1. Health Services—Primary Care

[Sitting date: 16 June 2016. Volume:715;Page:2. Text is subject to correction.]

1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the statement from the Chair of the PHO Alliance who said of Budget 2016, “Primary care cannot deliver essential new models of care within existing and reducing financial resources”; if not, why not?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): No, but I thought I had better go and read the full quote in context. It is from the Primary Health Alliance, in which it also welcomes the bowel screening investment and the increased Pharmac funding. It observes that we have a great primary-care system but it also wants more detail on the money. The increase in total primary-care funding in Budget 2016 is estimated to be around $30 million. This means funding is up $233 million under National, a 35 percent increase.

Hon Annette King: Is the $6 million increase in the primary-care strategy in Budget 2016 from $180 million to $186 million adequate in light of the chair of General Practice New Zealand Dr Jeff Lowe’s comments that primary care was hoping to hear of $20 million to $26 million more a year to address years of funding that has not kept up with inflation?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Indeed, the funding increase is $30 million, which is greater than $26 million.

Hon Annette King: Is New Zealand Rural General Practice Network chief executive officer Dalton Kelly wrong when he said that apart from an increase in ambulance funding there is little else for rural health in Budget 2016?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, I know Dalton Kelly well and he thinks that this is a very good Budget. He would be very pleased, as are many, many New Zealanders, with the $2.2 billion going into health and the $1.6 billion going into district health boards—and many of those dollars, of course, will be spent in the rural sector. So, I do not know; I wonder if you are misrepresenting him.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You cannot have a Minister say that I represent him, and then, when I want to table the evidence that comes from a paywall document—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member is now seeking to table a document, that is a different matter, but I just cannot pick what the point of order is that the member is trying to ask.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the page from New Zealand Doctor, which is a paywall document—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just keep the explanation simple and quick.

Hon Annette King: It is the New Zealand Doctor magazine, and it is dated 8 June, and I correctly quoted Mr Dalton Kelly.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! On the basis that this information may not be readily available to members, I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table an article from New Zealand Doctor magazine, of June this year. Is there any objection? There is no objection. It can be tabled.

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

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I seek leave to table an article, dated 15 June, entitled “King clutching at straws”.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need that at the moment. I need to know the source of the article.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is probably publicly available to be honest with you.

Mr SPEAKER: It sounds like it is a newspaper article. I will not be putting the leave.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a document from the New Zealand Doctor—I am sorry; I do not have the date—where Dr Coleman is referred to as “Dr No”.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I think that is not going to help to inform members at all.

Hon Annette King: When was the report of Primary Care Working Group on General Practice Sustainability, which recommended changes to the Very Low Cost Access Scheme, delivered to him for consideration?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Oh, a wee while ago.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is that an adequate answer, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: I think on this case it is, when you look at where the primary question went. It is not a helpful answer but the member—

Hon Annette King: No, it is a smart-arse answer.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, the member may conclude it is a smart answer, but it is one that has addressed the question.

Hon Annette King: Does the chair of the New Zealand Medical Association’s General Practitioner Council, Kate Baddock, reflect his position when she said of his decision to not fund changes to the Very Low Cost Access Scheme that: “There is no new money. We are stuck with the status quo and with the inequities that represents unless—”

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

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, I am not going to quote on whether or not Dr Baddock said that, but what I can say is the Very Low Cost Access Scheme is only 6 percent of total primary-care money. As I can tell you, the money for primary care has gone up $233 million under this Government. That is 35 percent, and when you consider that the population has grown by 12 percent, that is well ahead of population growth, so there is plenty of money there—and plenty of good service as well.

Hon Annette King: Because there is no new funding to address the inequities in the Very Low Cost Access Scheme, what will happen to the 600,000 high-need, low-income patients without affordable doctors visits, which he last week said: “Is not something the general population is excited about.”?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Once again, the quote is out of context. But, look, there is plenty of money. The member knows there is $2.2 billion over the next 4 years for primary care. If you want to talk about supporting access to primary care, this Government has delivered to under-13s free general practitioner visits and free prescriptions, benefiting three-quarters of a million children and families—something that the member never bothered to do when she had the chance, which was a shame.

