Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he seen on the level of business investment over the past year, and how does this compare to the previous year?

GDP figures released by Statistics New Zealand last week showed economic growth in New Zealand continuing in line with economists’ expectations. In the March 2018 year, 14 of 16 industries in our economy grew. I am pleased to note that the figures show business investment grew by 5.5 percent in the year to March 2018, compared to an annual growth rate of 3.9 percent in the year to March 2017.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: But what led the growth in business investment in the year to March 2018?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The 5.5 percent business investment growth over the past year was led by a 13.2 percent increase in investment in plant, machinery, and equipment compared to zero percent growth in the year to March 2017. This indicates that businesses are investing in capital to become more productive, which will help them to lift the incomes of their workers. On this side of the House, we welcome this as we help the economy transition to being more productive, more sustainable, and more inclusive.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: What other reports has he seen on business investment and how it is contributing to current economic conditions in New Zealand?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Business investment and GDP are components of the Business New Zealand overall economic conditions index, which balances a number of economic indicators to give a measure of economic performance. Not only was the index positive in June but it has risen in each of the past three quarters in which this ambitious and transformative Government has been in place.

Prime Minister—Industrial Action and Te Ārai Development

2. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of the Prime Minister’s statements and policies?

In their context, yes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he accept that more than 32,000 people have either gone on strike or have signalled they will go on strike this year and that this figure exceeds the number of people that went on strike in the last nine years?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m going to ask the Leader of the Opposition to rephrase it so that it in some way relates to a statement or policy of the Government.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he disagree, as he said this morning, with the statement that more than 32,000 people have either gone on strike or have signalled they’ll go on strike this year and that this figure exceeds the number of people that went on strike in the last nine years?

💬 SPEAKER: No. Again, I want an assurance that—[Interruption] The Hon Paula Bennett—I’m very tempted to repeat a comment that she’s made earlier. I’m going to ask the Leader of the Opposition for an assurance that that statement was one that was made by the Prime Minister.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Yes, this morning.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I say that when the Leader of the Opposition made the 32,000 statement, he did not distinguish between those who have gone on strike and those who might go on strike. He added them all up together, and, as a consequence, he was talking unadulterated drivel.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he dispute that any of the nurses, midwives, Public Service Association, Premier Bacon, port workers in Lyttelton, Auckland bus drivers, Hastings Pak ’N Save, Hawkes Bay Silver Fern Farms, Burger King, Nelmac workers, bottled-water workers, or Event Cinema are going on strike?

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: We’re not responsible for Premier Bacon—I know that.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Ha, ha! Apart from bringing home the bacon, we’re not responsible for bacon. And the other ones that he has set out are really a gloom list of where an Opposition is trying to run down the economy and the humanity of a very stable, sound Government.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: So does he now, for the record, at question time, accept that more than 32,000 people have either gone on strike or signalled they’ll go on strike this year?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I say that there are a number of negotiations going on, because this Government does not have a tin ear. We understand the conditions under which they have suffered after nine years of neglect where the whole intent of the Government was to govern for the few against the interests of the mass and the many. We intend to turn that around, and we expect no such hopeless prospect at all.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he stand by the Prime Minister’s commitment when asked whether her Government’s industrial relations policy could mean we see nationwide strike action: “No, we will not.”?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Does he believe his Government is delivering on that commitment, given more people have indicated that they’ll go on strike this year than over the last nine years added together, including a nationwide nurses strike?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that if, for example—to use an analogy—there is a so-called bus stop where no bus bothers to turn up, then it’s quite likely no one actually goes to the bus stop. But we run transport services and we listen. And so a whole lot of people out there say, “Maybe we should approach the new Government and get a fairer deal.”, and we are saying to them, “You will get a fair deal, but we can’t turn around nine years of neglect in the space of one Budget.” But my colleague the Minister of Finance’s message to them is “Hang on because help’s on its way.”

