• ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Economy—Performance

1. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Finance: What announcements has he made showing the Government is on track to continue delivering surpluses and supporting a growing economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Today I released Treasury's Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update. Treasury forecasts a surplus of $473 million this year, including the expected costs of the Kaikōura earthquake. It forecasts economic growth to an average of around 3 percent, over the next 5 years, a bit higher than in Budget 2016, and growing surpluses.

Jami-Lee Ross: What are the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update forecasts for employment and wages?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Treasury forecasts that unemployment will drop from 4.9 percent currently to around 4.3 percent by 2020. It expects another 150,000 jobs to be created over that period, which looks a reasonable forecast given that over the last 3 years there have been 250,000 new jobs, and it expects the average wage to increase by a further $7,500, to $66,000 a year, confirming a pattern of moderate but consistent income increases for households.

Jami-Lee Ross: What are the main reasons for the improvement in Treasury's forecasts since the Budget?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The economy is just growing a bit faster than was expected back in June. There are higher levels of construction activity, stronger tourism flows, a growing population, and ongoing low interest rates.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the Governor of the Reserve Bank admits to a select committee, yesterday, that the growth rate is not 3.5 or 3 percent but, when you factor in 2 percent population growth, something like half of that, why cannot the Minister be honest with the country and say the same thing?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We can say exactly the same thing, because that is the fact of the matter. The difference between the Government and the member is that we think New Zealanders staying home is good and the New Zealand First Party seems to think it would be better if they all went to Australia.

Stuart Smith: What is Treasury's advice on the impact of the Kaikōura earthquake?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As that member would know better than anyone in the House, the earthquake has had a major impact on families and businesses in his electorate. However, the earthquakes are not expected to disrupt the overall momentum of the economy. Treasury estimates that the total cost of the extensive Government support to the affected communities and the rebuilding of transport links will be $2 billion to $3 billion. In this financial year the Government is booking a cost of around $1 billion because that is what we expect to spend before June next year, mainly on supporting Earthquake Commission (EQC) claims and on the immediate response and recovery.

Grant Robertson: Why has he not taken the advice of current and former leadership aspirants from the National Party to take tax cuts off the table?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government announced its policy at the last Budget. This week we are having a bit of an internal discussion over changes in leadership, and whatever the result of the leadership contest, the Government will consider those options.

Grant Robertson: In light of projections of almost no real wage growth in the next 2 years in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update today and house prices increasing by 13.5 percent, when will working New Zealanders actually see the real benefits of economic growth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: They have been seeing real benefits of economic growth for the last 4 or 5 years. There are a lot different ways of measuring it, but superannuitants, for instance, have had consistent increases—almost double the rate of inflation—because their increases are tied to the average wage, which tells you the average wage has been going up faster than inflation.

• Finance, Minister—Statements

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement, "Ministers find it a little bit irritating" when asking for funding, and which Ministers was he referring to?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I stand14 by my full statement, which was: "All propositions … for the expenditure of significant public money … have to go through a thorough process. Sometimes Ministers find it a little bit irritating." Probably all Ministers find it a little bit irritating at some stage. However, we know that that did not happen in the last Labour Government, because it just shovelled out money to any Minister who asked for anything.

Andrew Little: Did the Minister of Police become irritated when his—the Minister's—underfunding forced her to break her election promise to maintain a police to population ratio of 1:500?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, I am not exactly sure what the member is referring to, but you would expect that in a Government that focuses on law and order and the safety of our communities, there is always discussion about how we can deal with those issues.

Andrew Little: Did the Minister of Police ask him in June for more funding for more police, and did he notice her irritation?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Minister of Police, like the Minister of Health and all other Ministers, I have found to be persistent and a strong advocate, not just for more money—fortunately, in this Government—but for the more effective use of public money to get results. That is how we all operate.

Andrew Little: Does he find it a little bit irritating that after he and Jonathan Coleman agreed to keep health $1.7 billion underfunded, Jonathan Coleman is now publicly complaining health is not properly funded?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not sure what the member is referring to, but, no. I do not find it irritating.

