Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What decisions has the Government made to ensure multinational companies pay their fair share of tax?

Today my colleague and the excellent Minister of Revenue, Judith Collins, and I announced the Government’s final decision on proposals to address base erosion and profit shifting, also known as BEPS. New Zealand has been working alongside the OECD on the global response, to ensure multinationals are taxed fairly no matter where they operate. Our new initiatives will significantly strengthen our tax rules and align them with the changes being made in Australia and in other OECD countries. The Government has ensured we will tackle multinational tax without reducing the attractiveness of New Zealand as an investment destination.

💬 Melissa Lee: What specific changes affecting multinational companies is this Government making?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Our package of initiatives will stop foreign parent companies charging subsidiaries high interest rates to reduce their taxable profits in New Zealand, stop multinationals using artificial arrangements to avoid having a taxable presence in New Zealand, and make it much easier for the Inland Revenue Department to investigate uncooperative companies. It is very important that every company operating in New Zealand pays its fair share of tax, and that we avoid the situation where companies do not pay tax anywhere in the world.

💬 Melissa Lee: How much extra revenue will result from these changes?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The changes announced this morning will result in an estimated additional $200 million a year in tax being paid by multinational companies. This is made up of the $100 million per year already booked through Budget 2017. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! We are not putting up with that level of interjection, and particularly from one person immediately to my left.

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Mr Speaker, I think it is his relief at keeping his job. The changes are made up of the $100 million per year already booked through Budget 2017, and an additional $100 million resulting from today’s announcements. It also builds on the work we have already done to impose GST on imported services, and the stronger non-resident withholding tax rules that were introduced last year. Taken together, the Government’s actions on multinational companies are estimated to result in revenue of $300 million per year—$100 million more than is already in the Budget track.

💬 Grant Robertson: Why after 9 years of being in Government, and 5 years after he was warned exactly about multinational tax avoidance, does he think he will have any credibility with this announcement—and maybe he should have let Judith Collins make it instead of trying to take credit for it?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In answer to the second part of the question, the Minister and I work as a team on many matters, including on this one. Can I tell the member that—and he might want to listen here, because he might learn something—there is a thing known as the OECD, and the countries in the OECD agreed to work together to make sure that multinationals pay tax across all the jurisdictions, otherwise the actions of any individual country would not make any difference at all. So we have signed the multilateral treaty, and, in fact, Minister Collins went to Paris to sign that treaty so that New Zealand actually was able to join with the other countries and collect this revenue.

💬 Melissa Lee: How does today’s announcement on multinational tax fit into the Government’s strategy of making business easier in New Zealand?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: New Zealand is a great place to do business, and our broad based - low rate tax system continues to perform very well overall; in fact, it is very, very important for encouraging people to create jobs in this country. It is important that we do not become complacent and that we keep taking additional steps to ensure that our tax system remains fair to everybody operating in this country. Our strong economic plan gives businesses the confidence to invest and expand and grow jobs, and, by ensuring that all companies are taxed fairly, those that come to New Zealand and grow operations here know they will get a fair deal.

Special Housing Areas—Outcomes

2. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, particularly Budget 2017’s $2 billion a year Family Incomes Package, which will provide rewards for hard work, help lower-income families with young children meet their living costs, and improve incomes for people with high housing costs. I would like to thank the Greens again for their positive vision of New Zealand in supporting this Government and voting for that package.

💬 James Shaw: Can he confirm that 25 of the special housing areas (SHAs) in Auckland show no signs of building activity?

No, I cannot, and I suggest that if he wants to ask that question he put it down to the relevant Minister. But I can confirm to the member that earlier this week the building consents figures came out, New Zealand was again at the highest level in about 12 or 13 years, and Auckland was up to 10,500 houses consented. There are also, of course, many under way that have already been consented.

💬 James Shaw: Can he confirm that over 2,180 homes that were supposed to be built under the SHA legislation have not been built?

Again, no, I cannot. I suggest the member puts down a question directly to the portfolio Minister. But I can confirm again for him that the important thing is how many houses are being built in Auckland. I can tell him, for example, that in just one suburb in Albany in Auckland, which I am familiar with, there are over 1,000 apartments being built at the moment amongst the 10,500 houses that are being built annually around Auckland.

