Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his policies?

Yes; in particular, we maintain our policy that we would not introduce a series of new taxes—a water tax, a capital gains tax, and higher income taxes. We also stand by our policy that if we are going to talk about tax, we would not hide the details or pretend we are going to use working groups to do the dirty work for us.

💬 James Shaw: Is it responsible economic management to leave the country with a bill of a billion dollars a year for the next 10 years, to pay other countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, so that we do not have to?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The costs of the emissions trading system are something that I thought the member would understand because the Greens helped to invent the emissions trading system, and I compliment them on it because it is the most comprehensive emissions trading system in the world. The beauty of it is that it does recognise the fact that global warming is a global problem, and it is therefore set up in a way that allows it to link to international markets. He describes that as paying other people to reduce their emissions. Well, that is exactly what the Greens intended by setting it up.

💬 James Shaw: Can he confirm that the cost of big floods in Wellington, Whanganui, Dunedin, Northland, and Edgecumbe, the Port Hills fires, and the 2013 nationwide drought all add up to at least $1.45 billion?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: They certainly do add up. The Government has assisted in paying the bills, and so have others. Of course, in New Zealand we have the benefit of pretty intensive coverage of insurance, which enables many people to manage their own costs of the impact of those disasters.

💬 James Shaw: Given that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research has said that these floods and fires and droughts are now twice as likely to happen as a result of climate change, how has he factored that into his Government’s economic programme?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first case, there is a climate change policy where we are signed up to the Paris Agreement. Secondly, as a result of a number of those natural disasters back in 2010-11 and 2012, there has been intensive work on how we can make sure that local government and central government understand where the risks fall, that they can get the right kind of insurance for them, and that the risks are understood and managed, particularly through the resource management and planning processes. In fact, we have got a strong focus on resilience—probably better than most developed countries.

💬 James Shaw: Speaking of the resilience of other countries, how many of the 179,000 people living in Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, and Tuvalu will he take in when sea-level rise renders those countries uninhabitable?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: All that has yet to be seen. I mean, if there was a genuine humanitarian crisis then of course we would perform our role as a country in the Pacific. I have to say that in the discussions I have had with people connected to the challenges in those countries, what they want is (1) to be able to stay where they live, where they come from, and (2) sensible aid from other countries to assist them with issues like access to high-quality clean water and protection from rising sea levels.

💬 James Shaw: Does he accept the 19 percent rise in net greenhouse gas emissions on his watch is a sign of his failure to shift our economy towards a carbon-neutral future?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We would certainly contest the numbers. I mean, the rate of increase in greenhouse gases was strongest through the period from 2000 to 2008, when the Labour Party was in there with the support of the Green Party. Since then, of course, we have had a growing economy and a growing population. These are signs of success, and we believe that with a stronger economy we can have growth and we can have higher environmental standards, unlike the member’s party, which just simply wants to stop the economy going anywhere so that it can slow it down to the standards he wants.

💬 James Shaw: Is he concerned that some of the smartest long-term investors in the country yesterday pulled the plug on investing in fossil fuels while, at the same time, his Government continues to subsidise deep-sea oil exploration and to promote coalmines in national parks on conservation land?

💬 Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Given that the Government announced its target for electric vehicles last week to have 25 percent of the fleet as electric vehicles, any investor, I would have thought, would see that as a signal that across the world the internal combustion engine is going to come under pressure and that investing in the production of it or its fuel represents a commercial risk. So I am pleased to see investment funds taking account of those risks, because the New Zealand Government is part of the risk to the fossil fuel and car industry.

Economy—Family Incomes Package, Tax Changes, and Government Surplus

2. to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government ensuring New Zealanders share in the benefits of a growing economy?

New Zealanders benefit from a growing economy first of all through rising wages and job growth. Real after-tax wages have increased by 19 percent so far under this Government, and we now have more than 2.53 million people employed—that is a 17.6 percent increase from when we first took office. Budget 2017’s Family Incomes Package will also help low and middle income families in particular. As of 1 April next year, 1.3 million families will be better off by around $26 a week on average, through a combination of tax threshold changes, family tax credit increases, and additional support through the accommodation supplement, ensuring families benefit further from the benefits of growth.

💬 Jonathan Young: How do the tax threshold changes in particular help New Zealand families?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The tax threshold changes in Budget 2017 are focused on the bottom two thresholds, and they mean that anyone earning over $22,000 a year gets an additional $11 per week, or, for those earning over $52,000 a year, they get $20 per week more. These changes will significantly help, in particular, low and middle income families who have been pushed into higher tax brackets because the thresholds have remained unchanged as incomes have risen. Some people may be ideologically opposed to these tax threshold changes, but 1.3 million families will be better off by $26 a week and, actually, 750,000 superannuitants will also benefit by $13 a week per couple.