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Well, is it the reality of bus stops and buses that this Government, with the way it’s talking down business confidence, the way vulnerable workers are going to find it harder to get a job, and all of the uncertainty, is taking New Zealanders for a ride?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I can say, personally, we had a meeting with the business community in Wellington the other night that got the biggest attendance in their history.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Will critical public services be put on hold if the nurses go through with their signalled strike action next week?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I say that we don’t approach negotiations with an intention to fail. We think that logic and reasonableness will be the order of the day in these negotiations, and we are hopeful that they will see the massive task this Government’s got and how they can help us achieve all of our targets, altogether, over time.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How will the bus turn up at the bus stop when all the drivers are on strike?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the first thing that you’ve got to have, of course, is a bus for there to be drivers, and that’s where we’re different.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Will the impending strike action, including 27,000 nurses and midwives and 4,000 IRD and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment staff, be good for business confidence?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, the member is reciting pessimistic prognostications, which will not happen, and I have to tell that member that I’m getting sick and tired of having a duel of wits with an unarmed opponent.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: If it came to light that David Parker has at any time provided legal advice to John Darby, would he expect Mr Parker to have sought Cabinet Office advice on managing the appearance of a conflict of interest over the proposal to exempt the Te Ārai development from the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Could I tell that member, I know David Parker. I saw him lose his job when there were false allegations, and because the Companies Office, after nine years, had not destroyed the critical document, he got his job back, but he never got one apology from his opponents or, dare I say it, sadly, from the press gallery. I know Mr Parker. He’s a man of integrity and a man of honour. What he says is the truth.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Acting Prime Minister, effectively, whether he would expect, if he had given legal advice to a certain person, that he would, given the situation with this Overseas Investment Amendment Bill—an exemption—advise—

💬 SPEAKER: I’m going to ask the member to repeat his question, and I think what we’ll find is that it’s already been answered. But I will ask him to repeat the question as he asked it.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: If it came to light that David Parker has at any time provided legal advice to John Darby, would he expect Mr Parker to have sought Cabinet Office advice on managing the appearance of a conflict of interest over the proposal to exempt the Te Ārai development from the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill?

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. The member will resume his seat. I have listened to the question again. It was very clearly covered by Speaker’s ruling 165/1, and was answered much more fully than the Prime Minister had to.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Has he been told whether David Parker threatened to sue the New Zealand Herald if it didn’t remove a column published last week highlighting the close links David Parker has with John Darby, and doesn’t this show why the perceived conflict of interest is of critical importance?

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Parker has no close links with Mr Darby—end of story. And by the manner of his questions, which are, by impugning the character of Mr Parker, defamatory—and if he walked outside the House, he would deserve to be sued, and he will not—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, more threats.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no. Go outside and repeat your malicious slander, and you’re going to be in trouble.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m taking it that the Prime Minister was referring to the Leader of the Opposition.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, of course.

Overseas Ownership of New Zealand Property—Exemption for Te Ārai Development

3. to the Associate Minister of Finance: When was an exemption from the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill for the Te Ārai property development first proposed, and by whom?

The issue was first raised by a submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on 15 February by Te Uri o Hau and Ngāti Manuhiri, and other parties in the development, who all expressed concerns about the impact of the bill on plans for the Te Ārai property developments in Mangawhai, north of Auckland. The iwi sought a broad and permanent exemption from the effect of the bill. I recommended, in a Cabinet paper dated 22 March, that all New Zealand land be covered by the bill, including land arising from Treaty settlements, but that a transitional period be provided in this instance. The transitional exemption was approved by Cabinet on 3 April.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Is the Minister saying that the submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee was the first time that the impact on the legislation of the Te Ārai development was brought to the attention of his Government, himself, or his office?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: In so far as I’m aware, yes. Certainly, in respect of me and my office, yes.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: What was the process that led to Te Ārai being considered for an exemption from the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, given that Te Ārai’s submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee did not seek an exemption?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The submission to the select committee said that that class of land and other land like it should be for ever exempt from the effect of the bill.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask Hon David Parker: on what basis did he describe the Te Ārai development as iwi-owned land?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The advice we received from Treasury, which was also provided to the select committee, that this development is of great significance to these iwis—it’s the largest asset they own. It’s also important to note that the National Party agrees that this is iwi land. In February 2017, Steven Joyce told this House—and this is in Hansard—“It is important to remember that this is iwi-owned land.”

