Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his statements on immigration fraud?

Yes. In particular, I stand by my statement in the House on Tuesday that this Government takes any type of visa or immigration fraud very seriously. We have invested heavily in verification and risk resources to stamp it out. We have also passed legislation that makes residence class visa holders liable for deportation, were it established that any of the information provided on their application was false, fraudulent, or misleading.

💬 Ron Mark: How can he expect New Zealanders to believe that he has taken immigration fraud seriously in the student market, when the labour inspectorate in New Zealand employs only 54 officers for the entire country at a time when the Government-promoted work visa approvals have gone through the roof, reaching 226,000 in the 2016-17 financial year?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The size of the labour inspectorate is not driven by the number of work visas issued, but I should note that the number of staff working in that area has increased by two-thirds in the last 2 years. I have asked them to work more closely with the immigration compliance team, which has also got more resources, and they have created what I think is something of a synergy, resulting in greater prevention, detection, and prosecution of visa irregularities.

💬 Ron Mark: If the Minister is so pleased with the work of Immigration New Zealand in its overseas offices, why then did his offshore staff, between 1 May 2016 and 19 May 2017, approve the entry of 261 Indian students, only to have them deported by his onshore staff after they detected fraud in the documentation?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, it would be nice to think that because this Parliament passed rules and laws, nobody broke them, but I am afraid it is a reality of human nature that where there are rules, people bend and break them. That number has to be set against the more than 100,000 students who studied in New Zealand during that same period, and I think that is not a bad hit rate.

💬 Ron Mark: Is the fact that fraud updates from March 2017 in Manila, Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong identified fraudulent document concerns regarding 224 applications in the Philippines and 73 applications in China not evidence that he has not been taking immigration fraud seriously over the past 9 years?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No, it is not, because what the member asking the question has not told the House is that they were prima facie questions about whether or not fraud might have occurred. In over 170, I think—178 of those examples—none was detected.

💬 Ron Mark: How can he possibly say he has been taking “immigration fraud very seriously” over the past 9 years, when a Chinese national gained a student visa despite being rejected by US authorities on numerous occasions and flagged by Australian immigration and border protection, yet his department did not know anything until it received an intelligence notification about a national security concern? How did that guy get in?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, I do not have the details of that particular example, but it is a single example of one of over 800,000 people who came here after having successfully applied for a visa. Again, I do not think anybody should take from that anecdote that there are widespread problems.

💬 Ron Mark: I seek leave to table a series of answers to Official Information Act (OIA) requests from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, dated 31 July 2017, regarding fraud updates by each Immigration New Zealand office.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that OIA release. 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.

Economic Outlook—Reports and Productivity

2. to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the outlook for New Zealand’s economy?

This morning the Reserve Bank released its official cash rate (OCR) decision and the latest Monetary Policy Statement (MPS). The bank’s MPS highlights New Zealand’s strong growth prospects, stating that “Annual GDP growth is expected to average 3.4 percent over the next two years”. In addition, the bank forecasts unemployment to fall to 4.5 percent, while wages continue to rise faster than inflation. This picture of steadily improving economic performance is a testament to the hard work of New Zealanders over recent years and the confidence businesses have to grow and expand.

💬 Melissa Lee: How does the Reserve Bank’s OCR decision today affect homeowners and families?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: By leaving the OCR unchanged at 1.75 percent, homeowners’ mortgage rates will remain lower for longer. The Government’s fiscal constraint and sensible economic management is a key contributor to keeping homeowners’ and families’ costs under control. I have to say, what you would not want to do at this stage of the cycle is impose extra taxes on the economy that increase the cost of their daily essentials, like petrol, fruit, or vegetables. That would have the potential to stall economic growth and push up not only interest rates but also the cost of living.

💬 Melissa Lee: How do New Zealand’s economic growth prospects stack up against the other developed countries?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: New Zealand continues to have one of the fastest-growing economies in the OECD. The OECD’s June economic summary for New Zealand forecasts economic growth of around 3 percent this year, because: “A strong recovery in business investment, ongoing strength in tourism and the recent increase in dairy prices should support growth.” This compares with the expected lower growth rates in the UK of 1.6 percent, the US of 2.1 percent, and Australia of 2.5 percent. New Zealand’s performance, of course, is no accident; it is all about a strong economic plan that delivers jobs, higher wages, and lower cost of living increases for New Zealanders.