💬 David Seymour: What is the size of the forecast 4-year surplus after these tax changes take effect?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I do not have that exact figure to hand for the member, but I can tell him that of that surplus, we are reinvesting all of it, actually, back into infrastructure over the next 4 years—including that I have allowed an additional $4 billion for currently unallocated matters that may come up over the next period of time. But it is a very big investment in infrastructure—$32.5 billion. It is like the country investing in its own growth, and it will bring great infrastructure for New Zealanders.

💬 Jonathan Young: How is the Government able to afford the $2 billion Family Incomes Package?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: By ensuring that the economy is growing, which allows us to not only invest in the Family Incomes Package but also make very large investments in public services and infrastructure. That is only possible because of the strong economic plan. Through that plan, businesses have the confidence to make investment—investment is up again—and hire more people. We are seeing the results of this with 181,000 new jobs created in just the last 2 years. What businesses do not need, of course, is uncertainty, whether it would be through a water tax, a fuel tax, or a capital gains tax.

💬 Jonathan Young: How else is Budget 2107 helping Kiwis to get ahead?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: A benefit of economic growth is that more Kiwis are choosing to stay home and make their futures in this country, rather than over in Australia or the UK. That, of course, means building more houses in our cities—residential construction is at record levels—and Budget 2017 helps that further with initiatives like the Housing Infrastructure Fund and the Crown Building Project, which together will facilitate the building of 94,000 new houses over the next 10 years. We recognise that the way to get more Kiwis into homeownership is to build more houses, which is why we are making these investments—and because we know a capital gains tax would not build a single extra house.

💬 David Seymour: How can the Minister be Minister of Finance and not know that his own Treasury documents forecast a $21 billion surplus over the coming 4 years?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Because the member asked it as a supplementary question this afternoon and I did not have the figures, and I would not want to mislead him. But given the numbers are as they are, I would point out to him again that the reality of it is that that money is allocated towards infrastructure investment over the next 4 years.

💬 David Seymour: Is the Minister saying that Treasury has it wrong when it counts infrastructure investment as part of the capital account and says that the Government has $21 billion in surplus over the next 4 years?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have to explain this to the member. The operating surplus is operating expenditure before capital, and then capital is invested out of the operating surpluses. That is where that money has been allocated. Once the surplus is declared, it is then spent on capital expenditure. If the member would like to look at residual cash over the 4-year period, which is, effectively, the Government’s bank account, it is approximately neutral over those 4 years.

💬 David Seymour: Why then, that being the case, was the Minister’s predecessor happy to claim a surplus even when the capital account was in deficit only a few years ago?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, an operating surplus is what it says on the tin: it is an operating surplus. That is what it is, and then after that you decide whether you pay down debt or you make capital investments, or whatever you would like to do with the money that you have made through the surplus. That is how it works.

💬 David Seymour: Supplementary question. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has a right to ask supplementary questions.

💬 David Seymour: So given the Minister cannot have it both ways, can he confirm that in the operating account he has $21 billion over 4 years that he could deliver substantial tax cuts with, but he will not; if that is not true, why did he not know what the surplus was at the start of this series of questions?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: There are two supplementary questions, and the Minister can address one.

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: For the member’s benefit, we are, of course, allocating $2 billion a year to the Family Incomes Package over the 4-year forecast period, which is just about $6.5 billion in net terms, given it starts 1 April next year. But, yes, we have taken the decision to invest the surplus that is in the books into infrastructure, for New Zealand’s future. We are a growing country, and we have taken the decision—the member is right; you could take a different decision. That is the decision we have taken.

Economy—Labour Productivity and Commentary

My question is to the Minister of Finance: is Brian Fallow wrong when he says—[Interruption]

Order! I am just going to invite the member to start again with a little less interjection.

3. to the Minister of Finance: Is Brian Fallow wrong when he says in reference to labour productivity, “zero growth over four years in what has to be foundation of any sustainable gains in living standards is not encouraging. Nor is it a record the Government can boast about”; if so, is the Treasury also wrong given they are the source of the labour productivity data?

As I explained to the member yesterday, since 2009 one measure of productivity, real GDP per capita, has grown 9 percent. Another measure, which is also the one used by the OECD, is GDP per hours worked, which has increased 9.6 percent since 2008. In terms of the last 4 years that Mr Fallow refers to, real GDP per capita, which I know has been the member’s preferred definition in the past of productivity, has, in fact, increased 4.2 percent. So if you look at that measure then Mr Fallow would be incorrect.