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Was the decision to include an exemption for the Te Ārai property development discussed at a Cabinet committee; if so, which one?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes. The Cabinet paper that I’ve already referred to went to, I think, the Cabinet economic development committee. It would have been discussed at that committee before being discussed at Cabinet, and there is a specific recommendation from Cabinet. So, you know, the member might be trying to create a conspiracy here of what’s actually completely normal Government practice. We put a bill out for consultation; we received public submissions; we considered via Cabinet committee, Cabinet, and select committee in the context of the bill’s intentions; and then we put the provision in black and white in the bill.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: So on what date did Treasury provide him with the advice he cited in Parliament last week, which he said had “the intent of helping the iwi who had suffered long delays on the project.”?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: The advice from Treasury was that we ought not to have an exemption for Treaty-based land, and they’re right. In some ways, it’s an article 1 - based right of the Crown to have provisions in law relating to the control of land to overseas persons, whether that is general land or Māori land or Māori land that Māori received under a Treaty settlement. The subsequent development of the particular exemption that was proposed but has now been ruled out was led by me in concert with Government officials, with the approval of Cabinet.

💬 SPEAKER: Can I just—sorry, there was a very specific request around the date of the paper.

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I can’t recall the exact date, sir.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: So what’s so special about these landowners that he considered them to be the only landowners in New Zealand—iwi or otherwise—who shouldn’t suffer a loss of property value due to the passing of his legislation?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: As was made clear in the submission that was only received from these and from no one in similar circumstances—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Mates’ rates.

💬 SPEAKER: Who said that?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I did.

💬 SPEAKER: Stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: As I was saying, there was no other similar submission to the select committee and, as a consequence, the issue didn’t arise.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Will he immediately release all Treasury and any other official advice he has received in respect of the proposed exemption for the Te Ārai property development?

💬 Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m happy to release the information in accordance with normal Government procedures.

KiwiBuild—Off-site Manufacturing

4. to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Why is he looking to overseas companies to prefabricate KiwiBuild homes; and what is he doing to promote as much New Zealand - based manufacture as possible?

The announcement I made on Saturday was that KiwiBuild will look to support the expansion of off-site manufacturing to supply the affordable homes that New Zealanders need. I’ve met with New Zealand companies involved in off-site manufacturing and PrefabNZ to discuss possibilities, and I’m confident that we will see more housing factories opening in New Zealand. This is not about importing prefab components wholesale. It is the overseas technology and investment that we’re interested in, and opportunities for companies here to partner with overseas firms to use that technology in factories here, as companies like Concision are already doing. We are going to use KiwiBuild to grow a more competitive and innovative construction industry.

💬 Marama Davidson: What is the Minister doing to develop that technological capacity within New Zealand?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: KiwiBuild offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to aggregate the scale of housing orders that we’ve never, ever seen in New Zealand. It offers the potential for orders of several thousand homes per year, with multi-year contracts, so firms can then invest in the technology, the plant, and the workforce to do off-site manufacturing at scale.

💬 Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Supplementary? Tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā.

💬 SPEAKER: I actually didn’t call the member. When I call a member I use her name.

💬 Marama Davidson: Will the Minister commit to prioritising local training and employment opportunities and supporting our own industry to deliver KiwiBuild homes in the future?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, I’m happy to make that commitment. Apart from building large numbers of affordable, modest, starter homes for young families, one of the primary goals of the KiwiBuild policy is to actually build a more innovative and efficient construction industry. We want to grow the New Zealand construction industry and provide the jobs and opportunities that young Kiwis need, but we’re not averse to working with overseas investors and companies to partner with New Zealand firms to do that.

💬 Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Tēnā koe. Will the use of off-site manufacturing reduce the cost of KiwiBuild homes?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, it will. The international benchmark for off-site manufacturing at scale is $1,200 a square metre, which is approximately half the typical build cost in New Zealand. Build costs have gone up 30 percent in New Zealand in the last decade and are running at three times the rate of inflation. Increased use of off-site manufacturing will help us make KiwiBuild homes cheaper, at high quality, and build them more quickly.

💬 Marama Davidson: Is he committed to supporting local initiatives like Kāinga Ora, who are ready and waiting for the opportunity to provide training and employment for prefab manufacture in places like Kaikohe, Whanganui, and the East Coast but are waiting for Government support?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, I welcome the enthusiasm that organisation has. I’ve also had very positive conversations with PrefabNZ; with the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, who are interested in investing in large-scale off-site manufacturing; and local entrepreneurs such as 2degree founder Tex Edwards. Rotorua-based timber processor Red Stag Timber recently announced ambitious plans for a cross-laminated timber factory, and Fletcher Building only last week announced plans for a housing factory because, in their own words, they are keen to supply KiwiBuild. I am confident that this initiative will provide substantial opportunities for local firms.

