that level of 13,000 houses per year at about the end of 2018. I do not believe you can grow the sector faster than we are.

💬 Metiria Turei: The Minister can confirm, can he not, that the purpose of his special housing areas legislation is “to enhance housing affordability”?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Absolutely. All the research shows that the best way to increase housing affordability is to increase supply, and that is what we have been doing very strongly, with 6 straight years of growth in new home construction in Auckland. That has never happened before, and I would also suggest to the member and her party that if they were serious about improving affordability they would oppose the sorts of metropolitan urban limits that got us into the problem in the first place.

💬 Metiria Turei: The Minister can also, then, confirm that the special housing areas are being used to build “premier luxury retirement resorts” in Queenstown?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Absolutely, special housing areas are supporting increased numbers of retirement villages, but what the member does not get is that when an older person moves out of their traditional family home into the retirement village, they free up another home for a family, and that is why I welcome it.

💬 Metiria Turei: Does the Minister stand by his statement he made this morning that affordability “is in the eye of the beholder”?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is absolutely true that what is an affordable house does vary depending on a person’s circumstances, and the fact is that there have been 5,000 homes—

💬 Phil Twyford: Keep digging.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —in special housing areas that have been built. I note Mr Twyford is interjecting. Those members announced a policy 4 years ago saying affordability was $300,000. Then they made it $400,000. Then they made it $500,000. I have seen three figures from that member as to what he thinks is affordable, and that reinforces the point of view that it does depend on a person’s family circumstances.

Homeownership, Māori and Pasifika—Māori Housing Network and Other Initiatives

7. to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he agree with Te Matapihi, the national Māori housing organisation, that nine years of inaction by his Government is the reason for a huge decline in Māori and Pasifika homeownership; if so, what does he think this says about his Māori housing initiatives?

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, kia ora tātau, ā, hei whakautu te pātai [Greetings, Mr Speaker, and to us all, and in response to the question]: while I have no delegated responsibility for Māori and Pacific homeownership rates, I note that homeownership rates amongst Māori and, indeed, Pasifika people were declining long before I became Minister—in fact, under successive Governments. This is why when I became Minister one of my first priorities was to establish a Māori housing network, Kāinga Ora, to have a specific focus on improving housing outcomes for Māori. I would like to point out that after I made my Budget 2017 announcements Te Matapihi put out a press release on 8 May congratulating me. It said: “Te Matapihi would like to congratulate Minister for Māori Development Te Ururoa Flavell on the announcement of several new Māori housing initiatives at a hui at Waipatu … in Kahungunu this morning.” The press release continued: “Te Matapihi look forward to supporting Te Puni Kōkiri to implement these programmes. We would like to acknowledge Minister Flavell, who has worked hard to consistently secure an increase in pūtea for Māori housing every year, over the past three years he has been in office, for better Māori housing outcomes.”

💬 Kelvin Davis: How can he pretend that his Government has done anything for Māori housing and homelessness when the Māori homeownership rate has fallen to just 28 percent under his watch?

💬 Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: As I said earlier, as Minister for Māori Development I am not responsible for the whole of Government approach to housing, which also targets Māori. What I can say is that through Budgets 2015, 2016, and 2017, since I have been Minister, I have managed to secure successive increases to support whare-focused initiatives, bringing the total funding for the Māori Housing Network to just under $20 million per annum. I can say that the focus of Budget 2017, again, was all about improving the outcomes, where I secured a further $17 million over 4 years, which includes $9 million to explore pathways for Māori ownership. There is a lot of good news in the housing area.

💬 Kelvin Davis: What kind of system is he running when the Māori Housing Network has spent over $37 million, and yet contributed funding to only 63 homes’ costs, with only—wait for it—11 of those getting a code of compliance?

💬 Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: I can answer that very easily. Just to help the member, since the Māori Housing Network was launched in October 2015 the network has actually supported 155 Māori housing projects aimed at improving housing for whānau, and now these whānau live in far safer, warmer, healthier homes.

💬 Hon Members: How many houses?

💬 Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: I will help the members if they just kept quiet a little bit. Of those 155 projects the Māori Housing Network has been able to support—here were go—there were housing repair projects for 179 whānau in areas of high deprivation; it contributed to the cost of building 63 new affordable homes, which include rental homes for whānau that are owned by Māori collectives; and it supported housing infrastructure for 176 new homes. I think the major thing to say is that whatever we do, it is far better than Labour.