Hon Annette King: Has he given up on addressing the most pressing need in primary health care, which is the Very Low Cost Access Scheme, when he said to the New Zealand Doctorlast week: “It could form part of a future Budget, possibly under a new Minister of Health.”?—I am happy to do the job.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Actually, that is a complete misquote. Sorry, but it is.

2. Economy—Reports

[Sitting date: 16 June 2016. Volume:715;Page:3. Text is subject to correction.]

2. NUK KORAKO (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): Earlier today Statistics New Zealand released the GDP for the March 2016 quarter, confirming New Zealand is heading in the right direction. You always have to be a bit careful with quarterly numbers because they can be unpredictably up or down. However, looking back over the year to March, the New Zealand economy has grown at 2.8 percent. The March quarter result was at the top end of market expectations. Growth was broad-based, with 12 of the 16 industry sectors growing in the March quarter, and 13 of the 16 industry sectors growing through the year, consistent with the ongoing diversification of the New Zealand economy.

Nuk Korako: What were the main drivers of growth in the economy in the year to March?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The main drivers include the construction sector. We are building more houses, in fact, a 3.9 percent increase for the year, way ahead of the average for GDP, with strong compound growth in the construction sector. Business services, retail trade, and accommodation also increased solidly; tourism was a major contributor—

Phil Twyford: You should start building more motels for the homeless to live in.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, the GDP figures rebut the Opposition’s assertion that no new houses are being built. In fact there is a—by any measure—rapid increase in supply. Of course, supply needs to increase more rapidly.

Grant Robertson: Has the Minister seen any reports about the fact that the economy has delivered an increase in homelessness in the larger cities in New Zealand, and has delivered to an 11-year-old girl, who only wants to do her homework, the prospect of living in a car with six other people, and when will he stop being so arrogant—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last part is not necessary.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can assure the member that we will not be exploiting the complexity and vulnerability of that child and her family. And the member, before he raises that issue publicly, ought to go and consult with the family to ensure that this is what they want for their child.

Phil Twyford: Just smear them around.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Nuk Korako: How does New Zealand’s growth rate compare to other OECD countries?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The growth figures of 2.8 percent for the year is in the context of many developed countries struggling in a low-growth environment. New Zealand’s 2.8 percent puts New Zealand into the top 10 in the OECD, compared with 2 percent in the UK and the US, 1.7 percent in the Euro area, 1.1 percent in Canada, and zero growth in Japan. So our growth would be described as low, but it is better than a number of the large, developed economies.

Nuk Korako: What are the various forecasts he has seen for the economic outlook for the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Given global uncertainties, the highest profile of which, in the next few weeks, is the possibility of Britain exiting the European Union, we see reasonably consistent outlook. Treasury is forecasting 2.8 percent growth for the next 4 years, the Reserve Bank forecasts 2.8 percent for the next 3 years, The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research forecasts an average of 2.9 percent over the next 4 years, and the general consensus in the market showed growth of 2.7 percent over the next 3 years. What we are looking for, and what the economy is delivering, is moderate, consistent growth but, of course, it is at risk if global circumstances change.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the economy was going so well, why does he have to get up and try to convince his backbench of that, when we all know it is turning to crap?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is not a matter of persuading our backbench; it is a matter of all those people stopping at the New Zealand First stand at the Fieldays, persuading that member that the economy is going OK. I suspect, actually, he was listening to the thousands of people at the Fieldays who were telling him it is going OK.

3. Justice, Minister—Settlements

[Sitting date: 16 June 2016. Volume:715;Page:4. Text is subject to correction.]