💬 Melissa Lee: What reports has he received on the risk of rising costs of living for New Zealand households?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As ever, the Reserve Bank remains vigilant for the risks of potential inflationary pressures. I have seen a number of reports just in the last day or so that have identified a number of risks that the cost of living could increase quite dramatically with policy change. For example, there is one from Horticulture New Zealand, which says: “Extra costs on growers of fresh, healthy fruit and vegetables will make healthy food more expensive. This seems incongruous with policies around alleviating poverty … ”. There is another one from Federated Farmers, which worries about a substantial extra tax on electricity, food, and exports. Of course, if these worries came to pass, that would push up inflation and, of course, require the Reserve Bank to push up interest rates to reduce inflation.

💬 Grant Robertson: Has he seen reports of the Reserve Bank Governor saying that the most important thing for the New Zealand economy is for our productivity to grow, and how has that played out in the last year, given that output per hour worked has fallen, even by the revised figures of Treasury and Statistics New Zealand?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member may not be aware, but I think almost any economist would tell him not to look at one year’s productivity figures, because it is truly a case of—how could we describe it—trainspotting. But, in terms of productivity, it is a long-term challenge for New Zealand. That is why the Government invests significantly in innovation through business R & D in Callaghan Innovation, which has lifted our R & D performance by something like $350 million over the last 2 years—that is, $350 million annually—and also by giving businesses the confidence to invest in the sort of equipment that allows them to increase their productivity, and not slapping them with ridiculous taxes every 5 minutes, as is the practice of the Labour Party.

Transport, Auckland—Funding and Auckland Transport Alignment Project Report

My question is for the Minister of Transport: does he think Aucklanders should have the opportunity to contribute to the cost of the city’s transport projects—[Interruption]

Order! [Interruption] Order! I invite the member to start his question again. [Interruption] Order! I have asked for cooperation from my right. I now not only ask it; I am expecting it.

3. to the Minister of Transport: Does he think Aucklanders should have the opportunity to contribute to the cost of the city’s transport projects, or does he think taxpayers throughout New Zealand should pay all the costs of Auckland’s growth?

The member may be interested to know that they do have the “opportunity to contribute”. It is called petrol taxes and road user charges, where they [Interruption]—no; uh-uh—already contribute some $1.2 billion per annum. I do not think, though, that it is right to double down on that and put something like a more than $10c—actually probably much more, given it is over $100 million a kilometre for Phil’s “tram plan”. It will be prone to cost overruns, just keep taxing and spending. On this side of the House, we think that we can, with a strongly growing economy and with carefully managed budgets, deliver large, record-breaking projects in Auckland and all around New Zealand without more taxing and spending and taxing and taxing.

💬 Phil Twyford: Will he confirm that the Auckland Transport Alignment Project report, due out later this month, estimates an additional $2.9 billion is needed in the first decade because of faster than expected population growth?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It is a confidential report I am sure the member has not seen, but what I can say is that we are really confident that with the strong economic growth in Auckland and around New Zealand, we can continue to see petrol excise and road-user charges revenue go up. We have got a strong Budget process—we have seen that in unprecedented new capital over the next 4 years. We can carefully manage that and continue to deliver and deliver without a whole lot of new taxes—I think two or maybe three in the last week, and we would love to see how many more there will be from Labour before election time.

💬 Phil Twyford: I seek leave to table the Auckland Transport Alignment Project’s yet-to-be-released report, which details the blowout in transport spending.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that yet-to-be-released report. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is.

💬 Phil Twyford: Simon, it’s here. You can have it, mate.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave was sought; leave was denied. That is the end of the matter. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Bridges and Mr Joyce are here to answer questions, not to interject when the questions are asked.

💬 Phil Twyford: How does he intend to pay for the funding gap this Auckland Transport Alignment Project now estimates at $5.9 billion for the first decade, given that his Government has rejected every proposal from Auckland Council for additional funding sources?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I note that this is a report that has had extensive independent work from Auckland and Government officials, without Ministers or the Mayor and the council involved, and I think that is probably why it says that light rail to the airport is not needed in the first decade. Unlike what Phil Twyford says, I am very confident that we can do the job that is required. We have already got strong revenue—

💬 Phil Twyford: How? How? Where is the money?

💬 Grant Robertson: Show us the money, Simon. Show us the money?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, I am telling you; I am telling you if you want to hear it—from petrol taxes and the road-user charges, more than we thought and more coming in the forecast. We have got strong Budget growth and we also, of course, will expect to see the council contribute more.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! There is no point in carrying on when the Opposition does not want to hear the answer to its own questions.