Economy—GDP Growth Per Capita

5. to the Minister of Finance: Did real GDP per capita go up or down in dollar terms in the March 2018 quarter, and can he confirm that the March 2018 annual GDP per capita growth rate of 0.6 percent is the lowest annual rate since 2011?

In the March 2018 quarter, using seasonally adjusted figures—

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Ha, ha!

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —no, that’s actually what we do—real GDP per capita was $12,586. This compares with $12,507 in the March quarter in 2017, an increase of $79. If the member wishes to use a comparison with the previous quarter, which previous Ministers of Finance have cautioned against, real GDP per capita was $12,587 in the December quarter, a reduction of $1, or, in percentage terms, 7/1000ths of 1 percent—well spotted. In answer to the second part of the question, the annual GDP per capita growth rate of 0.6 percent was the lowest annual rate since September 2011, part of a downward trend that began at the end of 2016.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Why is he defending declining GDP per person growth of just 0.6 percent for the year when he has previously claimed that, per person, New Zealand is going backwards at a time when our growth rate was in fact growing at twice that amount?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Actually, if we look at per-person growth since New Zealand exited the recession, it’s shrunk nearly a quarter of the time since the recession. So under the previous Government’s policies, it was actually going backwards. In this case, it’s not growing quite as fast as we would like, because it will take a little longer than one quarter of activity to correct the last nine years.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: So does he realise that annual GDP growth per capita is now 50 percent higher in Australia than in New Zealand, and that’s the first time in six years that Australia has grown faster per person than us?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ll take the member’s word for those numbers; I don’t have them in front of me. What I do know is that if we look at annual growth rates, we are tracking higher than Canada, the Euro area, Japan, and the UK, and we’re about the same as the OECD and the US. Of course we want to see that improve, but a transition of our economy away from one based on housing speculation and population growth will take some time.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it a fact that there has been a slight regression in the quarterly growth rates for the last three quarters, of which, surely, two were under the influence of the previous administration?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is true, as I said earlier, that there has been a downward trend in growth rates that began at the end of 2016. What the forecasters are now telling us is that if we look at year-on-year growth, by the third quarter of this year it’ll be 3 percent, and we’ll average that over the rest of the forecast period. That is solid growth, and it’s part of a transition of our economy.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Does he agree with the Minister of Energy and Resources when she said that the Government was looking at businesses that can turn off or scale down production to meet energy supply constraints, and how does he think this would affect our per-person economic growth?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Of course I agree with the Minister of Energy and Resources, who’s doing a fantastic job. From time to time in the economy, we have to deal with certain supply constraints. What I do know is that sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring issues like climate change isn’t going to deliver New Zealand a sustainable economy. We’re doing something about it after nine years of the previous Government doing nothing.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: So does he now understand why it is that business confidence has plummeted and job creation has more than halved under his Government, when the policies, processes, and attitudes of this Government have already slowed down our economic growth?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I completely reject various premises in that question.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: What correlation is he aware of between real GDP growth and business confidence?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Historical evidence would say almost none. In the period between 2000 and 2008, business confidence was pessimistic 82 of 99 months, but GDP growth averaged, per annum, 3.2 percent. In the period 2009 to 2017, business confidence was positive 87 of 95 months, but GDP growth, on average, was only 1.98 percent.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: So will he agree with me that the best way to create jobs and lift New Zealand wages is by supporting our economy to be one in which businesses have the confidence and the ability to invest, employ, and to grow, and if so, when will this Government start to walk the talk?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member obviously didn’t hear my answer to the supplementary question from my colleague, Chris Hipkins. The correlation is not between business confidence and GDP growth. This Government will stand on our record once we’ve started the transition to a new economy that’s more sustainable and more productive. In the meantime, there will be a fiscal stimulus from our Families Package, which commentators are saying will lead to year-on-year growth of 3 percent by the September quarter. That starts on 1 July and we’re very proud to introduce it.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t ask at all in that question about the correlation between business confidence and economic growth. I asked him whether the way to create jobs and lift incomes was to grow the economy. He talked about the Families Package, he talked about Mr Hipkins’ question—he didn’t address that.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, well, unfortunately the member’s question was slightly longer than that, and I think it gave the Minister answering the question more latitude.

KiwiBuild—Off-site Manufacturing

6. to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Will the Government increase the capacity of the construction sector to build 1,000 KiwiBuild homes in 2018-19, 5,000 KiwiBuild homes in 2019-20, and 10,000 KiwiBuild homes in 2020-21; if so, how?