Andrew Little: Is he proud that his $1.7 billion underfunding of health has led to patients in Dunedin being served reheated slop that was cooked in Auckland?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I understand the provision of food in Dunedin, as tested by the Minister of Health, actually was not too bad. But, in respect of health funding, this Government makes it quite clear that it will fund services that make a difference to people's lives.

Andrew Little: Did he find it a little bit irritating when Paula Bennett announced her relocation grants policy the day before the Budget without telling him?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. It is great to see Ministers taking initiative. And, in general, I do not get nearly as irritated as that member.

Andrew Little: Did he find it a little bit irritating to discover that Simon Bridges' bridges policy had been invented the night before its release and against New Zealand Transport Agency advice that these bridges were not a prudent use of taxpayer funds?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. But the Government disagreed with the advice, and Northlanders are seeing progress on those bridges.

• Corrections, Department—Independent Oversight

3. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Corrections: What recent announcement has she made about strengthening the independent oversight of the Corrections system?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): Since earlier this year, I have been working with the State Services Commission to strengthen the oversight of the Corrections inspectorate. Inspectors were established to provide assurance around the delivery of Corrections services. They visit all public and private prisons, investigate incidents, investigate complaints, and undertake thematic reviews. They produce reports and recommendations that are considered by the chief executive. However, there has not been additional scrutiny or visibility of these reports, and Corrections will now provide me with regular reporting detailing the inspectors' recommendations and the chief executive's response to those recommendations, as well as the dates of implementation of actions. I have also asked the State Services Commission to work with the department to look at potential options to enhance the powers of the inspectorate through amendments to the Corrections Act.

Ian McKelvie: How will these changes make Corrections inspectorate reporting more transparent?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The new policy will require Corrections to publish summary reporting in full inspectorate reports, when appropriate, with necessary steps to protect privacy and security. It is my view that, as appropriate in terms of safety, security, and privacy, public visibility of our prisons should be the norm. There are actually a lot of good news stories coming out of our prisons: the efforts that go into rehabilitation learning are huge, and some of the results are outstanding. The staff are so committed to making a positive difference, and I do like to be able to highlight the positive when I can. But the reality is that things will and do go wrong at times when managing some of New Zealand's most difficult people, and public transparency of the system, whether it is good or bad, is critical.

• Sugary Drinks Tax—Study

4. JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Health: What is the name of the major global study on a sugary drinks tax by the Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology that he referenced in QWA 13827 (2016) and where was it published?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): I saw that this question referred specifically to issues pertaining to Mexico, and so I talked with a newly launched Mexican research and consultancy group known as the Four Amigos. They advised me that the study referred to is available only online under the title Taxing Calories in Mexico. However, the same group strongly advises that a wall should not be built around the issue of emerging evidence from Mexico.

Julie Anne Genter: Is the Minister aware that this study, one of only two that he told me that he was keeping a watching brief on for evidence about a sugary drinks tax, has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal and has been described by a reputable science and medical journal as industry-funded?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, look, whatever journal it actually appears in, it is available online. It may have been industry-funded, but I have also sought advice from the Ministry of Health, which states that the study does not add any new evidence to the debate about whether to introduce a sugar tax. The ministry also says that it makes a range of assumptions, and it also goes on to say that although there was an initial report of up to a 12 percent decline in sugar-sweetened beverage sales in Mexico following the introduction of a tax, those reports failed to control for other factors likely to have contributed to declining sales, including active public health and education campaigns and improved access to safe drinking water.

Julie Anne Genter: Does he stand by his statement about a sugary drinks tax in the House on 13 October that "I have talked to the Chief Science Advisor extensively about this, and he admitted that there was no clear evidence on the subject …"?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes.

Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that the advice he received from the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor on 3 July this year actually said: "There is now a lot more compelling data from Mexico and Europe. From being sceptical of the value of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes and their impact on consumption, recent evidence suggests a surprisingly—to me, at least—large and sustained effect, particularly in groups most at risk of obesity."?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, I obviously cannot confirm that, because I have not got the document, but there is no reason to disbelieve anything that the member says regarding that quote, so yes, she should table it.

Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table this letter to the Hon Jonathan Coleman from the office of the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, sent on 3 July 2016.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is not.

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

Julie Anne Genter: Does he accept the findings of the recently released, peer-reviewed, published study, also from Mexico, showing that the sugary drinks tax has modelled a reduction of nearly 200,000 fewer cases of type 2 diabetes, over 20,000 fewer strokes, and 19,000 fewer deaths, as well as saving its health system nearly a billion dollars over the next decade?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, I have not seen that study, and you would have to look at the methodology and read the study fully, but what I have said to the member many times before is that there is a meta-analysis of all the evidence on a sugary drinks tax that will be available next year. It is being done, actually—there are two different centres: one is the University of Waikato and one is the University of North Carolina. I am always open to considering the emerging evidence, but just plucking random quotes out of studies and presenting them in Parliament, frankly, that does not tell anyone anything.

Julie Anne Genter: Does the Minister see that there is a difference between "no clear evidence" and "recent evidence suggesting a large and sustained effect, particularly in the groups most at risk of obesity."?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, what I see a difference between is a clear analysis of the evidence and just random quotes presented out of context in Parliament by the member.

Julie Anne Genter: Will he now commit to investigating a sugary drinks tax here in New Zealand, given the overwhelming weight of peer-reviewed, published, scientific evidence that a sugary drinks tax will protect the health of our children, or will he continue to believe the non-published, non-peer-reviewed, industry-funded research that calls into question the overwhelming weight of evidence?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look, I would not advise anyone to do anything on the advice of a few quotes from Julie Anne Genter presented in Parliament, quite frankly.

Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table this peer-reviewed, published journal article called "Projected Impact of Mexico's Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Policy on Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease: A Modelling Study", which also states that the evidence that—

Mr SPEAKER: And is it easily accessible on the internet?

Julie Anne Genter: No, it is not. It is through the Public Library of Science Medicine, a peer-reviewed journal.

Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that the member is assuring us it is not easily obtained on the internet, I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular study. Is there any objection? There is objection.

• Budget 2017—Health

5. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: What indication, if any, has the Minister of Finance given him for Vote Health in Budget 2017 that led him to say "I think we've got to be very careful before we look at tax cuts. We've got to make sure we are properly funding health and education to the level that people expect"?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): The member will understand that my excellent colleague Bill English and I have been busy on other matters, and I would like to say he will make a very fine Prime Minister one day—it might be Monday; let us see. But, look, every year—[Interruption] Listen to this, you will like this. [Interruption] Yes, one day, or Monday. Every year Mr English says the same thing to me. He says: "We will lift our investment in health, but only, Dr Coleman, if you guarantee not to cut electives by 2,200 when your budget has gone up by $3 billion; not to cut general surgery by 1,500; paediatric surgery by 1,000; plastic and burns surgery and ear, nose, and throat by 1,300, despite getting that extra $3 billion." Then he says—bottom line—"We must not, absolutely must not, force over 440 patients to fly to Australia for basic cancer treatment. And, above all," Mr English says to me "Do not let the media say, after 6 years 'It is inconceivable that a Government could spend so much money and make the system worse.' " I do not know—who do you think that might have been about?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is certainly very long.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe the Minister said he was quoting an official document from the Minister of Finance, and I would like him to table it, please.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is very easily resolved. Was the Minister quoting from an official document?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I did not say that. What I said is that every year he—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am simply asking whether the Minister was quoting from an official document, and if he was—

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No.

Mr SPEAKER: Then that matter is easily resolved.

Hon Annette King: Does the level of health funding that people expect include access to affordable GP visits, the latest and best drugs that Australians have been getting for years but New Zealanders are paying for, more than the miserable 1 hour a week home help for a 96-year-old, and eye treatment before people go blind?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, look, it includes lots of things, including the dramatic lift in elective surgery under this Government, the massive increase in first specialist assessments, the 6,000 extra doctors, and there is an absolute expectation on behalf of the public that we will do more, not less. They certainly do not want to have to fly to Australia for the basics of the health system, like they used to have to.