💬 Phil Twyford: Why did he not tell the public, when he announced last week that he was bringing forward $2.6 billion worth of projects, how he plans to fund that, or is it just another unfunded election promise?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! To one or two, this is the last warning.

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Coming from the party that will not even tell the people of New Zealand how much a water tax is going to be, this is a bit rich. But let me explain very simply—last week, for example, $260 million from the Crown and future Budgets and capital already announced make it quite clear we have got the confidence to close the gap. To go through, the petrol taxes—

💬 Phil Twyford: You’re paying with confidence.

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, no. The petrol taxes, the road-user charges, which already see revenue growth much stronger than anticipated and more to come, and also, of course, through the Budget—we are very confident now about our plans. We do not need a whole lot of new taxes—two or three already in this week—to do a good job.

💬 Phil Twyford: Given that Labour has offered a regional fuel tax, targeted rates to capture value uplift, infrastructure bonds, and paying our fair share through the National Land Transport Fund, why will he not be honest with New Zealanders and tell them where he is going to find the money to bridge a $5.9 billion funding gap? [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear the answer.

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I, as I always am, want to be incredibly honest to the Opposition and the people of New Zealand. Under that party over there, there will be compulsory opportunities to contribute by Aucklanders all over the show. We have already seen two taxes from them this week, possibly a capital gains tax as well. It is tax and spend, and tax some more. On this side we manage our budgets responsibly, and we do not need all the new taxes that we know Aucklanders and New Zealanders do not want or need.

Mining, Marine—South Taranaki Bight

4. to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he support the mining of 50 million tonnes of seabed in the South Taranaki Bight where blue whales feed?

I do not think it is a question of support, but we respect the independent decision of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). We have seen it make decisions against this company and other mining companies before and we have respected those, and this decision we will respect as well. What I would say, though, to the member is that it is not as if the EPA is a soft touch on environmental matters. As I say, it has declined it, and here we have seen 109 very stringent environmental conditions, including 2 years of environmental research that is required by the successful applicant before it can even consider mining. I would also note the very strong economic benefits that come from this project for the people of Taranaki.

💬 James Shaw: Is the Minister comfortable with the fact that untried and untested seabed mining has been given go-ahead by a divided decision-making committee, where the committee chair had to use his casting vote in order to grant the application?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Oh, I do not accept that at all. I think that it has seen these sorts of things happen around the world. I think it is a very rigorous process where the EPA is weighing the environmental effects and the economic benefits, and I think the conditions imposed here show it has done that very carefully indeed.

💬 James Shaw: What is the Minister’s response to submitters’ and NGOs’ concerns that today’s approval does not have a full understanding of the exact impact that seabed mining will have on the South Taranaki Bight?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think that it has been through a very strong process. Of course, we are in an appeal period now. I have already seen reports that there will be appeals, so let us see that. But I would say to the member that I appreciate that he is trying to get his Green brand back after thoroughly trashing it over the last couple—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not the answer that will help the order of this House.

💬 James Shaw: You cannot blame him for being a bit defensive. Is the Minister not concerned that the views of experts and over 13,000 submitters were ignored in approving this seabed mining application even though the full and long-term impacts are not known?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Look, I think, you know, my position is very clear. There has been a very thorough, lengthy process here that has involved—as the member is saying, quite rightly—a huge number of submissions. Those have been weighed very carefully. It is a 351-page decision that has been made. You know, I think that to try to argue that the environmental concerns—which are real—have not been accounted for and weighed carefully is wrong when you consider, as I say, the 109 conditions that have been imposed here, including 2 years of environmental research before the project can even begin.

💬 James Shaw: Should the job of the Environmental Protection Agency not be to protect the environment, rather than the interests of a mining company?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think that the environment is, obviously—as we know—incredibly important, and we must protect it. But what is also true is that we are always having to—if we go to do anything in our physical elements—weigh these things. What we have here, I am told—and I believe that the submission process has borne it out—is some $300 million a year in exports and 1,000 jobs, with most of them in Taranaki. I am sure—indeed, I know, and I have been advised by officials—that that is being weighed very carefully against the environmental effects, and strong conditions have been put in place to safeguard the environment.

💬 James Shaw: What is the Minister’s response to the fact that a South Taranaki research project this year won a Green Ribbon environmental award for its work on a previously unknown reef that now lies in the path of waste contamination from this seabed mining venture?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am sure that the EPA has weighed up all of the evidence in relation to the physical environment throughout its very thorough process.