3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all her statements on the Teina Pora settlement; if so, why?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): Yes; because I believe them to be true.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can she stand by her statement that Teina Pora has “suffered considerably” and that the compensation amount is “fair” when her Government ignored the recommendation of Rodney Hansen QC, retired High Court judge, that compensation should be inflation-adjusted to at least $4.5 million?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Mr Hansen’s recommendation was that Cabinet should consider the matter. We certainly did, but Cabinet was comfortable that that aspect of the compensation payment, which was only one of the three aspects, remained at an appropriate level when we considered a range of factors.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What persuades her that she knows more about the issue of fairness than the good, retired High Court judge or, for example, that she should hide behind her leader, who believes “the Crown doesn’t have to pay Teina Pora anything.”?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The Prime Minister would be correct, in that all payments are at the discretion of Cabinet. Cabinet is not obliged to make any payment. Cabinet and our Government make payments that are transparent and in a principled way, and that means following the guidelines that have been in place for some time and that have been used for the last eight people who have been compensated under them.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is her Government being so blatantly mean-spirited not to give Teina Pora a fair go, which contrasts with its entitlement mentality towards its own friends, like South Canterbury Finance—$1.6 billion; hundreds of millions to Hollywood’s Warner Bros; and $42 million per year as benefits to Skycity Casino; what is fair about that?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! In as far as there is ministerial responsibility for the first part of the question—the Hon Amy Adams.

Hon AMY ADAMS: Our Government, as I have said, believes in following transparent, consistently applied processes, which means following the guidelines put in place in 2001 and making sure that those goalposts are not moved mid-process and that we do not make ad hoc decisions, thinking we know better than following a clear-cut process.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What about South Canterbury Finance?

Hon AMY ADAMS: I’ve got nothing to do with South Canterbury Finance.

4. Finance, Minister—Statements

[Sitting date: 16 June 2016. Volume:715;Page:5. Text is subject to correction.]

4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes.

Grant Robertson: Does he stand by the statement in Budget 2016 that “growth in average income … per person (i.e. GDP per capita) is what matters for achieving higher material living standards”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, in the long run.

Grant Robertson: In the long run, we are all dead.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! You do not need to remind us.

Hon Steven Joyce: Cheerful mood, Grant.

Grant Robertson: I am a lot further away from it than you are, Steven.

Mr SPEAKER: Can we just have the supplementary question.

Grant Robertson: Given the focus in the Budget documents on the importance of GDP per capita and given his answer, can he inform the House what the annual growth in GDP per capita is in the Statistics New Zealand figures released today?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot tell the member for sure. I think it is either—I think it is pretty low actually, somewhere between zero and 0.5 percent growth. I would point out to the member that in the world of low growth, even that number, which is a product of a drop in terms of trade and a surge in population, is a much better performance than the Australian economy, where a somewhat similar measure—real net national disposable income per capita—

Grant Robertson: You know the Australian one, but not the New Zealand one.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —a somewhat similar measure—the member should listen. [Interruption] The member should listen.

Mr SPEAKER: And the Minister should hurry up and complete his answer.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —a somewhat similar measure has been dropping for 4 years.

Grant Robertson: How will higher living standards be delivered for New Zealanders after today’s GDP figures showed a 0.5 percent per capita increase in growth—and that is the New Zealand number?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: First, that number is better than most developed countries, for a start. As I said, in Australia it has been dropping for 4 years, and in New Zealand it has been rising for those 4 years instead of dropping. So the per capita income gap between Australia and New Zealand is closing. And the possibility that it might rise is indicated by the fact that in the last quarter it went up 1.6 percent. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 5—[Interruption] Order! Dr—[Interruption] Order! There is considerable interjection from both sides. I would be grateful if could cease.

5. Businesses—Information and Communications Technology

[Sitting date: 16 June 2016. Volume:715;Page:6. Text is subject to correction.]

5. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Science and Innovation: What is the Government doing to help New Zealand companies be part of the global space economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation): New Zealand is rapidly building a more diversified high-tech economy, and one of the companies at the very leading edge of technology is our own home-grown start-up Rocket Lab. Rocket Lab is planning its first launches later this year from the East Coast of the North Island. The Government is therefore putting in place a new regulatory environment to enable safe, secure, and responsible space launches from New Zealand. We are also signing a technology safeguards agreement with the US to allow for the use of US rocket technology by Rocket Lab in New Zealand. The space economy is becoming immensely important to the wider world and is growing and changing rapidly. These measures will ensure New Zealand is well placed to take advantage of that growth.

Dr Shane Reti: Why is it important that New Zealand puts a regulatory regime in place to assist the growth of the industry here?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: New Zealand has a number of unique advantages when it comes to rocket launches and space activities, including a highly skilled workforce, a safe and secure environment, and relatively quiet skies surrounded by oceans, and that has attracted the likes of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Google here, to launch high-altitude balloons for example. We also have a number of companies and innovators at the cutting edge of the industry, like Peter Beck from Rocket Lab, and others looking to break in, like two of the shortlisted regional research institute candidates, the Centre for Space Science Technology and Earth+Vantage. Putting in place a high-quality regulatory framework to permit launches is an important part of our involvement in this growing industry, and is yet another way in which we can encourage the development of an innovative, dynamic, and diverse economy.

Dr Shane Reti: What benefits can we expect from New Zealand involvement in the global space economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Quite a number. Rocket Lab, for example, currently employs around 100 highly paid engineers, which it expects will grow to several hundred over the next few years. All of its research and development is conducted in New Zealand, and most of its manufacturing. It works closely with the University of Canterbury, and that collaboration has led to an advanced engineering course specialising in aerospace engineering. With the Wairoa District Council consenting up to 120 launches per year from the Māhia Peninsula, there are likely to be spinoff economic benefits for the East Coast region, in terms of infrastructure and tourism opportunities.

Marama Fox: Will the infrastructure and benefits to the East Coast include the revitalisation of the Napier to Gisborne rail link?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I can safely assume for the member that they will not be delivering their rocket technology by rail. The company plans to transfer its technology by air and by road freight. In terms of rail between Wairoa and the wider Hawke’s Bay, the interest in that form of transport is, unfortunately, very low, but there is still work continuing with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council in terms of whether it wants to make an investment to re-establish that link.

Marama Fox: Thank you, Minister. Can we ask, then, will we see extra infrastructure include things such as broadband and roading fixtures to ensure that they can access the internet and have the infrastructure needed for Rocket Lab to be successful?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: For the member’s benefit, I do not think that is being driven by Rocket Lab’s presence but, certainly, as I have said to her previously, the investment in broadband infrastructure right along the East Coast is very significant, and the commitment is there to do more as part of ensuring the development and diversification of the East Coast regional economy.

6. Climate Change—Paris Climate Agreement

[Sitting date: 16 June 2016. Volume:715;Page:7. Text is subject to correction.]

6. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does she agree with the UN Secretary-General that we need to bring the Paris Climate Agreement into force this year; if so, will she seek to ratify the agreement before the UN ratification event in September?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): on behalf of the Minister for Climate Change Issues: It is great that more than 170 countries have signed the Paris Agreement, and it certainly has a lot of momentum. It will come into force when at least 55 countries that make up at least 55 percent of emissions have ratified it. That may happen this year, but it is not essential that it does. The Government is yet to make a decision on when New Zealand will ratify the agreement.

Dr Kennedy Graham: When the defence Minister said last weekend that he is not sure if “in a blanket sort of way we’re having more weather events than we have in the past”, does that give her confidence she will convince Cabinet to ratify in 2016?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Minister Brownlee is a very deep thinker and he thinks a lot about weather, but I do not think even he would claim that he is an expert in these matters.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that Paris signatories are invited to resubmit their climate targets at the time of ratification, and given our target has been described as “grossly inadequate”, will the Minister increase our target this year rather than wait for the 2023 global review, which is 7 years away?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The member should stop quoting himself. The truth is that we are working through these issues and we are yet to make a decision on ratification.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Can the Minister tell the House by what percentage our emissions are estimated to reduce between now and the target year of 2030 as a result of the domestic action on climate change, which she rather loosely described at the Local Government and Environment Committee yesterday with four bullet points?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It is 30 percent on 2005 levels.

