• TUESDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Prime Minister—Child Poverty

1. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he agree with Children's Commissioner Judge Andrew Becroft that the level of child poverty means "this is not the New Zealand I grew up in nor is it the New Zealand most of us want"; if so, what responsibility does he take as Prime Minister for his Government's record?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): We do not want children growing up in persistent deprivation. I am proud of the steps the Government has already taken, including raising benefits by $25 per week for the first time in 40 years—something not done by the previous Labour Government. Alongside raising incomes, we are focusing on dealing with the complex dysfunction that traps families in long-term low incomes.

Andrew Little: Why are there more children living in poverty today than 8 years ago, when National took office?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not agree with the member's assertion.

Hon Members: Oh!

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, the New Zealand Government publishes the most comprehensive measures of income of all developed countries in the world. The most recent information is up to 2014, which is prior to changes in free doctors visits for under-13s, the hardship package that was introduced under this Government, and other measures that we are taking for smarter support for vulnerable families.

Andrew Little: Why, after 8 years, has his Government not set targets to reduce income poverty and material deprivation amongst New Zealand children?

Hon Paula Bennett: Well, we have.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have. We have set quite specific targets in respect of all those factors that create the circumstances of persistent deprivation—that is, reduction in recidivism rates, reduction in long-term welfare dependency, and reductions in rheumatic fever. We have insulated 300,000 homes to improve the standard of housing and reduce poor housing, and, as I have said, we have increased incomes for families on benefits for the first time in 40 years.

Andrew Little: Is it acceptable to him that, according to the Child Poverty Monitor report, 110,000 Kiwi kids live in houses with severe damp or mould problems?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course that is not acceptable; the question is what steps should be taken to deal with it. This Government has insulated 300,000 such houses, and now runs much more focused systems for dealing with those children who show signs of ill health because of the quality their housing.

Andrew Little: How much money over the last 8 years has his Government taken out of Housing New Zealand in dividends, while Emma-Lita Bourne got sick and died in a cold, mouldy State house?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the member misunderstands exactly how Housing New Zealand's finances work, but when tenants are experiencing ill health because of the standard of those State houses, money is not a barrier to fixing them. All such incidents are meant to be dealt with by Housing New Zealand within a short amount of time precisely because of the ill effects on the tenants.

David Seymour: Is not the real problem with housing and poverty the fact that New Zealanders produce half as many homes per capita as we did in the 1970s?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member puts his finger on the nub of the issue. Misguided planning laws over the last 10 or 20 years have meant that our cities have not been allowed to grow, and that has helped to push up the price of housing and has made it less likely that good-quality, lower-cost housing is built in our cities.

Andrew Little: Will he back my bill to make it illegal to rent out damp, mouldy, unhealthy homes, or does he think it is OK for slum landlords to exploit poor families and make kids sick?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is already the law, in fact, that you cannot rent out a home that is going to be bad for someone's health.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: To the Minister, is it not a fact that our parliamentary colleague from Epsom has stumbled on it—that we are not building nearly enough houses as we were in the 1970s and that we got mass immigration, which he has allowed in, in the 1990s and the 2000s?

Hon Members: Who's the question to?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Who was the question to?

Mr SPEAKER: Did the Prime Minister not hear the question? I can have it repeated.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I think I did. It is the case that there have been fewer houses built per 100,000 people in New Zealand in the last 10 or 15 years, because the planning laws have been designed to stop that happening. As for immigration, the National-led Government stands proudly open to trade, investment, and migration.

Andrew Little: After 8 years of rising child poverty on his watch, will he sign up to Andrew Becroft's target of reducing child poverty by 10 percent in the next year and take immediate steps to get there, or are we going to continue to hear empty words, just like we did from his predecessor?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Since 2012 we have published a set of quite focused targets aimed at dealing with the social dysfunction that traps families in the combination of welfare dependency, criminal recidivism, low education levels, and child abuse. The data about that is more detailed and more transparent than in pretty much any other developed country, and the Government is acting on that information—in many cases, family by family, because that is the only way to change their lives. Signing up to a target does not change their lives.