💬 Kelvin Davis: Can he confirm that the Māori Housing Network, with $37 million spent, has got only 11 houses up to code of compliance?

💬 Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: I cannot confirm that. If the member wanted to give that in writing, I would have brought the information across. What I can confirm is that we have run, amongst a number of initiatives across the housing space, 36 capability housing infrastructure proposals, and we have completed 62 initiatives to increase whānau knowledge about housing initiatives. If the member wants answers, he should really put the question in writing so that we know what we are talking about.

💬 Marama Fox: Does the Minister believe that the subsequent mainstreaming of housing services by the Labour Party has contributed to the decline of Māori homeownership?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, that question is out of order. There is no responsibility for the Labour Party.

💬 Kelvin Davis: Does he think it is honest to promote his Te Ara Mauwhare initiative as something that will get Māori into homeownership when he cannot answer how many whānau are targeted to achieve homeownership, how many houses will be built, and how many communities will be involved?

💬 Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: That is the exact reason why we want to address housing by way of Te Ara Mauwhare. Total homeownership rates across all ethnicities have been declining since their peak in 1991. Around 28 percent of Māori own or part-own their own homes, at least at the last census, and that is why we have got $9 million in the project called Te Ara Mauwhare. This is a new initiative I obtained through Budget 2017, recognising the need to take action to address Māori homeownership rates. The new funding will be used to trial ways to help whānau themselves achieve greater housing independence, and, in particular, homeownership. I hope to be able to build on the successful trials that we have had to reach more whānau in subsequent years to come.

💬 Kelvin Davis: Why will he not admit that all his tinkering has made very little difference and that Labour’s KiwiBuild is a better option because it would house tens of thousands of young Māori families?

💬 Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: I disagree with the statement by the member. I mean, he says that, but actually what happened was that he also arrived to a housing project in Kaitāia—where he lives—under He Korowai Trust. On that day, about a year ago, he, along with me, celebrated the success of Ricky Houghton and the project that he had done, where he was able to provide papakāinga development to provide affordable homeownership and wraparound support services for whānau in Kaitāia. The trust has pioneered an affordable homeownership model so whānau can make sure that they have got roofs over their heads and can look after their tamariki mokopuna. The member was at that hui. I was at that hui. He clapped. I clapped. It should be a good deal.

Education—Digital Fluency Curriculum

8. to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on digital fluency in schools?

Last week I was pleased to announce that consultation has opened on the new digital technologies content for The New Zealand Curriculum and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa, the Māori-medium curriculum. We are breaking new ground with a curriculum that offers unique Māori content, learning that can be shaped according to students’ individual needs, and futureproofing so it can adapt to new technology as it arises. The new curriculum content is about ensuring that students across year levels have access to rich learning aimed at building their digital skills and fluency to prepare them for the future. Our curriculum needs to keep pace with this fast-changing world. The new curriculum content sets out what students need to learn to become not just digital-fluent users but also skilled creators of digital innovations and inventions.

💬 Dr Jian Yang: How will the Government invest to support young people to be digitally fluent?

💬 Hon NIKKI KAYE: We are investing approximately $40 million over 3 years to support implementation of the new curriculum and ensure that our system is set up to enhance the digital fluency of young people. The package includes $24 million of new funding and $16 million of existing funding, and comes on top of the Government’s $700 million investment to enhance school connectivity and $21 million over 3 years already prioritised to teach digital technologies. This package includes exciting initiatives such as digital enterprise scholarships, a national digital championship, and more interactive resources to support students’ learning.

💬 Dr Jian Yang: What feedback has she seen from education and tech leaders on the announcement?

💬 Hon NIKKI KAYE: I have seen a wide range of support for this initiative, including from the education sector, the ICT industry, and businesses. This includes feedback from IT Professionals New Zealand, which said “This isn’t just about changes to a Curriculum, but about positioning New Zealand at the forefront of today’s digital world and equipping students with the skills they need to not just survive, but truly thrive as they navigate through it.”; and from New Zealand Educational Institute president Lynda Stuart, who welcomed the announcement and said “it was also positive to see that digital fluency would receive a greater emphasis in initial teacher training, to ensure new teachers were ready to deliver the new curriculum content.”