Dr Kennedy Graham: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a target. The question was about what percentage they would reduce as a result of policy.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the answer has been given. I will invite the member to ask the question again, but if that is the answer that is given by the Minister, that will be the answer. Dr Kennedy Graham, repeat the question.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Can the Minister tell the House by what percentage our emissions are estimated to reduce—not the target—between now and the target year of 2030 as a result of the domestic action on climate change, which she loosely described at the select committee yesterday?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: We intend to meet our target. In terms of the precise question, I do not have a percentage off the top of my head, but, as I say, we intend to meet the target that we have set.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Can the Minister give the House a ballpark figure for how much emissions are forecast to reduce by 2030 as a result of the Government’s new electric vehicle policy?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No. What we are seeking to do is effect change—structural change—across the fleet by setting targets, by looking at procurement, and by having a series of funds that will encourage and accelerate electric vehicles. Good things take time, and I think this policy will, but I think it is certainly a more ambitious policy than we have seen from any other party in this Parliament.

Dr Kennedy Graham : I seek leave to table the analysis provided for my office from the Minister of Transport showing that electric vehicles would reduce transport emissions by only 2.8 percent by 2030.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I previously ruled that if the document is an analysis prepared by the member’s own office, it does not reach a standard of authentication where I would be putting the leave.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Does the Minister think that New Zealanders might be a bit concerned that their Minister for Climate Change Issues does not even know how far she is falling short of meeting the climate agreement that she is about to ratify?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think what the member is failing to appreciate is that we have a considered process to go through here. We went to Paris, we have signed the declaration—the Minister did that in New York—and now we are embarking on a process assessing the pros and cons for early ratification. That is where we are. I appreciate the member’s impatience, but good process on this important matter—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is being asked as to whether or not something is known or not known. Thus far he has not addressed the question at all.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the question was hardly that specific: “Does he think New Zealanders might be a bit concerned.” That gave a very wide chance for the Minister to address the question; on this occasion, he has.

7. Social Housing, Minister—Statements

[Sitting date: 16 June 2016. Volume:715;Page:8. Text is subject to correction.]

7. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Social Housing: Does she stand by all her statements?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister for Social Housing: Yes, within the context in which they were given.

Phil Twyford: What was her motivation for briefing her staff on the police investigation into Hurimoana Dennis?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Her motivation was that the staff should know what the Minister had been discussing, and the matter moved on from there.

Phil Twyford: Are the media reports correct that the three to four staff she said that she briefed on the police investigation included Lucy Bennett, Clark Hennessy, and her senior political adviser, Belinda Milnes?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think those people are among her staff; that is likely. But, of course, Ministers are not constrained by any particular rules about briefing their staff, and that is because staff are a pretty important part of getting a lot of things done.

Phil Twyford: Was she surprised, given her reputation for leaking information about her critics, that her staff took the same approach with the information that she gave them about the police investigation?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I refute the statements made by the member. I am surprised to see the Labour Party members outraged by what they call a leak to the media, which turns out to be discussion around the dinner table about something apparently everyone already knew about but that the media had decided not to run until they could use it to attack Paula Bennett.

Phil Twyford: Why, after the Human Rights Commission told her that she had breached Natasha Fuller’s privacy by releasing her private information, did she say she might do it again, and “it would depend on the circumstances”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The two events are not connected in any way—[Interruption] Well, in this case, apparently, as I am advised, the person concerned told the Minister himself, and I am told that “everyone knew”.

Phil Twyford: Are the journalists correct who tell me that her office regularly releases this sort of information to discredit critics and shut down stories; if not, why does she believe they would make that up?

Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions—the Hon Bill English.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, those journalists are—well, I do not know exactly what they said to the member, because I would not want to rely on his description of it, but I think that if the member was familiar with how this story apparently became a story, it was a matter of about third-hand gossip, through a series of social events, that ended up as a story. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Twyford and Mr English, the series of questions has now concluded. I am calling Tracey Martin. [Interruption] Order! Would both members, please—if they want to carry on the interchange, I suggest that they try it in the lobby.

8. Media Companies—Television New Zealand and MediaWorks

[Sitting date: 16 June 2016. Volume:715;Page:9. Text is subject to correction.]

8. TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister of Broadcasting: Has the Government had any involvement in the rumoured merger between TVNZ and MediaWorks; if so, why?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Broadcasting): No, because there is no merger between Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) and MediaWorks.

Tracey Martin: If the reported rumour about this union is unlikely to happen, according to the Prime Minister’s statements—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just having difficulty hearing because of the noise from my right-hand side. Would the member start the supplementary question again.

Tracey Martin: If this union is unlikely to happen, according to the Prime Minister’s statements, then why has her Government been informed of talks, again according to the Prime Minister’s statements, between TVNZ and MediaWorks about potentially merging?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, as I have confirmed to the member in my primary answer, there is no merger between TVNZ and MediaWorks.

Tracey Martin: Is it not a fact that the National Government has been grooming TVNZ to be sold since October 1997, when Jim Bolger stated that he would consider the sale of TVNZ because no one could tell him the advantages of the State owning a TV network that it has no control over other than to pay bills and collect profit?

Hon AMY ADAMS: No. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need a bit of assistance.

Tracey Martin: Why should the New Zealand public believe anything she says, when her Government prides itself on selling State assets and, as everybody knows, hates public broadcasting?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The member needs to get a grip. I have made it very clear that there is no plan to merge with MediaWorks, there is no plan to sell TVNZ, and continuing to cast around wild misrepresentations and inaccuracy does not change any of that.

9. Schools—Teacher-aides

[Sitting date: 16 June 2016. Volume:715;Page:9. Text is subject to correction.]

9. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to help schools make the best use of teacher aides?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Teacher-aides work alongside teachers in our classrooms to enable students with additional learning needs to become more independent and confident. We have created an online resource that draws together practical ideas and strategies from New Zealand and around the world. It will also help school teachers and leaders ensure that the role and responsibility of aides is clear and that there are good systems, support, and training in place. Additional resources will be added to the guide in the coming months. They will include online training modules, videos of effective practice, and a self-review tool, which might also be handy for other members of the House.

Todd Muller: What else is the Government doing to support students with special education needs?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The online resource complements the $15.3 million Budget increase in funding for teacher-aides over the next 4 years. As part of Budget 2016, we have invested an additional $42.1 million of operating funding over the next 4 years into services for students with special needs. Under this Government, spending on special education has increased 29 percent. This investment will help some of our most disadvantaged students get the qualifications they need and ensure that they get the opportunity to be included with their peers and study in their local schools.

10. Families—Parents as First Teachers Programme

[Sitting date: 16 June 2016. Volume:715;Page:10. Text is subject to correction.]

10. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What is the estimated number of families who are recipients of the Parents as First Teachers programme who will no longer have access to support when the programme is cut in September 2016?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I expect that all families who are currently in the Parents as First Teachers Programme (PAFT) will still have access to some kind of support after September. We are reprioritising $7.3 million a year from PAFT into Family Start so that we can better target those at-risk families and children who need support the most. Family Start is an evidence-based, intensive home-visiting programme with proven results, and the changes will see an increase from 5,000 to 6,250 in the number of vulnerable families who can access Family Start at any one time. Parents as First Teachers is aimed at lower-risk families and has shown no evidence of effectively reducing child maltreatment, and families receiving PAFT will be able to access Family Start, if appropriate, and other resources such as SKIP, Incredible Years, Whānau Ora, Home Interaction Programme for Parents and Youngsters, and Mokopuna Ora right through to Well Child / Tāmāriki Ora, Plunket, Barnardos, Parents Inc., and Early Start. No one needs to miss out.

