1. Tax System—Overseas Trusts

[Sitting date: 12 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:2. Text is subject to correction.]

1. JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Revenue: Would greater disclosure requirements in our foreign trust regime reduce the potential use of foreign trusts for tax evasion and money laundering?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Revenue): The question is a hypothetical one and it is not possible to say what impact such an action would have because we know that people use trusts for many, many reasons. But, as the member knows, the Government has asked John Shewan to conduct a review of that disclosure regime, and I will await the outcome of it.

Julie Anne Genter: Is the Minister really saying that it is not possible to know whether greater disclosure would help reduce the abuse of foreign trusts?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It may surprise the member to know that I cannot see into the future. So, yes, it is possible.

Julie Anne Genter: So, just to be clear, the Minister does not think that greater transparency would enable the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) to ascertain whether New Zealand foreign trusts were being abused or not?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That was not the question I was asked. In fact, the member did ask that question yesterday and I refer her to my answer then.

Julie Anne Genter: Does the Minister think that if we had greater transparency and disclosure around our foreign trusts, corrupt Maltese officials, one of America’s most wanted fugitives, the disgraced former chief executive officer of Petroecuador, and the indicted Speaker of the House in Brazil would have been able to use New Zealand foreign trusts or shell companies to shield their illicit activities?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That question is best directed at the subjects named in that question.

Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure why the Minister thinks the question should be directed to the—

Mr SPEAKER: I think the difficulty was the length of the question and the incorporation of names, but on this occasion I am going to invite the member to ask the question again. Maybe I can get a better lead on where the question is going and then judge whether the Minister has adequately addressed the question. Julie Anne Genter to repeat that question.

Julie Anne Genter: Thank you, Mr Speaker. If we had greater transparency around our foreign trusts, would corrupt Maltese officials, one of America’s most wanted fugitives, the disgraced former chief executive officer of Petroecuador, and the indicted Speaker of the House in Brazil have been able to use New Zealand foreign trusts or shell companies to shield their illicit activities?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: As I cannot see into the minds of the people who have set up those trusts, and therefore do not know what their purposes are, I am unable to answer the question.

Julie Anne Genter: Does the Minister not think it would be helpful to have more information available; for the IRD to have more information so it can clearly determine whether a trust is legitimate or not, thereby helping his Government avoid embarrassing mishaps such as linking Greenpeace and Mojo Mathers to the likes of Panamanian tax avoidance firm—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to a conclusion.

Julie Anne Genter:—Mossack Fonseca?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I did answer that question yesterday, the day before, and, I think, last week, but I will remind the member that the IRD is very satisfied that when it needs the information a full description of the activities of the trust is available on request and proactively if necessary.

Julie Anne Genter: Will he broaden John Shewan’s review to look at the use of trusts, shell companies, and look-through companies as vehicles for tax evasion, given they have all been used by Mossack Fonseca to dodge tax and facilitate corruption?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I see no reason to do so, particularly given that the issue of look-through companies and shell companies for use as vehicles for some purposes that might not be consistent with tax law has already been fixed.

Julie Anne Genter: Why will he not broaden the terms of reference for that inquiry, given that New Zealanders deserve to know that his Government is going to do the right thing, not just what is in the interests of the foreign trust industry and its lobbyists?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I refer the member to my answer to the previous supplementary question.

2. Budget 2016—Economy, Reports

[Sitting date: 12 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:3. Text is subject to correction.]

2. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the outlook for the New Zealand economy in the lead up to Budget 2016?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The economic context for Budget 2016 is reasonably positive. For instance, although the dairy sector is struggling, New Zealand has a diversified economy and total exports increased by almost $2 billion last year despite the fact that dairy exports decreased by $3 billion. The labour market is relatively robust, with over 200,000 new jobs in the last 3 years and the annual average wage rose 2.3 percent in the last year to $58,000. These factors are among the many signs of sustainable, solid economic growth, which in turn supports the Government’s finances.

Melissa Lee: How will Budget 2016 reflect the Government’s continued commitment to responsible fiscal management?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will just have to wait till Budget day to see the details, but the House can expect the Government to continue to build on the significant progress so far: an $18 billion deficit in 2011 was turned into a small surplus last year, and we are working to maintain and grow surpluses. We also want to focus on reducing debt to 20 percent of GDP by 2020.