💬 James Shaw: When will those 2,184 homes be built?

Well, again, I cannot confirm that for the member so it is a slightly redundant question. But I can tell him, which, again, I think he will find helpful given his interest in this matter, that the Government is, through its Housing Infrastructure Fund, bringing the ability to build another 60,000 houses in places like Auckland, Hamilton, and Tauranga—there are about 30,000 in Auckland. Of course, Crown Fibre Holdings is becoming Crown Infrastructure Partners and it has another $600 million, which it is going to invest alongside the private sector, in particular for large housing projects in the south of Auckland and in the north of Auckland but also in other fast-growing councils around the country.

💬 James Shaw: Does he concede that it was a bad idea not to put “use it or lose it” clauses into the SHA legislation?

My understanding from the Minister—and, again, it probably would have been easier if he had just asked the Minister the question—is that, actually, they do have those clauses in that particular arrangement. But it is just one of a number that have ensured that we have gone from very low levels of construction in Auckland—in fact, I think it was about two and a bit thousand houses a year being built around 2009—to now, and if you take into account units and apartments, we are up to over 10,500. So it is a great story of progress and it is continuing.

💬 James Shaw: Given that the requirement to build affordable housing lapses when the SHA status expires, does he accept that the Government has set up an incentive to land bank those 25 areas?

No, I do not. I would point out to the member that the arrangement come to in each SHA has been in partnership with the local councils in that area. Can I say again that the important thing is how many houses are actually being built and the important thing is housing prices—and housing prices in Auckland, as we have had confirmed in the last 48 hours, are now flat to falling and the number of houses being built is continuing to rise.

💬 James Shaw: Can he confirm that it is a special housing area that is being used to build “New Zealand’s premier luxury retirement resort”?

I would need confirmation of that—independent confirmation of that—but I would point out to the member that, actually, building retirement villages is a good way of freeing up other houses for people to live in. He may not be aware, but when somebody moves into a retirement village, they often move out of an existing house, and that house might get sold to somebody else. That is how the housing market works together to achieve the provision of housing for New Zealanders.

Youth Unemployment—Household Labour Force Survey

3. to the Minister of Finance: Has the number of 15- to 24-year-olds not in education, employment, or training according to the Household Labour Force Survey increased since the same quarter last year; if so, by how many?

The number of 15- to 24-year-olds who were unemployed and not in education in the June 2017 quarter, according to the household labour force survey released yesterday, is 29,000, and that is the exact same number as recorded in the 2016 June quarter. In the wider “neets” situation, the total number for “neets” for June 2017 is down 12,000 on the last quarter, down 17,000 on the December quarter, and 1,000 down on the September 2016 quarter, but, yes, I can confirm for the member that he has found a quarter that is up 3,000 on that June quarter.

💬 Grant Robertson: So, to confirm for the Minister, compared with the exact same quarter last year, there are 3,000 more 15- to 24-year-olds not in employment, education, or training, and why is that?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, again, for the member I confirm for him—and I think I have illustrated that in the answer to the primary question—that the numbers do move around a bit from quarter to quarter. The figures in June are 12,000 down on the March quarter, 17,000 down on the December quarter, and 1,000 down on the September 2016 quarter, and I can confirm for him it is up 3,000 on the same time last year.

💬 Grant Robertson: Why are there 3,000 more 15- to 24-year-olds not in employment, education, or training compared with the exact same quarter last year?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I cannot give him the exact answer, but I can tell him that it is not because they are unemployed, because the number who are unemployed—as I have pointed out to him in answer to the primary question—and who are not in education is exactly the same number as it was in June last year. So I invite the member to have a look at table 15 in the household labour force survey and, if he is interested, compare the numbers—of which there are about a dozen—from June 2017 back to 2016, and he can make his own call.

💬 Grant Robertson: Why, according to the household labour force survey, in comparison with the exact same quarter last year, are there more young people not in education, employment, or training in Auckland, Waikato, Manawatū-Whanganui, Tasman, Nelson, Marlborough, West Coast, Canterbury, and Otago?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, there are slightly more in those areas and slightly less in other areas. Can I point out to the member that he is talking about a population of 667,000 people aged 15 to 24, and today, in his wisdom, he is debating the figure of 3,000 in June of last year. Look, I encourage him to continue in his line of questioning, but I can point out to him that compared with June last year, the number of young people unemployed who are not in education is exactly the same.