Jacinda Ardern: Is she aware that in many areas, especially those that are rural, Parents as First Teachers, or PAFT, is the only early intervention programme available, and even here in Wellington there will be more than 100 families enrolled in PAFT who will have nowhere to go in just 3 months’ time?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Actually, that is not right, because all areas currently offering Parents as First Teachers will be covered by Family Start. There will be new Family Start locations, which include Tauranga, Palmerston North, New Plymouth, and Timaru- Ashburton. I have made sure that the current PAFT contracts were extended through to September, instead of ending at the end of June, to allow providers to work with families to identify the most appropriate support for them.

Jacinda Ardern: I seek leave to table the list of providers for Family Start, which shows there is no service provision in Wellington and that PAFT is the only service here.

Mr SPEAKER: Where was the list being prepared from?

Jacinda Ardern: It is embedded deeply in the Ministry of Social Development website.

Mr SPEAKER: Then I will not bother to put the leave; members can find it. I thank the member.

Jacinda Ardern: Was the evaluation she used as the grounds to cut Parents as First Teachers the same evaluation that her own ministry conducted in 2011 that concluded “We consider the current evidence strong enough to support continuing to fund PAFT …”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes, but you selectively quote from a report that also says “to better meet criteria associated with child maltreatment.”, PAFT “would need to be more intensively and flexibly delivered, and perhaps augmented by a case-management approach for dealing with more serious family concerns”. That is from the same report.

Jacinda Ardern: Did Child, Youth and Family (CYF) advise her, before she cut Parents as First Teachers, claiming that it did not work with the most vulnerable families, that CYF itself frequently refers high-needs and at-risk families to this programme?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The decision was finally made based on an evaluation by the Ministry of Social Development, and it was not able to determine whether families who were enrolled with PAFT had better outcomes than families who were not. As I say, the PAFT programme is being replaced by Family Start, which targets the most vulnerable children in communities, has shown proven results, and is well evaluated.

Jacinda Ardern: The 2011 evaluation?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well, we are talking 2016.

Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek for the Minister to table the evaluation she has referred to. She has used it in an official supplementary response, and it is not an evaluation I have seen publicly available.

Mr SPEAKER: It is easily solved. Was the Minister, in giving her answer, quoting from an official document?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No.

Mr SPEAKER: She was not.

Jacinda Ardern: Has she seen reports from PAFT teachers who have listed a huge range of cases of women living with violence, suffering post-natal depression, struggling with premature birth or with English as a second language, or just living without support, who have all benefited from this programme, and will she commit to meeting with PAFT teachers and petitioners about her decision?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I understand that there are many families and educators who believe that PAFT has value. What I have said is that this Government is also targeting the most vulnerable children and families, and Family Start is a well-researched, well-evaluated programme that shows good results in the reduction of maltreatment.

Sue Moroney: Why are parents and parenting under attack from her National Government, with both her cuts to Parents as First Teachers and the financial veto just issued against parents having 26 weeks’ paid parental leave?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I refute absolutely every assertion in that member’s question.

11. State and Social Housing—Emergency Housing

[Sitting date: 16 June 2016. Volume:715;Page:11. Text is subject to correction.]

11. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Social Development: When she said that emergency accommodation motel debt could be forgiven “where there’s a genuine reason that they’ve suddenly found themselves in a crisis situation”, what did she mean by that genuine reason or crisis situation?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Under the Social Security Act, the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has the discretion to write off debt in exceptional circumstances. This may include when an error is made by the ministry, when a debtor has died and the estate is insolvent or already distributed, or in some cases when a debtor is declared bankrupt. It is also worth noting that for victims of family violence, a non-recoverable special-needs grant is available to cover the costs of immediate relocation. I would also point out to the member that when MSD lends people money it does not charge interest, and staff ensure that any repayments are affordable, starting from a few dollars a week.