Melissa Lee: What steps will the Government take in Budget 2016 to repay debt?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The new spending allowances we set out last year for 2016 and 2017 have been rearranged. A portion of spending previously earmarked for Budget 2017 has been brought forward and another portion of spending previously earmarked for Budget 2017 has been used to reduce debt. These changes to the allowances will reduce spending by around $1.2 billion over the next 5 years, helping to further reduce debt and meet the Government’s debt target.

Grant Robertson: When he said today that additional investment will be funded by “reprioritising within the Crown’s large balance sheet”, what does that actually mean?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It means that where we have capital that we do not believe the Government can manage to best effect, or should continuously own, including—

Phil Twyford: Like State houses, Bill. Is that right?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —well, including State houses—financial instruments, the Government is willing to free up capital from those assets to spend it on necessary infrastructure.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, can the Minister of Finance assure New Zealanders that he will not be selling off any more State houses?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No—in fact, probably the opposite, because we believe that having thousands of the wrong size of houses in places where they are not needed is not a good use of taxpayers’ money. We focus on meeting the needs of tenants, not holding on to—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Twyford, a little interjection is acceptable but when it is a barrage like that, it is not.

Melissa Lee: How do the changes in Budget allowances affect the Government’s priority of reducing taxes?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Lowering income taxes remains a Government priority. In particular, we want to address the higher marginal tax rates faced by low and middle income earners as this economy continues to deliver moderate but sustained increases in incomes. However, as we have always said, tax reductions remain dependent on fiscal and economic conditions. With continuing tight fiscal conditions, we do not currently have an explicit provision for tax reduction in the fiscal forecast. However, we will consider these, either in Budget 2017 or after, as and when the fiscal situation improves.

3. Health Services—Underfunding of Community Health Providers

[Sitting date: 12 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:4. Text is subject to correction.]

3. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: What advice, if any, has he received on cost pressures facing community health providers because of underfunding?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): I have received a range of advice, including that Mrs King met with selected health sector representatives on Monday where, to paraphrase the Dominion Post, a wish list of items was presented. I would remind the member that in 2 weeks the Budget will be announced, and that will include, as always, more funding for the health sector.

Hon Annette King: Is the Home and Community Health Association, whose members provide vital home support to frail older New Zealanders, correct when it reported this week that its sector has not been compensated by the Government for increases in the minimum wage for 8 years?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, what I can say is that district health board expenditure in aged care is forecast to be over $1.6 billion in 2015-16. That is an increase of almost $400 million on the $1.229 billion spent back in 2008-09. The Government has increased funding for aged care faster than it has increased overall health spending, so there is plenty of money—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! But that was not the question, so I am going to invite the Hon Annette King to ask the question again.

Hon Annette King: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the Home and Community Health Association, whose members provide vital home support to frail older New Zealanders, correct when it reported this week that its sector had not been compensated by the Government for increases in the minimum wage for 8 years?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: There is a huge amount of money that has gone in, including the $150 million for in-between travel over 4 years, which benefits 24,000 low-income workers. So there has been plenty of money in there to compensate for increases in the minimum wage.

Hon Annette King: When he has been listening to those working in the community sector, did he hear the home and community care providers tell him that because of years of underfunding, their sector has now lost confidence, that the providers are at the wall, and that the quality of services has dropped?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, they are not saying that, and, as the member well knows, there are cases before the courts around a number of these issues.

Hon Annette King: Are mental health providers correct when they said this week that the $672 million of efficiencies taken out of district health boards’ budgets is resulting in “funds being mined from vital community mental health services.”?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have not seen that quote, but I am sure someone probably did say that to Mrs King. Who it was, I think she should say. But the only fact here is that spending on mental health has gone up by $300 million under this Government, from $1.1 billion to $1.4 billion per year.

Hon Annette King: When he meets with Grey Power—

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: With whom?

Hon Annette King: —with Grey Power—I presume the Minister has heard—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, we will just have the question.

Hon Annette King: When the Minister meets with Grey Power, has he explained why—[Interruption] We have got one of the aged people over there—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Let us start the question again without any interruptions from either side.

Hon Annette King: When the Minister meets with Grey Power, has he explained why an older person needing a hip replacement in the Canterbury District Health Board needs 90 points to qualify, while an older person in the Bay of Plenty District Health Board needs 55 points? Where is the equity he talked about?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As the member well knows, the system has not changed since last century, when she was appointed Minister of Health. It is the same one.