Environmental Legal Assistance Fund—Annual Funding and Criteria

9. to the Minister for the Environment: By how much has annual funding for the Environmental Legal Assistance Fund been cut since 2013/14?

The budget this year is $600,000 per year, as it was last year and the year before. For the 4 years prior to that the budget was $800,000 per year but was repeatedly underspent. The spend in 2013-14 was $555,000, and the average actual spend was $520,000. As much as I like the Minister of Finance, I do not like under-spending my vote so I reduced the budget in 2015-16 and transferred it to increased support for collaborative processes. This is also consistent with our blue-green philosophy of supporting people to find solutions rather than spending it on legal aid to fight disputes.

💬 Eugenie Sage: Can he confirm that he created a new criterion for the fund recently so that community groups wanting to challenge council decisions in the courts are likely to be denied funding if their case might “impede or delay” a development project?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I have changed the criteria. A new consideration is the issue of housing and infrastructure. The Government makes no apologies for making it harder for groups to get Government money to stop houses and infrastructure from being built. It does not prevent funding being provided in those sorts of cases, but it requires the panel to give consideration to the broader public interest. It simply does not make sense for the Government to be using public money to stop transport projects being built and stop houses being built with legal aid funding.

💬 Eugenie Sage: Does he believe that Forest & Bird would have received funding to mount a legal challenge to Bathurst Resources’ proposed coalmine on the Denniston plateau if this new criterion had been in place?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is an independent panel that makes the decisions on the issue of the legal aid. What I have added to the criteria is that, alongside the environmental things, issues like infrastructure, jobs, and housing have to be a consideration. But it still will be an independent consideration for the panel.

💬 Eugenie Sage: Can he confirm that last year he gave himself the power to decide which cases and which community groups would get environmental legal aid, stripping this power away from the Ministry for the Environment’s chief executive?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Each year Ministers make a decision about the level of delegations. In this particular case, I decided not to delegate to the Ministry for the Environment, albeit I note that I followed the panel’s advice in every case. In the event that I do not follow the panel’s advice it will be a matter of open public record.

💬 Eugenie Sage: Why will he not just own the fact that his Government is trying to stop legal challenges that might impede environmentally destructive development, like the coalmine on the Denniston plateau, the Ruataniwha Dam, and the Basin Reserve flyover?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I know of many Wellingtonians who would be concerned that the Government was spending money on stopping roading through to the airport being constructed with legal aid funds. So the Government has deliberately put into the environmental legal aid criteria that the panel needs to consider issues like infrastructure and housing. To quote the Minister for Infrastructure: “We are the infrastructure Government.”, and we want to see New Zealanders being able to get around and have a roof over their heads.

Christ Church Cathedral—Crown Funding Offer and Other Assistance

10. to the Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration: What announcements has she made regarding the Christchurch Cathedral?

Today I announced a revised Crown offer to support the reinstatement of the Christ Church Cathedral. It is supported by a cross-party commitment to legislate, streamline, and fast track the process. The revised offer confirms funding from numerous supporters and sources. The largest amount is from the Church itself, from insurance proceeds, a Government grant for $10 million, and a suspensory loan for $15 million, which will be forgiven if the synod reinstates. There is $10 million from the Christchurch City Council and generous donations from individuals organised by the Greater Christchurch Buildings Trust. In all, the offer represents about $90 million, which is enough to complete the reinstatement of the Cathedral and its auxiliary buildings, although fundraising will still be required for the tower and steeple and ongoing endowment.

💬 Nuk Korako: What other assistance has been provided in addition to funding?

💬 Hon NICKY WAGNER: If reinstatement is confirmed, an independent fundraising trust, similar to one at the arts centre in Christchurch, will be established to secure any remaining funding required, as well as a joint venture between the Church property trustees and the fundraising trust to govern and manage the project. Most party leaders in this House have agreed to support legislation in principle that will fast track the reinstatement of the Cathedral. I wish to thank my parliamentary colleagues for their support.

💬 Nuk Korako: How does the revised proposal help Christchurch?

💬 Hon NICKY WAGNER: Christ Church Cathedral sits at the very heart of Christchurch. As well as being a place of worship, it is a significant and recognised category 1 heritage building. It is also the city’s namesake, the symbol of the city, a community facility, and a tourist attraction. If the synod agrees to this offer when it votes in September, it will break the current stalemate on what should be done with the Cathedral and provide a clear path forward towards the regeneration of the city of Christchurch.

