Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister for Social Housing given that the Hutt housing development announced yesterday would include as few as 60 affordable homes out of the 330 to be built?

Yes, I do have confidence in our outstanding Minister for Social Housing. The member, if he looked at the details of the announcement, would see that Housing New Zealand will build at least 330 houses, of which 130 will be social houses and 60 will be designated as affordable. But, of course, what matters in the Hutt Valley is the overall supply of housing, to ensure that in the long run housing is affordable. The other thing that matters is that we now have the opportunity to rebuild the State housing stock in the Hutt Valley and clean up the mess left by the last Labour Government.

💬 Andrew Little: Why will up to 140 of the houses built in the Hutt development not be affordable, by the Government’s own definition, given that the biggest crisis facing New Zealand is the lack of affordable housing?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The scheme here is that the Government rebuilds the social housing stock. Because the land has been so inefficiently used, we can build a lot more houses on the same land, and they will be sold into the Hutt Valley market. Of course they will be affordable houses, because we expect people will buy them, and they will buy them at the market price. That will add to the supply of housing and help everybody.

💬 Andrew Little: Why does the Government even bother defining affordability when, according to Nick Smith, affordability is “in the eye of the beholder”, even if that beholder is an overseas speculator?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We do not design our policy around Chinese-sounding names, like the Labour Party does. People buy houses right across the price range every day. The best thing the Government can do is to utilise our land, which has been historically used quite inefficiently, under the old State housing model to expand the supply of housing, in addition to social housing, and that is what we are doing.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: How will the housing development announced by the Minister help the local housing stock in the Hutt Valley?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We are setting out on what will take 10 or 15 years of rebuilding many, several thousand houses in the Hutt Valley. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary efforts of the list member for Hutt South, Chris Bishop, for his relentless advocacy, not just for the social housing tenants but for affordable housing in the Hutt Valley.

💬 Andrew Little: Is it correct that investors and speculators will be able to buy those 140 houses that will, according to his own Government, be out of reach for first-home buyers?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Unlike the Labour Party, we do not have a proscribed list of evil people who are unable to buy houses. We do not mind if they have Chinese-sounding names. We do not mind if they are people who are investing in a second house because that is their retirement savings, as thousands of Kiwis, including members of the Opposition, have done. We just focus on expanding the supply of housing so that we can avoid the excessive housing cycles and continue to improve housing affordability.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: For what other reasons does he have confidence in the Minister for Social Housing?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because of her leadership of the Government’s Crown building project, which will replace 8,300—

💬 Phil Twyford: How many houses have been built?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: —no, no, the member should listen—old houses of the wrong size in Auckland State housing stock with 34,000 brand new houses over 10 years. This plan has the funding in place and is a long-term plan to deliver those houses. The Minister has done a great job.

💬 Andrew Little: Why does his plan for housing involve taking public land and building unaffordable houses that will be sold to speculators?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is better than the Labour Party’s plan, which is to oppose all developments, such as Point England and the Three Kings Quarry. I mean, at least we are getting out and building something. But, as the member will understand, we are building a mixture of social houses, lower-cost houses that lower-income people can afford, and market-priced houses, which help us pay for the whole lot. It is a very sensible, balanced policy. Over the next 10 years we will rebuild the stock in the Hutt Valley, but if people vote for the Labour Party, nothing will happen.

💬 Andrew Little: Talking about not doing development, given that the Hutt Valley land has been empty for 5 years, after his Government tore down the State houses that were previously occupying it, why are we mysteriously hearing about this plan for 60 affordable homes only 2½ months from a general election?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will recall that we have been talking about making changes in the housing system for a number of years. Those are now coming to fruition, and we are going to be able, for the next 10 or 15 years, to rebuild the State housing stock. We are going to use paid New Zealand labour, unlike the Labour Party, which is going to use free foreign workers to campaign for it.

💬 Andrew Little: How about this for a plan: fix the crisis by building affordable houses for first-home buyers and by building State houses for people who actually need them, rather than yet again doing what the National Government does, which is create opportunities for speculators—and after 9 years, is it not time to look after first-home buyers, not speculators?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Thousands of first-home buyers are using the HomeStart programme. In fact, there is enough funding for it for, I think, 90,000 first-home buyers to take advantage of getting their first entry into housing. But to sell that plan in the election we are not going to use unpaid foreign workers in poor accommodation to knock on doors to persuade people.

Transport, Auckland—Rail to Airport and Government Priorities

My question is to the Minister of Transport—[Interruption]

Order! Can I just have a little less interjection. I have called question No. 2.

2. to the Minister of Transport: Does he agree that light rail to Auckland Airport should be fast-tracked for completion in 2021; if not, why not?