Hon Annette King: Has the $672 million taken out of district health boards as efficiencies had an impact on the number of nursing graduates finding a job as a nurse in the district health board or the community sector since 2012?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, it has not, actually. About 980 nurses graduate each year, and within a year virtually all of them have a job in the sector.

Dr David Clark: That’s not true.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is true, actually.

4. Social Development, Minister—Statements

[Sitting date: 12 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:5. Text is subject to correction.]

4. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by all her statements?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Yes, when taken in context.

Darroch Ball: Why did she say “I cannot provide the member with the relevant information.” when asked in a written question: “How many families on a benefit with children began to receive $25 a week more after 1 April 2016 as a result of the Budget 2015 child hardship package?”

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: From memory, the difficulty we had was the timing of when that information was requested. I can provide that information now, if the member would like to put it down in writing.

Darroch Ball: Why was the Minister’s answer to my written question not just “All of them.”, like she and Bill English have stated in this House multiple times?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Because the member was asking for particular numbers, and the difficulty that we had was that some people went off benefit and some people were being sanctioned. So we were trying to get the accurate number for the member to answer the written question.

Darroch Ball: Why is it that after a year since Budget 2015 she, as Minister for Social Development, can still not answer exactly how many beneficiary families receive $25 more, as part of the child hardship package, when surely these calculations should have been completed prior to Budget 2015?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: At the time of the announcement for the Budget last year there was an estimate made of about 100,000 children. But it came into effect on 1 April this year. So, as I say, the number of people on benefit had changed. We were trying to get, for the member, an accurate number of those who have received the amount. If the member did not want that accurate picture, he should have just asked a general question.

Darroch Ball: Of the as yet unknown number of beneficiary families with four or more children who will actually receive $25 more a week, how is 50c per child, per day, in her own words “a real and meaningful difference.”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: From memory, the figure is something like 94,500 who are receiving it—[Interruption] Because we know that now; we did not know it at the time that the member asked the question. I have had people come into my electorate offices and say that it has made an enormous difference to them—every week an extra $25 in the hand. This Government is the first Government in 43 years to raise the level of benefits.

5. Roading—Auckland to Coromandel and the Western Bay of Plenty Route

[Sitting date: 12 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:6. Text is subject to correction.]

5. SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made regarding the Government’s commitment to improving the road link between Auckland, Coromandel, and the Western Bay of Plenty?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): It was my pleasure to announce, alongside the MP for Coromandel, that the Government is investing $278 million to upgrade State Highway 2 between Pōkeno and the State Highway 25 intersection near Mangatarata. This 32-kilometre section of road is the main connection between Auckland and the Coromandel. It is a popular holiday route and supports strong tourism movements in the region, but has long been a source of frustration for motorists. That is why the Government is stepping in and widening the road, with two lanes along the route for traffic heading towards Auckland. Work will get under way this year on the design, consents, and property purchase, with construction set to start within the next 2 years. I thank Scott Simpson for his representations on this work programme.

Scott Simpson: How will the upgraded roading link on State Highway 2 between Auckland and the beautiful Coromandel improve the journey for motorists?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: This popular holiday route is a notorious black spot. The series of improvements announced by the Government will make dramatic safety improvements, with the long-term goal being to reduce death and serious-injury crashes by 80 percent over 20 years. At the same time, though, the new road will allow the speed limit to be safely increased from 90 to 100 kilometres per hour. All up, motorists can expect a safer, more reliable, and quicker drive, particularly for people travelling north after a weekend on the Coromandel.

Todd Muller: What other announcements has he made recently that improve road safety, particularly in the Western Bay of Plenty?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It was my pleasure to announce recently, alongside MPs Todd Muller and Scott Simpson, a $520 million roading package that will transform State Highway 22 between Tauranga and Waihī. The package includes the long-awaited $286 million Tauranga Northern Link, which will connect Tauranga to the west of Te Puna and support expected strong future growth in Tauranga and the wider Western Bay of Plenty. A further $150 million has been earmarked in the package for a future extension of the link road extending out to Ōmokoroa. Finally, the stretch of road between Tauranga and Waihī—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The Minister will resume his seat immediately. I will determine the length of answers; no one else. But if the interjections continue, particularly from my left-hand corner, then I will also be determining how long a particular member stays in the Chamber. Would the Minister complete his answer.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Finally, this stretch of road between Tauranga and Waihī is overrepresented in fatalities, so a further $85 million will be spent on a wide range of safety improvements along the road, which will reduce death and serious injury crashes. I appreciate that the Opposition hates this much good news from the Government.

