1. Transport Strategy—Carbon Emissions

1. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Transport: Why does his 10-year transport strategy make no mention of New Zealand’s long-term target to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2050?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Because the Government does not follow some asinine paint-by-numbers approach where we value something merely on the number of times that it—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I cannot hear the answer, so I cannot rule whether the question has been addressed. Less interruption, particularly from my left.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: What is very clear is that the Government’s 2015 policy statement on land transport has a clear objective that the land transport system mitigates its effects on the environment. It also makes clear that reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transport is an important consideration in land transport investment policy.

James Shaw: Given that answer, can he tell the House by what percentage transport emissions would need to reduce from today in order to meet the target that New Zealand signed up to in Paris?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, because it is an economy-wide target that New Zealand has set through Paris. That is the same for every country. Of course transport has to play its part, and that is why we have got a comprehensive set of initiatives, whether it is unprecedented investment in public transport in this Government policy statement—$1.2 billion over 3 years in rail and cycleways and, actually, in roads, because high-quality highways, as the member has found out but does not like to refer to, actually reduce emissions because they result in smoother, more free-flowing traffic.

James Shaw: If new motorways decrease transport emissions, as he just said, why have transport emissions increased by 60 percent in the last 25 years, during which time the Government has built more motorways than ever before?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Because the economy has grown.

James Shaw: Is he aware that the New Zealand Transport Agency’s analysis that new motorways decrease transport emissions assumed zero growth in the number of vehicles on the road, even once these new motorways are built?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: As I said, when the economy grows and you get more freight and more traffic, regardless of the modes, you see potentially increased emissions. I appreciate that the member, through reasons of ideology, dislikes the analysis, but the analysis is robust, and what it shows quite clearly is that in relation to the Waikato Expressway, that expressway and its design results in fewer emissions.

James Shaw: What proportion of the $40 billion in the transport budget has he allocated in the next 10 years to lower-carbon alternatives like public transport and cycling infrastructure, and what percentage has he allocated to building more roads?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: As I have made clear, that is an entirely simplistic, asinine approach. If you go across the measures that we have got in public transport there is unprecedented investment in this Government policy statement: cycleways—unprecedented investment throughout the major cities, the provinces, and rural areas; the electric vehicle policy; and, also, the highways policy. We have a comprehensive suite of initiatives that is actually making a difference.

James Shaw: I seek leave to table this graph, showing that the Government is investing 90 percent of its transport budget in roading projects over the next 10 years and—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Who prepared the graph?

James Shaw: This was prepared by my office.

Mr SPEAKER: And if the member studies the Speakers’ rulings, he will know that that is not authentic enough for me to put the leave to the House.

James Shaw: Given his previous answer, by what percentage will transport emissions fall if he meets his target of 64,000 electric vehicles on the road by 2020?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: If the member puts that in writing, I am sure we can calculate it for him, but I am glad that he recognises that our policy on electric vehicles is more significant and ambitious than any of the hot air that has come out of the Green Party.

James Shaw: I seek leave to table analysis by Massey University’s Ralph Sims, showing that meeting the target of 64,000—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not need an explanation of it; all I need to know is whether it is freely available to members off the internet if they want it.

James Shaw: I did not receive it via the internet, but it may be available on the internet.

Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that the member has not checked to see whether it is available—and I implore members in the future, if they are going to table a document, to take the time to do it, because that is a question that will be asked—I will put the leave on this occasion and the House will decide. Leave is sought to table that particular analysis by Massey University. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is objection. [Interruption] Order! Mr Little, Order! Supplementary question—[Interruption] Order! If I need to name a particular member as a last warning, I will not hesitate to do so.

James Shaw: Before he made the big announcement in February to spend $1.8 billion on the new East-West roading project in Auckland, what advice did he seek about its climate impact?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I did not seek advice, but what I know is very clear is that the transport agency factors in carbon emissions into its economic evaluations on roads such as the East-West.

David Seymour: Does the strategy include anything on leading by example or parliamentary air travel?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility—the Hon Simon Bridges.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think it should. In fact, I am aware of one organisation that some might say, quite hypocritically, talks a big game but travels more and uses more air miles than anyone else I know of.