Yes. After nine years of neglect, we can’t go from zero homes to 10,000 overnight, but we are making solid progress in increasing the capacity of the construction industry. This includes our Skills Strategy and two years’ fees free for apprentices and industry trainees, and working with off-site manufacturing firms to boost the number of homes that we can build in factories with the latest technology.

💬 Paul Eagle: How is KiwiBuild proposing to work with the off-site manufacturing industry?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Shortly, we will be offering the off-site manufacturing industry here and abroad the opportunity to present their ideas for delivering KiwiBuild homes and to suggest how we can give the industry the confidence and the certainty it needs to expand its capacity. For instance, KiwiBuild could offer multi-year large-volume contracts to off-site manufacturers, giving them the ability to invest in more plant and hire more staff.

💬 Paul Eagle: Is using off-site manufacturing as part of KiwiBuild a new idea?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No it’s not a new idea. We’ve always known that off-site manufacturing would be crucial to expanding building capacity given workforce constraints. I was talking about its use in KiwiBuild as early as 2014. And when I became the Minister, officials advised, “The KiwiBuild programme creates a unique opportunity to support transformative change in the construction sector by supporting off-site manufacturing, which is quicker, cheaper, better quality, and uses labour more efficiently.” This formal approach to manufacturers is the next step.

KiwiBuild—Overseas Investment and Affordability

7. to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by all his statements and actions regarding KiwiBuild?

Yes, in particular I stand by my statement that we “can’t go from zero to 10,000 … overnight”, but we are making solid progress in creating a pipeline of affordable homes, and before the first anniversary of this Government families will be moving into KiwiBuild homes in Judith Collins’ electorate.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: When he said that large-scale development with KiwiBuild homes could be supported by foreign direct investment, exactly what does he expect that support to look like?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, it’s always been our view that we welcome foreign direct investment in the building of new homes. We stand by our longstanding position that the domestic real-estate market for existing homes should be protected from unrestricted flows of foreign capital. We have always welcomed foreign investment in new builds. That is our policy, and we expect that foreign direct investment in new builds will continue, including in large-scale developments that are also supported by KiwiBuild.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: If overseas investment in KiwiBuild is something he is very happy with, as he told The Nation this weekend, then why is he not also very happy with overseas investments in private developments?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The member is quite wrong; we are very happy with offshore investment in new builds. I don’t know how I can be any clearer about our position. Our position hasn’t changed in the last four years.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: If the funding will come from overseas, the flat packs will come from overseas, and even the workers now look like they’re going to be coming from overseas, what part of KiwiBuild is Kiwi?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We are not anticipating bringing flat packs in from overseas. We are not planning on bringing workers in from overseas. The Kiwi element in KiwiBuild is young Kiwi families getting the opportunity to own their own home, after a decade of denial.

💬 Virginia Andersen: What reports has the Minister seen on the number of Kiwi families who own their own home, and how will KiwiBuild increase this?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: An increasing number of first-home buyers are locked out of homeownership. Between 2007 and 2017, homeownership declined for families in nine of the 10 deciles, including for families earning between $97,000 and $118,000, it fell by 13 percent; for $117,000 to $142,000 of household income, it fell by 7 percent; and even for families earning between $142,000 and $188,000, homeownership fell by over 8 percent. We will build modern starter family homes and allow young families to, at last, have the opportunity to own their own home.

💬 Virginia Andersen: How will KiwiBuild making housing more affordable?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Through KiwiBuild, we’re building modest starter homes for families who are locked out of homeownership across New Zealand. By increasing the number of affordable starter homes, we will provide young Kiwi families with the first step on the ladder and the security that homeownership brings. By supporting off-site manufacturing, we will reduce the cost of building new homes and increase the numbers that we can build.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: When he had a meeting on Thursday, 31 May with the director of China Development Bank, what did he discuss in relation to KiwiBuild?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I did not meet the director of the China Development Bank on 31 May, to the best of my recollection.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have a written answer from the Minister saying he did on that date. What should I—

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think there was enough of a caveat around the Minister’s answer to let it be in order.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think, given that the Minister could not recall and we now have a parliamentary question which he must have recalled at the time that he answered it, could the question be asked in a different way?