Marama Fox: When can residents of the East Coast expect to receive announcements to improve the road links of Te Tai Rāwhiti, such as State Highway 35?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I thank the member for her vigorous representations in this regard. There has been some very good work on the East Coast on State Highway 35—passing lanes, which I have seen with the member, and also Mōtū Bridge coming later this year. And I thank also Anne Tolley. We were in good discussions with the council as regional economic development Ministers—Minister Joyce and I, and others—around issues such as State Highway 35 and State Highway 2. And I hope that we will be able to make good progress on those roads over time.

Marama Fox: Given the Minister’s enthusiasm for improving the links around the East Coast region, can we expect the Minister to consider funding rail links to ease pressure on the roads from the Gisborne-Napier rail area?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: As the member well says, I am an enthusiast, and I can say that I very much back the transport connections around the East Coast in relation to rail. It is primarily—in fact, it is entirely—a commercial matter between the parties. There are talks going on at the moment, and let us see where they go.

6. Housing—Decline in Homeownership

[Sitting date: 12 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:7. Text is subject to correction.]

6. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does the Government plan to introduce new policies to reverse the decline in home ownership; if so, how long will it take to reverse it?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): Yes, although homeownership has been in decline in every census since 1986, spanning a period of 30 years, four Governments, and 12 housing Ministers. The answer is in long-term, evidence-based policy reform. Solutions include keeping interest rates low, freeing-up land supply through Resource Management Act reform, better city plans, infrastructure investment, building technology innovation, and upskilling the sector. Our supply initiatives in Auckland took 3 years, to the point where rents have now declined in the last year by 3 percent—when they were growing by over 20 percent. In Auckland, as a larger market, it will take longer.

Phil Twyford: Has he sought $2 billion in the Budget for his surplus Crown land fund given that to secure the first 13 hectares of the 500 that he promised, it cost over $50 million and has yet to deliver any houses?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I have sought funding in the Budget, and it will be found out whether that has been successful—

Grant Robertson: How much?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —or not on Budget day. Only a few more sleeps, Mr Robertson, and Mr English will reveal all. In respect of the Crown land programme, all of the funding that was provided in last year’s Budget will be extended for that programme, and in the coming weeks I will be announcing the specific developments that will deliver the houses that are so crucial to the solution for Auckland.

Phil Twyford: Will this Budget be announcing a replacement for his soon-to-expire special housing areas in Auckland, which after 3 years have only produced 700 houses, against a deficit that has built up on his watch of 40,000 dwellings?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member completely misses the fact that before you build a house, you need a section. What we know from those special housing areas is that they are bringing tens of thousands of new sections on stream, and that is one of the reasons why the house build rate in Auckland is progressing so quickly. In respect of his Budget question, he will need to wait.

Matt Doocey: How many houses were being built per month in Auckland when National came to office, and how many are now being built?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Auckland was building 200 houses per month in late 2008—200 per month. We are not building 200 houses per month, as under Labour, but 800 per month currently. Residential investment in the last 12 months in Auckland was $4.2 billion. It has never before been over $4 billion. Only 4 years ago it was $1.5 billion. The Government initiatives to grow supply are bearing fruit, and building activity in Auckland is booming.

Phil Twyford: Will he be adopting a large-scale, Government-backed, affordable home-building scheme in the Budget to deliver what New Zealand really needs—more affordable homes—instead of tinkering and fiddling with the building tariffs in the last Budget, which according to his own officials has had zero impact on building costs?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The irony is this: if you take the KiwiBuild initiative that the member who raises the question put out, and you look at the schedule that he thought was the maximum growth rate that you could deliver in new houses, the growth in new homes being built in Auckland is actually at twice the rate of what KiwiBuild was going to be able to provide—twice the rate—which shows that if you provide the incentives to the private sector it will get on and do the job. I am never of the view that the State building every house is the answer.