Early Childhood Education and Schools—Funding

5. to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that after 9 years of a National 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 investment in the education of our children and young people. This financial year our investment in education amounts to over $11 billion, the highest ever investment in public education. However, we recognise that there is always room for improvement, and we continuously explore options to achieve that.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Why does he believe that schools are getting all the support that they need to offer the best education for every New Zealand child, when so-called voluntary donations from parents have increased by 50 percent since National came into office?

The Government funds State-integrated schools to provide a good public education, and since 2008, when that member’s party left office, Vote Education has increased by around 41 percent to a record $11.6 million dollars. When it comes to donations, parents have always been able to contribute to their schools but no parent should feel compelled to pay a donation; it is voluntary.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Why does he believe that early childhood education (ECE) providers are getting all the support they need to offer the best education to every New Zealand child, when 70 percent of early childhood education providers have increased fees to parents by an average of 29 percent over the last 5 years?

That member has made similar claims in the past, and I am happy to assure the House that ECE funding has increased every year for the last 10 years. There has been no cut in funding, as he is implying; funding has more than doubled in the period since the 2007-08 financial year. Per child ECE funding in New Zealand is among the top third in the OECD. We are very proud of that, and, as a result, we have the highest level of participation in early childhood education in this country’s history.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Does he accept that the increase in early childhood education costs that parents face is down to the fact that per child funding for early childhood education has been cut, in real terms, every single year the National Government has been in office?

I entirely refute the member’s assertion. I point out to him that early childhood education providers are receiving an additional $350 million of operational funding over the next 4 years in this year’s Budget. That will provide a further 31,000 early-learning places over the next 4 years. The number of children coming into early childhood education is increasing. The number of providers is increasing. This is a need that is seeing more children than ever before being prepared to enter their primary education years, and it is a great success story for the education system.

💬 Chris Hipkins: If all of that is true, why do the Government’s Budget documents show that affordability for early childhood education in New Zealand has declined by 6.6 percent, as revealed in this year’s Budget documents?

All of that was true.

Freshwater Management—National Policy Statement Changes

6. to the Minister for the Environment: How will the Government’s changes to the national policy statement on fresh water, to be gazetted today, improve the recreational and ecological health of our lakes, rivers, and aquifers?

For the first time in New Zealand we have a requirement on councils to improve river and lake water quality for swimming, and a requirement for councils to set regional targets and to report to their communities on progress so that we can achieve that 90 percent goal by 2040. Secondly, the new national policy statement (NPS) strengthens the requirement on councils to control nutrients, like nitrogen and phosphorus, and specifically how they must set limits to prevent harmful algae. Thirdly, the NPS introduces new ecological health requirements, with councils being required to take specific actions if the macroinvertebrate community index drops below 80.

💬 Barbara Kuriger: What parallel measures is the Government introducing alongside the NPS to help councils achieve improved fresh water quality?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government’s national regulations on issues like stock exclusion and forestry will help contribute to the national policy requirements for better water quality. The stock exclusion regulations will require 56,000 kilometres of fencing, and will progressively apply to dairy, pig, beef, and deer farms, depending on their topography, but will also ensure that it is practical so that we are not making farmers fence in areas where it is impractical. The new forestry regulations that were gazetted this week support better environmental management of the 1.7 million hectares of plantation forestry, and cover activities like ground preparation, thinning, earthworks, and river crossings. The Government is also supporting councils with these targets by investing a further $44 million in river and lake clean-ups this week.

💬 Barbara Kuriger: What is the estimated cost of meeting the 90 percent by 2040 swimming targets, and on whom will this cost fall?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The target is going to require that a thousand kilometres of waterway be improved to a higher recreational grade each year. Our clean-up projects that we have done to date indicate a cost of about $70,000 per kilometre. That means that this policy will cost $2 billion over 23 years. The cost will fall on farmers, councils, as well as the Government. The stock exclusion regulations are estimated to cost a bit over $300 million. The requirement on councils to upgrade their waste-water treatment systems will also contribute. The Government to date has committed over $400 million to support councils and communities in this work.

Health Services—Access, Demand, and Funding

7. to the Minister of Health: Why did he say yesterday in the House, “I do not need to check with DHBs around that”, when asked if he was sure about his claim that every other district health board is currently “managing to deliver the operations that are needed”?

As I said in the House yesterday, I do not need to check with district health boards (DHBs) around that, because it is a fact that we are delivering 50,000 more operations than 8 years ago.