💬 Grant Robertson: Does he accept Brian Fallow’s view that labour productivity is the foundation of how to create sustainable gains in living standards?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Over time that is correct. Labour productivity is measured a number of different ways, and if you measure it the way the member has chosen to in the past—GDP per capita—that has increased 4.2 percent. If you measure it as GDP per hours worked, it has increased 6.2 percent since 2009 and 2.4 percent since 2012.

💬 Grant Robertson: Is it not true that what Brian Fallow, Bernard Doyle, and other commentators are telling him is that New Zealand is relying on population growth and people working longer hours to create economic growth rather than lifting the value of what we do, and that is why it is not sustainable?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, Mr Robertson and his friends are wrong. The reality of it is that New Zealand’s productivity is growing faster than the UK, faster than the US, faster than Canada, faster than the EU, and, in fact, faster than the G7 and the OECD. That is what New Zealand’s productivity has been doing. It has also been growing faster in the last 8 years than in the 8 years prior to that. So for those two commentators who have chosen to be—let us face it—fairly glass half empty, they should look at the wider record of New Zealand’s productivity in respect of other OECD countries.

💬 Grant Robertson: Further to that answer, can he confirm that since 2010, growth in New Zealand’s labour productivity has been slower than Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, and, indeed, the average for the euro area and the European Union?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, we could play this game all day, but I can tell him that in the 8 years that we have been in Government, which I think is a reasonable test of time in terms of productivity performance, if you look at the OECD figures of GDP per hour worked, we are growing faster than the UK, faster than the EU—which includes France, from memory—faster than the US, faster than Canada, faster than the G7, and faster than the OECD average. That is a reasonable performance, particularly when you compare it with the earlier period between 2001 to 2008, when we were behind most of those countries.

💬 Grant Robertson: To assist the Minister in the House, I seek leave to table a data set gained from the OECD that shows that New Zealand’s growth in GDP per hour worked is lower than Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, and those other places.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular OECD information. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Grant Robertson: Why does he think that a number of economic commentators have seen the weak labour productivity of the last 4 years as something significant, and would it hurt him to admit, just for once, that maybe someone other than him is right?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There are any number of commentators, most of whom, in fact, actually say that the New Zealand economy has been performing better than most developed world economies over the last few years. That includes the OECD, that includes the IMF, that includes Moody’s, that includes Standard and Poor’s—both of which have a passing interest in the New Zealand economy, given that they rate the debt agencies and the banks—and a range of other commentators, including most of the banks and the Reserve Bank. I understand the member has worked very hard to find that Mr Fallows and JBWere’s Mr Doyle are a little bit glass half empty, which they have been traditionally, but talk to New Zealanders. There are 181,000 more jobs over the last 2 years, and also a growth in incomes that is double the rate of inflation over the period we have been in office.

💬 Grant Robertson: After 9 years of a National Government, is it not time for him to admit that he has squandered an opportunity to deliver to New Zealanders a fair share in prosperity, and instead he is drifting along delivering stationary real wages, weak productivity, and rising wealth inequality?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This might be a slightly longer answer, given all the inaccuracies in the member’s question. So, firstly, real wages have grown at about double the rate of inflation in this country since 2008. I know it is not in your talking points, Mr Robertson, but it happens to be true. Productivity is also growing, and, in fact, it has actually been growing faster than the equivalent period under the previous Labour Government. I can say something else to the member, which is that if you voted for tax changes, then, actually, New Zealanders would be a further $26 a week per family better off on 1 April of next year, and I note that the Labour Party voted against those. Finally, if the member thinks that adding taxes on the productive economy is a way to improve productivity, he is sadly, sadly mistaken.

Justice System—Government Initiatives

4. to the Minister of Justice: How has the Government’s justice agenda helped to hold offenders to account, reduce the number of victims of crime, reduce offending, and ensuring our laws are fit for purpose?

Our relentless focus on wanting New Zealanders to be safe in their homes, at work, and on the streets has seen us, over this term of Government, deliver initiatives like the introduction of public protection orders for high-risk criminals, enhancing the powers of judges to send some of our most serious young offenders to the adult court, improve protections for victims of crime through the victims code and better sharing of information in the justice system, and expanding the use of alcohol and drug treatment courts, rangatahi, and specialist courts to address offending. Through these and other initiatives, we have seen a decrease in total crime by 14 percent, a reduction in youth crime by 31 percent, and the number of offenders who go on to reoffend has dropped by 27 percent.

💬 Maureen Pugh: What initiatives has the Minister undertaken to address family violence?

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: Better dealing with family violence is my top priority as justice Minister, and this has seen a wide range of initiatives over the term, including the launch and extension of the Integrated Safety Response pilot, which has helped over 28,000 vulnerable people to date; overhauling the legal framework through the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill; rolling out the National Home Safety Service scheme across the country; better information sharing between police, courts, and victims to better support the safety of those at risk; and enabling police to video victim statements at the scene to reduce the trauma of court proceedings and improve the quality of evidence.