Hon Annette King: If leadership is the ability to make hard decisions, why did he take over a year before increasing the drug budget to fund melanoma drugs for cancer patients, many of whom died waiting for him to take action and to show some compassion and care?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Of course, leadership is all about hard decisions, and if that member was the leader, she would have decided to leave the Parliament years ago and get on with life. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a supplementary question? [Interruption] Order!

Hon Annette King: Why has he decided to sabotage Bill English's second shot at leadership by saying health needs to be properly funded at the level people expect, implying the reasons for the growing problems in health are not his fault, but the Scrooge-like behaviour of the Minister of Finance?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I think, actually, that one feature of what has gone down over the last few days is the excellent, collegial spirit in which the competition has been held. And I can tell you what, this is important—

Hon Paula Bennett: They can't believe it, eh?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Because they are not used to this. But whoever comes out of that room is going to have the total backing of the whole National Party, and if—this bit is very important—it is Bill English, I will be 100 percent behind him. I will not do a Cunliffe to Goff. And Bill English, should he be the Prime Minister, will lead us to a great victory in 2017. You guys opposite will be there for a lot longer yet.

Hon Annette King: Is the real reason why he was so eager to stand as leader, apart from naked ambition, utu that he agrees with Judith Collins that Bill English has held back funding from portfolios like health and education and has made him look like a loser?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility—Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The only utu we are seeing in New Zealand is the 50 percent polling that the public is inflicting on the Labour Party because they are absolutely sick to death of that crowd over there and there is no way they ever want them back in Government. Quite frankly, they are unlikely to see a Labour Government back here for a good two or three terms yet.

Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 6—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! A little less interjection—I am calling Jonathan Young.

• Businesses, Small- and Medium-sized—Tax Obligations

6. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Revenue: What recent reports has he received regarding the time, money, and effort that small and medium sized businesses spend on meeting their tax obligations?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Revenue): The Inland Revenue Department recently surveyed small and medium sized businesses to understand how much time, money, and effort they spend meeting their tax obligations. From the surveyed group of over 4,000 small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), the results show that, overall, these SMEs consider that compliance costs have reduced considerably since 2013 and that the time investment required has halved since 2004. Overall, the median time SMEs spend meeting their tax obligations was 25 percent less than in 2013. Because they are spending less time, the median value of their in-house costs has also reduced by 24 percent. A further 87 percent said that it required about the same or less effort as it did a year before.

Jonathan Young: What factors were identified by small and medium sized business owners as contributing to the overall reduction in compliance costs?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The survey outlined several things, some of which the Inland Revenue Department is already doing, but, notably, the promotion of the Inland Revenue Department's reminder service that notifies customers when their filing payment dates have passed, an acknowledgement by email when all returns and payments are received by the Inland Revenue Department, less paperwork required, and better utilisation of digital filing channels. The survey findings reinforced the success of the actions that the Inland Revenue Department has been trying to do to make it easier for customers to meet their tax obligations.

Jonathan Young: What opportunities did the survey identify to further reduce compliance costs for small and medium sized businesses?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Several things: the promotion of the reminder service, as I mentioned; an acknowledgement by email when all returns and payments are received by the Inland Revenue Department; and improving the content and functionality of IRDs' website, like simplifying language. Furthermore, stage one of the Inland Revenue Department's long-term business transformation programme will be implemented early next year, allowing customers to better self-manage GST through a modernised and simplified online tax system, making it even easier for SMEs to meet their tax obligations.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What on earth is wrong with the publication system within his office that a backbench member of the National Government has not been sent this review so that he has to get up in this House and tediously and boringly waste this Parliament's time?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am quite sure that the member for New Plymouth not only received the review but read it in detail and, like me, wants to share very good news with the House and the New Zealand public.