Health Services—Specialist Appointments and Demand and Funding

11. to the Minister of Health: Is he concerned about the Government’s ability to meet New Zealanders’ need for specialist appointments; if not, why not?

I am always concerned about meeting the need for specialist appointments. That is why this Government has lifted the number of first specialist assessments from 404,000 per year to 552,000 per year over the last 9 years, an uplift of 36 percent—well ahead of population growth. While that is hugely positive, of course, there is always more we can do.

💬 Ron Mark: If that is the case, Minister, then why did Hutt Valley District Health Board (DHB) turn down a patient because “Public hospitals have limited resources, including funding. Currently we receive more requests for specialist appointments than we are able to provide.”?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That has always been the case whoever has been in Government. There has always been more demand for appointments in surgery than any Government has been able to meet. I would welcome a constructive meeting with the member so we can get the details of that case and work through exactly what has happened.

💬 Ron Mark: Is it not a fact that most DHBs cannot cope with current levels of requests for specialist appointments because they do not have the funding or the resources?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, it is not a fact. The allocation to district health boards has increased by $439 million this year, including the situation around first specialist assessments at the member’s own DHB, Wairarapa. They have gone up from 6,400 to 8,700, a rise of 36 percent over the last 9 years, including a rise of nearly 1,000 since Mr Mark left the DHB—possibly a coincidence, but definitely a fact.

💬 Ron Mark: When Hutt Valley DHB told a patient “That it is important to be honest with our community about the services we can and cannot provide.”, why can he not do the same and admit that DHBs are not adequately funded and are struggling to cope with the current demand?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: If you look at the funding that has gone to Hutt Valley DHB this year—look, there has been an extra $15 million in this Budget and $100 million extra over the last 9 years, taking it to a total of $428 million. So that is plenty of money. There are obviously more appointments, more elective surgeries, more doctors and nurses—actually, it is a very positive story in the Hutt Valley.

💬 Ron Mark: I seek leave to table a letter from Hutt Valley DHB, dated 25 May 2017, stating in part that it cannot keep up with the demand.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular letter from Hutt Valley DHB. Is there any objection? There is none; it can be tabled.

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

💬 Ron Mark: If DHBs are properly funded, then why did 16 DHBs, including Hutt Valley and the Wairarapa, respond to an Official Information Act (OIA) request stating that elective treatment is outsourced because they either do not have the resources to meet the current demand or cannot meet the targets set by the Government?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: There is nothing wrong with those services being outsourced. The key thing is that we are providing more elective surgery all the time. We are doing an extra 50,000 operations per year. So if the local DHB cannot meet the uplift target that it has been set, which is 4,000 nationally, it makes sense that people get their operations, paid for by the State, done down the road at the private hospital. We are interested in the outcome.

💬 Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to table two OIA requests from Hutt Valley DHB, dated 13 June 2017, and from the Wairarapa DHB, dated 7 June 2017.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those two OIA responses. Is there any objection to them being tabled? There is no objection; they can be tabled.

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

Todd Barclay—Southland Electorate Office Allegations, Police Investigation, and Ministerial Conduct

12. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of the statements that he has made, or have been made, on his behalf in this House regarding the Todd Barclay case?

Yes, in the context in which they were made. I understand there is an ongoing police investigation into those matters.

💬 Chris Hipkins: When he stated in his answer to question No. 3 in the House on 21 June: “I understand there has been an Official Information Act process. I was aware of it. I did not really take part in it.”, had he or anyone from his office indicated to the police that his statement should be withheld from the information being released by the police?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The decision on what information is released is one for the police, and I do not intend to add any comment to that.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a direct question as a result of a statement the Prime Minister made in the House in his capacity as Prime Minister.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am going to invite the member to repeat the question.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Thank you. When he stated in his answer to question No. 3 in the House on 21 June: “I understand there has been an Official Information Act process. I was aware of it. I did not really take part in it.”, had he or anyone from his office indicated to the police that his statement should be withheld from the information being released by police?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I just give the same answer I gave before. It is up to the police to decide what, according to the law, should be released, and, as it happened, everything has been released.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am well aware of what the police’s responsibilities are and that they make the decision. I asked what the Prime Minister indicated to the police.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: We have had the question twice. I cannot do any more than that. The Prime Minister is responsible for his answer. It will be judged by the House and by the public.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Why will he not tell the House whether he or anyone from his office indicated to the police whether his statement should or should not be released as part of the Official Information Act request?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: For two reasons. One is that police make the decision about the release of any statement, and all statements have been released.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Why did he tell the House on 21 June: “The employment dispute is between the employer and the employee. I was absolutely no party to that, and I do not know what the dispute was or how it was settled.” , given his police statement reveals that he had detailed knowledge of what the dispute was about, and his own text messages set out his knowledge of how the dispute was settled?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I disagree with the member’s assertions.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear from Chris Hipkins.