2. Budget 2016—Social Investment

2. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of Finance: How is Budget 2016 building on the Government’s programme of Social Investment to deliver better long-term results for New Zealanders?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: The Government’s Social Investment approach is about using data-driven investment techniques to determine when and how to intervene to change lives for the better. Budget 2016 includes a comprehensive and wide-ranging Social Investment package, providing extra funding of $654 million over 4 years. The Government recently announced an overhaul of New Zealand’s childcare and protection system, which will be in place by March next year. This $348 million of new funding will increase accountability for support services and sharpen the focus on intensive intervention to keep young people safe.

Chris Bishop: How will the Social Investment package help young beneficiaries transition to more productive independent lives?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The Social Investment package provides $61 million to extend the Youth Service to 19-year-old parents and to 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries at risk of long-term welfare dependency. If we do not take action, the average 19-year-old sole parent will spend the next 18 years on a benefit and cost the taxpayer over $400,000. The good news for the House—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked. I will not put up with continual barrage from my left-hand side. If it happens again, I may be asking somebody to leave.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: What I think the House can celebrate is that the number of teen parents on benefits has halved under National, and we want to continue that success. What the Associate Minister of Finance would also tell me is that, actually, the number of teen pregnancies has reduced, which makes a huge difference as well—that fewer girls have to experience the trauma of abortion at such a young age as well. Social Investment is making a big difference.

Chris Bishop: How is the Social Investment approach improving the provision of education in New Zealand?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Budget 2016 targets an extra $43 million for schools with students most at risk of not achieving. This is in contrast to the previous approach of funding an across-the-board operational grant increase. Under the Minister, we are looking at those children who have lived an extended part of their life in a family that is benefit dependent and who have only a 48 percent chance of achieving National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 before the age of 21. This policy and this money will make a difference.

Chris Bishop: How has the Government’s focus on targets helped deliver Better Public Services for New Zealanders? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not called the Minister yet.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The Prime Minister set the 10 challenging targets in the Public Service in 2012, and since then, we have come a long way. Benefit dependency continues to fall. We have made significant progress on crime. We currently have the lowest crime rate since 1978. We have reduced the number of children and young people experiencing physical abuse, and immunisation rates continue to grow, with almost 94 percent of 8-month-olds fully vaccinated.

3. Skycity Convention Centre—Jobs

3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the SkyCity convention centre deal, “it’s 1,000 jobs to build it”, given steelmaking and fitting work has gone to a Thai company at the cost of 100 jobs?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. Not only will the convention centre create an estimated 1,000 jobs during construction, but I am advised it will support a further 1,140 jobs once it is up and running. That is 340 more jobs than originally estimated and, I am duty-bound to point out, it is 2,140 more jobs than if the member had had his way and scrapped the entire convention centre.

Andrew Little: What conditions did his Government put in the deal with Skycity to ensure that convention centre work went to Kiwi companies and Kiwi workers?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There was standard contracting done, but that was done by Fletcher Building. But Fletcher Building made it clear that there would be an estimated 1,000 jobs, and New Zealanders have said these jobs, in relation to the ones that will be in Thailand for steel, are part of a joint venture with a Whangarei company called Culham Engineering, which is joining hands with the Herrick Corporation of the United States, which is doing some work in Thailand. As a result of that, 50 additional jobs will be created in Whangarei. Well over 1,000 jobs in total will be created; in fact, 2,140 by the time the thing is up and running.

David Seymour: Has the Prime Minister seen any other reports of the Government trading regulatory favours for low-cost Thai labour?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am aware of work that has been undertaken through cheap Thai labour in Samoa, but the man said that he was guilty of nothing more than helping his constituents. That, of course, was Taito Phillip Field. [Interruption]

Andrew Little: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point or order; it will be heard in silence.

Andrew Little: It has become apparent that the member for Epsom is now routinely using question time to raise questions that bear little or no relation to the primary question of the supplementary question that he is asking. In this case he is asking a question about a matter that is absolutely not the business of this House, at all.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I watch all supplementary questions, but I watch the supplementary questions coming from Mr Seymour with particular vigour. On this occasion I made a relatively instant decision: if the question was in order, I had no idea where the answer would go. I cannot pre-empt where an answer will go, but if at any time I sense a question has been put down for no other reason than to attack an Opposition party, I will, as I have done in the past, rule it out of order. The member makes a reasonable point. I will be as vigilant—[Interruption]—Order! I will be as vigilant as I can.

Andrew Little: When he changed the law to give Skycity $527 million of gambling concessions, did he think it would repay him by sending convention centre jobs overseas?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The convention centre is going to create a thousand-plus Kiwi jobs in construction.