• Economic Development, Minister—Statements

7. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by all of his statements in relation to the Te Tai Tokerau Northland Regional Growth Study and Action Plan; if so, how?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Yes, I do, and I am particularly excited that the member has asked that question today because one of the key actions of that plan is the Pūhoi to Wellsford highway north of Auckland, and today is a very special day. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport have launched the construction of the Pūhoi to Warkworth section, which is 18.5 kilometres of road that is going to help link Northland with Auckland. It is one of the most important projects in the plan. I want to thank the member for his question and for coming to the House to celebrate this great progress.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact, Minister, that after 8 years of this promise, as we speak, after 8 long years of this road of national significance, not 1 metre has been built?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I bring good news to the member. Starting today 18,500 metres of this project are being built—18.5 kilometres. It is a $709 million project. It is going to help tourism, it is going to help road transport, and it is even going to help the member get home to Saint Marys Bay after the day in the constituency.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What on earth happened, when he expresses today the Pūhoi to Warkworth highway, to his Pūhoi to Wellsford highway promise in the Northland by-election?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Only the member could be so negative the day the Government starts building a $700 million road to his constituency. He could be the only person to be that negative. But I checked, because I wondered whether he would be like that, and do you know, that member has put out 50 press releases on Northland this year, and literally 49 of those press releases have been negative about Northland? Literally one—this one I am holding—has been positive. I presume we can only expect him to come down here like the Grinch and decry a $700 million investment in Northland.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that the press release he was just waving about was in fact celebrating Winston Peters' election victory in his own seat?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is fair to say that he thinks he is the only good thing that has happened in Northland in 100 years, but no; it was on something else. But perhaps one of these 49 negative ones might be about Winston getting elected.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the plans proposing a $300 million Ngāwhā wood processing mill near Kaikohe were a key part of his and the Government's action plan to, using his words, "transform the region", how come the Minister of Energy and Resource's abject failure to rein in the Electricity Authority's proposed power increases has seen that $300 million plan axed just yesterday?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Ngāwhā proposal was one of 58 actions in the Northland regional action plan. That is why it is exciting to talk about the road today, which is one of the other 58 actions in the plan. That is a $700 million investment in Northland. In terms of that particular project, it is not just about the Electricity Authority—and I understand, for the member, that it is going to release some updated proposals next week, so he should wait for those. It is primarily about perhaps not having enough wood resource at this stage in that part of the region. The good news is with a brand new road we will be able to bring timber in from south of Auckland, if he wants, to the new Ngāwhā processing plant.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which does not exist after yesterday.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can we just have—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. That is not the way to rise to start a supplementary question. If the member wants one I might entertain it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How will wood be brought all the way up north on his superhighway to a complex that has now been shut down as of yesterday in terms of its planning, and could he tell us what he is going to do, for example, about extra power pricing increases for the Northland Strategic Irrigation Infrastructure Study, another big statement he made when he was bulldusting around Northland?

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Steven Joyce—there were two questions there. The Minister can address either.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member would know something about power price increases, because when he was in Government they increased dramatically, and they are actually decreasing around the country over the last couple of years. But once again, "Mr Glass Three-quarters Empty", the project is not going ahead at this point, but it may go ahead in the future. They have just put it on the shelf, because the bigger problem is lack of wood, as I pointed out. But, for the member, there is lots of other good news. There is the Hundertwasser Art Centre in Whangarei the Government is helping; there is the Queensland Resort College's Tai Tokerau Resort College in Paihia; there are the ultra-fast broadband projects. We have put in half the funding for the improvement of Whangarei Airport, which will open in the next couple of weeks—

Mr SPEAKER: Bring the answer to a conclusion.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —and, of course, there is the $700 million for the Pūhoi to Wellsford road. I am waiting for the member's second positive press release of the year.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why would any halfway informed person say about Northland in respect of Ngāwhā that there could be a shortage of wood when there are football fields of wood being transported off overseas in the most raw form, which is Northland's problem that he is doing nothing about?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member wants us to build a wood wall around Northland to stop the logs leaving.

• Schools, Partnership and State—National Certificate of Educational Achievement, Results

8. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Does she believe that partnership schools should report NCEA results using the same methodology as state schools; if so, why hasn't this been the case so far?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Kia ora, kia ora, kia ora.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Kia ora. It is not a question of belief; it is a question of fact. The member opposite is incorrect in stating that State schools are required to report their National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) results; they are not. Partnership schools have a higher accountability framework in exchange for a higher level of flexibility, and are, therefore, required to report their results. As there was no reporting regime for schools when the partnership school model was developed, the Ministry of Education provided an initial accountability model to take into account the point-of-time reporting regime required. As per the education report released under the Official Information Act, which the member has a copy of, the calculation has been reviewed, and round-three contracts that were recently signed calculate the performance measure for partnership schools on the same basis as provided on the Education Counts website.