💬 Chris Hipkins: The question asked why the Prime Minister told the House something. He has not addressed that question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think that on this occasion he has. There was a very lengthy question, which started with asking why the Prime Minister made some statements in the House, and then the member’s question went on, and the Prime Minister has taken his opportunity to answer it that way.

💬 Chris Hipkins: When he stated in his answer to oral question No. 2 in the House, on 20 June, “I would expect any Minister who became aware of possible breaches of the law to bring it to the attention of the authorities.”, was he aware of any other allegations regarding breaches of the law by Todd Barclay that he had not brought to the attention of the police?

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

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Again, all the matters of which I have relevant knowledge have been dealt with publicly, and the statements to the police have been released.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question asked about the standard that the Prime Minister has set for all Ministers in his Government to inform the police of any information they have about whether anybody has breached the law. I asked the Prime Minister whether he had informed them—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat immediately. I will, on this occasion, allow the member to repeat the question. As I listened to the question I did wonder whether there was prime ministerial responsibility, and that is why I gave that introduction as I called the Prime Minister. I will allow the question to be asked again, but it will then be for the Prime Minister to answer in the way he sees fit.

💬 Chris Hipkins: When he stated, in answer to oral question No. 2 in the House, on 20 June, “I would expect any Minister who became aware of possible breaches of the law to bring it to the attention of the authorities.”, was he aware of any other allegations regarding breaches of the law by Todd Barclay that he had not brought to the attention of the police?

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

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I simply repeat my answer. What I knew was communicated with the police, and the relevant statements have all been released. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will stand and withdraw that remark. [Interruption] Because I have asked him to, please.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I withdraw. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you ruling that “slippery” is now a non-parliamentary term?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I am not. I am ruling that that was an interjection that was likely to create disorder—[Interruption] Darroch Ball, if you interject again when I am on my feet, you will be leaving the House. I am not ruling words in or out. I judge words on the occasion, depending on the temperature of the House. I asked the member to withdraw. He did so, and I am grateful that he did.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I just need to make something quite clear to the member. I have made a decision. The member is now in a position where he may attempt to relitigate that. As the member saw last week, I take such relitigation very, very seriously. But if the member was to raise a fresh matter, and nothing to do with what has just occurred in the House, I am quite happy to hear that.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I will try to make it fresh.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I just point out that the member had better make it fresh, otherwise he will be leaving.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Absolutely. If you rule, in any context, that a phrase is unacceptable for an interjection or for a member to use in a question to a Minister, will you also therefore make sure that that phrase is unacceptable for a Minister to use in an answer? I can count multiple answers where Ministers have accused Labour members of being slippery, and you have never ruled them out of order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member is very dangerous on this point because he is exactly relitigating. As I say, I am not ruling any words in or out. I do not think I have ruled a word out since I have been Speaker. I judge everything on the text and the tone and the demeanour of the House at the time.

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

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from David Seymour.

💬 David Seymour: I take offence at Darroch Ball calling you, Mr Speaker, stupid while you were on your feet. If he is going to get away with that, we might as well all go home. I think he should withdraw and apologise.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not hear that remark. Did Darroch Ball make that comment? [Interruption] Order! I have asked the member. A member’s word must be accepted. It has been accepted. [Interruption] Order! I call on Government order of the day No. 1 [Interruption] We have just got too much noise. I called on Government order of the day No. 1; I actually could not even hear the Clerk because of the level of interjection.

💬 Darroch Ball: I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.

💬 Darroch Ball: I would just like to make it clear to this House that I did not call you stupid, Mr Speaker; I said that it was stupid.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will leave members to judge that, for their own benefit.