💬 Dr David Clark: What assurance will he give that IT glitches, like the one that stopped medical professionals accessing patient letters this morning at Counties Manukau for 2½ hours, are not impacting on delivering the operations that are needed?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That sounds deeply operational. I am surprised that at this time of the political cycle the member is not trying to raise his game to a more strategic and political level, but be that as it may; I will go back and ask a question about that. At the same time, I will be able to assure him that there is an extra $470 million of money that has gone into Counties Manukau, as well as a lift of 4,500 operations at Counties Manukau, an increase of 34 percent compared with 8 years ago when that crowd was running the system.

💬 Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table a message to Counties Manukau DHB staff relating to clinical letters being unavailable to medical staff for 2½ hours due to an IT glitch this morning—to help the Minister out.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular letter to staff. 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.

💬 Dr David Clark: Does he believe there are enough hospital beds for patients to meet demand pressures when at the beginning of August, 2 weeks ago, Middlemore Hospital was at 116 percent full capacity in medical, surgical, adult rehabilitation, and health of older people wards, with 358 patients going through the emergency department in one day and 52 patients left sitting waiting for an in-patient bed?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Of course, history shows I always have to check that member’s numbers, but, be that as it may, of course winter is a busy time in our hospitals. It has been an especially vicious flu season, despite 1 million vaccines being distributed, but the member will be really pleased to know that, actually, we do have the capacity in our DHBs to absorb this sort of situation.

💬 Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will assist the Minister again. Actually, one of them was 128 percent over, and I have the—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! If the member is now seeking to raise a point of order, then he does it. What is the point of order?

💬 Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table an internal email detailing just how overfull the Middlemore Hospital was.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table this particular internal email. 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.

💬 Dr David Clark: After 9 years in Government, what is he doing about the fact that the most recent figures show that once eye injections, skin lesion removals, and other quick operations traditionally done outside the hospital setting are removed from elective surgery figures, year on year fewer elective surgeries were being done in Counties Manukau?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I find that extremely doubtful. I am not sure where the member is going with this line of questioning. These are very important operations. If he removed every important operation they were doing at Counties Manukau, none would be being done. Across the system as a whole, even if you removed these very important eye injections and skin operations, some of which have to be done under general anaesthetic, we are still doing 30,000 more operations per year than when that crowd was managing it.

💬 Dr David Clark: After 9 years, how much longer will people have to wait when he says “[T]here is no doubt that in health there is always more to do.”, when all the wards in one of our largest hospitals in New Zealand are fully staffed and are in need of close to 70 extra beds before patients arrive each day?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I think the member needs to just reread his question in his mind, because, frankly, the whole thing just does not make sense, but, despite that, what I would say is that 9 years on, across the hundreds of services that our health system provides, you would struggle to find more than a handful that are not performing better than 9 years ago. There are 50,000 more operations, 150,000 more appointments, and 7,000 more doctors and nurses in the system, and, yes, maybe from time to time the IT system might go down for 2 hours at Counties Manukau. If he thinks that is bad, he should try the IT system in Parliament for comparison.

💬 Dr David Clark: After 9 years, what does he say to clinicians across the country who are pleading for their hospitals to be given more operating theatres, more specialist doctors, and more funding; and is this the “health system that’s the envy of the world” that he envisaged?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member needs to start becoming a bit more positive about New Zealand and our health system, because, actually, it stacks up pretty well. I can tell you that if you look at the facilities we have built in health across the country—$1 billion of health rebuilds in Christchurch, West Coast is being done, Dunedin is next, 6,900 more doctors and nurses in our hospital system, 50,000 more operations, and 150,000 more specialist assessments. What I would say to those specialist doctors is that if this guy was ever running the health system, they would be in really big trouble.

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

Transport, Auckland—Funding and Fuel Tax

8. to the Minister of Transport: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s reported statement that there is no need for a fuel tax to pay for Auckland’s transport?

Yes, I agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that we do not need a regional fuel tax. We do not need that additional opportunity to contribute. That is because this Government has shown that with a growing economy, if we manage the country’s finances well, we can do large projects across the country—not just in Auckland—without new taxes and certainly without cancelling projects like the new East-West Link State highway project, which would be a disaster for congestion in Auckland.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: So in that case—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, we just need “supplementary question”.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: Supplementary.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question—Julie Anne Genter.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: So in that case, how is he going to pay for the extra $2.6 billion in accelerated transport projects for Auckland; is he going to scrap existing projects, or is he going to raise fuel taxes? Where is the money going to come from?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: There are three questions there.

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think there are a couple of things to say. Firstly, it is not, of course, all up to us. The council also has to contribute—

💬 Grant Robertson: Yeah, but you’re stopping them doing that.