Well, the Government is fast-tracking protection of this sole-purpose route so that we can get on with construction of the corridor. It is difficult to say a time frame because it is an involved process. It does involve design and consenting. It involves property procurement, and then that is before you get on to building. But I am absolutely open to suggestions, and I am intrigued to understand how the Greens think it could be done, especially given that they have opposed the Resource Management Act (RMA) reform that is required for these sorts of projects, oppose and hate the board of inquiry process, and, in fact, want consultation and process up the wazoo, which makes these sorts of projects much harder to do in that kind of time frame.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: Why is he not more ambitious and committed about fast-tracking our airport rail when Vancouver was able to deliver rail to its airport across a similar distance at similar cost in less than 4 years?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The Government is incredibly ambitious for Auckland and has a series of probably the biggest projects going on at the moment, whether it is the East-West Link or whether it is the City Rail Link (CRL). What we do not want to do, though, is slow things down. It is interesting to know that what the Greens are proposing will take 43 minutes when, thanks to the Waterview tunnel, already you can do it significantly faster than that.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: With all the upheaval in central Auckland from the City Rail Link, does it not make sense to start building light rail on Queen Street at the same time, rather than create the same disruption several years later?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am not entirely sure what she is saying. We are doing the projects that make a difference. We have got an ambitious pipeline of projects that I have already been through, whether it is CRL, whether it is the recently completed Waterview tunnel, which means things are much faster than the Greens seem to want for Auckland, whether it is the East-West Link—we have got an ambitious pipeline of projects that are making a difference.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: Speaking of the CRL, does the Minister remember that it took his National Government 6 years to commit to that project, and is it really going to take National another 6 years to realise airport rail should have started in 2017?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It is because we have got a very strong economy and we have got our books in order that, actually, we are able to do these sorts of projects. We have put in—what is it—somewhere between $1.7 billion and $1.8 billion from the Government into this unprecedented public transport project. It is going to make things much faster in Auckland—unlike the sorts of plans the Green Party have, where they actually want a slow train to the airport, which would be slower on her projections than actually what we can do right now through the Waterview tunnel.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that back in 2015—yes, 2 years ago—both the New Zealand Transport Agency and Auckland Transport committed to airport rail but progress has been delayed for 2 years because he instructed them to go back and look at bus alternatives?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, I do not accept the way that has been said. What they did was they got together, they collaborated on this, and they came up with a plan that involves the route protection, and that then involves mass transit public transport on that route. One of the issues is when the demand is required, but, as I say, we are absolutely open to suggestions. What we do need to do, if we do something in the time frame that the Green Party is talking about, is RMA reform and having better consultation that does not take the sort of time that the Green Party would want, so that we can get on and do some of these things.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that Auckland Transport officials say that his airport bus solution, the one that he brought out to delay progress on airport rail, has “inherent risks, including potentially avoidable costs and disruption from implementing solutions that do not have sufficient long-term capacity.”

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am not responsible for Auckland Transport, but what I do know is that we have got an incredibly ambitious programme—we are doing the CRL, we are doing many other projects. What we do not want to do is slow things down from where they are now, when people can get through the Waterview tunnel some—what—20 minutes faster than they could just a couple of weeks ago, with the sorts of things that the Green Party is talking about.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table this confidential Auckland Transport briefing that raises serious concerns about the viability of the Minister’s airport bus idea.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular briefing. Is there any objection to it being tabled? [Interruption] Order! I am putting the leave; it is over to the House to decide. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that there is no technical or engineering barrier to delivering airport rail by 2021—there is just a lack of political will from his National Government?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am not a technical expert; I cannot confirm those sorts of things. But what I can confirm is that we are already fast-tracking these things. We are open to suggestions about how to go faster. But let me say that all the things the Green Party has opposed, whether it is RMA reform, whether it is board of inquiry processes, whether it is trying to put more and more consultation processes on—it just slows things down. They want to slow things down. We are the ones trying to speed things up for Auckland.

Housing—Building Consents, Supply, and Affordability

3. to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on trends in housing supply?

Statistics New Zealand have just released its building consents for the month of May. The seasonally adjusted number of new homes consented rose 7 percent in the month, although some of that was a catch-up from April. In the year ended May 2017, 30,645 new homes were consented nationally. That is up 8 percent from a year ago. In Auckland alone, there were 10,379 new building consents in the last 12 months. There is, of course, more progress ahead of us, including through the Crown building programme, but we are seeing the benefits of this Government’s consistent actions to promote new housing developments and increase supply.