Metiria Turei: Does he accept the finding of the Children's Commissioner's report that on average 28 New Zealand children die each year of a poverty-related condition—each of those years being when National has been in Government?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, I have not seen the detail of that. The Child Poverty Monitor takes information from the Government's annual report on the state of incomes and households across New Zealand. But I think both the Labour and Green parties grossly oversimplify this issue. If it was just a matter of income, there would be no child poverty, because incomes are higher than they were. The hard bit we are dealing with in child poverty is the social dysfunction that has been there for 20 or 30 years, and this Government is addressing that in a more focused, thorough, and transparent way than any previous Government.

David Seymour: Is it not also related that one in five of the 60,000 children born in New Zealand every year are born into a family dependent on benefits?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think that is roughly the case. Of more concern is that about one in 100 of these children are born into households where there is criminal offending, child abuse, violence, and long-term welfare dependency. We are closely focused on working with those families to break what are long-term cycles of deprivation.

Metiria Turei: What is the point of his Government's interventions if not one of them has saved a single one of those children's lives?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I just do not agree with the member. I mean, there have been quite sophisticated advances in, for instance, interventions around rheumatic fever, where the rate of diagnosis of rheumatic fever has halved in the last 3 years, precisely because of excellent work done by the Minister of Health and the Minister for Social Development. The rate of substantiated child abuse, which was rising, has flattened out. Those measures, among many others, may well have saved lives.

Metiria Turei: So how many families in 2017 does he expect will have to bury their children who have died because of poverty-related illness?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would hope none. I would hope none because it would be a tragedy for any family to bury their child. But what I do know is that billions of dollars have been spent ineffectively in the last 20 to 30 years because of following the recipe that that member would advocate, which is to throw money at the problem. This Government is doing a much smarter job of supporting our vulnerable families, and, of course, we have a long way to go.

• Economy—Reports

2. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the strength of the New Zealand economy?

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member, Mr Speaker—could you advise the House whether you have been advised of any change in warrants from the finance Minister that we have had up until today to today? Mr English is, as far as we know, still the finance Minister.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: You will be aware that post events that saw the change in leadership earlier this week, the Hon Bill English resigned as Minister of Finance, and, therefore, Minister Joyce is Acting Minister of Finance. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Anticipating that the point may be raised, I did source the ministerial list dated 12 December. Mr English has relinquished the finance portfolio, and at this stage the Hon Steven Joyce is the Acting Minister of Finance. [Interruption] Order! For the benefit of the member, if I refer him then to Speaker's ruling 192/7, he will see that, indeed, the Acting Minister must now answer question No. 2.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance): On Friday Moody's reaffirmed our Aaa stable rating and the strength of the New Zealand economy. Moody's issuer comment references last week's Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) release, which supports its view that New Zealand's public finances are very strong and highlights the importance of ongoing expenditure restraint in ensuring a sound financial position. Moody's also notes New Zealand's track record of policy predictability and effectiveness and the Government's ability to implement policies and reforms that foster economic growth. Finally, Moody's forecasts a smooth political transition with a continuation of the policies that have created this strong economic position.

Jami-Lee Ross: What is the economic outlook according to last week's forecast from Treasury?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Last week's half-year update confirms a strengthening outlook for the New Zealand economy. Real GDP growth is expected to average around 3 percent over the next 5 years, unemployment is forecast to fall to 4.3 percent, and another 150,000 jobs are forecast to be created over the 4-year period, on top of the 200,000 new jobs in the economy since 2014. Average wages are expected to continue rising faster than inflation, up another $7,500 to $66,000 by 2020-2021. This is a Government that is committed to building on 8 years of hard work, delivering real results for New Zealanders and their families.

Jami-Lee Ross: How is New Zealand placed to deal with any risks in the global economic environment?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: New Zealand is well placed. The HYEFU shows net debt peaked as a proportion of our economy in 2015-16, a year earlier than previously expected, and is projected to fall to around 18.8 percent of GDP by 2020-21. That puts us in a strong position to deal with any shocks in what is still an uncertain global environment, or further natural disasters like those we have seen in Canterbury and Kaikōura. It puts us in a particularly strong position when compared with what is happening internationally, where debt levels in Europe and the US are many times what they are here. This positive position is a testament to the strong economic management of our former Prime Minister John Key and our current Prime Minister Bill English.