💬 Maureen Pugh: How has legislative reform supported the Minister’s work programme over the past 3 years?

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: A significant legislative reform programme has seen 56 pieces of justice legislation passed over the last 3 years, including major reform in many areas. Some of these include passing the anti - money-laundering phase 2 legislation to strengthen and expand the existing anti - money-laundering regime; the Judicature Modernisation Bill, which was one of the largest law-making exercises ever undertaken by this Parliament; the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Act, which allows agencies to appropriately deal with and reintegrate returning offenders; the Coroners Amendment Bill, to improve the coronial system; and the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill to strengthen New Zealand’s response to organised crime at home and abroad. As well as this, we have introduced the Trusts Bill, the Courts Matters Bill, the historic homosexual convictions legislation, and, of course, the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill, which we are looking forward to seeing progress during the next term of Parliament.

💬 Andrew Little: What does she say to the 610 additional robbery victims in the year to June this year, the additional 1,286 assault victims, and the additional 5,720 victims of burglaries about her so-called successful strategies, and just how many more Kiwis is she prepared to see robbed, bashed, and burgled before she and her Government take the issue of rising street crime seriously?

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: What I would say is that this Government’s social investment programme is targeted exactly to reduce that pipeline of offending. This Government’s extreme focus through Police and other agencies on combating, following up, and arresting those who have committed assaults and burglary has led to more of them being held to account. And the policy announced by National, which we will introduce if re-elected, addresses exactly what that member is talking about, which is the refusal to accept that we continue to allow that hard core of serious young offenders to terrorise their community. This is the party that is prepared to do something about it. This is the party that will not sit back and let the status quo continue.

Housing Affordability—Ability for Renters to Buy and Dwelling Growth

5. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What percentage of renters are able to afford to buy a home, according to the latest Housing Affordability Measure Report?

Twenty-three percent of renters in the latest Housing Affordability Measure have a residual income, after housing costs, over the national average. This 23 percent compares with 22 percent in the previous report and, actually, 18 percent at the time of September 2008, when Labour was last in Government—i.e., 5 percent more renters today can afford to buy their home than when National came to office. I would also remind the member that this figure out today is for March 2016, when house prices were growing at 15 percent per year, and 18 months later house prices are now flat.

💬 Phil Twyford: Can he confirm that since he became housing Minister, the percentage of first-home buyers in Auckland spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing has gone up by 29 percent?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, and that is about as accurate as the member’s claims on Chinese-sounding names, for which his leader has now apologised. And we are all waiting for the member to apologise.

💬 Phil Twyford: Does he think that $220 a week is enough for a family to live on given that the Housing Affordability Measure shows that since he became housing Minister there has been an increase of one-third in the number of potential first-home buyers in Auckland who would have only $220 left per week after their mortgage payments?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I can confirm that since I have been the Minister for Building and Construction, the number of houses being built in Auckland has more than doubled. It has gone, nationally, from 14,000 to over 30,000 homes per year. I think every member in this House knows that the core of the solution to our housing challenges is getting more houses built, and that is exactly what we are doing.

💬 Alastair Scott: What measures has the Government taken that would substantially improve housing affordability, as measured by the experimental index?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In Budget 2017 the Government announced the largest increases ever in the accommodation supplement, with 136,000 households receiving an average of $36 a week, and with some households receiving an extra $145 a week. It is hard to take the member opposite’s criticism seriously when his party voted against those increases, which will actually substantially improve housing affordability for over 100,000 households.

💬 Phil Twyford: Does he agree with Fletcher Building, which said today that, in the last year, 5,000 fewer houses have been built in Auckland than are needed to keep up with population demand, and does that constitute a building “boom”?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I woke up this morning to hear reports that there was a shortage of builders, of plumbers, and of electricians, and that there was a shortage of cranes and of concrete trucks. That is because the building industry is in an all-time boom, and in the pipeline are more than 100,000 homes over the next 3 years—the biggest building boom in New Zealand history.

💬 Phil Twyford: Can he confirm that only a few hundred affordable homes were built in Auckland last year; if not, what is the official number of affordable homes built in Auckland last year?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I can confirm that more homes were built in Auckland in the last year than there have been for more than a decade, and that there is a record pipeline of new homes coming on stream. I can also confirm that, in the last year, Auckland house price inflation was minus 1 percent, the lowest in 10 years, showing that with the growth in supply, housing affordability issues are being addressed.