💬 Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How does the current increase in building consents compare with long-term trends?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We have had to overcome a structural downturn in residential construction that began in 2003 to 2004. This hole in New Zealand’s housing supply was evident well before the effects of the global financial crisis and the collapse of finance companies. New Zealand’s housing market has been recovering since, but the good news is that the 2,039 stand-alone houses consented in May was the highest monthly number since June 2004. Consents overall are now more than double the level of the 2011 low point and nearly back to the mid-2016 peak. More developments, of course, continue to be worked on, including the $1.2 billion Three Kings development, which will provide up to 1,500 additional homes in Auckland close to the city, on well-established transport links.

💬 Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How is this increasing supply of residential dwellings being delivered?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: New Zealand’s construction sector is performing well. In fact, it is the largest it has ever been, having grown 9.3 percent in the year to March 2017. The construction sector’s share of GDP has increased steadily, from 5.1 percent in 2012 to 6 percent currently. The sector is also employing its largest number of people, at 245,000, which is more than ever before, despite the peak of the Christchurch rebuild now being over.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Minister agree that the output of homes has just returned to the level of 2004?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I think that is what I actually said in answer to the first question. Of course, 2004 was the previous highest level of construction activity.

💬 Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How does growth in New Zealand’s housing supply compare with Australia’s?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, our cousins across the Ditch are experiencing a tough patch at the moment. Dwelling approvals in Australia came in weaker than expected, with a 5.6 percent fall in May, resulting in total approvals for the year being down nearly 20 percent. All major states are seeing total dwelling approvals down from a year ago. New Zealand is fortunate to be in a much stronger position. Our consistent economic plan is giving homebuyers, developers, banks, and construction companies the confidence to invest and increase housing supply in this country, and the relative position of our two construction industries means there will probably be more workers coming back across the Tasman to work on New Zealand housing.

💬 David Seymour: Does Australia have an affordable housing market?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility—the Hon Steven Joyce.

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That would be a question for the Australians, but what I can tell the member is that the New Zealand housing market is much more robust in terms of supply, and that is what we need. After the period from 2004 to 2009, when there was a big decline in construction, now we are having a big increase in construction, which is doing a tremendous job of filling in the supply gap.

💬 David Seymour: Considering Australia has the second-least affordable market in the English-speaking world after New Zealand, why are we comparing ourselves with them?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I am not sure that I could agree with the member in his characterisation of the New Zealand housing market, because, actually, if you have a look at it, the New Zealand housing market is more affordable in terms of the cost of servicing mortgages and so on, but we can talk about that. But in terms of the comparison with Australia, the comparison I am making is the strength of the New Zealand construction market compared with that in Australia.

💬 Phil Twyford: Why do he and the Prime Minister and the Minister for Building and Construction always blame Auckland Council for the restrictive planning system that makes urban land so expensive when at any time in the last 9 years the Government could have published a national policy statement under the Resource Management Act to prohibit the use of an urban growth boundary?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Let me explain to the member what happened. In 2003-04 there was a law change that allowed the regional councils—

💬 Phil Twyford: In the last 9 years.

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Let me take you through it—let me take you through it. The regional councils’ metropolitan urban limit was put in place as being superior to the local councils plan. That caused a massive decline in housing construction in Auckland, to the point where in 2009 there were only just over 2,000 houses a year being built in our biggest city. Since that time, the construction sector has grown dramatically, and now we have nearly 11,000 houses being built in our largest city. But we have had to recover from the terrible situation that was left from that change in 2004.

💬 Phil Twyford: Surely he does not believe the spin of his Minister for Building and Construction that the special housing areas and the Auckland Unitary Plan are the same thing as abolishing the urban growth boundary, given that the unitary plan still has an urban growth boundary and Auckland continues to have some of the most expensive urban land in the world?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is missing the point. The problem was that the previous Government put in place—

💬 Phil Twyford: You’ve had 9 years.

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —this requirement. I am trying to explain it to you, Phil. From 2004 down to 2009 there was a massive decline in construction, and from 2011 to 2017 there has been a massive increase in construction. Spot the difference between those two things. The Labour Government stalled the housing market in Auckland; the National Government is growing the housing market in Auckland.

Todd Barclay—Southland Electorate Office Allegations, Ministerial Conduct

4. 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 is prime ministerial responsibility, the right honourable Prime Minister.

As I advised the member yesterday in response to the same question, I have no ministerial responsibility for that issue.

💬 Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This issue has been canvassed quite heavily over the last couple of weeks. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 171/2, which does begin by saying: “Ministers can be questioned only on matters for which they have [ministerial] responsibility.” However, it also says: “If they have made statements that impinge on those responsibilities, they can be questioned on them, regardless of the capacity in which the statements are made.”