💬 SPEAKER: The answer is no, because it’s been answered. The Minister said that he couldn’t recall having the meeting. That is absolutely accurate. He can’t recall it. He might have had it, but he can’t recall it.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that the question answered, 12265, has not yet been published for other members of Parliament, could I seek leave to table this?

💬 SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that being tabled? There appears to be none. It will be tabled.

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

National Health Targets—Removal

8. to the Minister of Health: Why does the Government intend to dispense with the national health targets?

The previous Government’s health target data has not been published since August 2017. I want a health system that has honest and transparent reporting.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was why, and I didn’t get an answer; that was not addressed.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think the member did get an answer.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he stand by his statement that the targets create “perverse incentives”; if so, what is his definition of “perverse incentive”?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: A good example of a perverse incentive is to recall what happened toward the end of the previous Government’s tenure, when the overall statistics showed that the number of electives was going up, yet in centres like Northland, Auckland, Counties Manukau, Bay of Plenty, and Waikato, if Avastin injections and skin lesion removals were taken out of those pumped-up statistics, the actual number of surgeries was dropping. Despite a growing population, the actual number of surgeries was dropping. That Government should hang its head in shame. That is the result of nine years of underfunding.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Given that, is it his view that eye procedures designed to save the sight of patients with macular degeneration, or skin procedures aimed at improving the prognosis of cancer patients, are not worthy of undertaking or counting?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We know that skin lesion removals can be performed for roughly half the price in a primary care setting as compared to being performed in a hospital setting. So it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that if you can afford to perform twice as many surgeries, more lives will be saved.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is it appropriate to describe the saving of more than 700 lives a year by implementing targets to improve emergency department waiting times, as reported in the New Zealand Medical Journal last year, as a perverse incentive?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I don’t think anyone is saying that about that target. We will continue to monitor a range of measures, dozens of measures, through the Ministry of Health, and the district health boards will be held to account for improved performance.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: What possible benefit to New Zealanders can come from the dispensing with of publicly stated targets that improve surgery throughput, reduce waiting times, improve health, and quite literally save lives?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I disagree with the member’s characterisation. What we know is that that set of targets was driving a set of behaviours which may have led to the public health dollar being more poorly spent, with health consequences for New Zealanders. By defending a set of targets with perverse outcomes in it, the actual fact is that that member and his former Government may well have been driving poorer health outcomes for New Zealanders.

School Buildings—New Classrooms

I just want to say, as a former teacher and Minister of Education, this is a very unusual question.

9. to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has he made to deliver new classrooms for students in New Zealand?

Last week, I announced that 58 new classrooms will be built across the country, in 19 schools, from Christchurch to Mangawhai. This $48 million investment is vital in meeting school roll growth, and this announcement includes seven special school satellite units.

💬 Jamie Strange: How many students will benefit from the Government’s announcement of new classrooms across the country this week?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Around 1,000 students will benefit from the 58 new classrooms and 19 schools announced last week. Part of this announcement includes the expansion of Amesbury School in Wellington, with around 200 additional student spaces. This year’s budget increase, of $332 million in new capital for roll growth and new schools over the next four years, will deliver spaces for around 7,400 students.

Tertiary Education—Fees-free Policy

10. to the Minister of Education: What is the percentage increase in student enrolments at tertiary institutions in April 2018 compared to April 2017, according to the most recent data released by the Tertiary Education Commission?

Declining tertiary enrolments have stabilised so far in 2018. Domestic EFTS, equivalent full-time students, in student achievement component - funded level 3 and above qualifications for the year to April 2018 were 0.2 percent below the previous year, compared to a decline of almost 6 percent between 2013 and 2017.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does he agree, then, with Universities New Zealand chair and University of Auckland vice-chancellor, Stuart McCutcheon, who said in regards to demographics and numbers, “wouldn’t have been down considerably because of demographics. The effect is quite small.”?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have about 20 years in disagreeing with Stuart McCutcheon, and his statements about the fees-free policy are no exception to that.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: How does he explain the number of students enrolling in polytechnics and institutes of technology decreasing by 3.2 percent?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There’s a very strong labour market at the moment, and history will show that there is a very strong correlation between participation in vocational education and training and a strong labour market. The decline in that area has been significantly less than it had been in previous years, but, of course, we’ve still got more to do in that space.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Does he believe that the spend of nearly $2 billion over five years will increase student numbers up to 15 percent, like he promised a year ago?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That’s not what we promised. We budgeted very conservatively for the policy because behavioural change is very difficult to predict when you’re introducing a policy such as this. What we do know is that 25,000 fewer students have borrowed for their fees this year. That is a successful outcome. Student debt has gone—well, has not increased by $150 million that it otherwise would have increased by were it not for this policy.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: If the policy was to encourage low socio-economic students into tertiary education, does he agree with Stuart McCutcheon who said, “If the objective was to make it easier for students from disadvantaged parts of our society to go to university, then it absolutely hasn’t worked,”; if so, will he take Mr Whelan’s advice that “It’s probably a good time for the Government to stop and think what it’s trying to achieve from this policy?”