Phil Twyford: There is a net loss of jobs from Hamilton and Rotorua.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, it may annoy the member, because it is going to create 2,140 jobs in total, and, mark my words, those members will be at the official launch, just like they were with The Hobbit—they criticised it, then went off to the premiere.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer will not help the order of the House.

Andrew Little: Is it a good thing for New Zealand that steel work on the Government’s flagship economic project for Auckland is now going overseas?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is not going overseas, unless the member counts Whangarei as overseas. Fifty jobs are being created in Whangarei. New Zealand companies have the opportunity to pitch on a great many deals, and, in fact, the latest World Trade Organisation Government procurement agreement that was signed last year gives Kiwi businesses access to $2.3 trillion worth of overseas Government contracts. Yes, some work is done overseas, but a lot of New Zealanders do work overseas. It goes both ways.

Andrew Little: Is he aware that over 2,000 metal manufacturing jobs have now been lost, under his Government?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot confirm that number. What I can confirm is that we are in the height of probably the biggest building boom we have seen in this country for a very long time. That is both residential and in relation to commercial. I was at the launch, with the Minister of Transport, just last week, of the Auckland City Rail Link, which no doubt will be using a great deal of steel. As a result of the Skycity convention centre, 50 jobs will be created in Whangarei, just in relation to that alone. I will bet that member will not go up there and tell those—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been well addressed.

Ron Mark: If, as he said yesterday to Newshub, his Government has “A New Zealand first policy, we always try and employ New Zealanders first.”—what happened with the Skycity deal?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the words I used were “Kiwis first,” because I am fundamentally opposed to New Zealand First.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Point of order, Ron Mark. I hope it is a reasonable point of order.

Ron Mark: I seek leave of the House to table the transcript of the Prime Minister’s interview.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not—no, I am not even going to put the leave.

Andrew Little: With unemployment up by 50,000 under his watch, why does he not have any policy to ensure that Kiwis have a fair shot at getting jobs created by Government-backed projects?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is starting to look like a fool. The economy created 200,000 jobs in the last 3 years, there are more Kiwis in work than ever before, the Skycity deal creates 2,140 jobs, and no amount of crocodile tears from the member would do anything other than prove to Aucklanders that, thank goodness they have a National-led Government.

Andrew Little: If he wants to finally reverse his terrible record on unemployment, including for steelworkers in New Zealand, will he back my bill to ensure the Government buys Kiwi-made and backs Kiwi workers?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: New Zealand has the third-highest employment rate in the world. There are more New Zealanders in work than ever before, under this National-led Government. There will be 2,140 more of them as a result of the Skycity convention centre. Yes, of course, in any contract like this, some work is done overseas and some work is done locally. That is quite normal. But that also means that New Zealand companies get to export their products around the world and are involved in some of the biggest projects. I have been to a number of huge projects around the world where New Zealand architects, New Zealand companies, New Zealand engineers, New Zealand builders, and others have been involved. The member might want to live in Fortress New Zealand, along with the Greens, and have a sort of morris dancing session, but the rest of us—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I waited until the end of that question because I think it is bad form to interrupt with points of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Can I have the point of order, please.

David Seymour: In reference to Mr Little’s point of order, if he listened carefully to what I said, it was actually an attack on—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat immediately. That matter was tidied up some time ago.

4. Defence Force—Funding

4. MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Defence: What recent announcements has the Government made about funding for New Zealand’s defence and security?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Defence): This morning, along with the Prime Minister, I released the Defence White Paper 2016—a 15-year modernisation plan, worth almost $20 billion, to ensure that the New Zealand Defence Force has the capabilities it needs to meet the country’s security and defence challenges.

Mark Mitchell: What major challenges does the Defence Force face, and how will these be tackled in the years ahead?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: As technology advances and the security situation in many parts of the world deteriorates, the Defence Force will be required to respond to a wide range of different situations. Ensuring security and law-abiding activity in our exclusive economic zone is one, which will be boosted by more and better surveillance aircraft and ships. Ensuring we protect our interests in the Ross Sea and the Antarctic, and pull our weight in supporting a wider Antarctic programme, will be aided by two new ice-strengthened vessels capable of spending more time in the Southern Ocean. Ensuring that the sophisticated communications platforms operating on our boats, planes, and other vehicles when they are on deployment around the world are well protected from the growing number of cyber-attacks and assailants who are using that particular method of warfare will be addressed.