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure what the point of order is, apart from reading out a particular Speaker’s ruling. We have traversed this issue a lot over the last couple of weeks. It is now for the Prime Minister to decide where prime ministerial responsibility lies. Statements have been made as the member of Parliament, as the leader of the caucus, as the leader of the National Party, and, potentially, as the Prime Minister. It has been both in the House and outside, so I am going to leave it for the Prime Minister to make his call as to whether he is answering in a prime ministerial capacity.

💬 Ron Mark: If he said yesterday “I agree that is what the Cabinet Manual says.” over Ministers having ministerial responsibility in a personal capacity 24/7, how could Mr Joyce, when answering for him, possibly say “I doubt that any member would have been listening to that [tape] in their ministerial capacity.”?

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

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is trying to make it all sound complicated, but it is not. I simply have no ministerial responsibility, and that was reflected in the answer that Steven Joyce gave on my behalf.

💬 Ron Mark: If he said yesterday “I agree that is what the Cabinet Manual says.”, is he aware of any Minister, current or former, being approached by police in relation to the recordings allegedly made by Mr Barclay?

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

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because this matter is subject to police investigation, I have no comment or ability to influence whether the police approach anyone, or whether they would tell me that they had. In fact, they almost certainly should not.

💬 Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Without wanting to go over the same ground, I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 175/1—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need the member to draw my attention to that Speaker’s ruling. We are covering the same ground. I told him earlier it is for the Prime Minister—he is the only one who knows in what capacity he has made various comments.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Just a minute—I just need to deal with something. If the member is attempting now to relitigate the ground that I am just covering, I will take a very dim view of it, and possibly be asking the member to leave the Chamber.

💬 Ron Mark: No, not at all. It is in relation to that answer the Prime Minister gave, and I am seeking your clarification. Is the Prime Minister by that answer saying he is not responsible for his Ministers?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not think the Prime Minister is saying that at all. The Prime Minister addressed the question that was asked. It was a very convoluted question; the Prime Minister addressed it.

💬 Ron Mark: Are he and his Ministers aware that covering up an illegal act in the hope that it would go away could make him and other Ministers an accessory after the fact to an offence, a party to the commission of an offence, and, potentially, open to a charge of perverting the course of justice?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member cannot make that sort of imputation about a member in the House.

💬 Ron Mark: Speaking to the point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need assistance. On this occasion, the member has not made an allegation; he has simply asked the Prime Minister to address the question. The question, in my mind, is in order and it will be addressed. The right honourable Prime Minister, in so far as there is prime ministerial responsibility.

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I reject the member’s assertions, and I think any matters related to potential offences are, really, matters for the police, not for the House.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you correctly pointed out, I did not make an assertion. I asked him whether he is aware of the potential for those Ministers to have broken the law.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister then addressed that question. The question has been addressed—not to the satisfaction of the member, but I doubt it was ever going to be addressed to the satisfaction of the member. Does the member wish to have a further supplementary?

Christchurch Anchor Projects—Canterbury Earthquake Learn, Prepare, Act Symposium Cancellation

5. to the Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration: Does she stand by her statement that a reason for cancelling the Canterbury Earthquake Learn, Prepare, Act Symposium was that “The Government was, quite rightly, focused on supporting Kaikōura and surrounding areas following the November quake”?

Nowhere in that statement does it say that the Kaikōura earthquake was a reason for cancelling the symposium, and I have never made that claim. The member, I know, may not read all my statements with such fine detail, but if she did she would have seen a press release on November 2016 in which the Government stated: “This decision to delay the symposium was made prior to the November 14 earthquake but I believe this recent event reinforces the reasoning behind it.” I still believe that.

💬 Dr Megan Woods: In the article in the Press this week, why did the Minister even mention the Kaikōura earthquakes as a reason as to why the symposium was cancelled, given that official documents show that her predecessor signed off on the cancellation on 8 November, 6 days before the Kaikōura earthquakes—why was it even mentioned?

💬 Hon NICKY WAGNER: I mentioned the Kaikōura earthquakes because although the symposium had already been cancelled, it just showed what a good decision it was, because now we can put all the information of things that we have learned in Kaikōura in the ongoing learning and legacy information.

💬 Dr Megan Woods: How many anchor projects does the Crown have responsibility for, and how many have been completed as of today?

💬 Hon NICKY WAGNER: I will tell you all about it when we have our symposium next year.

💬 Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very straight—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The way forward is that I am going to invite the member to ask that question again.

💬 Dr Megan Woods: How many anchor projects does the Crown have responsibility for, and how many have been completed as of today?