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated in my earlier answer, no, I don’t agree with Stuart McCutcheon on that. The Government has been very clear—and the fees-free policy was very clear from the beginning—that we want to reduce the level of debt New Zealanders are starting their working lives with. That will have a significant equity benefit, because those from lower incomes won’t be put off studying by the astronomical costs that they currently face, and they will be able to be debt-free faster following their study, and they will therefore be in a position to buy a first home, or start a family, or those other things that they have been put off doing by the high levels of debt they currently finish their study and training with. It’s also important to remember that the majority of people who benefit from fees free are not university students.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Why is there no additional funding in Budget 2018 for universities or industry training organisations for apprenticeships?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: University funding and apprenticeship funding are demand-driven, so I don’t accept the member’s assertion.

💬 Jo Luxton: Is the change in overall enrolments in line with officials’ estimates at the time the fees-free programme was developed?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. Prior to the fees-free policy being developed, we were forecasting significant declines. The previous Government had been forecasting significant declines in participation. As the Cabinet paper that I’ve put up made it very clear, we were anticipating—or hoping—that the fees-free policy would result in that situation stabilising, and that is exactly what has happened.

Sexual Harassment—Minister of Justice's Comments

11. to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement that “My track record on issues of sexual harassment and sexual violence is very clear”?

Yes.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he stand by his comments in relation to sexual harassment claims at Russell McVeagh that private organisations have to conduct themselves or manage themselves in a way that they see fit, and that it might not be right or appropriate for them to appoint their own independent reviewer?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he think trivialising serious indecent assaults as merely a pinch on the bottom will encourage members of Parliament who know about other sexual assaults to take them seriously and report them?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I don’t accept the premise of that question. I am not the one trivialising sexual assault in this country; it is that member.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: If issues of sexual harassment at Russell McVeagh were an outrage and totally unacceptable, does his outrage extend to indecent assaults on young vulnerable victims being taken advantage of at unsupervised events?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That question sounds like an allusion to a matter that is in the media today that involves charges being laid against an individual and currently before the courts.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s just a very clear question; it doesn’t—

💬 SPEAKER: No, and it’s been very clearly answered. Does the member have further supplementaries?

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very clear question.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member had a point of order. I’ve dealt with it. If he continues to argue the point, he is going to be disorderly. Does he have a further supplementary?

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: I do, thank you, Mr Speaker. Would the Minister, on reflection, change his characterisation of a serious indecent assault against a female corrections officer as a pinch on the bottom, if given the opportunity?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I maintain my position that indecent assault, sexual harassment, any sexual offending is insidious and totally unacceptable.

Mental Health Services—Pay Equity

12. to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made regarding pay equity for mental health and addiction support workers?

Last week I was delighted to announce that the Government has reached an agreement with unions and employers to extend the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act to include mental health and addiction support workers. Members of this House will remember that these workers were excluded from the settlement negotiations by the previous Government. We’re putting things right.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: How will this help mental health workers?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This agreement will benefit an estimated 5,000 mental health and addiction support workers. Nearly half will get an increase of more than $3 an hour, which means full-time workers will be paid approximately an extra $120 a week before tax. One in five workers will get an increase of more than $5 an hour, or around an extra $200 a week for those working full-time.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: Why has the Government taken this decision?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Extending the care and support workers settlement to include mental health and addiction workers is the right thing to do. People in this workforce support New Zealanders when they are most vulnerable, and they deserve a fair go. By taking this decision we are further demonstrating our commitment to pay equity and lifting wages, particularly of the lowest paid New Zealanders.

Points of Order—Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language, Use of “mates’ rates”

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier in question time you required that I withdraw and apologise for using the phrase “mates’ rates”. I’ve checked in the Hansard, and that phrase has been used over a dozen times, including by yourself, sir.

What I did doesn’t make it right.