💬 Grant Robertson: After 9 years of being in Government, why are there more 15- to 24-year-olds not in education, employment, or training? And if he does not know why, why does he not just give up now?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am in this weird universe where Mr Robertson seems to think that he knows exactly what a very, very small proportion of the 667,000 young people aged 15 to 24 are doing. What I can point out to him is that the figures are nearly identical to last year, significantly down on the last quarter, and significantly down on the quarter before that, so only in Mr Robertson’s warped world could it be called an increase.

District Health Boards—Canterbury and South Canterbury Chairs and Funding

4. to the Minister of Health: What announcement has he made in relation to filling the Chair positions at Canterbury and South Canterbury District Health Boards?

Today I announced the appointment of John Wood as chair of the Canterbury District Health Board (DHB), with Sir Mark Solomon continuing in his role as deputy chair. Together they will make a very good leadership team. Dr Wood has significant governance experience, a proven track record of drawing multiple agencies together to deliver key work programmes, as well as a strong personal commitment to Canterbury. I have also appointed Ron Luxton as the chair of the South Canterbury District Health Board, with Paul Annear appointed as deputy chair. All of these appointees bring a great range of skills to their boards, including a wealth of governance experiences, and they are worthy additions to the governance of the health system in the wider Canterbury region.

💬 Matt Doocey: What other actions has the Government taken to improve health outcomes in Canterbury?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The Government recognises that the DHB has required extra support since the earthquakes, and we have provided an additional $106 million above the DHB’s bulk funding allocation, including a $20 million mental health package. Overall the DHB has received an extra $399 million over the last 9 years, including an extra $73 million this year, taking its budget to $1.5 billion. Work also continues in Canterbury to deliver the largest ever hospital redevelopment project in New Zealand’s history, with close to $1 billion being spent, including the $215 million new hospital facilities at Burwood, a new $72 million outpatients facility, and the new $463 million acute services building.

💬 Dr Megan Woods: Will he be making further announcements concerning the Canterbury DHB, specifically about new facilities for regional mental health services that are still stranded in a hospital that was too awful for Government-appointed reviewers to visit?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, that last bit, I think, is very anecdotal, and there is no evidence to support that. But I also welcome the member’s first contribution in this House on Canterbury, despite being a local MP. I can assure her, if she follows our press releases, that she will be advised in due course.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Question—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! I have allowed the member to have a question. She has not ceased interjecting since the start of question time. If she interjects again today, I will be asking her to leave.

Overseas Investment—Policy and Jericho Station Sale

5. to the Minister of Finance: Is he satisfied with Government policy on overseas investment?

Generally, yes, but there is always room for improvement. As a general rule, overseas investment brings opportunities for more jobs, particularly around regional New Zealand. I think of companies like Oji Fibre Solutions and its investment in timber processing. I think of companies like King Salmon and its investment in salmon in Nelson and Marlborough. I think of, for example, Premier Beehive bacon in the Wairarapa, which is another big investor internationally that provides jobs for people of Masterton and the Wairarapa region. These companies employ hundreds and hundreds of workers in regional New Zealand, and produce valuable exports that improve our balance of trade.

💬 Ron Mark: Does he no longer support his predecessor and now Prime Minister Bill English’s 2010 ministerial directive letter issued to Land Information New Zealand, which states that the foreign buyers of farmland must show a substantial and identifiable benefit for New Zealand?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: My understanding is that that policy, overall, has not changed. And, actually, we are always looking for the benefit to New Zealanders of international investment.

💬 Ron Mark: Why then is Landcorp, a State-owned enterprise that he is a shareholding Minister for, selling Jericho Station for $8.7 million to a Chinese buyer when there was an unconditional offer of $8.5 million from a New Zealander, or does $200,000 meet his Government’s definition of a “substantial and identifiable benefit”?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I am not aware of the details of that particular purchase, but can I say to the member that, actually, often the approach that Landcorp takes in these places—as I am sure other parties do, given that it is a Government-owned company—would be to offer it as a tender or open sale arrangement, where the best offer would generally be accepted. So, without being aware of all the details and all the requirements around a particular station—I presume the member has been approached by the unsuccessful bidder; I understand they might be disappointed, but there is a process that has to be gone through.