💬 Hon NICKY WAGNER: The anchor projects that are happening in Christchurch are progressing well. The Crown has some responsibility for some of them, but not all of them—for example, the oval was not the Crown’s responsibility, but that is completed. The bus exchange was the Crown’s responsibility, and that is completed. The Avon-Ōtākaro corridor is partially completed. The Margaret Mahy Family Playground is completed. The convention centre is on track, as announced recently, and the Metro Sports Facility is under way. The only anchor project that is not on the way at this stage is the multi-use stadium, which is the responsibility of the city council.

💬 Dr Megan Woods: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This was a—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order?

💬 Dr Megan Woods: It is a point of order. That was a very straight question. It was a very long answer, but I asked for two numbers—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume her seat. The member cannot design the answer for a Minister; it is the Minister’s responsibility, and I thought the Minister gave a very fulsome answer to the question that was asked.

💬 Dr Megan Woods: How many anchor projects does the Crown have responsibility for, and how many have been completed to date?

💬 Hon NICKY WAGNER: Would you like me to repeat my past answer, which gives the detail of the anchor projects—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not blame the Minister for resuming her seat. She went to answer the question; the level of interjection was just unacceptably loud.

💬 Dr Megan Woods: Is the real reason the National Government cancelled the symposium not because it was too embarrassed, in an election year, to front up to the people of Christchurch over its underwhelming lack of progress on the anchor projects? And, for the record, it is 10—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked.

💬 Hon NICKY WAGNER: Absolutely not. What we were concerned about was whether we could effectively reflect the whole process of recovery, rebuild, and regeneration. There has been some impressive work done in Christchurch, and some of the lessons we need to learn. It is my belief, also, that the symposium should cover the new and innovative locally led governance structure about Regenerate Christchurch, which is of interest both nationally and internationally.

Building Standards—Earthquake Safety and New Law

6. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What steps has the Government taken to support councils in implementing the new law taking effect this week requiring upgrades of earthquake-prone buildings?

The major change with the new law is a nationally consistent approach to dealing with earthquake-prone buildings, rather than letting each council determine its own policy. Last week, Cabinet passed detailed regulations to help councils identify potentially earthquake-prone buildings and adopted the engineering guidelines to support more consistent assessments. This comprehensive package of measures puts New Zealand at the forefront of countries managing seismic risk and, alongside the changes to the Earthquake Commission, improved new-build standards, and the much improved civil defence and emergency system changes, ensures New Zealand is better able to manage these earthquake risks in future.

💬 Brett Hudson: How does the new law address the significant variation in risk from earthquakes across New Zealand?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The seismic risk is greatest in those parts of New Zealand that are straddling the Pacific and Australasian plates, from Greymouth in the south-west, through Wellington, and to Gisborne in the north-east. The existing building code requires buildings in those areas to be, effectively, three times as strong as those in low-risk areas like Dunedin and Auckland. But the new law also graduates the timetable for the assessments and the upgrades of the earthquake-prone buildings. High-risk areas must be assessed within 5 years and upgraded within 15, medium-risk areas have 10 years for assessment and 25 years to be upgraded, and in those low-risk areas, it is 15 years and 35 years. The policy also, rightly, prioritises schools, hospitals, and emergency buildings, requiring these to be assessed and upgraded in half of that time.

Waste Management—Waste Reduction Initiatives and Funding

7. to the Associate Minister for the Environment: Is he satisfied the Government is doing enough to reduce waste, given that the amount of waste going to landfill has increased from 2.5 million tons in 2009 to nearly 3.3 million tons in 2016?

Yes. In 2009 this Government introduced the waste disposal levy to reduce waste, and it has worked well so far. New Zealanders have choice, and we make decisions every day about what we purchase, what packaging we consume, and what we do with the waste. I encourage all New Zealanders to take up the opportunities that already exist to reduce, reuse, and recycle.

💬 Denise Roche: Given that an independent review of the waste levy, released on Monday, concludes that an extension and increase to the levy would reduce waste to landfill, create about 9,000 jobs, and create an economic benefit of around $500 million per year, why has his own review suggested that no action be taken?

💬 Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I welcome the Waste Management Institute New Zealand (WasteMINZ) report that the member refers to. It is part of a much wider conversation that we need to have nationwide about what we need to do with waste in the world that we live in, where there is increasing consumerism and convenience. That report that the member refers to sets out a range of options for the future of waste disposal levies, and it complements the review that I myself released on Monday. The three recommendations from the review are focused on addressing these very issues. There are several scenarios suggested in the WasteMINZ report that the member refers to, and it is no surprise to me that the Greens are going to focus on the most extreme of those.

💬 Denise Roche: Supplementary?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Dr Megan Woods.