Jami-Lee Ross: What are the fiscal priorities of the Government?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government's economic and fiscal priorities remain unchanged. Although last week's HYEFU is forecasting the positive performance of the New Zealand economy to carry on, it is important that we continue to keep on top of spending and pay down debt in strong economic times. We will build on our strength as a diversifying economy with a safe, stable, and secure business environment focused on attracting investment and growing innovation in the economy. We will continue to strongly advocate for free trade, recognising that New Zealand's interests are best served by being an open trading economy. And we will continue to provide strong and stable Government for New Zealand.

David Seymour: In his pre-scripted answer to that question did he forget to mention cutting tax and letting hard-working New Zealanders keep more of their own money?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As the member, I am sure, knows, because he is a good student of politics, the Government has a range of fiscal priorities, which include paying down debt, investing in infrastructure, investing in public services, and considering the tax burden on hard-working New Zealanders. The exact shape of those will be considered over time, but politicians should always remember that the money they have to spend comes from hard-working Kiwi families.

• Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill—Advice

3. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Māori Development: He aha tāna whakamāherehere, mēnā rā i a ia tētahi, tā tāna Manatū ranei, i hoatu e pā ana ki ngā whakahīrautanga o te Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill, ki runga tamariki Māori, me ō rātou whānau, hapū, iwi?

[What advice, if any, did he or his ministry provide on the implications of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill for tamariki Māori and their whānau, hapu, and iwi?]

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Mr Speaker, tēnā koe i tērā pātai. Ko tāku, ko tāku Tari he kaha aki kia titiro i Te Ture ki te tamaiti Māori, kaua i tōna kotahi ēngari, ki a rātau, kō tōna whānau, tonā hapū, tōna iwi. Nā, ko tētahi o ngā hua o ō mātau, kei te tautoko i te pire i ngā kaupapa me ngā ūara Māori, pēnei i te mana tāmaiti, mana tamariki, whakapapa me te whanaungatanga.

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

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister support the bill, which, according to the Government's own Cabinet papers, would increase the placement of tamariki Māori in non-kin care and therefore remove even more tamariki Māori from the care of their whānau, hapū, and iwi?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Ko tāku, ko te tautoko i tētahi kaupapa e mea ana, me noho tētahi here o te tamaiti ki tōna whānau, tōna hapū, tōna iwi, kia noho tērā here ko te iwi, ko te whānau, ko te hapū ki te tamaiti. Ko te whakapapa, ko te whanaungatanga i tipu ake ai ki roto i te tamaiti i ngā tau. Koirā te kaupapa nui, kāre i kō atu, kāre i kō mai.

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

Metiria Turei: How can the Minister and Te Puni Kōkiri be OK with the bill, when the changes that are being made cut right against the rangatiratanga of Māori to care for our own tamariki?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Tenei taku kōrero i mua, ko tāku, ko tāku Tari ko te kī atu, kia noho tapu te hononga o te tamaiti ki tōna whānau, ki tōna hapū, ki tōna iwi. Ko tētahi kaupapa, kāore i whai i tēna huarahi, kore au e whakaae atu, kāre i kō atu, kāre i kō mai.

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

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister support then, the removal from the current law of the provision that requires that priority be given to placing a child with "a person—(i) who is a member of the child's or young person's hapu or iwi (with preference being given to hapu members), or, if that is not possible, who has the same tribal, racial, ethnic, or cultural background as the child …".?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Kei kī mai wētahi, kai te whakatōwai au i ngā kōrero, me pēnei rawa te kōrero, ko te whakapapa o te tamaiti he kaupapa nui ki a au, otirā, ki taku Tari, otirā, ki Te Ao Māori, ki ngā tamariki te tikanga, ko tērā kaupapa kei mua tonu atu i tētahi atu kaupapa, nō reira, tāku ko te kī atu, mēnā 60 paihēneti, 65 pai hēneti rānei o ngā tamariki kua hereherea i roto i tēnei tari, te tikanga ia, ko te tirohanga, he tirohanga ko te painga o ngā tamariki Māori. Koinei tāku, ka waiho ake ki reira.

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

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree with the president of the Māori Women's Welfare League, who has put in a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal about this bill, "that the policy changes to a safe, stable, loving home without the existing priority of placement within whanau, hapu, and iwi is a breach of the rangatiratanga and partnership guarantees under the Treaty of Waitangi".?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Well, ko te mate kē kai mua tērā take i Te Taraipiunara o Waitangi, te tikanga ia ka waiho māna tērā pātai e whakatau, kaua māku.