Mark Mitchell: How else will the $20 billion of expenditure announced today be spent?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: An exercise like that which we have undertaken in producing the white paper allows us to look ahead to the demands that will come of all aspects of the Defence Force in the years ahead. Today we have signalled the procurement of strategic and tactical airlift assets, as well as air surveillance aircraft. There are also combat patrols sustainment and the tour and operations vessels for the navy, and there is ever-increasing equipment for greater cyber and intelligence capacity to support Defence Force personnel and networks at home and abroad. This is a good white paper, identifying at this point in time the environment we live in and the means necessary for our Defence Force to meet the demands put upon it in the years ahead.

Hon Phil Goff: What does the white paper do to address the serious problem that the Auditor-General referred to last month, which is a serious, significant, and worsening shortage of skilled people in the Defence Force, which he said is stopping the use of the assets that the Minister is spending billions of dollars investing in?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The assets that are not being deployed by the New Zealand Defence Force were purchased under the previous Government’s watch, which did not take the sort of long-ranged look at requirements for defence that this white paper takes. That may well be something that the Auditor-General has in fact determined as a problem, but this white paper speaks significantly about personnel and having the right mix of skills in the military for the years ahead.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table a document from the Auditor-General that is part of a Treasury paper that I do not think is widely available. It makes the point that a severe shortage of labour stops—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The paper has been described, and, on the basis that the member is saying that it is not readily available to members, I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Grant Robertson: Has the Minister of Finance assured the Minister of Defence that the full $20 billion will be funded?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Minister of Finance has been involved in the discussions that have led to the release of the white paper. Naturally, he is well aware that as he progresses through the next 15 years of his term in that role, it is something that he will have to meet.

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

Mr SPEAKER: [Interruption] No, I need to deal with a point of order. But if it is a point of order that the question was not addressed, it was definitely addressed. [Interruption] Order! I hope that the member—[Interruption] It may not have been addressed to the member’s satisfaction, but it was to mine.

Rt Hon John Key: Does the Minister take confidence in the fact that the Opposition is now saying that we will be in Government for the next 15 years—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no ministerial responsibility for that.

Grant Robertson: Has he sought an assurance from the Minister of Finance that the Prime Minister’s desire for tax cuts will not compromise $20 billion worth of funding for the Defence Force?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It is deeply disturbing that the Opposition’s finance spokesperson has not seen the extraordinary surplus position that the Government may have in the near future. Obviously, that creates a high degree of optimisation for tax cuts, as well as everything else the Government is committed to. Of course, if he is predicating his question on the basis that he thinks that, somehow, something might happen to put him in the role, then I guess everything is up for grabs.

5. Ministers—Confidence

5. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Ron Mark: How can he have confidence in the Minister of Immigration, who seriously misleads the public about arrival figures, when 93,889 non - New Zealand citizens arrived here permanently in the past year?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I reject the proposition in the member’s question.

Ron Mark: Why is his Minister of Immigration misleading the public regarding returning Kiwis, when in the past year they numbered just over 30,000, compared with over 93,000 non-Kiwis?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: of course the Minister of Immigration normally talks to these matters in net numbers—what is the net difference—and if one looks at the 71,000, as I understand it, the bulk of the 71,000 net number is made up by either New Zealanders returning or not going, people coming on international working holidays, or people coming to work in skilled and construction areas. Of course there are lots of people that come and go. Interestingly enough, the member might be surprised to know that the number of people who actually have residency in New Zealand is lower than when his leader was the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Ron Mark: Does he stand by his Minister of Immigration’s stance on capping immigration numbers as being xenophobic, when many Kiwis are being pushed out of the job and housing market because low-skilled migrants are driving down wages and adding pressure on the housing crisis in Auckland?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: One looks at the net migration numbers in New Zealand. As I said earlier, they are made up in a number of different areas. Firstly, we certainly would not want to stop Kiwis who are returning to New Zealand, who abandoned ship after the terrible years of the Clark Government—or during the terrible years—and chose Australia, from coming home. We certainly would not want to stop Australians, who are free to come over here at any time. We would not want to stop people who come as a part of our treaties, from Samoa and the likes. We would not want to stop people who come with the skills category we need in areas like construction or agriculture that we see. We would not want to stop students who come to New Zealand, who form a big part of the thing. We would not want to stop people who come on working holiday programmes. I think New Zealand is a far better and richer country for having migration in the way that we do. Yes, it puts some pressure on the system, and we just simply need to fund that or build more houses.