💬 Denise Roche: Ah, thank you.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Sorry, Dr—Denise Roche.

💬 Denise Roche: Has he considered introducing mandatory product stewardship schemes, like refunds on drink containers, a charge on single-use plastic bags, or advanced disposal fees for tyres, which actually reduce landfill waste, create jobs, and cover the costs of recycling?

💬 Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: On this side of the House we are not the party of placards and protest. We take a very pragmatic and practical view towards environmental protection and enhancement, and, no, we are not contemplating a plastic bag tax. What I am doing is meeting with stakeholders in the sector, mayors, and officials regarding the issue of plastic bags and the disposal of them.

💬 Denise Roche: If the Government is serious about tackling waste, why has Budget 2017 projected a nearly 50 percent increase in the Waste Minimisation Fund, which corresponds to a 50 percent increase in waste to landfill?

💬 Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Notwithstanding the member’s political question, I think that, actually, what we do want to be talking about is the next big conversation in terms of waste. That is going to be around manufacturers, retailers, and producers of products actually having a complete, full life-cycle approach to their products. In a circular economy, it is not just about the convenience of their packaging but the understanding of what the impacts are—

💬 Denise Roche: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did ask a question about the Budget; it has not been answered.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, but you included the words “If the Government is serious about dealing with the issue of waste …”, so it was being addressed by the Minister.

Canterbury District Health Board—Mental Health Services and Funding

8. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his Director-General’s claim that Canterbury District Health Board’s request in March for urgent additional mental health funding of $7.2 million to address increasing demand was “inappropriate”?

Yes, and it is important that the member understands the wider context here. It is not appropriate for any district health board (DHB) to use the annual plan process to bid for more funding on top of the Budget allocation. It is also worth noting that the State Services Commissioner, the Secretary to the Treasury, and the Chief Executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet also agreed with the director-general’s position, following further requests made by the Canterbury District Health Board. Budget 2017 increased the funding to the Canterbury DHB by $73 million, to a record $1.499 billion for 2017-18, an increase of nearly $400 million over the last 9 years.

💬 Dr David Clark: Why did Ministry of Health director of critical projects manager, Michael Hundleby, say that there was no funding allocated for ad hoc requests, when the Minister himself announced $20 million ad hoc for mental health pressures in March the year before, outside of normal Budget processes?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Because that was a totally exceptional circumstance, but the director of critical projects does not have a slush bucket of funds just to dole out every time. So, basically, what Chai Chuah has said is absolutely correct: you cannot use the annual planning process to try to screw more money out, following the Budget process.

💬 Dr David Clark: In light of his ministry’s view that additional funding is inappropriate, does he deny the following statistics from the Canterbury District Health Board’s minutes last month: that since the earthquake there has been a 36 percent increase in adult community mental health service presentations, a 73 percent increase in child and youth mental health presentations, a 41 percent increase in rural mental health presentations, and a 72 percent increase in emergency department mental health presentations?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes, and that is exactly why the Government has put in an extra $106 million to help with the additional costs of recovery since the 2010 earthquakes. That includes an extra $20 million for the next 3 years, which we announced in March 2016 as part of a package to boost initiatives for mental health services in Canterbury. Also, the DHB is going to spend $160 million on mental health services this year. That is an increase of $30 million on 9 years ago. I can take you now through the broader points around that $20 million: that is part of a package that is going to boost services in the community; it was consulted with the community workers. There are an extra 27 fulltime-equivalents in primary care and more community-based health workers. There is also a $1 million per year partnering with Christchurch City Council and Lianne Dalziel—I know you guys are missing her, actually—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just carry on with the answer.

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: —to allocate to the Christchurch mayoral fund, and, on top of that, the Ministry of Health is extending the All Right? campaign for a further 3 years. So, actually, we have been listening to Canterbury on mental health. We have consulted with people who know what they are talking about, and we have put in a hell of a lot more money.

💬 Dr David Clark: Was any of the $2.7 million that Canterbury DHB had to give back, as a result of his Government’s Budget blunder, for the district health board this year originally planned for mental health services?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Actually, the member is being very misleading. It did not have to give back any money at all. The total allocation across DHBs was exactly the same. This year there will be an extra $160 million spent on mental health, waiting times are coming down, there are more psychiatrists, more mental health nurses, and an increase in services. So I do not know why the member has wasted his question No. 8—I know he—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! We do not need to go there.

💬 Dr David Clark: I am not going to let that arrogant response lie. Will he guarantee that the youth in-patient, mother and babies, and eating disorder mental health services, currently operating from the Princess Margaret Hospital site, will be included in the new build plan for the Hillmorton site?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, we are just working through the planning of future services now, but what I can guarantee is that those services will continue to be provided, and that is the main point.