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

Metiria Turei: Has the Minister received any advice from the Government's support party, the Māori Party, that the bill will mean that more babies will be taken permanently from their whānau?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: I ētahi wā, ā, ka rongo i ngā kōrero, pēnei i tāku e kī nei ki te mema, kai te rongo ake i te tikanga o ana pātai, kai te rongo ake, i te wairua o te pātai, tōna mutunga kotahi tonu te kaupapa kai mua i te aroaro, ko te tiaki i wā tātau tamariki. Koia nā te kaupapa nui. Mēnā ka eke tēnei pire ki tōna taumata, ā, taihoa ake nei ka whiriwhirihia ki roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata, ka mutu, ka rongo a taua wā, ko te whakatau o Te Pāti Māori. Waiho ake mā rātau tērā e korero.

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

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific: has he received any advice from a Government support party, the Māori Party, about the interpretation of the bill—the effect of the bill. He did not answer that question.

Mr SPEAKER: I think on this occasion he did. He acknowledged that he had received advice and said that in his mind the primary interest was the care of the child. The question has been addressed.

Metiria Turei: Is he, as Minister for Māori Development, concerned that the current law allows for more Māori babies to be taken from their mothers at birth, and that now this law will mean that those babies taken at birth may never know their whakapapa?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Ā, mō ngā āhuatanga o te pire, ka waiho ake mā Te Minita tērā e kōrero ēngari, mō te wāhi ki a au ā-Māori nei, ā-Minita nei, ko ngā tamariki, ko ngā mokopuna me noho tērā here ki wā rātau whānau. Koina te kaupapa nui kai tōku ngākau, ka kaha nei au ki te tohe, ki te pakanga mō tērā kaupapa, kia tutuia te ara whanaunga, ko te tamaiti Māori ki tōna iwi, ki tōna whānau, ki tōna hapū. Ka tohe au mō tērā, pai mai, kino mai!

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the very private and secret talks between the Māori Party and the Green Party recently, why was he not able to sort this matter out?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Ē, aroha ki te pātai, Mr Speaker, i te mea, kāre Te Pāti Māori, otirā, ahau i kōrero ki ngā Kākāriki.

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

• Pike River Mine Disaster—Meeting with Families

4. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Has he met with the families of the Pike River miners today; if not, why not?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): It has not been possible to meet with the families at such short notice, but I ran into Bernie Monk this morning. I am happy to meet with the families at some point in the future, and possibly before Christmas, but I must emphasise that any decision to re-enter the mine is not a political decision. It is a decision about the safety of the mine.

Andrew Little: In light of his answer that it is not a political question, is he going to keep John Key's promise and do everything he can to get the bodies out?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is a question of whether it is safe to get the bodies out without putting other lives at risk. Compared with any other workplace in New Zealand where Kiwis right now are worried about their safety, this is a particularly dangerous one. That is really the key issue.

Andrew Little: Will he come with me after question time to have a proper meeting with the families, look them in the eye, and tell them why he is ignoring their pleas?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, because that would be falling in with the Leader of the Opposition's view that there is a political decision to be made, which may involve putting New Zealanders' lives at risk in one of the most dangerous workplaces, as we know, in New Zealand. The core issue here is to respect the distress of the families but acknowledge that the decision about going in the mine is essentially one of safety, not politics. That member would be the first to complain if more lives were lost because a politician overrode the law passed by this Parliament.

Andrew Little: When he says it should be up to the experts to determine whether re-entering the mine is safe, is he aware a report saying re-entry is safe has been written by Dr David Creedy, vice-chair of the UN Group of Experts on Coal Mine Methane, and Bob Stevenson, former UK principal mines inspector, and that the report has been peer reviewed and endorsed by the United Kingdom's leading mines rescue expert, Brian Robinson, and by mining ventilation experts John Rowland and Dr Roy Moreby?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place, my general understanding of the reports is that they say it may be possible, which is not the same as saying it is safe. Secondly, the member should understand the legislation that he advocated for, which brings together judgment about safety and legal responsibility for anyone in that workplace. Whatever any independent expert says, someone who is responsible for the people who might go into that mine is legally responsible for their lives. That is the correct way, according to the law of the land, that that decision should be made, not with some political meeting, misleading the families that somehow the law can be overridden.