Chris Hipkins: Why did she award performance bonuses to partnership schools last year on the basis that they had achieved their performance targets, given the Ministry of Education has now advised her that had their performance been measured using the Education Counts methodology, which every other State school in the country is measured based on, at least two of them would not have met the criteria to get their performance bonus?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: They are not performance bonuses; they are an amount held back. They were awarded on the basis that at Vanguard Military School 91.4 percent achieved NCEA level 1 and 60 percent achieved level 2, and Te Kura Hourea o Whangarei Terenga Parāoa achieved 77.8 percent and 55.6 percent, respectively.

Ron Mark: What about Whangaruru?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The Whangaruru partnership school did not meet its performance standards and has been closed. Partnership schools are characterised not only by their flexibility, but by a requirement in the contract that 75 percent of their roll should be the kids who are least served by the existing education system. They are also characterised—as all other schools are—by choice. No parent is forced to send their child to a partnership school, but they do so because they fear that their children have not been successful in the other options. Their children are doing better, on average. There is more work to do. But if we looked at State schools as well—

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

Hon HEKIA PARATA: —we would also find failure there. We do not give up on any child.

Chris Hipkins: Why does she have confidence in the integrity of the information being supplied by partnership schools in their performance reporting, given that one school, which reported that 93.3 percent of its leavers had achieved NCEA level 2, found that its results dropped to just 6.7 percent when it was assessed using the same methodology on the Education Counts website that State school performance is measured on?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I want to answer that question in two parts. The particular school that the member is referring to failed. We have closed it. In terms of the first part, I have no indication that the sponsors are deliberately misreporting their results, and, secondly—

Carmel Sepuloni: Waste of money, and you're using kids as guinea pigs.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: —we have a unit in the Ministry of Education dedicated to working with them—and the member next door to the member asking the question should know that Pasifika kids are actually getting a good deal with these options.

Carmel Sepuloni: Really? Really?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Really—ask the parents who have chosen to send them there, rather than having the Opposition deciding where they should be sent.

Chris Hipkins: Why does she have confidence in the performance information being supplied by partnership schools, when one of the partnership schools, which reported a 100 percent NCEA pass rate at level 2, and thereby exceeded its performance target in its contract, was reassessed and found to have only had a 60 percent pass rate at NCEA level 2, and therefore had not met its performance contract?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The reason that the member can ask these questions is the utmost transparency with which we run all schools in New Zealand, and every 3 months we release this data. If the member looks closely at the table on page 6, he will see reported results—

Chris Hipkins: Yep—got it right here. Right there.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: —exactly right—and there is a further column that has those recalibrated against the Education Counts website. So I can assure the member we have a Ministry of Education working with sponsors to ensure that they are indeed reliable data and that they are comparable.

Chris Hipkins: Why should the public have confidence that partnership schools' performance is being rated on the same basis as State school performance, when the criteria that she used to award their performance bonuses last year was different to the criteria that State schools are measured by, and schools that had been deemed to have met their performance criteria did not meet their performance criteria when assessed on the same basis as every other school?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: First of all, it is "different from", but anyway, to go to the substance of the question, this is a model evolving, in the same way as other models—kura kaupapa, for instance, the development of

[Authorised Te Reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

We are developing performance data with them as well, to better capture it. I have confidence, and the public should have confidence, because we report very clearly on what is happening. We account for every dollar. Actually, partnership schools have a much higher accountability framework. They are contracted. They are required to report quarterly. We provide that information for the Opposition, because it is the only issue they seem to have questions on in education.

• Disability Issues, Minister—Announcements

9. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister for Disability Issues: What recent announcements has she made regarding initiatives that will help New Zealand to become a non-disabling society?