💬 Dr David Clark: In light of his ministry’s response to Canterbury DHB that it should prioritise funding if additional mental health services are needed, which front-line services does he think Canterbury should cut instead?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No one is asking anyone to cut front-line services; the member should stop misleading the House.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! That last part is completely unnecessary and will be withdrawn.

Fuel Market—Financial Performance Study Results

9. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent announcements has she made about the Fuel Market Financial Performance Study?

Yesterday I released a study into New Zealand’s retail fuel market. The report takes us a big step forward in our understanding of fuel margins. It confirms that the market has features that may not be consistent with a workably competitive market and that retail fuel margins have increased significantly over the last 5 years, while fuel margins for aviation and commercial road users have been flat or falling. It also shows that higher petrol prices in the South Island and Wellington are not explained by higher costs in those areas. The report shows that fuel margins have steadily increased from 9.1c per litre at the start of 2010 to 29.5c per litre in May 2017.

💬 Sarah Dowie: Why did she call for the Fuel Market Financial Performance Study?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I called for the study in February after hearing concerns about petrol prices from the public and also Mr Stuart Nash, and after asking the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment for advice on fuel margins.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Are you trying to see him deselected?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Ha! I wanted to know that fuel prices were reasonable and that motorists were getting a fair deal, and I was concerned that this might not be the case. The report demonstrates that we were right to be concerned. It shows that, for the last quarter of 2016, New Zealand’s pre-tax fuel price was the highest in the OECD. Each cent in margins represents $30 million in extra costs for consumers annually. This is really big. Margin increases over the last 5 years can be measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

💬 Sarah Dowie: What are the next steps in the process?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That is an excellent question. I have asked fuel companies to provide a formal response to the study by the end of September. My officials will then assess the recommendations of the study, alongside the response from the fuel companies, and report back to me by November. In addition, of course, on the advice of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Hon Jacqui Dean, Cabinet has agreed to support an amendment to the Commerce Act to give them information-gathering powers, which can be used at the discretion of Cabinet, to properly examine competition in markets just such as this.

Todd Barclay—Southland Electorate Office Allegations, Prime Ministerial Conduct

10. to the Prime Minister: Why did he tell the House on 21 June with regard to the Todd Barclay matter, “I do not know what the dispute was or how it was settled”?

Because I was not a party to the employment dispute or the settlement. The extent of my involvement was as the former MP for Clutha-Southland. I did not then, or now, have any ministerial responsibility for this matter.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Why did he tell the House that he did not know the dispute had been settled, when his own text messages reveal that he knew Glenys Dickson had received a settlement payment “larger than normal, because of the privacy breach.”?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I just repeat my answer to the previous question. I was not a party to the employment dispute. I was the former MP for Clutha-Southland, but I had no ministerial responsibility for the matter.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Is the Prime Minister seriously arguing that if he is not a party to a dispute, he does not have an obligation to tell the truth about what he knows about it?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! That question is bordering on going to create disorder. I will listen again because I want to give the member a fair go, but if he is in any way accusing any other member of—well, I will listen very carefully to the question.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Is the Prime Minister seriously indicating that if he is not directly a party to a dispute, he does not have an obligation to tell the truth about what he knows about it?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: In respect of that matter, I met all my obligations to give relevant information to the people who needed to know it, including the New Zealand Police as part of its 10-month investigation.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Why did he tell the House that he did not know what the dispute was about, when, over a year earlier, he had been interviewed by the police about the matter and told them that the allegations Todd Barclay had recorded Glenys Dickson’s conversations were a reason for her leaving the position?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have said, I have no ministerial responsibility for the matter, then or now. The statements I made to the police have all been released, and the member is as familiar with them as anyone else is.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Does the Prime Minister not understand that the only interpretation that can be placed on his refusal to get to the truth of the Barclay conduct is that he is participating in a cover-up of Mr Barclay’s improper, and possibly unlawful, activities; if so, what does that say about the credibility of his Government?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: There are two supplementary—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member has alleged that the Prime Minister has participated in a cover-up. In my submission, he simply cannot make that allegation in relation to another member. He said that that is the only interpretation.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I listened very carefully, and that was not the question. Those words were certainly used, but it was not a representation of that at all. The Prime Minister can answer the question.

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said to the member, I have no ministerial responsibility. It is hardly a cover-up when statements are made to the police in relation to the matters the member is raising.

Budget 2017—Northland Schools and Kura Capacity

11. to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has he made following Budget 2017 in regards to increasing capacity at Northland schools and kura?