💬 Ron Mark: Given that Landcorp board member Eric Roy, a former National Party MP, has acknowledged that the Kiwi offer of $8.5 million cash went before it, why are taxpayers now losing over $26,000 a month in lost interest from turning down a Kiwi cash buyer in favour of a Chinese conditional buyer?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, again, if the member would like to put this down in a written question, I would be more than happy to get him the answer. He did not raise it in the primary question—he tried to play gotcha with it—but if he actually wants the information, he should put it down in a question and ask about it.

💬 Ron Mark: How can New Zealanders trust a word he says about not privatising assets when this State-owned farm, one he is a shareholding Minister for, has been sold to a Chinese buyer subject to a Government department’s approval, with the final safeguard meant to be his Cabinet colleagues?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I hope the member is not suggesting that Cabinet Ministers should make the decisions on the sale of these properties, because if he is suggesting that, I think he is wrong. I appreciate that he has, obviously, been approached by the gentleman concerned who was the unsuccessful bidder, but it is important that these things are kept at arm’s length from Cabinet and that the decision is made by the company. But again, if the member would like some information, I would invite him to actually ask the question formally, and I will get him the information.

Housing, Auckland—Supply

6. to the Minister for Building and Construction: Do MBIE officials still advise that the shortfall of housing in Auckland is projected to continue beyond 2030?

No, and the member misrepresents the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE’s) advice. No one can seriously predict with any certainty housing shortfalls 13 years hence, given the level of variability in both population and house building. The solution to the shortfall is what we are focused on, and that is getting more houses built. The house-building rate has trebled from that which we inherited from the previous Government and has grown by an average of 20 percent for every year for 6 straight years—the longest period of continuous growth on record.

💬 Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to table advice from Treasury and MBIE officials to the Minister Dr Nick Smith predicting—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need that; I just need the source of the document.

💬 Phil Twyford: An Official Information Act release.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: On that basis I will assume that it may not be in the public arena. I will put the leave and the House will decide. Leave is sought to table that information. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.

💬 Phil Twyford: How long does he think that it will take to eliminate the 40,000 shortfall of homes that has built up on his watch, in light of numbers from Auckland Council that show that fewer than half of the 14,000 homes Auckland needs per year were actually completed last year?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly, the member is wrong: last year there were 10,400 homes consented. The member keeps wanting to use code compliance certificates, but they do not apply to retirement villages—and, actually, they are houses—and, actually, Statistics New Zealand has just produced a report that says that building consents result in 98 percent of homes. In respect of the member’s other question, I simply point out that the scale of building in Auckland now is at all-time record levels.

💬 Phil Twyford: Why does he prefer to use Statistics New Zealand’s consent data over Auckland Council’s numbers based on code compliance certificates that actually prove the completion of a building, given that Statistics New Zealand described its data as experimental and said it was still refining it?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: For two good reasons. The first thing is that there is no legal requirement to have a code compliance certificate on a house. I actually happen to be living in a home that was completed 18 months ago; it does not yet have a code compliance certificate. Secondly, when a code compliance certificate is issued for an apartment block, there is only one code compliance certificate issued, but it may be for 50 apartments, so that makes a substantive difference. The third point I make is that the Statistics New Zealand report concluded that the most reliable measure of building activity is on the consent figures, and, on average, it takes 10 months from the time of the consent until the home is complete. [Interruption]

💬 Phil Twyford: Is he concerned—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not yet called the member. I am just waiting for some silence to give him a fair go.

💬 Phil Twyford: Is he concerned that the trend for consents for new dwellings in Auckland has now fallen every month since September last year, and that consents are down on the same month last year?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have those exact figures in front of me, and let us just take it very simply. Add up the number of consents for the first 6 months of this year and compare them with the first 6 months of last year. These 6 months are higher—that is called growth—and no matter how many times the member opposite tries to skew or misrepresent the numbers, the fact is that we have got the largest building boom ever in Auckland’s history.