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister for Disability Issues): I recently launched the new disability strategy, which will guide the direction of Government agencies on disability issues for the next 10 years. It was developed after nationwide consultation with disabled people, their families, whānau, and supporters. More than 1,130 people attended workshops across the country, and 770 submissions were received.

Barbara Kuriger: How does the new disability strategy differ from the 2001 New Zealand Disability Strategy?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: The new strategy will have teeth, and it will be backed by supporting documents that will give tangible outcomes. It will work in conjunction with the Disability Action Plan and a new outcomes framework, which will develop specific targets and indicators to measure the success of the strategy. Furthermore, a disability data and evidence plan is being developed to ensure that the Government's decisions are based on the best possible evidence.

• Police—Resourcing

10. STUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of Police: When she said in an interview with Paul Henry yesterday that the "over-engineering and overthinking that can happened when a government or a party has been in government for quite some time" means "it is really important just to get on with the job", was she referring to the fact that she has been working on a plan since June for more police but still nothing has been delivered?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): No. I was referring to how this party is going to win the next election in 2017.

Stuart Nash: When she stated yesterday that her vision for New Zealand is that "I need more police, and I need them now.", does that mean her vision is not currently shared by the Minister of Finance?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Not at all.

Stuart Nash: When she stated in the House on Tuesday that "We will soon see, will we not.", in regard to whether the Minister of Finance has given her all the funding she needs, what exactly did she mean?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Exactly what I said.

Stuart Nash: Does she believe that the police have enough resources to handle an increase in the youth justice age, given that she stated in 2008, of any increase, that people would "think we were a bunch of wussies" if it were to increase?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: If the member wants to go ahead and make an Official Information Act request for the Cabinet papers, he will see that that matter has been dealt with.

Stuart Nash: Now that she has delayed her bid for the leadership of her party until later next year, can Police expect 6 more months of inaction on increasing police numbers because of Bill English's love of committee after committee, as she so rightly highlighted yesterday?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No.

• Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989—Second Amendment

11. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Social Development: Is she still intending to introduce the second amendment to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 this year, now that the Māori Women's Welfare League has filed a claim in the Waitangi Tribunal challenging the proposed changes?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Yes, I am committed to ensuring that children and young people and their safety and well-being is at the heart of the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki. The second stage of the changes tabled today will do this by: allowing young people to remain in care or return to care up to the age of 21, with transition support and advice available up until 25; establishing an information-sharing framework to keep vulnerable children safe from harm; and, as I announced yesterday with Minister Adams, including low-risk 17-year-olds in the youth justice system. The proposals would also amend the purposes and principles of the Act to give explicit recognition to key Māori concepts of mana tamariki, whakapapa, and whanaungatanga when working with tamariki Māori.

Jan Logie: Does the bill include any of the changes to the whānau, hapū, and iwi provisions that prompted the Waitangi Tribunal claim?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well, my first answer would be that the member should read the bill; it is on the table. But as I have said from the very beginning, and will continue to say, the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, will put the safety and well-being of children and young people first, above everything else. The very best outcome for all tamariki is to be with their family, their wider whānau or hapū, in a safe, stable environment.

Jan Logie: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is probably pretty obvious—I asked if it included any of the changes to those provisions that were outlined in the Cabinet papers and prompted the claim.

Mr SPEAKER: No, but it then went on to add whether those potential changes might have prompted a claim to Waitangi Tribunal. I am not sure how you could expect the Minister to know what prompted the claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. It has been addressed.

Jan Logie: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I have made a ruling, but I will listen to the member.

Jan Logie: Thank you. I am seeking—because it was clear in their claim that they were prompted by the Cabinet papers that spoke explicitly about changing those provisions. So that is not up for debate, so I really was asking for an answer about those—

Mr SPEAKER: What I will do to move the matter forward—being generous on a Thursday—is I will give the member the opportunity to ask an additional supplementary question. She may be advised to re-phrase the one that she just tried.