Ron Mark: How can he have confidence in his Minister of Finance when he was warned by Treasury in December last year that migrant workers are driving down wages and that “The increasing flows of younger and lower-skilled migrants may be contributing to a lack of employment opportunities for local workers”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is fair to say the Government does not always accept Treasury’s advice, but, interestingly enough, if you look at, for instance, workers who have come under the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme—I think, actually, most New Zealand companies that have been involved in that would say they are invaluable in areas like our viticulture and horticulture sector—the Government has been interested in trying to see whether that will work for local workers and has been trialling domestic RSE schemes. It is actually more challenging than the member might think to find those workers.

Ron Mark: How can he have confidence in his Minister for Building and Housing, who is not only failing the housing needs of Auckland citizens, but also failing to keep up with his Minister of Immigration, who is busy pumping an extra 34,000 migrants into Auckland each year?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: By any measure, the Minister for Building and Housing is doing a tremendous job. Yes, of course it is a challenge, but he has undertaken far more reforms than any other housing Minister. Yes, it is true that New Zealand is a popular destination. Yes, it is true: we have got some of the lowest interest rates this country has seen in over 60 years. Yes, it is true: consumer confidence is high and business confidence is high. Yes, it is true: New Zealand is a desired destination for people to come to, but I think that is a sign of success. I know the member wants to be a little down in the mouth about it, but when he was the Mayor of Carterton District he would have welcomed people coming into Carterton, setting up homes. In fact—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I know the question was particularly long, so I gave the Prime Minister some latitude, but the answer is certainly long enough.

6. Financial Systems—House Prices

6. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “I’d expect the financial system to take account of the inherent risk of rapidly rising house prices. Particularly the buyers. The buyers need to pay attention to the fact that interest rates will inevitably rise even if in the next couple of years they can’t see that happening quickly. The debt related to mortgages lasts a long time”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes. As I said in that interview, mortgages do last a long time, and buyers who are stretching themselves when mortgage rates are the lowest in 50 years just need to understand the risk or the pressure they will be under if and when mortgage rates come up.

Grant Robertson: Now that he has acknowledged the housing bubble, would it be less risky for homebuyers if the Government had launched a Government-backed building programme for affordable housing, as recommended last week by the Employers and Manufacturers Association and the Property Institute of New Zealand?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I do not believe that. What the Minister is merely saying is that actually we have mortgage rates that are incredibly low. What a lot of households look at when they are borrowing is their capacity to pay that mortgage, and less about much they are actually borrowing, as such. What he is concerned about, of course, is that as those mortgage rates go up there may be some concerns about their ability to pay it back. That is the point that he was making.

Grant Robertson: Which of the following Government contributions has added the most to the housing bubble: (a) allowing building consent levels to sit at record lows for 4 years, and still refusing to build affordable homes at scale; (b) repealing laws to promote affordable housing; (c) refusing to put in place restrictions on offshore speculators; (d) encouraging first-home buyers to buy the houses they cannot afford through deposit subsidies; or (e) all of the above?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Those sound like Labour policies that were rejected by the public, but what I will say is that we are doing a heck of a lot around housing in New Zealand. We can see that in that we are building at least 40 houses every working day in Auckland, which, of course, is four times what it was when we came into office. We can see the detail in what is going on in the current situation of, really, years of neglect that has happened by a combination of people, but progress is definitely being made.

Grant Robertson: Is his advice for first-home buyers on the risk of the housing bubble bursting, after 8 years in Government, finally an admission of the complete failure of this Government’s housing policies?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think that first-home buyers understand better than the member does that there is some risk, when mortgage rates are as low as they are and they are borrowing to capacity, in their ability to pay it back that they will be taking into consideration if those mortgage rates do go up.

7. Schools—Health Promoting Schools Programme

7. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Health: What progress is being made on encouraging primary schools to adopt the Health Promoting Schools programme?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: As part of the child obesity plan launched last October, we set a target of signing up 150 new decile 1 to 4 primary schools to the Health Promoting Schools programme over the next 2 years. Excellent progress is being made with 94 new schools so far having signed up, meaning that 914 out of 1,115 decile 1 to 4 schools are on board—that is 90 percent of those schools.