💬 Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about the trend, not the absolute figures per month.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was quite a detailed question. Without a doubt, in my opinion, it was addressed.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave of the House to table the latest report I have received from MBIE on the number of building consents in Auckland, which shows that 4,770 were consented—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I do not need that part of the information to decide whether to put the leave. What I do need is just an assurance that it is not publicly available.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is a specific report that was provided to me from MBIE, and so would not be available—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is all I need. Leave is sought to table that particular report. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is not. It can be tabled.

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

💬 Phil Twyford: When he wrote to—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The conversation between Mr Joyce and Mr Robertson will cease. If they wish to have a conversation, they are welcome to go to the lobbies and have a convivial time over a cup of coffee, if they like.

💬 Phil Twyford: When he wrote to land bankers in June 2015 begging them to develop the land in their special housing areas, how many replied to his letter and how many built houses as a result of his begging letter?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would need to check that, but what I would point out is this: at mid-2017, the prediction was that there would be 4,400 consents in special housing areas. Actually, there have been 5,500—that is, the number of homes in special housing areas is 1,000 more than what we projected at that time.

💬 Phil Twyford: I seek leave to table Nick Smith’s begging letter to the land bankers, which was released—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will put the leave, but I do not need that description of the letter. Leave is sought to table a particular letter written by the Minister. Is there any objection to it being tabled? Yes, there is objection.

💬 Phil Twyford: After 9 years and a housing shortage that continues to get worse by the day, is it not time for a massive Government-backed building programme of affordable houses, the abolition of the urban growth boundary that he has been promising for 10 years but has not done yet, and a move to infrastructure bonds to finance infrastructure for new development?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member is like an old stuck record. The infrastructure bonds that were announced by my colleague Steven Joyce, with the special purpose vehicle, shows that he has resorted to picking up the Government’s policies and pretending that they are new. The member also does not seem to recognise that in the last 12 months the Auckland housing market has been absolutely flat, something that is a consequence of the record building boom.

Offenders—Employment Support

7. to the Minister of Corrections: What recent announcement has she made regarding a partnership between the Department of Corrections and employers to get offenders into work and reduce their chance of reoffending?

Corrections’ Employer Partnerships initiative is making a positive difference by helping 482 offenders into employment in just the last few months. Finding steady employment for offenders when they leave prison is critical to helping them turn their lives around, and to reduce their chance of reoffending. I have hosted three successful employer breakfasts recently in Hamilton, Christchurch, and Wellington. The feedback from the employers has been overwhelming. Corrections has signed memorandums of understanding with 125 employers to help match prisoners with positions relevant to their experience and qualifications. Offenders can obtain qualifications through education and training courses offered while in prison, and this provides them with the first step towards employment once they are released.

💬 Maureen Pugh: What new initiative is Corrections piloting to support offenders with mental health issues to improve their ability to be work-ready?

💬 Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As part of a $14 million investment to help offenders and their families cope with the challenges of mental health, four new services are being piloted by Corrections. The new services include increased mental health support for prisoners and community-based offenders at 16 prisons and in four community corrections sites. We will also be investing in more counsellors and social workers at the country’s three women’s prisons, to support them with current and historical trauma and family issues, to reduce harm and their chance of reoffending. The Supported Living service will work with offenders with highly complex mental illness or cognitive impairment, to access accommodation and support services on their release from prison. The Wrap Around Family/Whānau Support initiative will connect family and children of offenders with mental illness with community services, to improve their social, health, and education outcomes.

💬 Kelvin Davis: Why was North Shore employer Mark Hoddle invited to Auckland prison—a businessman prepared to offer positions to offenders—but given no information about numbers of suitable offenders, no information of their previous offences and their work experience, no CVs to peruse, and no date that they could interview them to ascertain whether they were suitable for his line of work, so that he away annoyed that he had wasted a day away from his business?

💬 Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I am thrilled to hear that there is another employer who is interested in taking on offenders, because that actually gives them the opportunity of a chance of not reoffending. I would encourage that member to give me their details so we can get in contact.