Phil Twyford: Why should middle New Zealand have any confidence that the measures in this year’s Budget will be anything more than token, given that all of his Budget housing initiatives so far have done nothing to stop the increase in house prices, and have continued to back speculators at the expense of first-home buyers?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: What total rubbish. A simple initiative last year, HomeStart, saw 12,000 Kiwi families, first-home buyers, all over New Zealand getting more support from the Government—[Interruption] Twelve thousand. It saw more of them getting support all over New Zealand as a consequence of the most generous support provided in a generation for first-home buyers. I challenge the member to look at Hobsonville, a development on which not a single house was built during Labour’s 9 years. It turned the first sod—

Phil Twyford: We started it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yeah, you turned the first sod—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is quite long enough.

7. Pest Control—Velvet Leaf

[Sitting date: 12 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:8. Text is subject to correction.]

7. RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What further advice does he intend to provide to New Zealand farmers on the Government’s ongoing response to the invasive pest plant velvet leaf, otherwise known as China jute, butter print, and Indian mallow?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): The Ministry for Primary Industries is leading a nationally coordinated approach to contain and reduce the geographical spread of this pest and to move towards elimination where possible. The focus of efforts is now on developing a long-term management plan for velvet leaf. This will involve key stakeholders, including local and regional councils as well as farmer groups. The current advice to farmers who have planted fodder beet seed this season is to check their crops and report any sightings to the Ministry for Primary Industries. A comprehensive farm management plan is now available.

Richard Prosser: What steps has the Minister taken to mitigate the impact that this velvet leaf incursion is having on New Zealand’s ability to export weed-free seed crops, which has already seen a North Island farmer lose a multimillion-dollar export contract?

Hon NATHAN GUY: If the member had been listening, he would have heard in the primary answer what we are doing in terms of the response, in providing reliable information through to farmers. What we have also been doing since we found this issue here in New Zealand is we have got tough new border inspections at the border. We have actually banned four seed lines from coming in from European countries. Import consignments now require sign-off by one of the Ministry for Primary Industries’ two technical officers before they can be released, and there is actually wider laboratory testing. We are doing a lot about this issue.

Richard Prosser: Is the Minister aware of any link between imported grains fed to poultry and the 21 Waikato properties infested by velvet leaf that have never had suspect fodder beet but that did apply poultry manure sourced from poultry companies using imported grains?

Hon NATHAN GUY: The member should be aware that velvet leaf was first known to be present in New Zealand in 1948. In regard to his specific question, I am aware of the particular allegations. The Ministry for Primary Industries did a thorough investigation in 2011, and it is highly unlikely that it was the source of the Waikato incursion.

Richard Prosser: Will the Minister revise import standards for animal feed grains that allow prohibited weed seeds to be present, like the 176,000 tonnes imported in 2015 from countries with velvet leaf—an increase of 72 percent on 2014 volumes?

Hon NATHAN GUY: The member would be aware that last year there was an extra $27 million in Budget 2015 for biosecurity. As a result of that, we have got more people working on the front line and we are reviewing the import health standards. We are doing an awful lot in this space, and I find it a little bit hard to take the member at his word because yesterday he was saying that possums are not actually a pest at all and that he thinks the chilled-meat deal to China is not a good one. I am not sure that this member realises the importance of the primary sector to the New Zealand economy.

Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a Waikato Regional Council situation report dated 6 May, outlining the current state of velvet leaf incursion.

Mr SPEAKER: Where did the member source the document from?

Richard Prosser: It is from the Waikato Regional Council. It is an internal document.

Mr SPEAKER: Is it off its website?

Richard Prosser: No, it is an internal document.

Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table the Waikato District Council report. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

8. Student Loans—Overseas-based Borrowers

[Sitting date: 12 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:9. Text is subject to correction.]

8. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How is the Government ensuring overseas-based New Zealanders repay their student loans?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): This week the Government passed the Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax, GST on Online Services, and Student Loans) Bill, which includes an information-sharing agreement with the Australian Taxation Office to provide the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) with the contact details of borrowers living in Australia. This agreement is an important part of the initiative run by the Government since 2010 to ensure overseas-based student loan borrowers repay their loans. With the majority of overseas-based borrowers living in Australia, this new agreement will be a significant step forward in speeding up the repayment of the estimated $3.25 billion borrowed by those who are now living offshore.

Stuart Smith: What measures are included in the overseas borrowers’ initiative?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Before the current initiative began in 2010, overseas-based student loan debt was in the too-hard basket. We do still have a way to go to get the repayments to the level we want, but in addition to this information-sharing agreement, we have brought in fixed repayment obligations and higher repayment thresholds for overseas-based borrowers, introduced a border arrest system for the most non-compliant overseas-based borrowers with high levels of default on their student loan repayments, and put in place ongoing information-sharing between the IRD and the Department of Internal Affairs, to collect contact details from passport applications. These are all having a positive impact, with the current target of lifting extra payments by overseas-based borrowers by $100 million a year on track to be met in this financial year.