💬 Phil Twyford: Does he realise just how ridiculous it is that he is still blaming Helen Clark’s Government when, after 9 years in office, 77 percent of potential first-home buyers cannot afford to buy and 60 percent of renters cannot afford to rent without going into financial hardship?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member’s numbers are garbage. If he listened to what Statistics New Zealand said on this index released today, he would know that they have got about as much credibility as the fiasco that embarrassed his own party over Chinese-sounding names.

Regional Economic Development—Infrastructure

6. to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he believe that infrastructure is vital for regional New Zealand’s economic development?

Yes, and this Government is making particularly significant investments in the areas of transport, communications, and tourism infrastructure.

💬 Ron Mark: If infrastructure is vital for regional economic development, then where are the 10 bridges he promised in Northland over 2 years ago?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: This is so predictable from that member. They are being built. If he goes to Matakohe he will see the very strong progress on those two bridges, and the other ones are in the process of consent and design. It was always a 6-year commitment that we made, and we are making really good progress in Northland on those projects and many others.

💬 Ron Mark: When he announced the upgrade of 10 Northland bridges at a cost of $69 million, did he anticipate spending over $62 million 2 years later with not a single bridge being built; or will he just admit that his by-election bribe was poorly planned?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: What that question makes quite clear is that the member knows full well that we are making progress, because he has just talked about the $62 million of investment that we are doing. If he wants to go to Matakohe, he will see the very significant works that are going on there and the progress that we are making.

💬 Ron Mark: Does he agree with the following statement by a National Party candidate: “We have a number of challenges facing us, but, in my view, core infrastructure needs additional investment.”—sic—“Lack of infrastructure may have limited our economic development, and we can do better.”; if not, why not?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: There are two questions there. The Minister can address one.

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I do not know where that comment has come from, but of course we could always make more progress. That is why we continue every year to invest more, why over the last few years we have invested more in core infrastructure than any Government in history—

💬 Hon Members: In Auckland.

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —and why over the next 4 years we have got $32.5 billion invested—not just in Auckland; all over New Zealand. Whether it is Pūhoi to Warkworth, whether it is the Matakohe bridges, whether it is the Tauranga Eastern Link, whether it is Mōtū Bridge, whether it is the Kawarau Bridge, whether it is Transmission Gully—I could list projects for the next 15 minutes. There is so much happening, the length and breadth of New Zealand.

💬 Ron Mark: Will he admit that after 9 long years in Government—9 long years in Government—he has failed to deliver on its promises for better roading, bridges, and ultra-fast broadband in Northland, given a National Party candidate has already admitted that Northland’s infrastructure has limited economic development?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I appreciate that the member has got his cutesy little fairy tale story, but in the real world the regions are booming. They have got growth like they have not seen in many parts of New Zealand for 20 or 30 years. They have got investment in transport like they have not seen before, and in broadband and tourism infrastructure. They are growing strongly. They have got high employment and low unemployment, and we are putting the platform of growth in that is really making a difference.

💬 Ron Mark: In respect of the Manawatū Gorge, is he considering all options openly, honestly, and without prejudice—including option D, the hybrid tunnel—given the needs of future generations and the increasing population; if not, why not?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Yes, we are investigating all options. As I have made clear, in December this year we will have a preferred route for a greatly improved, much more resilient road throughout the Manawatū. I think that is progress. It is moving with a pace that is very difficult to do, but we are committed to doing it.

💬 Ron Mark: If regional infrastructure is so important and the gorge is still closed, can he explain to the House why he and his Government have not picked up the maintenance tab on Ballance Valley Road, the gorge road, the Mangamaire bypass, or the alternate roads at Woodville, Woodlands, and Oxford; why is that still being carried by the Tararua District Council?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Again, there are two questions. The Minister can address one.

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, I would have to check on those facts. I presume it is because, quite simply, they are local roads. But, of course, what the member knows, but omits to say, is that at Saddle Road, $8 million of work has been taken over by the Government. Right now, over the next period of months, we are re-aligning it into Woodville, at very significant cost, and we are putting in a bypass at Ashhurst, at very significant cost. It is many millions of dollars of improvement for that critical link, and, of course, we are committed to what I think will be a very significant project—we cannot say the dollars right now, but certainly in the hundreds of millions, you would think—for the Manawatū Gorge. On top of that, there are many other projects across the area, whether it is Whirokino Trestle Bridge—a $70 million investment—or many others. We are investing like no other Government has in that region—in fact, across regional New Zealand. I know that does not suit the fairy tale world that the member lives in, but that is what is happening and New Zealanders know it.