💬 Maureen Pugh: What other initiatives are being rolled out to support offenders to return to employment?

💬 Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Last week the second phase of an alcohol interlock pilot was launched nationally with 694,000 from the Justice Sector fund. Phase 2 will see 240 alcohol interlock devices rolled out to eligible offenders who are serving community sentences for drink-driving offences. That is on top of the 175 rolled out in the first stage of the pilot. Alcohol interlocks immobilise a vehicle until the driver has successfully passed a breath-alcohol test, and can reduce recidivism of alcohol-impaired driving by up to 70 percent. Offenders charged with drink-driving can face lengthy driving disqualification periods, which obviously disrupts their employment. Stable work is critical to reducing reoffending, and this programme means that offenders can continue to work as well as looking after their families and reducing the risk to their communities.

Students with Special Needs—Support

8. to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that after nine years of a National-led Government all children and young people are receiving all the support that they need to succeed in education?

on behalf of the Minister of Education: I am satisfied that this National-led Government has made a significant improvement in the education of our children and young people. This financial year our investment in education amounts to $11 billion, the highest ever investment in public education. Also under this Government, there are nearly 97 percent of children attending early childhood education, and approximately 85 percent of 18-year-olds now have NCEA level 2. However, we recognise that we could always do more to improve, and that is why we have undertaken a significant work programme to ensure that not only is there more funding provided but that we are also ensuring this funding is going to the right child at the right time, to make the biggest difference.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Why did this year’s Budget reduce the forecast for ongoing resourcing (ORS) funding—the additional support provided to children with the highest needs—by 50 student places, given that over 500 applications for the funding are being declined each year?

This Government’s focus on learning support has increased by over 30 percent since 2008. Budget 2017 provided an additional $63.3 million over the next 4 years to support students with additional learning needs. This includes $15 million to extend teacher-aide support to an extra 625 students per year, and this investment fulfils the Government’s commitment to roll out in-class support to over 4,000 students.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question that I asked was specifically about ORS funding and why the Government had reduced the forecast for ORS funding.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I listened very carefully, and the Minister then went on to say that they had actually given additional money toward students with additional needs. I think that addresses the question. If it does not address it to the satisfaction of the member, I suggest he moves forward with further supplementary questions.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Why did the Government reduce the forecast funding for ORS funding by 50 student places, when over 500 applications for that funding are being declined each year?

As I have said, we are increasing our support for children who have learning challenges. I said in my primary question that we are committed to ensuring that funding goes to the right children at the right time, to support their learning.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Why is she satisfied that all children are receiving the support that they need after 9 years of National Government, when 115 applications for the intensive wraparound service for students with the most complex needs were declined because the service was at capacity?

As I said in my primary answer, we are constantly looking at ways to improve, to make sure that we are reaching the students who do have challenges and do have needs. This Government is investing more than ever before in education, and we are getting results for our children. Does that mean there are greater opportunities to support individual children in need? That is why we have got a significant work programme ahead of us.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Why has the Government reduced the number of education support workers employed by the Ministry of Education—those who work with the youngest and most vulnerable—by more than half between 2008 and 2015, from 275 to just 134?

I am not sure that the figures that the member states are correct. On top of schools’ operations grants, we are actually allocating more in teacher-aide support than ever before. Budget 2017 includes $15.5 million to extend teacher-aide support, as I said before, to another 625 more students.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister may have misheard my question. I was not asking about teacher-aides who work in schools. I was asking specifically about education support workers employed by the Minister of Education.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I agree on this occasion, so the member can re-ask the question.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Why has the Government reduced the number of education support workers employed by the Ministry of Education—those who work with the youngest and most vulnerable—by more than half between 2008 and 2015, from 275 to just 134?

That is a very detailed question. Given the broad primary question, I would suggest that member put it down in writing.

Police Resourcing—Access to Institute of Environmental Science and Research Forensic Experts

9. to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by all her statements?

on behalf of the Minister of Police: Yes, within the context they were given.

💬 Ron Mark: Given her statements on police resourcing, why are some police districts currently struggling with financial constraints that prevent their ability to procure services from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR), which are the forensic experts used by the Police and the Crown?