Stuart Smith: Why is it important for overseas-based borrowers to meet their obligations?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is important that all borrowers meet their obligations to taxpayers, who have supported their tertiary study, and, therefore, allow the same level of support to be available for the next generation of students. Through this initiative we have made it easier for borrowers to contact the IRD and make payments from overseas. It is really important for borrowers to know that just being overseas does not mean the loan goes away, and they are encouraged to get in touch with the IRD and get on top of their student loans.

9. Police—Crime Prioritisation

[Sitting date: 12 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10. Text is subject to correction.]

9. STUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of Police: What criteria do Police use to decide whether or not to respond to a call from the public about a crime that has been committed or is being committed?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Police): I am advised that all calls to Police are coded by priority. In general terms, there are four categories: those requiring an immediate response, a timely response, a managed response, or no attendance required. I would go into the detail of them, but then I would have Mr Robertson screaming at me that I was giving a speech.

Stuart Nash: Why should the people of Russell have to put up with exactly none of the 32 burglaries in their town being solved in 2015?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The issue would be whether the calls were lodged and whether they were matters requiring attendance. I do not know—

Grant Robertson: They’re burglaries, Chris.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I do not know the particular details, Mr Robertson, of what goes on in Russell at a particular time. If he wanted a particular question on Russell answered, he could have put that down.

Stuart Nash: Does she think the people of the Clive community, just north of Napier, have grounds to feel pretty annoyed that the year after their community police station was closed only three of the 76 burglaries reported were solved?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It is getting a long way away from the primary question, which dealt with response times and priorities given to calls. Again, I do not know the particular circumstances of what goes on in Clive at any one time, and I suggest, if he wants precise answers on Clive or any other part of the Hawke’s Bay, he could put that down as a written question.

Stuart Nash: Does she believe her party has lived up to John Key’s 2008 commitment to “Crack down on the serious end of crime.” given that over 90 percent of burglaries in the country went unsolved last year?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: That is much easier: yes.

Stuart Nash: Is the reason police simply do not have the resources on the ground to respond to and solve crimes, like burglaries, that her Government has underfunded Police by over $300 million, as acknowledged by the Police Commissioner himself?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No, that is completely wrong. Since 2009 the Government has boosted the annual Police budget by $200 million to increase police numbers—

Grant Robertson: An amazing amount of information available now.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —what—by 600 to a record 8,907 sworn officers. [Interruption] Well, it is no surprise that I could answer this question.

10. New Zealand Sign Language—Support and Promotion

[Sitting date: 12 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10. Text is subject to correction.]

10. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister for Disability Issues: How is the Government continuing to support, promote, and maintain New Zealand Sign Language?

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister for Disability Issues): Happy New Zealand Sign Language Week. The Government invests $1.25 million into the New Zealand Sign Language Fund every year, and that provides funding for New Zealand Sign Language community-led projects. Since the New Zealand Sign Language Fund started in 2015 it has supported 28 projects across New Zealand, and these projects will help develop a vibrant, healthy, and flourishing deaf culture for current and future generations of Deaf people and support other New Zealand Sign Language users.

Barbara Kuriger: How do the projects funded by the New Zealand Sign Language Fund help Deaf children and their families?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: This year’s grants have nine projects focused on supporting Deaf children and their families across the country. These include New Zealand Sign Language holiday programmes, immersion courses for families, a national deaf youth camp, and after-school art classes. These projects will all help bring Deaf children and their families and communities together to build relationships, share experiences, and strengthen their New Zealand Sign Language skills.

11. Land Information, Minister—Statements

[Sitting date: 12 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11. Text is subject to correction.]

11. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister for Land Information: Does she stand by all her statements regarding Land Information New Zealand and the Overseas Investment Office?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Land Information): Yes, especially my statement in the House yesterday that in the 6 months to 31 March 2016, 2 to 3 percent of transfers involved buyers who indicated an overseas tax residency. This is in stark contrast to the report that suggests that 39.4 percent of land sales in Auckland are due to a particular ethnic group. That data was released by the Opposition’s spokesperson on housing—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not need that part of the answer.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does she stand by her statement that the Overseas Investment Office’s failure to brief Ministers on the Grozovsky brothers’ 2011 pollution case was a “one-off”; if so, is she aware of any previous issues relating to the Grozovskys?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I reported last week, that is an issue that is now under the investigation of an independent quality assessor that the Chief Executive of Land Information New Zealand has appointed, and I will wait till the outcome of that review.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the question was quite specific in asking her whether she stood by her statement that it was a one-off—

Mr SPEAKER: No. [Interruption] Order! The difficulty was that the member asked not one question but two supplementary questions.

Hon David Cunliffe: Was the Minister advised—and, if so, on what date—that the Grozovsky brothers were not only held criminally responsible for toxic pollution from their tannery in 2011 but also implicated in a 2007 toxic pollution case at the Aguilares sugar mill that allegedly caused fatalities?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The matter that the member raises is an allegation that was and has been made, and the Overseas Investment Office is now investigating that particular allegation. As I have stated in the House before, if there are any breaches of conditions related to an application, there are options that the office can take.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question asked: if she was advised, on what date was she advised? She did not address that.

Mr SPEAKER: No. The member can hope to get the date as well, but to expect the Minister to actually have known the date—the essence of the question was whether the Minister was advised; clearly, in the answer given, the Minister had been advised.

Hon David Cunliffe: When she signed off on the overseas purchase of Radius Properties Ltd last year, did the Overseas Investment Office advise her that the majority investor in Radius Properties had been involved in a 2014 United States regulatory investigation and had been fined and permanently banned from trading in the US as that firm?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I do not have the details of that particular application in front of me. I am happy to provide an answer if the member would like to put that down in writing.

Dr Jian Yang: What does the 3 percent figure released by Land Information New Zealand include?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The 3 percent figure related to tax residency includes all property transfers, including those made by individuals, trusts, businesses, and companies. In the period from 1 January 2016 to 31 March 2016, the breakdown of the 3 percent figure by buyers who provided an overseas tax residency showed that there were 1,158 transfers where at least one of the property buyers provided an overseas tax residency. This equates to 320 transfers from China, 312 from Australia, and 99 from the UK.

Hon David Cunliffe: On what date was the Minister first advised that the Grozovsky brothers were involved in an alleged 2007 toxic pollution case related to the Aguilares sugar mill?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said in my previous answer, there are allegations that have been made about the applicants involved, and an investigation is currently under way to do with those issues.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Point of order—which one? Grant Robertson.

Grant Robertson: Mr Cunliffe’s question was very specific about the date. Even if the Minister does not know, she has the ability to say that she does not know.

Mr SPEAKER: It is certainly a very specific question, but can I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 191/3 and 191/4. A very general primary question was asked: “Does the Minister stand by all her statements?”. Subsequently, as we have proceeded through the supplementary questions, they have become more and more specific. The Minister is not expected to hold those sorts of details. In fact, to guess the answer, I suggest, might get a Minister into more trouble than it is worth. The question has been addressed.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Point of Order, the Hon—oh, sorry. Grant Robertson.

Grant Robertson: One day soon, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, you live in hope.

Grant Robertson: I respect the ruling that you have made. The point is that the Minister did not address the question of the day. She could say: “I don’t know”. She could say: “I haven’t been informed.” In one of her earlier supplementary answers, she acknowledged that the office was aware of the allegations. Therefore, she is obviously aware of the allegations. So it is following on from a previous supplementary question. I do not think that it would be unreasonable for the—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am in a generous mood on a Thursday. What I am going to do is allow the question to be asked again, but it will be perfectly acceptable for a Minister to say: “I don’t have those details.” I invite the member the Hon David Cunliffe.

Hon David Cunliffe: Thank you, Mr Speaker. On what date was the Minister first advised of the incidents related to the 2007 Aguilares sugar mill pollution?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said previously, there is an issue—there are two issues, actually. The first is a review regarding the applicants of that particular place that you are referring to. The second is that there is an allegation that is being investigated, and, actually, I do not believe there is any value in commenting further until that investigation is complete.

Dr Jian Yang: What other statements has the Minister made?

Mr SPEAKER: That is a very general question. I will try to control the answer.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I absolutely stand by my statements in the House yesterday that in a country where we have over 200 ethnicities, it is absolutely disgraceful that members opposite single out one ethnicity and blame them wholeheartedly for rising house prices. I am waiting for an apology. Maybe that is what Mr Little is doing at 3 o’clock. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Twyford. [Interruption] Order! Mr Twyford, I am on my feet. There was an example yesterday that the member might well recall.