💬 Clayton Mitchell: If what the Minister says is true, why then has Tauranga City Council just approved the widening of 15th Avenue to fix a roading problem his Government committed to complete back in 2008—9 years ago?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I appreciate that Tauranga has had members who have been less effective in the past, but right now it is having the highest spend per capita on roading in New Zealand. Whether it is Tauranga Eastern Link—a half a billion dollar road—whether it is Tauranga Northern Link, whether it is Bayfair to Baypark, it is hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of investment into a high-growth part of New Zealand. And, sad to say for that member, the voters well know it.

💬 Clayton Mitchell: If he is the local MP for Tauranga as well, why has he not lifted a finger to complete this important piece of infrastructure, specifically the four-laning of Turret Road and 15th Avenue, including the bridge, despite he and his Government promising to do so over 9 years ago?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: A bit like Mr Twyford, the member is entitled to his own opinions but not his own facts. If he goes out there, what he will see is the Hairini Link and underpass being built at some tens and tens and tens of millions of dollars. The member is just plain wrong, and the voters of Tauranga know it.

Health Services—First Specialist Assessments and Access

7. to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that First Specialist Assessments have risen by 148,000 over the last nine years, and what other improvements have been made to the health services over this time?

Yes. This Government has lifted the number of first specialist assessments from 404,000 per year in 2008 to 552,000 in the 2016 year, an uplift of 36 percent. Every one of the 20 district health boards (DHBs) has contributed to this 148,000 lift in access to specialists under National, which compares with an extraordinary drop of 2,000 between 2001 and 2008. In addition, elective surgeries are up 50,000, which includes an increase in the number of orthopaedic surgeries from 18,200 per year to around 25,000 per year, an overall increase of 37 percent. However, there is always more to be done.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Can the Minister advise whether this increase in first specialist assessments has been seen across most specialties; if so, what specific specialty increases has he seen?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I can confirm that this increase of 148,000 specialist assessments has been seen across nearly all specialties, including an increase of 11,600 orthopaedic assessments, a lift of 15,500 more ophthalmology specialist assessments, and 8,500 more ear, nose, and throat assessments per year. That is the result of hard work by our health professionals across all our district health boards, and an example of how targets, increased focus, and increased resourcing have improved access to health services for New Zealanders.

💬 Dr David Clark: Does he think it is acceptable that any member of the public should be forced to spend their retirement nest egg on a life-saving operation that is normally expected to be delivered by their local DHB?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: What I think was really unacceptable were the 700 people who were sent to Australia for basic cancer treatment between 1999 and 2008.

💬 Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very direct question, which I do not believe was addressed.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It was not; it was very much an opinion question, and I invite the member to look at Speaker’s ruling 195/6. If you ask an opinion question like that you are likely to get an answer that does not particularly satisfy the person who asks the question.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: You shouldn’t ask the question if you can’t do it properly.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I do not need that sort of advice from Dr Jonathan Coleman.

Emissions—Divestment from Fossil Fuels

8. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by the former Minister’s reported statement that oil exploration was a long-term game and New Zealand had to press on?

Yes. The transition to a lower emissions economy needs to be managed smoothly, and the reality is that oil and gas will be needed for many decades. In fact, the International Energy Agency is forecasting that oil and natural gas will account for almost half of the world’s energy needs until at least 2040.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: Given that she accepts there is going to be a transition to a lower carbon economy, why is growing the coal and oil industry in New Zealand still one of her priorities, particularly when the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has just divested $950 million from the sector, due to the risk of these investments becoming stranded and worthless?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Because, according to the International Energy Agency, oil and natural gas will account for almost half of the world’s energy needs until at least 2040, which is quite some years away yet.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: Is she aware that the Rockefeller fund, the Norwegian superannuation fund, the universities of Wellington and Otago, the Anglican church of Aotearoa, the University of Glasgow, and 746 other major institutions are all divesting from fossil fuels to avoid a loss and to prevent climate change, and does she not think that maybe National is on the wrong side of history?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am reliably informed that today I am the most green MP in Parliament, apart from Dr Kennedy Graham. I can tell that member that individual investors will make their own decisions, just like she will.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: Given that the Superannuation Fund chief investment officer, Matt Whineray, said yesterday that he was dumping oil and coal companies for commercial, not ethical, reasons, why is her Government continuing to back these same companies—is it for ethical reasons?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Actually, it is because of the International Energy Agency’s prediction that oil and gas will continue to be used for at least half of the world’s energy resources until 2040, which is quite some years off. And just as that member will be, no doubt, flying back to Auckland very soon using those same resources, I think it is wise to actually have some on hand.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table an analysis that shows that 80 percent of all existing coal and gas fossil fuels in the ground cannot be burnt.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I just need the source of the analysis please.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: The analysis is from 350.org.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well, if it is available on the web, members can search for themselves. There is no need for it to be tabled.