Jacqui Dean: What other steps is the Government taking to combat childhood obesity?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: New Zealand is one of the first OECD countries to have a target and a comprehensive plan to tackle childhood obesity. Other initiatives include support for more sport and physical activity in schools and front-of-pack health star ratings for common foods. We are also implementing a new health target from 1 July 2016 for 95 percent of obese children identified in the B4 School Check programme to be offered further medical advice and guidance. It is a major issue, and no one single measure is the answer.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table an Education Review Office (ERO) report dated January 2009, called “Schools’ progress towards meeting food and nutrition guidelines”, which sets out that 95 and 97 percent of schools in 2009 did already meet the guidelines.

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

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

8. Capital and Coast District Health Board—Public Health and Disability Act

8. KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Associate Minister of Health: Will he now use his power under section 32 of the Public Health and Disability Act 2000 to direct Capital and Coast District Health Board to initiate the transitional support plan for Ashley Peacock, which recommends a pathway to a community placement, immediately; if not, why not?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Associate Minister of Health): That member should know that what he has asked for is illegal, and would breach both the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 and the Crown Entities Act 2004. The legal advice that I have received confirms that, as Minister, I cannot issue directions to district health boards (DHB) requiring or compelling them to provide specific treatment to specified persons.

Kevin Hague: Does the Minister accept the findings of the National Intellectual Disability Care Agency, who found that Ashley’s seclusion environment is exacerbating his condition; if so, why has he allowed Capital and Coast DHB to sit on the recommendations for his transition plan for months, without even appointing a project manager for Ashley’s case?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Like many New Zealanders I have sympathy for the parents of Mr Peacock. However, I am informed that the district health board and the Ministry of Health are working alongside the family to provide for a transition plan for Mr Peacock to be placed into the community.

Kevin Hague: How does the Minister reconcile his Government’s treatment of Ashley Peacock and his answers today with New Zealand’s last periodic report on the United Nations Convention against Torture, which identified the irreversible psychological harms of long-term seclusion such as Ashley has endured?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: What I say to that member is that this case is complex. Mr Ashley clearly has a mental illness and he also has developmental disabilities. But what is paramount in this case is the safety of both Mr Peacock and those around him. And the transition plan that is being formulated by the parties that I referred to in the earlier answer—it is paramount that the safety of Mr Peacock is at the front of all these considerations.

Kevin Hague: Given that Ashley has been predominantly held in, effectively, solitary confinement for more than 5 years now, why is the Associate Minister ignoring the Human Rights Commission, the Ombudsman, and now the National Intellectual Disability Care Agency, who have all recommended his transition out of seclusion without delay?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I said in the first answer that that member was wrong, and I will say in this answer that he is again wrong. He has not been held in solitary seclusion for that period of time. In 2014, for example, he was held in seclusion for 68 hours. That is 1½ hours on average per week.

Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In his answer to the primary question the Minister indicated that he had received legal advice, and I ask that he table that advice.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure the member can. If he was quoting—the member can certainly ask whether the Minister was quoting from a legal document at the time he gave an answer. Was the Minister doing that? Was the Minister quoting from a legal document as he gave his answer? He was not.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I was quoting legal advice.

Poto Williams: Why did he say “I’ve been given reassurances that [the health board] are working closely with the family, on a solution.”, when sources close to the family claim they have been excluded from meetings with Capital and Coast DHB management and senior officials?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Again that member is wrong. The advice that I have been given is that they are working closely alongside the family for a transition plan for this individual. It is sad—it is very sad that members opposite are using this case as a political football to advance their political interests.

9. Social Housing, Minister—Salvation Army Visits

9. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Social Housing: Does she stand by her statement that her advice to the Prime Minister about the Salvation Army’s visit to Bruce Pulman Park “was not sufficiently clear”; if so, why did she and her office release the same misinformation to the media?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing): To the first part, my answer is yes, as it was yesterday, and to the second part it is because we obviously did not realise that it was not sufficiently clear when we made the statement, and after we did, we have tidied that up.

Phil Twyford: Did she tell the Prime Minister that officials from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) went out with NGO personnel, including the Salvation Army, to talk to homeless people; if not, what precisely did she tell the Prime Minister?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I cannot remember the exact wording of what I told him, but it was around this kind of statement: “A mobile squad made up of MSD staff and NGOs including the Salvation Army has been visiting Auckland City Mission and areas of Auckland to engage with people who may need help with emergency housing.” From that statement you can see that that could have meant that they were going out together or, as I thought it read, that MSD were going to the Auckland City Mission and the Salvation Army had been going to the park. But, at the end of the day, whether they were there together or separately, it does not omit from the actual situation, which is that we were going out trying to engage people who are in dire circumstances to make sure that they are getting the assistance that they deserve.