Andrew Little: Why does he not do the right thing, listen to the families, and fulfil his Government's promise to do everything he can to get their men out?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government, of course, has explored at some length the possibilities in respect of retrieving the bodies from the mine, but it is not going to be put in the position where a political decision is made that puts lives at risk, in contravention of the law of this Parliament. The member does not seem to understand that right now there are people putting up scaffolding around one-storey houses, because that is what the law requires of the employers of painters to ensure that the risks are mitigated, and if they go to that trouble to fulfil their legal responsibilities, imagine what effort would have to be made to go to the trouble of protecting a single person from every danger in that mine.

Ron Mark: If all of that was known to his Government at the time that the former Prime Minister made his pledge, why will he not simply, to quote the Prime Minister, "get some guts" and do the right thing?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is simply not the right thing for a politician to override our workplace safety legislation and instruct people to put their lives at risk. Those risks are likely to be unreasonable.

• Pharmac—Funding

5. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that, as a result of the Government's increased funding of $124 million over 4 years, Pharmac has recently announced a funding package for three new treatments, including for metastatic breast cancer?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes. Last week Pharmac announced a significant funding package, which includes three new treatments: for metastatic breast cancer, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. This is Pharmac's third significant funding package following Budget 2016, and it also includes widened access to three existing medicines and considerable savings on five existing medicines. This new package demonstrates Pharmac's world-class model for increasing subsidised medicines and treatments for New Zealanders.

Dr Shane Reti: How else is Pharmac delivering better access to medicines for New Zealanders?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Earlier this year Pharmac announced two new funding packages, including widened access to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations, funding for two new hepatitis C medicines, as well as treatment for advanced melanoma. Under this Government, Pharmac's budget is now a record $850 million, and it has increased by $200 million since 2008. As a result, over the last 8 years, nearly 170 new medicines have been subsidised and access has been broadened to 245 medicines, directly benefiting over 800,000 New Zealanders.

Hon Annette King: Does he think it is fair that breast cancer patients already on Herceptin and chemotherapy will not be able to access this new funded medicine, but they are in Australia?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: This drug, pertuzumab, is an excellent drug for metastatic breast cancer, and my advice to the member is, actually, not to make the science up but to listen to the experts.

• Economic Development, Minister—Statements

6. FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Yes. I particularly stand by my statement from last week that the new $700 million Pūhoi to Warkworth road linking Northland to Auckland will help boost tourism, boost freight transport, and boost regional development.

Fletcher Tabuteau: How can he say there has never been a better time to get Northland going when his Government sits back and condones price hikes based on theoretical nonsense from the Electricity Authority, killing the dream of resurrecting jobs and economic growth in the Northland region?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member clearly did not listen to my previous answer, which was that this amazing new piece of infrastructure is going to make a massive difference to Northland. In relation to the electricity rules, could I suggest he puts down a question to the Minister of Energy and Resources.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Who is the Minister backing—a self-serving and dysfunctional Electricity Authority, which has been legally challenged already on its pricing methodology; or is he going to help Northlanders who will struggle to cope with dashed plans for jobs, which in their view was an economic saviour and a dream for resurrection in the region?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I definitely back the Northland region, which is why I have been a strong advocate for the highway between Northland and Auckland. It is why I have worked on the QRC Tai Tokerau Resort College, which this Government has supported. That is why this Government has supported the Hundertwasser Arts Centre and Wairau Māori Art Gallery in Whangarei. That is why we are running the Growing Regional Opportunities through Work programme in Kaikohe. That is why we have rolled out ultra-fast broadband to Whangarei, and are in the process of doing it in other parts of Northland. And that is why we have put up half the funding for improvements to the Whangarei Airport terminal and runway, to enable them to make more tourists and other visitors. This Government has a very good track record in providing for Northland, and the member—

Grant Robertson: It's a very long answer.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is a good answer. That is why it is a long answer.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It does not matter whether it is good or bad; I still have to control the length of it.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Does he agree with the Far North District mayor, John Carter, who said: "It's a bloody disgrace. These clowns in Wellington, who don't seem to know about us, go on and put this blasted report out, and I'm really disappointed.", regarding the Electricity Authority's review now likely killing off the dream of economic resurrection in Northland; if not, why not?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I get on well with Mr Carter, but I think he is being unfair in his description of the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that the local member of Parliament for Northland has made no case for any of these interventions but is very willing to stand up—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no ministerial responsibility there.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask a Minister who has spoken to him. That is something that is often asked in this House.