Emergency Housing—Government Purchase and Motel Use

9. to the Minister for Social Housing: How many motels has the Government purchased for the purpose of emergency housing and how many other motels, if any, are they intending to purchase?

As the member was told in answer to the same question on 29 June, the Government has purchased four motels for transitional housing. There are two more that we are intending to purchase.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Is there a connection between the Government buying a motel in Gisborne, where there has been the loss of 62 State houses; buying a motel in Hastings, where there has been the loss of 14 State houses; or buying a motel in Napier, where there has been the loss of 137 State houses?

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: No. The transitional housing needs are quite different, and where State houses have been sold it is because they have been in poor condition, they have been in the wrong place, or they have been the wrong configuration. The needs for transitional housing that have developed are quite different. Furthermore, the purchases are by the Ministry of Social Development and the sales are by Housing New Zealand.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: What is the total amount that the Government has given to motels in New Zealand for emergency accommodation in the last 3 years, and how much of this could have been saved if it had not depleted the number of social houses around the country?

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: If I understand the member’s question correctly and she is asking the amount that we have spent on the new programme of emergency housing special-needs grants—which for the first time ever provide for short-term needs to make sure people are not sleeping in cars, and the like, as they were under Labour—from memory the number currently sits at around $34 million. That is what this Government is prepared to do to make sure people do have somewhere safe to sleep.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Does the Minister think that if her Government had acted faster in response to the housing crisis over the last 9 years, the purchasing of motel accommodation to house an increasing number of homeless New Zealanders would still have been necessary?

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: I think the member may be quite confused as to what we are talking about here. When we purchase motels, it is not for emergency special-needs grant, short-term placements. It is for creating a brand new class of housing, called transitional housing, which is not just about putting a roof over people’s heads. It is about ensuring they have somewhere safe and secure to stay while they wait for a long-term placement and ensuring they have wraparound social services to support them. That has never been done before. This Government has added it into the social housing options, and we are very proud of that.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Does the Minister think that the purchasing of motels for emergency accommodation, on behalf of the New Zealand taxpayer, has been good value for money?

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: As I just mentioned in my last answer, we have not purchased motels for emergency housing. We have purchased four for the purposes of providing up to 12 weeks of transitional support, as part of our $354 million programme to support people in need of housing, in a way that has never happened. I think the people of New Zealand are very pleased that this Government has made a commitment to support homeless people in a way that never happened under Labour, where they, frankly, were happy to leave them sleeping in cars, in parks, on park benches, and under trees.

Homeownership—HomeStart Grants and Rates

10. to the Minister for Building and Construction: What level of support has been provided to first-home buyers under the Government’s KiwiSaver HomeStart scheme in its second year, and how many New Zealanders have been assisted into homeownership?

KiwiSaver HomeStart is just going from strength to strength. In the last year 15,400 first-home buyers received a HomeStart grant, with grants of $75 million. This is up $10 million on the previous years and shows we are on track to assist 90,000 first-home buyers, over 5 years, as promised in election 2014. Even more significant is the growth in KiwiSaver first-home withdrawals. This has increased from $200 million a year to $495 million a year, to $655 million in the last year. We all know that the most difficult hurdle for a first-home buyer is pulling together a deposit, particularly when we have such low interest rates. So far KiwiSaver HomeStart has contributed $1.4 billion towards first-home owners’ deposits.

💬 Matt Doocey: Is it correct that every quarter since the last census in 2013, homeownership has got worse; if not, what does the latest data show?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Some members have made the claim that homeownership has got worse every quarter in terms of the household survey, but I would point out that Statistics New Zealand says this about that data series: the owner-occupied proportion applied is reduced each quarter based on the trend between 1991 and 2013 and is not based on any new data beyond the 2013 census. CoreLogic data is collected every quarter on actual home sales. The proportion of first-home buyers has consistently increased every quarter since KiwiSaver HomeStart was introduced, from 18 percent 3 years ago to 21 percent. The combination of high rates of new home builds, flat house prices, and the KiwiSaver HomeStart scheme shows that New Zealand has turned the corner on improving homeownership.

Mental Health Services—Funding and Staffing Levels

11. to the Minister of Health: Did he authorise the Director Service Commissioning at the Ministry of Health to write to DHBs seeking confirmation that they would not pay their mental health workers additional amounts for providing mental health services “at the minimum wage rates of care and support workers”; and does he support the prohibition of such payments and the cessation of payments if they have already begun?

Authorisation was not required as this is an operational issue that I would expect the ministry to handle. To be clear, the ministry was reminding district health boards that they could not use money appropriated for the care and support workers’ settlement to pay another group of workers. It was also pointed out that mental health workers have lodged a pay equity claim with the Employment Relations Authority, and, as such, there is a process being followed. The ministry’s approach is perfectly reasonable.