Phil Twyford: How does she reconcile her statement “I have nothing to apologise for.” with the Salvation Army saying that her mistake has put at risk their ability to help the homeless?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am sure that most members of this House have a huge amount of respect for the work that the Salvation Army does with our most vulnerable, and as a consequence of that, as I say, the statements were not meant to be misleading. All I can do is front up and say that I made that mistake, and that is where it sits. But, honestly, you apologise to Chinese and I will apologise to—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Supplementary question, Phil Twyford.

Phil Twyford: Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am calling for a bit of discipline from both sides of the House.

Phil Twyford: Does she accept that it is a failure of her Government’s policy that after 8 years in office she is pre-booking motels for homeless people and charging them for it?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We are the first Government to put more than $41 million into emergency housing and give them certainty of funding and make sure—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is absolutely no point in the Minister continuing the answer if Mr Twyford does not want to hear it.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I would like to continue my answer, though.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, there is no point with that sort of level of noise being raised, and I am very tempted to—[Interruption] Order! I am very tempted to move immediately to the next question. There is very little point in supplementary questions being asked when that sort of barrage occurs. I will allow the member, on this occasion, to continue with his supplementary questions, but I expect an answer to be heard with far more decorum than it was just a minute ago.

Phil Twyford: Why did she and the Prime Minister work so hard to try to blame homeless people for their plight, instead of doing something credible to fix the housing crisis that she and her colleagues made?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I know that the facts do not work for the member, but perhaps he would like to listen up to some of them. We are the first Government to put more than $41 million into emergency housing, give certainty of those beds, and increase the number of beds available. We are the first Government to actually be putting that money where it is really needed and addressing those needs as they are.

10. Broadband, Rural—Progress

10. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister for Communications: What recent announcements has she made on the progress of the Rural Broadband Initiative?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Communications): I am pleased to advise the House that phase one of the Government-funded Rural Broadband Initiative (RBI) is now complete, on budget, and ahead of schedule. We have 154 new cell towers built, a further 387 are being upgraded, 108,000 copper lines are being upgraded, and more than 300,000 rural families and businesses are now able to access faster broadband services and, in some cases, are able to access an internet service for the very first time. The original specification for the fixed wireless service was to provide at least 5 megabits per second at peak speeds. Recent testing shows the 4G service is, in fact, delivering speeds nine times faster than that—in some cases, 40 megabits per second, and in some cases, even more.

Brett Hudson: In addition to broadband, what other benefits has the RBI programme delivered?

Hon AMY ADAMS: As well as providing faster broadband, the new tower build programme has extended nationwide mobile coverage by 6,200 square kilometres of rural New Zealand. At the start of the build, nationwide mobile coverage of New Zealand’s land mass was at 38 percent. With the roll-out of RBI, mobile coverage is now at approximately 50 percent of our land mass and growing, including 77 percent of our State highway network. This increased connectivity brings real benefits to rural New Zealand, with over 2 million New Zealanders able to make cellphone calls in the last quarter on one network alone, thanks to the RBI.

11. Police—Road Safety

11. STUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of Police: Does she believe that having Police on the road has a role in road safety, given her recent statement, “There will be fewer police officers on the road”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): Yes.

Stuart Nash: Is she aware that according to official statistics, cellphone use contributed to only 0.05 percent of all fatal or serious injury crashes; if so, why did she blame men on cellphones for the increased road toll?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The facts speak for themselves. For the 5 years from 2010 to 2015, cellphone offences: 70 percent male. Cellphone-related fatal crashes: 73 percent male. Driver deaths: 86 percent male. Percentage at fault: 85 percent male. Alcohol offences: 76 percent male. Illegal street racing: 97 percent male. The facts speak for themselves.

Stuart Nash: Who is right: the Minister when she said that having fewer police is not to blame for the increased road toll, or the hard-working Associate Minister of Transport, Craig Foss, when he said that “Fewer police officers might be a contributor.”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, clearly, I am responsible for my statements, and, clearly, I agree with them.

Denis O’Rourke: To assist the efforts of police for road safety, will she seek the full implementation of the Australasian New Car Assessment Programme five star safety rating -technologies; if not, why not?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I believe that is a matter for the Minister of Transport or the Associate Minister of Transport; certainly not for the Minister of Police.

Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The police very often advocate for improvements to roads and improvements to motor vehicle technologies, and I would, therefore, expect that the Minister should have a view on this.

Mr SPEAKER: And the Minister did express a view on it, which was that it was more appropriate to be asked of the Minister of Transport. That is her view, obviously. Further supplementary questions?

Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no, no, I have ruled on that matter. [Interruption] Mr O’Rourke, I have ruled on that matter. If you want to raise a fresh point of order, I will hear it, but I am not going to have you argue with me while I am in the Chair.

Denis O’Rourke: To assist the efforts of the police for road safety, will she seek safety improvements for regional roads, especially where there are accident black spots; if not, why not?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, it is certainly an issue that Ministers and members of Parliament talk about quite a lot, because I fully agree that there are black spots. The three big issues in road policing and road safety include engineering, which is what he is talking about, and that is something that we talk about regularly.

Stuart Nash: When she says she is not “a big fan of the absolute restrictions on speed”, is that because she thinks men on phones cause more deaths than speeding?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Because, actually, I do not agree with giving people speeding tickets for driving 1 kilometre over the speed limit. Because, do you know what? The way I see it—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Or even 3 kilometres over the speed limit. And one of the things I think is that when we have that sort of what I would say is very strict adherence, we can end up with drivers watching the speedometer to the exclusion of watching the road and considering the road conditions.

Stuart Nash: Is blaming men on cellphones not simply a way to hide the fact that a cut in funding for road policing will inevitably end in more deaths on our roads?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is a 6.7 percentage increase in the road policing budget. It is, in fact, $100 million more than the budget that was approved 10 years ago under the previous Government. It is a huge increase, but the fact is that we also have technology at play here. Police have roles in education and enforcement on the roads; they are not all actually driving the cars.

Stuart Nash: Given her statement that “I’m one of many people who consistently sees people still on mobile phones whether they are in trucks or vans or cars”, has the police data and research team also had funding cuts and now relies on what the Minister sees when out and about?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, it is actually just noting that I am somebody who gets out and about. I do not sit around an office looking at the mirror, like that member does.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The last—[Interruption] Order! The last part of that answer does not assist me in doing my job in this House. Question No. 12—[Interruption] Order!

12. Consumers—Protection

12. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What steps is the Government taking to better protect consumers and promote competition?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I was pleased to announce today that Budget 2016 provides the Commerce Commission with an extra $15.2 million of operational funding over the next 4 years. In the past 3 years there has been significant legislative reform of two Acts that the commission enforces, the Fair Trading Act and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act. The extra funding will help ensure that the commission can even more actively enforce the recently reformed consumer and credit laws, for the benefit of all New Zealanders. The last time the commission’s funding for general market regulation was increased was in 2005. Budget 2016 increases it by 25 percent.

Andrew Bayly: How else will this funding increase benefit New Zealand?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: With this additional funding we will see faster enforcement action to stop consumer harm caused by non-compliant businesses, such as those engaged in misleading practices or irresponsible lending. In one recent example, last week the commission succeeded in court action against a pay-day lender operating in a low-income community whose practices included charging his customers a 50 percent weekly fee. The Commerce Commission plays a vital role in enforcing competition law and responsible lending practices, working to ensure that New Zealanders—especially those in vulnerable circumstances—are protected from businesses using dishonest practices, and that honest traders are able to compete on a level playing field. The additional funding will ensure that the commission’s good work in areas like this continues and expands. [Interruption]

Andrew Bayly: How does this announcement—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not called the member yet. I was waiting for Mr Tabuteau to cooperate.

Andrew Bayly: How does this announcement support the Government’s national strategy on financial capability?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Last year the Government signalled that improving the financial capability or money skills of New Zealanders was a priority. The Government can make a difference in three ways: firstly, through legislation such as recent amendments to the Fair Trading Act and Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act; secondly, by ensuring that those laws are properly enforced by a well-resourced Commerce Commission, as this Budget ensures—but we also know that when it comes to steering people away from being entrapped in a cycle of debt and poor financial decisions, properly enforced laws can only take you so far. The long-term challenge is to improve the money skills or financial capability of New Zealanders. The Commerce Commission also plays an important role here by educating and informing businesses so that they are aware of their new obligations, and consumers so that they know their rights under the new laws.

© Scoop Media