Jan Logie: Will a family with a sick child, unable to afford to heat their house because they are repaying motel debt, have that debt forgiven?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I have said, that would be a question for the chief executive. However, the important point to make is that when people do incur a debt, as I say, there is no interest, and repayments are set at an affordable level.

Jan Logie: Is it the Minister’s expectation that a family that has left a motel and moved into a garage—because that is all they can afford—will have that motel debt forgiven?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Under the Social Security Act it is a decision of the chief executive of MSD to make such decisions.

Jan Logie: Is it the Minister’s expectation that the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development will forgive the motel debt for families that are sleeping on a relative’s floor because they cannot afford rent?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It is my expectation that the chief executive of MSD will follow the law.

Jan Logie: What kind of crisis will it take for the Minister to forgive the debt of desperate New Zealand families made homeless as a result of her Government’s failure to provide affordable housing?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As has been explained on many occasions to the member asking the question, the Minister for Social Housing announced that from 1 July—and we have brought that date forward from September—the special-needs grant for emergency housing of up to 7 days will be non-recoverable. However, where people have incurred a debt, it would be unfair on those who are repaying their debts to go back and pick and choose who is going to have to repay their debt and who is not.

12. Senior Citizens—World Elder Abuse Awareness Day

[Sitting date: 16 June 2016. Volume:715;Page:12. Text is subject to correction.]

12. PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister for Seniors: How has World Elder Abuse Awareness Day drawn attention to the problem of elder abuse and social isolation in New Zealand?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Seniors): Yesterday’s World Elder Abuse Awareness Day and the week that it commemorates is an opportunity for all New Zealanders to show that all older people need to be respected and valued. There are more than 2,000 reported cases of elder abuse and neglect a year. The majority of them—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am afraid that a fair amount of conversation has broken out, which makes it difficult for the—[Interruption] The member might expect the same respect one day himself.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Shall I repeat the answer?

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister can. [Interruption] Order! I have given permission for the Minister to start the answer again. I do not want interjection to start from a particular quarter I am looking at.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is important to respect our elders, and that is one of the points of World Elder Abuse Awareness Day and the week that follows it. Social isolation and loneliness among our seniors is particularly concerning as it increases people’s vulnerability to elder abuse. There are more than 2,000 cases reported in New Zealand each year, and that is about neglect as well. The majority of them are caused by family members and can take the form of emotional and financial abuse, as well as physical. That is why, as the Minister for Seniors, I have championed initiatives like Community Connects, which is a particular programme that is leading towards age-friendly communities, of which there are three being piloted in New Zealand.

Paul Foster-Bell: What new initiatives has she announced regarding positive role models for seniors?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Unlike some members of this House, there are many seniors who are worthy of respect and are “super seniors” in their form. I announced three new champions yesterday: Dame Malvina Major, the Hon Margaret Austin, and the actor Peter Hayden. They join the Champions programme launched a few months ago with Precious McKenzie, Dame Kate Harcourt, and Lance Girling-Butcher. These are inspirational role models who provide a voice for seniors about the issues that matter to seniors. Their advocacy, insight, and enthusiasm are vital to making sure seniors’ voices are heard.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the recent Trans Tasman report about how weak this Minister is.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat immediately. That is not a point of order.

Paul Foster-Bell: What reports has she seen on attitudes towards older people?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: A new survey that was commissioned by the Office for Seniors, called Attitudes Towards Ageing, which I launched yesterday, reveals that a large number of New Zealanders respect and value older people, but there are problems that remain in tackling social isolation, which is one of the key factors in elder abuse. Positive attitudes towards older people—despite the fact that there are some very badly behaved older people not too far from where I am standing—are vital for the well-being and self-esteem of seniors. On a more serious note, the survey showed that 10 percent of people aged over 50 felt excluded and isolated because of their age. Most seniors deserve a lot of respect, and they have earned it, and they have made this great country the country it is today. I respect them, if others do not in this Chamber.

© Scoop Media