💬 Phil Twyford: They want to.

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —and it has got a variety of options there that it can do, which do not require the big new taxes that Phil and Grant love so much. Secondly, I think that if you look at our books and the situation we are in, we have got a strongly growing economy. That means much more fuel tax and road-user charges coming in, and there are forecasts for much more, as well. On top of that, of course, because we have managed the Government’s books so well over 9 years we have strong capital, as indicated in this Budget—some $32.5 billion, actually, over the next 4 years, with $12 billion of that in transport alone. There is headroom there to do a really effective job—to continue doing the big projects but also good management of a strong economy.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: So which budget is it going to come from, the National Land Transport Fund or general taxation?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think what you have already seen from this Government is a mixture of these things. But I would repeat what I have said: the land transport system is delivering very strong revenues that allow us real headroom to get in and deal with the growth that we are seeing, not just in Auckland but all over New Zealand. But, also, as you saw from that rail announcement we made on the weekend, there is $267 million, I think it is, from the Crown. Look, that is not at all difficult to digest—those kinds of significant rail projects—when you have got a strongly growing economy, when you balance your books, and when you manage the finances well. We do that on this side of the House.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that if the extra $2.6 billion for Auckland comes from the transport budget, it will require at least a 5c per litre increase in fuel tax right across the country?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I do not think that that is necessarily true. As I say, I think that from a variety of sources, both here and in Wellington, and the petrol taxes and the land transport system across New Zealand, we have got real headroom in this growing economy to do big projects. We are already doing it with the City Rail Link, with East-West, and with the Waterview Connection, and, as the Auckland Transport Alignment Project programme makes clear, there is more to come.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table a Treasury and Ministry of Transport (MOT) report that shows that in order to raise just $50 million extra per year for the transport budget, a 1c per litre increase is needed nationwide on fuel tax. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just want to check—is that report that the member is seeking to table readily available on the net?

💬 Julie Anne Genter: It says it is “in confidence”. I think we received it under the Official Information Act.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave, and the House will sort it out. Leave is sought to table that particular Treasury-MOT document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

💬 Julie Anne Genter: Given National is already facing a $4 billion shortfall to pay for Auckland transport projects, does he seriously expect us to believe that he can fund an extra $2.6 billion worth of projects without new taxes?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I do not accept that at all. If you look at it, it is, what, $24 billion, possibly more, that is required. We are already $20 billion of the way there. Two-thirds of that is coming from central government, and, yes, we have got headroom to do a bit more. But, of course, we will also need to see the council find some opportunities to contribute, because I think it is important that it is a team effort, and I think the council understands that.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table the yet-to-be-released Auckland Transport Alignment Project report, which says the additional revenue from a fuel tax is not enough to plug the gap—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Transport, Northland—Brynderwyn Hills Road Project Funding and Timing

9. to the Minister of Transport: How much was originally funding by the New Zealand Transport Agency to complete the Brynderwyn Hills Road improvements; and how much is it now?

The original funding was $16 million, but the total cost now is $20 million, with a benefit-cost ratio of two. I am advised that the increased cost is mainly due to two large slips and a significant weather event in December 2014, which required two large new retaining walls. I am sure the local member will welcome this additional—albeit, in the scheme of things, relatively small—spend in Northland to make an important stretch of road more resilient, reliable, and, most importantly, safe.

💬 Ron Mark: If the Brynderwyn Hills road improvements were originally funded for $16.9 million and planned to be completed by summer of 2017, why has his Government failed to complete the project on time and within that funding allocation?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: As I said, two large slips and a significant weather event in December 2014 are, I understand, primarily—in fact, almost substantially entirely—the reason for that, I think, relatively small increase in cost.

💬 Ron Mark: Has he received any letters from locals regarding safety concerns in Northland about a poorly planned lookout in the Brynderwyn Hills, which is a safety hazard on a stretch of road that is already—[Interruption]—we do not have it in Wairarapa, mate—a high-risk zone for car accidents; if so, what is he going to do to address those concerns?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Oh, I am uncertain about the correspondence. I receive a huge raft of it, and much of it is highly congratulatory in nature. What I can say is I agree entirely with the member that this is a road that has a bad safety record. I think that is why it is important that we get on—whether it is $16 million, $17 million, or $20 million—and do this work, and I am in entire agreement with the member about that point.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seeking your assistance. I did not quite hear the Minister’s answer. Did he say he had received no letters?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! No you did not. What the member needs to do is listen. The question was a very, very lengthy question—far longer than it needed to be—and the Minister has addressed it.