Mr SPEAKER: I will take a very dim view if the member does challenge my ruling.

• Economy—Commentary

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): My question is to the Acting Minister of Finance. Does he agree with Reserve Bank Governor Graeme Wheeler that "GDP growth on a per capita basis has been slow and labour productivity growth has been disappointing. House price inflation is much higher than desirable and poses concerns for financial stability, and the exchange rate is higher than the economic fundamentals would suggest is appropriate"?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: You've got it wrong. Read it as it's on the sheet.

GRANT ROBERTSON: It is quite clear, Gerry.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption]

GRANT ROBERTSON: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. There was so much interjection that I could not actually hear the question being read. I am going to invite the member to ask the question again, and I am certainly going to demand far less interjection, which was occurring from my right-hand side. There may be a reason to be excited, but we will still have question time conducted according to the rules.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think, just to help with the mood of the Leader of the House, he was concerned that I used the phrase—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I do not need this help, although I know it is genuinely given. The member has been invited to ask his question again, and we will proceed with that.

Grant Robertson: Which question?

Mr SPEAKER: I want the question, as on the sheet, asked.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The concern the Leader of the House raises is a legitimate one, in that the question is down on the order sheet to the Minister of Finance. Technically, it should not have been accepted by the Clerk, because there is no Minister of Finance; there is only an Acting Minister. My colleague Grant Robertson inserted the word "Acting" quite appropriately, based on the ruling that you have made—otherwise he cannot it ask it, because there is no Minister of Finance to ask it to.

Mr SPEAKER: I covered this off earlier. In fact, I gave the member the Speaker's ruling 192/7 to use. Once the member has been appointed the Acting Minister, he is, in effect, the Minister—I covered that off earlier. I call Grant Robertson, if he is to proceed with the question—otherwise I am very happy to move to the next one.

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

Mr SPEAKER: No. Order! The member will resume his seat. I have discussed this matter enough. I am not putting up with any more pointless points of order. The member can ask the question, otherwise I am quite happy to move immediately to question No. 8.

7. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Reserve Bank Governor Graeme Wheeler that "GDP growth on a per capita basis has been slow and labour productivity growth has been disappointing. House price inflation is much higher than desirable and poses concerns for financial stability, and the exchange rate is higher than the economic fundamentals would suggest is appropriate"?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance): I agree with the Governor's statement overall, which I must say makes other comments prior to those highlighted by the member. It notes: "Relative to the trends over the last two decades, New Zealand is experiencing stronger economic growth, lower inflation, and a lower unemployment rate—even with record levels of labour force participation." And then after the quote the member uses, the Reserve Bank Governor says that "prospects look good for continued strong growth over the next 18 months,". Those comments from the Governor mainly highlight the challenges arising from that growth. Once again, the member demonstrates his unerring ability to focus on the slightly less positive comments in a two-page statement.

Grant Robertson: What has GDP per capita growth been in the past year?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not have it exactly to hand, but I understand [Interruption] Actually, I do. Actually I do. [Interruption]

Chris Hipkins: Come on! Do you want this job or not?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I could act—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I gave a relatively severe warning to my right-hand side; I now need to deliver the same to members on my left. The question has been asked. It can be answered.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, actually I do have it to hand. It is 0.7 percent for the last year, and because the member doubts my knowledge of such things, I will say it is projected to be 1.5 percent in the year to June 2017, 1.7 in the year to June 2018, and 1.5 in the year to June 2019.

Grant Robertson: What is net debt in dollar terms according to the half-year update?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I seek leave to table the half-year update for the member.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We need the answer. If that is the answer, we will move on, but I am certainly not putting the leave.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I do not have the exact number for the member, but I do have the half-year fiscal update here, and I am happy to table it for him.

Grant Robertson: Why does New Zealand, according to the Productivity Commission, have the fourth-lowest labour productivity growth in the world?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: One of the reasons is that it has one of the highest participation rates and one of the highest employment rates in the OECD. If the member has a look at the Productivity Commission report he will note, for example, that some of the productivity and growth per capita measures are moving in the right direction. In fact, our growth per capita is one of the highest in the OECD.