Those resources, of course, are managed by the commissioner, around the different districts. I would suggest that that member would be far better to put that in writing to the Minister, where she could get a response from the commissioner.

💬 Ron Mark: Given that it is the Government that allocates the resources to the commissioner, does she think it is acceptable for a victim who has been shot in the face and has lost an eye to have to witness the offender walking free from a charge of the careless misuse of a firearm causing injury because the prosecution was unable to assemble the necessary forensic evidence, due to the lack of funding?

I am sure that we all feel tremendous sympathy for the victim of any such violent crime. However, police prosecutions are statutorily in the hands of the commissioner, and are the responsibility of the commissioner, not the Minister. But the good news is that Budget 2017 funded half a billion dollars to the Police to support staff and support staffing resources, which will include, of course, prosecutions.

💬 Ron Mark: Does she think it is acceptable for the Crown prosecutor to state that “Due to financial constraints, the Police are unable to instruct the ESR to undertake a scene examination and provide forensic evidence to the prosecution.”; if not, what is she going to do about it?

The Police Prosecution Service is always managing its budget, according to priorities. The issues with ESR go back decades. I do not think that the member can put those at the feet of any one particular Minister, but that is always a balancing argument.

💬 Ron Mark: I seek leave to table a letter to the officer in charge of the Palmerston North Police, dated 31 March 2017, from the Crown solicitor.

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

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

Waste Management—Flight Plastics Recycling Facility

Question No. 10, Chris Bishop.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

💬 Hon Members: Aw, aw, aw, aw, aw.

💬 CHRIS BISHOP: Very strange reaction.

10. to the Associate Minister for the Environment: How is the Government supporting the recycling of PET plastics in New Zealand?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Scott Simpson.

Aw, thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday my colleague the Minister for the Environment, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, and I officially opened the new Flight Plastics processing plant in Lower Hutt with the member Chris Bishop. Thanks to a $4 million grant from the Government’s Waste Minimisation Fund, the new facility has the capacity to turn more than 6,000 tonnes of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic into high-grade, food-safe packaging each year. That means that more than 200 million bottles, like this one, will each year be turned into flake and chip, like this, which in turn produces food-quality packaging, like this, which in turn can be recycled into more flake, like this.

💬 Chris Bishop: How do recent international developments make this more important?

💬 Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: China recently announced a ban on importing waste and recyclables from foreign countries. This move from China will reduce end markets for recyclable materials and makes it even more important that we are able to recycle onshore here in New Zealand. This project at Flight Plastics is significant because for the first time New Zealand now has the capacity to recycle PET plastic here onshore. I encourage all councils to direct their PET plastic collected at kerbside recycling to this new Flight Plastics processing facility, and I also encourage New Zealand consumers to purchase products that use New Zealand recycled PET.

Mental Health Services—Demand and Funding

11. to the Minister of Health: Does he think it’s acceptable that after nine years of a National-led Government the Ministry of Health’s budget bid shows it does not have “an understanding of the mental health population, workforce, and interventions”, according to Treasury?

Sorry, but Treasury is just wrong on this. The member has to understand that Treasury generally opposes any extra spending in health and always comes up with reasons to justify its position. The member will, however, be delighted to learn that the Government is right now working on how it will invest the $100 million extra announced for cross-sector mental health initiatives in this year’s Budget. This will build on the $300 million extra that has been invested in mental health by this Government, the 150 extra psychiatrists, and 600 extra mental health nurses.

💬 Jenny Salesa: If the Minister of Health and his ministry do understand the mental health needs of New Zealanders, why is it taking over 2 months for him to explain what half of his funding announcement on mental health is from Budget 2017?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: What the member needs to understand is that $224 million allocated in the Budget is being supported by the mental health strategy, which Cabinet has been considering, as well as a very detailed plan for new and innovative solutions, which the Government is currently working on. But I can tell the member that this is a difficult area. Governments right across the Western World are looking for new solutions, and she will be very delighted with the plan when it is announced in due course.

💬 Jenny Salesa: Is it acceptable that last year the number of children and young people waiting more than 3 weeks to see mental health services increased from the previous year, with nearly 1,500 across the country last year waiting over 8 weeks to get the help they need?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Overall in the mental health system, waiting times have decreased, but you have got to understand also that demand has increased. So 8 years ago 96,000 people were seeking specialist mental health services; last year it was 168,000—a big jump, much greater than the growth of the population over that period.