💬 Ron Mark: Well, I seek leave to table a letter that was sent to the Minister on those safety concerns, which he just said he never—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not need any further information. Leave is sought to table that particular letter that the member referred to in his question. 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.

💬 Ron Mark: Is it not a fact that the Bryndynwyn Hills road improvements are not—

💬 Hon Members: Brynderwyn.

💬 Ron Mark: —OK—a priority for his Government, which is why the project has not been completed on time and the work was not accelerated?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: As I have said, it is a priority. The reason why there have been the delays that the member referred to and the increased cost is, as I say, a significant weather event—I mean, this is what happens. Our commitment to the whole corridor is, in fact, shown by the massive investments we have made in Pūhoi to Warkworth. That is well under way and going very well, despite some who—as the member knows—try to pretend it is not. There is also very significant work being planned starting in 2019 from Whangarei through to the port. I think it is about a $400 million or $500 million investment. This is a massive investment in the nation-building work that we are doing on that corridor.

Horticulture Industry—Economic Contribution and Reports

10. to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports has he received on horticulture’s contribution to New Zealand’s economic and social well-being?

I have received a report showing that horticulture is a significant contributor to New Zealand’s economic and social well-being. It is a $5.6 billion industry; 5,500 commercial fruit and vegetable growers farm about 127,000 hectares and provide 60,000 jobs. Successful intergenerational family businesses provide safe, healthy food for everybody. They use sustainable production practices that look after the land for future generations.

💬 Andrew Bayly: What is the outlook for vegetable growers in the Franklin area of the Hunua electorate, and what potential challenges do they face?

💬 Hon NATHAN GUY: A good proportion of our vegetable sector is located on the fertile soils around Franklin. Much of this sector supplies New Zealand’s domestic market with both fresh and processed products, and is valued at approximately $2 billion. Onions, in particular, have grown to be worth around $112 million. However, today I have received a report that shows that a charge of 10c per litre could double the price of onions. This would have a massive implication for consumers up and down the country.

💬 Maureen Pugh: What is the outlook for growers in the West Coast-Tasman electorate, and what potential challenges do they face?

💬 Hon NATHAN GUY: The outlook for growers in this electorate is very strong under a National-led Government. The wine industry, for example, is on track to reach $2 billion of exports by 2020. Arable horticulture and viticulture account for around a quarter of all land that is irrigated in New Zealand. Of course, 1 litre of wine requires about 900 litres of water to produce, on average. A charge of 10c per litre of water would mean $75 per bottle extra, on average. A water tax is basically a tax on food and on consumers.

Environment, Minister—Statements about Water User Charges

11. to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in Hon Dr Nick Smith?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, and particularly his statement that Labour needs to come clean and state how large its new water tax is going to be.

💬 Hon David Parker: Supplementary question. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just going to get a little bit of cooperation so I can hear the question.

💬 Hon David Parker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why does he stand behind the Hon Nick Smith’s serial exaggeration, given that Dr Smith was ridiculed at the Environmental Defence Society (EDS) and elsewhere for his thousand-fold exaggeration of water royalty revenue, which he said—[Interruption]—which he said—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am having trouble hearing it. I am going to invite—

💬 Hon David Parker: Can I repeat my question please?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and I do not want the level of interjection I am getting from my immediate right.

💬 Hon David Parker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why does he stand behind the Hon Nick Smith’s serial exaggeration, given that Dr Smith was ridiculed at EDS, and elsewhere, for his thousand-fold exaggeration of water royalty revenue, which he said would be $600 billion, twice New Zealand’s total GDP?

Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I managed to get some silence for the question to be asked. I now require silence for the answer to be heard.

I would think that there is a really easy way for us to work our way through this issue at the moment, and particularly from the honourable member, whom I will quote from Morning Report this morning. He described himself like this: “I have been involved in water policy for decades, and I would consider myself one of New Zealand’s experts in resource pricing.” So I would think: give us your number—give us your number. How much?

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

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the Prime Minister aware that the agricultural industries of New Zealand use 6 trillion litres of water per year, and at the rate of 10c per litre, suggested by Mr Nash, that indeed works out at $600 billion per year?

Yes, I have seen reports of that, and I think that if there is general debate in this House, which is a healthy thing, to actually have a number—if Opposition members would simply say how much they are going to tax the water, we would get our way through this nicely; give us your number.