Jan Logie: Does the bill include any of the changes to the whānau, hapū, and iwi provisions, as outlined in the Cabinet papers, that prompted the Waitangi Tribunal claim?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Not knowing what prompted the claim in the eyes of the Māori Women's Welfare League, what I would suggest to the member is that those were three papers of about eight that were taken to Cabinet to propose the wide raft of changes to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act. I refer the member to bill No. 2, section 13, parts 2A to 2L, that goes through, consistently, all the issues that need to be taken into account when any intervention with whānau is considered. But, I repeat, the bill makes it very clear—and I am very clear in my mind as the Minister promoting the bill—that the very best place for tamariki is with their whānau in a safe, stable, and loving environment.

Jan Logie: Actually, I am going to ask the same question again, because the Cabinet papers specifically—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. I gave her an opportunity. The member has now asked that question twice. I consider that it had probably been addressed the first time; it has certainly been addressed the second time. It is over to the member how she phrases her own questions, but supplementary questions are an opportunity for her to quiz a Minister. There seems little point in being repetitive, but it is the member's opportunity to ask supplementary questions.

Jan Logie: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Were you just clarifying to me that I can use my supplementary questions in any way that I wish?

Mr SPEAKER: Absolutely, provided it is within the rules of Standing Orders, the member has the ability. I guess I am giving her some advice; it is over to her whether she takes it.

Jan Logie: My question is around the provisions in the Cabinet papers that explicitly talked about removing and changing provisions to the whānau, hapū, and iwi parts of the Act. Have any of those changes been included in this bill?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: My answer is, largely, as I have given, and I refer the member to that section 13. But to help her and to help the House, there is a list of things that have to be taken into account—that have to be considered—when making decisions about a child, and they include: that, wherever possible, the relationship between the child or young person and their family, whānau, and usual caregiver is respected, supported, and strengthened; the relationship between the child or young person and their siblings is respected, supported, and strengthened; and the family, whānau, hapū, iwi, and usual caregiver have a voice and a role in decisions made about the child or young person. As I said in my answer to the primary question, we have included those terms that give particular recognition to key Māori concepts of a child—mana tamaiti or tamariki, whakapapa, and whanaungatanga—when working specifically with tamariki Māori, so that means that we have extended the provisions that were in those original first three Cabinet papers.

Jan Logie: If the Waitangi Tribunal agrees to consider the claim, will she delay the bill to ensure that the reforms do not breach the Government's obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have tabled the bill in the House today.

• Planting of New Forests—Support

12. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Associate Minister for Primary Industries: How is the Government supporting the planting of new forests?

Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Primary Industries): Recently I announced the results of the Afforestation Grants Scheme's 2016 funding round. I am pleased to report to the House that more than 5.5 million seedlings will be planted next winter. With the approval by the Ministry for Primary Industries of 81 applications for 4,818 hectares of new forest, this is a fantastic result for forestry in New Zealand. That is 1,900 hectares more than last year's funding round. The member will be pleased to hear that 333 hectares of new forests will be planted in the Marlborough region.

Stuart Smith: How has increasing uptake of the scheme benefited regional New Zealand?

Hon JO GOODHEW: Forests are a vital part of our economy, whether it be for carbon absorption or reducing land erosion. This scheme is making a real contribution. Uptake for this scheme has nearly doubled, and new forests will be planted in regions all around New Zealand, providing a welcome source of new economic growth and employment opportunities through the $6.2 million investment. Regions that will benefit from new forests include the following: Hawke's Bay, 555 hectares; Manawatū-Wanganui, 755 hectares; Northland, 440 hectares; Taranaki, 594 hectares; and Waikato, 547 hectares. They are but some of the regions that benefit.

David Seymour: How did the Government decide that New Zealanders are planting an insufficient number of trees, and how does the Government know what the correct or optimal number of trees to plant is?

Hon JO GOODHEW: What the Government knew was that we had a previous Afforestation Grants Scheme that was very, very popular. It encouraged, often, farm forestry exponents to plant trees in small lots on highly erodible land. They would otherwise not have done this. This is good for the climate, this is good to prevent land erosion, and it also gives employment to other people. This is a scheme that has a lot of positive benefits for New Zealand, and that is why the Government is doing it.

© Scoop Media