Grant Robertson: What responsibility does he take for New Zealand having the biggest increase in house price to income ratios in the world in the last 6 years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the increase in New Zealand prices is fundamentally the product of three things—firstly, the supply constraints that go back 20 years. Those supply constraints, although steadily being unwound, have contributed to the increase in house prices. The second reason has been the historically low interest rates, which people would be mindful to realise will not go on for ever. The third reason has been the strength of the New Zealand economy, which has been one of the strongest in the OECD, with one of the strongest rising income rates. You take those three together and that is the explanation for New Zealand house price increases.

Grant Robertson: According to the half-yearly update, by how much will average wages rise over the next 3 years? I will give him a clue: it is not much more than 1 percent.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, actually, the half-year fiscal update talks about the increase in wages over the next 4 years. They are expected to rise by $7,500, to $66,000, by 2020-21.

• Fisheries—Status of Orange Roughy Fisheries

8. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports has he received on the status of New Zealand's orange roughy fisheries?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): The international Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) has recently announced it has certified three of our orange roughy fish stocks. This means that stocks meet the high bar of sustainability as set out by the MSC fisheries standard. A huge amount of work has gone into rebuilding this fishery over the years by industry and successive Governments. Other New Zealand species certified by the MSC are hoki, hake, ling, southern blue whiting, and albacore tuna.

Todd Muller: What is required in order for a stock to be certified under the MSC standard?

Hon NATHAN GUY: MSC is an international non-profit organisation that recognises and rewards sustainable fishing practices around the world. The certification follows 2 years of rigorous reviews and assessments by an independent team of experts. Many international markets are now demanding MSC certification as a baseline requirement. In 2015 orange roughy was estimated to generate export earnings of more than $53 million, and this certification will certainly help to add a premium for this fishery stock.

• Poverty—Government Policy

9. MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Prime Minister: How does he intend to attain the goal of halving poverty in New Zealand by 2030 that the Government signed up to in September 2015 through the UN sustainable development goals?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the last part is not part of the question that has been published. The Prime Minister can address the question as written.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, the Government does intend to work towards that goal. New Zealand is among the best in the world at transparently using data to measure hardship. The latest household incomes report shows that trends in child poverty and material hardship have been flat or falling in recent years. However, too many children still experience hardship, and, as I said in answer to earlier questions, the Government will address that issue through—as it has done in the past—increasing incomes and focusing on supporting our most complicated and vulnerable families.

Marama Fox: What new measures will the Government employ to reduce the 155,000 New Zealand children who live with material hardship, given current measures have not made a considerable difference to those numbers?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We believe that a number of measures taken since this most recent data will have some impact—that is, the insulation of more houses, free doctors visits for under-13s, a $25 increase for all families on a benefit. And, of course, the Māori Party has the opportunity to be part of the Government's discussions as we go into Budget 2017 about what further measures could be taken, and I would expect that, as usual, it will advocate strongly and occasionally unreasonably.

Marama Fox: Given that answer, what proportion of the Budget in 2017 can we expect to see spent on alleviating extreme material hardship of the 85,000 New Zealand children identified?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Māori Party, in my experience, bids for all of the Budget, to start with, but I am sure that we can come to some kind of reasonable accommodation. But I just make this point, which is that a lot of the advantage—a lot of the progress we can make is not actually about more money. It is about dealing with the issues that are challenges for families stuck in deprivation more effectively—for instance, the family violence pilot in Christchurch, which is revealing that more timely action taken immediately after a family violence incident can have a big impact on reducing the negative outcomes from family violence.

• KiwiSaver—Announcements

10. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What announcements has he made recently that make it easier for New Zealanders to understand their KiwiSaver statements?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Today I announced that all KiwiSaver providers will have to disclose the total fees paid, in dollar terms, on KiwiSaver annual statements from 2018. For many New Zealanders, KiwiSaver is the only direct interaction they have with financial markets. It is important that we ensure New Zealanders are able to get the key information about their KiwiSaver investments so that they can make informed financial decisions about their retirement savings. All "KiwiSavers" will see the total dollar fees disclosed in their annual statements from 2018. In 2017 those providers that cannot disclose dollar fees will be required to disclose total fees as a percentage.