As part of our continued commitment to the Northland region, the Hon Nikki Kaye and I were pleased to announce that Budget 2017 will provide $5.5 million for 11 new and replacement classrooms at three schools and kura in the region. These new classrooms will accommodate an additional 140 student places and will upgrade existing school infrastructure. This Government believes in the potential of Northland’s young people. These new classrooms will enable these schools and kura to help their tamariki to reach their potential.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: How will local schools and kura benefit from this investment?

💬 Hon TIM MACINDOE: I am very pleased to inform the excellent and hard-working member for Whangarei that two schools in his electorate are set to benefit from this investment. Ruakākā School will see three new classrooms built, and Ngunguru School will receive two new and four replacement classrooms. I also had the privilege of visiting Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Kaikohe yesterday to announce that we will provide it with two new classrooms. That is a kura that is thriving under strong leadership and is seeing a rapid growth in its roll, and, I have to say, yesterday the tamariki were stunningly talented, very appreciative, and their welcome was spine-tingling.

💬 Tracey Martin: What actions has he taken to alleviate the overcrowding at Kaipara College in Helensville, which is currently running at 135 percent?

💬 Hon TIM MACINDOE: I do not have that specific information available to me, but I can tell that member that this Government has already invested $5 billion in school infrastructure since it came to office, plus there is more than $4 billion coming in the next 4 years. The ministry is working with schools to ensure that a long-term procedure is implemented, and I can assure the member that everything is being done in a decent and proper fashion, in the best interests of those schools and their children.

Environment—Waste Management and Pest Control

12. to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by all his statements?

Yes, and I particularly stand by my statement that New Zealand First voted for the emissions trading scheme legislation and the addition of joint-iwi management agreements through the Resource Management Act, but now pretends that it opposed both these environmental laws.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: Why did he announce a grant of $3.8 million out of the Waste Minimisation Fund to Waste Management NZ for a nationwide tyre collection network when that company’s last recorded profit after tax was $30 million and when there has been no request for proposals to allow Kiwi companies to propose solutions for the disposal of tyres?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The bid was awarded to Waste Management NZ after a contestable process in which it proved that it is possible to be both profitable and to do good environmental things. It has a network of 70 depots across New Zealand and 800 trucks. It makes great sense. I am very proud that this Government is taking action against waste tyres, which cause problems with leachates with the risk of burning, for which local government has long asked for a solution, which this Government has provided.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: In making his decision to subsidise Waste Management, was he concerned that Beijing Capital Group, the owner of Waste Management NZ, has failed its obligation to lodge financial statements with the Companies Office since 3 January 2014; if not, why not?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: And again, in so far as there may be ministerial responsibility, the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is not my concern whether Waste Management might have shareholders with Chinese-sounding names. I am not concerned that it might be profitable. What I am concerned about is whether it put up the best proposal to the independent panel for addressing the longstanding tyre problem and the answer to that was, yes, it did and both the combination of that bid and the other nine selected bids finds a solution for the 5 million waste tyres that we have each year.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: What confidence can taxpayers have anyway in Beijing Capital Group—Waste Management’s owner—when Moody’s has recently downgraded its creditworthiness to just one step above junk bonds?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Again, in so far as there may be ministerial responsibility, the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Waste Management NZ is one of New Zealand’s largest waste companies and I actually do not mind whether its investors happen to have Chinese-sounding names. What I do care about is actually that we both collect, shred, and properly dispose of New Zealand’s 5 million waste tyres each year, and in that respect Waste Management’s bid was the best bid that the Ministry for the Environment assessed.

💬 Richard Prosser: Does he stand by his statement in response to the court filing of the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary proceedings that “The national pest control regulations for the use of 1080 and brodifacoum were introduced on the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.” when in fact the parliamentary commissioner was very clear that she supported only 1080 and not brodifacoum, on pages 58 and 59 of her report, stating the “By-kill of native species is a significant risk from the use of … anticoagulants.”?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment recommended that it was more sensible to have one set of pest control regulations for New Zealand rather than us having 86 different rules with different councils. As a consequence, this Government adopted those national pest control regulations, they were consulted on, three-quarters of the people who submitted supported them, including the inclusion of brodifacoum, and in my view if we are serious about creating sanctuaries and meeting my colleague Maggie Barry’s ambitious plans for predator-free New Zealand by 2050, then those poisons are required.

💬 Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that my question was specifically why the Minister referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment endorsing the use of brodifacoum when she specifically did not.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member is spending a lot of time studying Speakers’ rulings so I would be grateful if he would consider the ones that refer to the generality of the primary question. When a primary question like that is asked, you cannot expect specific answers, no matter how specific the supplementary question may be.