💬 Hon David Parker: If Nick Smith thinks royalties on resources are a bad idea, has he raised with the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance the idea of abandoning the hundreds of millions of dollars of oil and gas royalties that the Crown collects every year?

I do not see the similarity in those. But what I will say quite clearly is that if the Labour Party members are so keen on this new tax, and they are concerned about people who cannot afford food, why do they not tell them how much their food and fruit and vegetables are going to cost because of this policy. [Interruption] It will be tough—tough for them, Chris.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! It will be tough for the member if I ask her to leave the Chamber before question time finishes.

💬 Hon David Parker: Why does he allow Nick Smith to undermine confidence in our dairy industry by inventing wildly exaggerated water royalties, when he knows they are false and unreal?

If that self-contained expert would like to actually tell New Zealand how much tax they are going to put on water and how much those prices are going to go up for them—for those farmers, for those horticulturalists—which will mean that milk, fruit, and vegetables will cost more in their weekly groceries, then we could well and truly get through this argument. Come on!

💬 Hon David Parker: Does he agree with New Zealand First, then, which said today that a royalty on water would mean $18 cabbages, given that that would require using about a million litres of irrigation water on every cabbage?

Those who have been around a little while know, in politics, that if you do not fill in the detail, others will do it for you. So why do you not come clean on what your water tax will be?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise, but over the din I had not realised that Mr Prosser was calling for a point of order. I remind members that points of order are heard in silence.

💬 Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply wanted to point out that the Prime Minister has no responsibility for New Zealand First policy statements.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I certainly accept the Prime Minister does not have responsibility, and he is possibly even grateful for that. But on this occasion the question itself is not out of order, and I invite the Deputy Prime Minister, if she wants to complete the answer, to do so.

I imagine that New Zealand First is responding to a policy that was put out yesterday with no detail behind it and that can genuinely be raising the costs for everyday New Zealanders. When you do not put detail in, others fill it in for you—Politics 101. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think I have been to my feet about six or eight times. It is getting to the stage when I will find somebody who will not be here for the rest of the afternoon. It would be very sad to see somebody miss a very important valedictory later. [Interruption] Well, Mr Robertson, instead of just nodding your head, cooperate, please.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Government think there is a difference between a resource like gold, on which we charge a royalty and which is a fixed resource, and a resource like water, where New Zealand has 500 trillion litres of renewable resource each year?

I would think there would be quite a key difference between a renewable resource and one that is not. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The same warning I gave to my left-hand side also applies to my right-hand side.

💬 Hon David Parker: Well, then, does he agree with his coalition partner David Seymour, who said today that “National’s weakness and inaction on water has allowed Labour to fill a political void”?

If only you had filled the void, I say to the Labour Party, because what you have done is just left one a mile long.

💬 Hon David Parker: Why, after 9 years in Government, is National hiding from the public its own views on water royalties until after the election—is it because it is hiding its secret plan, or is it because it knows the public do not trust Nick Smith, or National, on dirty rivers, royalties for bottled water, the housing crisis, or his many other examples of ineptitude?

If that member thinks that Labour has literally put out a policy yesterday—what it has done is left a whole lot of unanswered questions so that, actually, the public are now concerned about what the cost will be of the produce that they need each week to survive on.

Broadband, Ultra-fast and Rural—Progress

12. to the Minister for Communications: What progress can he report on the roll-out of the Ultrafast Broadband and Rural Broadband Initiatives?

Today I have released the latest quarterly broadband update, which shows that deployment for phase one of the ultra-fast broadband (UFB) programme is close to 80 percent complete and phase one of the Rural Broadband Initiative (RBI) is complete. This means that almost 1.2 million New Zealand households and businesses now have access to ultra-fast and rural broadband nationwide. Today’s update also shows that the UFB build is now fully completed in 22 cities and towns across New Zealand, and as the roll-out gathers pace many more Kiwis will soon have access to this world-class fibre.

💬 Brett Hudson: How are the broadband programmes tracking against the Government’s targets?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: We are fast approaching our target, which is for 1.5 million households and businesses to be able to connect to UFB by 2019 and for 85 percent of New Zealanders to be able to connect by 2024. The update also shows New Zealanders’ strong demand for UFB, with the number of households, businesses, schools, and hospitals connected to UFB increasing by 12 percent in the past 3 months alone. The first phase of RBI delivered faster broadband to over 300,000 rural households, businesses, schools, and hospitals outside of UFB areas. I look forward to making announcements soon about the areas that will receive coverage under the second phase of RBI and the Mobile Black Spot Fund.