💬 Jenny Salesa: Is it acceptable that 1,824 children and young people were turned away from child and adolescent mental health services across the country, a 153 percent increase in rejected referrals since 2012 under this Government?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: There are a couple of elements there. I mean, as I have outlined, demand has increased, but, look, you would have to do an analysis of those figures that the member is putting. I know she is not the regular person asking the questions but, I must admit, the questions are better. But the point is—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will just complete the answer.

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: —you would have to actually look at the referral patterns and what those referrals actually detail to really understand what is going on there.

💬 Jenny Salesa: Does he believe that there need to be school-based health services to provide mental health support in all secondary schools, not just deciles 1 to 3; if so, will he support Labour’s policy to extend school-based health services in all public secondary schools?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, as the member has pointed out, that is Labour policy. Look, it is well intentioned, but it is not actually going to deliver the results intended.

Pay Equity—Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles Recommendations and Legislation

12. to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What are the differences between the recommendations of the Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles and the pay equity bill that the Government has introduced?

on behalf of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: In November 2016 the Government accepted the recommendations of the joint working group and has developed the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill to give effect to those recommendations. One area that the joint working group could not reach agreement on was the extent to which the principles provide guidance on identifying comparators in terms of industry or sectoral proximity to the employees in the pay equity claim. The Government has chosen to strengthen the principles by making it clear that comparators should come from within the same business, similar businesses, or the same industry or sector when available and appropriate. Closer occupations are likely to be more readily comparable and provide better quality information for making comparisons. This is consistent with the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Terranova case, and with pay equity regimes in other jurisdictions, which generally limit comparators to being within the same workplace or employer.

💬 Jan Logie: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did ask the Minister what the differences are. She has identified one, but it was a plural question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The member now needs to make progress with her supplementary questions. I have a little sympathy for her, because I found it very difficult to hear the answer and that was because of interjection from people on my left. Carry on with the supplementary questions.

💬 Jan Logie: Why, after spending months on a process overseen by Dame Patsy Reddy, which got agreement on pay equity principles from business, Government, and unions, has the Minister now introduced a bill that makes changes to these agreed principles and does not have the support of one of the three parties?

As I said, there was one area, and that was the area of identifying comparators, that the joint working group could not reach agreement on. So the bill that has been introduced—and we have put out a draft for circulation—has provided great and valuable feedback from the stakeholders, and we have tabled a bill that we look forward to passing.

💬 Jan Logie: Is the Minister saying that the comparators are the only point of difference from the principles?

The joint working group principles were a really critical part and led to the drafting of this bill, as I mentioned earlier. What this Government is committed to is ensuring that we have a pay equity regime, that women are able to take a claim more easily, that it is fair, that it is easy to approach, and that it is workable for both employees and employers. That is what this Government has delivered.

💬 Jan Logie: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If the point of order is that the question has not been addressed, I agree. Can I invite the member to ask the question again?

💬 Jan Logie: Is the Minister saying that the comparators are the only thing that is different from the principles as they were agreed?

I am saying that is the key area of difference, only because the joint working group was not able to reach agreement on it. We have a bill that is before the House and will be open to public submissions, and we look forward to hearing from New Zealanders, employers, and employees, about their views.

💬 Jan Logie: I seek leave to table a briefing from the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions outlining several points of difference from the agreed principles.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that information. Is there any objection? There is objection. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Supplementary question, Jan Logie.

💬 Jan Logie: How can the Minister say this bill will be good for women when the campaign for equal value, equal pay, arguably New Zealand’s experts on pay equity, has said that the Government’s bill will “make it harder not easier for women to claim equal pay for work of equal value. We prefer to keep the Act we’ve got, which has just increased wages for 55,000 undervalued care and support workers.”?

We welcome submissions as the process of the legislation progresses. That is exactly why we have a submission process. The reality is we have a piece of legislation that enables both equal pay and pay equity, and, as the member has just said, over 55,000 New Zealand women have benefited exactly from our Government’s work on pay equity.