💬 Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This was a question on notice. Am I to take from that final sentence from the Minister that he thinks it was reasonable, that that means he supports the prohibition of such payments?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, no—[Interruption] Order! I think, on this occasion, if the Minister could address the second part of the question, because I am not sure whether that has been answered. [Interruption] Order! I am asking whether the Minister—he does not have to, but I do not think the second part of that question has been clearly addressed. I invite the Minister, if he wants to, to address it.

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought you had to address one question, and there are two there.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, no—I just want to explain so there is no more difficulty in the future. If a primary question is put down, it is quite in line for it to be two parts—and it often is—and it is expected that the Minister, in preparing for the answer, will address both parts. So I accept that the first part has been absolutely addressed, but I am unsure as to the answer to the second part, so I invite the Minister—

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, as I said, the ministry’s approach is perfectly reasonable, and I support it.

💬 Dr David Clark: Why were twice as many assaults happening per month at Wakari Hospital in Dunedin in the first 5 months of this year as compared with the previous year, and does he think it might have something to do with a mental health service under pressure that has difficulty attracting and retaining senior staff?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: And then there are two supplementary questions there, so the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman can address one.

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, I do not.

💬 Dr David Clark: How does he respond to psychotherapist Kyle MacDonald’s assessment of yesterday’s mental health announcement of $25 million shared across 17 pilots, which he described as “tinkering”?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Dr MacDonald’s views are well known, and the election period is a time when people like Dr MacDonald start to express their views, so I am really not surprised.

💬 Dr David Clark: Does he continue to describe Dr MacDonald and the presenters of the People’s Mental Health Review to this Parliament as left-wing, anti-Government activists?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, the member might say that but I could not possibly comment.

💬 Dr David Clark: After 9 years of his Government, why will he not agree to a short, sharp review of mental health provision in New Zealand, adequate funding to support any recommendations for change that would come from such a review, additional public education, and independent oversight of the sector—all recommendations of the People’s Mental Health Report delivered to Parliament this year?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, I am not sure where the member was earlier in the week but we announced a $100 million package on Monday—a very comprehensive approach. Informed by the science advisers, 17 initiatives that take a long-term approach, a life-course approach, look to build resilience across the population, as well as dealing with some of the most acute pressures in the system. So I suggest that the member goes and has a look at it. It is actually very good work that has been very well received, apart from, of course, by Dr MacDonald.

💬 Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table a paper showing that the additional money spent represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the health budget.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need the source of the paper.

💬 Dr David Clark: It is from the Parliamentary Library, prepared for my office today.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that information. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

💬 Dr David Clark: Will he join with Labour and commit today to funding additional front-line mental health workers in Canterbury schools beyond the seven who are currently serving 136 schools? [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Because of the interjection coming, the Minister has been unable to hear the question clearly and I did not either. I am going to invite the member to repeat the question.

💬 Dr David Clark: Will he join with Labour and commit today to funding additional front-line mental health workers in Canterbury schools beyond the seven who are currently serving 136 schools?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, look, once again I would encourage the member to go and look at that package that was announced on Monday, and I am really surprised that he is not familiar with the detail but amongst that $100 million package there is a $23 million schools package, which includes front-line workers, and some of those will be in Canterbury. As well as that, of course, since the earthquakes there has been an extra $106 million put into Canterbury to support its health system through a very difficult period, including $20 million that was announced in February 2016 in response to the Valentine’s Day earthquakes. A lot of that actually went towards 27 front-line workers. It was a package consulted on with the front-line workers themselves and the community, and, furthermore, $4.26 million was put into that region for mental health after the Kaikōura earthquakes at the end of last year. So there is a lot being done, so there you go.

Schools, Auckland—Capacity

12. to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has he made in relation to increasing capacity at Auckland schools?

Last week the Hon Nikki Kaye and I announced that an additional $18 million from Budget 2017 will be invested to provide 30 new and replacement classrooms at four Auckland schools, including eight classrooms at Ōwairaka District School in the Mt Albert electorate in which the member is based. This is on top of the $21 million for 41 classrooms that we announced in June, and further underlines the National-led Government’s major commitment to investing in infrastructure.

💬 Melissa Lee: How does this announcement contribute to the Government’s plan to increase student places in Auckland?

💬 Hon TIM MACINDOE: This $18 million will provide an extra 460 student places for the region. This announcement is part of a suite of Budget 2017 announcements, which, in total, will see 4,000 additional student places created in Auckland. As part of our commitment to accommodate Auckland growth, we are on track to deliver 21,000 new student places for Auckland by 2021.