Hon Annette King: He couldn’t see you.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, to suggest that he could not see me when he is looking at me does not wash too well with me.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does she still have full and complete confidence in the chief executive of Land Information New Zealand?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Absolutely, and I said on the record last week that I do have full confidence in the chief executive of Land Information New Zealand. There was an issue with one particular application that, I understand, is a one-off and a full apology was made by the chief executive related to that one matter.

12. Pest Control—Protection of Native Wildlife

[Sitting date: 12 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:13. Text is subject to correction.]

12. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Conservation: What announcements has she made on a response to the threat posed by pests to our native wildlife?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): The battle for our birds is all on, and will be the largest pest control operation in New Zealand’s history. On Saturday the Prime Minister and I announced that the Department of Conservation (DOC) will receive $20.7 million in new funding as part of Budget 2016. It is needed because of the extensive beech tree seeding last summer that will trigger a plague of millions of rats and tens of thousands of stoats, which breed to eat the rats. DOC scientists predict that these plagues of pests will cause the extinction of at least 10 breeds of vulnerable and rare native birds, including the kiwi, the kea, and the blue duck. DOC will use aerial 1080 poison, backed up by expanded trapping, across more than 800,000 hectares of forests in the North and South Islands.

Sarah Dowie: What innovations will be piloted as part of Battle for our Birds 2016?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: DOC is taking a knockout approach followed by a hold down approach to kill the pest plague. Two pilot projects will use gas-powered self-resetting traps, which have been developed in New Zealand, to hold down rat and stoat numbers after they have been knocked out by aerial 1080 drops. In the Hawdon Valley of Arthur’s Pass they will protect kea. In the Haast region, the goodnature traps will protect the tokoeka kiwi. DOC has improved and refined its use of 1080; instead of needing around 20 kilograms per hectare as it used to, it now uses only 1 to 2 kilograms per hectare. Biodegradable, water-soluble, plant-based 1080 remains the most efficient weapon in our arsenal to save our birds from extinction.

Sarah Dowie: What evidence has she seen that widespread beech tree seeding is a threat to our wildlife?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Beech trees flower in response to temperature, and if a summer is 2 degrees hotter than the previous summer, as it was last year, it triggers a mast, and this one is huge—a mega-mast. When the seeds drop, an estimated million tonnes of food falls to the forest floor and an estimated 30 million rats will breed in response to the bounty; so will the stoats, which eat the rats. So when the seed rots or germinates, the starving plagues of rodents will eat our defenceless wildlife. Widespread and extra-heavy flowering was very obvious to DOC scientists last spring, and it began to plan for the response. In the battle to save our birds, 1080 will do the job for us.

Eugenie Sage: How much conservation land that is home to species threatened with extinction will miss out on additional pest control available through Battle for our Birds?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The extra $20.7 million will be well spent and well targeted on the areas that now have a beech mast—that is, up to 900,000 hectares. The member can do the maths around other predator control; this is specifically a battle for our birds in areas where beech trees have masted, seeded, and there will be a plague of rats and stoats. That is a very specific targeted project.

Eugenie Sage: Will any of this funding help bring back to life what Forest and Bird has described as the ghost forests of Northland, which are collapsing on conservation land because of possum damage?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: For the information of a member who I thought would have this information at her fingertips if she knew anything about conservation and the environment, she would be very well aware that there are no beech trees in the areas that she speaks of. I come back to the point—and the member is well advised to listen to it: it is a beech mast; it affects beech trees, and we will target the areas where beech trees have flowered and seeded and will provoke a plague of rodents in the battle to save our birds.

Eugenie Sage: Is the Minister saying that there is simply not enough funding or not enough political will to save Northland’s rātā, tōtara, pōhutukawa, and pūriri forests?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: DOC and this Government as a whole—and that is proven by the fact that the Prime Minister was with me for the announcement—are very focused on getting rid of predators and pests. We would appreciate the cooperation and support of parties that purport to stand for the environment and conservation, and yet ask no direct questions about it. The forests, the birds, and the creatures that live in our biodiversity and make this nature of ours unique need to be saved, and it is a priority of this Government to do so. DOC takes it very, very seriously—much more seriously than that member or that party.

© Scoop Media