Joanne Hayes: How will this change help Kiwis to prepare for retirement?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Around 2.6 million New Zealanders have invested in KiwiSaver, and, collectively, they have around $35 billion in funds under management. What we hope to avoid is a generation of New Zealanders retiring having not thought about their KiwiSaver for 30 years and discovering that they have been in an inappropriate fund or have paid excessive fees, so that the result of their savings is less than otherwise might have been the case. The changes I announced today will ensure that the annual statements that Kiwis receive will include better information so that they can make informed decisions about their investments.

Joanne Hayes: What else is the Government doing to help New Zealanders get ahead financially?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Earlier this year, I announced changes to the regulatory regime for financial advice. These changes will simplify regulation, enable advisers to have sensible conversations with clients, and encourage more people to seek high quality advice tailored to their needs. We will release draft legislation shortly. I have also completed a major reform of New Zealand's financial market laws under the Financial Markets Conduct Act, which came fully into force this month. This change included standard regular reporting for all KiwiSaver and other managed funds, to allow New Zealanders to make more informed comparisons about a fund's performance over time. We are also working to raise levels of financial capability among New Zealanders by expanding financial capability programmes in schools, communities, and in workplaces.

• Education, National Standards—Support from Teachers

11. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Is she concerned that only 16 percent of teachers believe that national standards have had a positive impact on their students' achievement according to a survey released today; if not, why not?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am more concerned that the member does not understand what national standards are for. National standards are not intended to have a positive impact on students; teachers and teaching are expected to do that. National standards are a way of tracking progress and reporting it. My second concern is that 16 percent of the survey size of 349 amounts to 22 teachers. My third concern is that the member seems to do little work, other than regurgitating NZEI press releases or New Zealand Heraldreports.

Chris Hipkins: Did she discuss that answer with Bill English, who said in 2009 that the Government is "unashamed of its priorities to teach all children to read, write, and do maths. That's why we're implementing a national standards policy."; if so, why has the performance of New Zealand students in the international Programme for International Student Assessment studies declined in all of those areas since national standards were introduced?

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Hekia Parata—either of those two supplementary questions.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Actually, if the member just looked again at the Rt Hon Bill English's answer, it is—well, I will put it the other way. My answer is completely aligned with what he has already said.

Hon Annette King: No, it's not.

Chris Hipkins: No, it's not.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: It absolutely is. We want to raise literacy and numeracy amongst New Zealand students. National standards—much to the chagrin of the Opposition—is a system of tracking and reporting. But the raising of literacy and numeracy is about the teaching. So we are in complete agreement.

Chris Hipkins: If it is about the quality of the teaching, why is she ignoring feedback from teachers describing national standards as "soul-destroying" for students who make individual progress but remain below the so-called standard, and that one principal said that they had "led to a deterioration in the educational deal our children are receiving"?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is absolutely about the quality of teaching, and this Government can stand on its record of putting practical effect to that quality of teaching. I can enumerate—just as my colleagues have previously in this question time—the number of investments this Government has made in the quality of teaching, including the establishment of the Educational Council, including the transformation of professional learning and development, including the extra funding to recruit more scholarships, including the investment in Teach First—

Hon Trevor Mallard: And it's all getting worse.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is not words, unlike that hopeless former Minister. It is actual—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Our results went up when I was Minister; they're going down now.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Oh, listen—shall we listen? So I am very—look at the puppets, look at the puppets—happy to talk to our investment. But I want to come to the second part of the member's question, which is that there is nothing in our policy that requires any teacher to tell any child that they are below the standard. What is required is to report that to the Ministry of Education, so that we can target resources to those kids who need it most.

Chris Hipkins: Is she now claiming that teachers do not need to report to parents when their children are below the national standards, given that that was the whole point of their introduction in the first place?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am not making any claims whatsoever; I am stating an expectation. I am saying that, for system purposes, we need to know the range of challenges amongst children so that we can target resources to them in the right amount at the right time. But I do not expect a teacher to take the position of telling a child that it is soul-destroying that they are well below standard. Quite the opposite—we have been encouraging teachers to tell them what their next step—

Iain Lees-Galloway: Do you really think kids don't want to know what's in their school report?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Would you like to listen to my answer? Because—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I have heard enough of the answer. If the member to my left wants a supplementary question, he knows how to ask for one.

Chris Hipkins: So is she claiming that the compulsory school report that every teacher in the country is now required by the Government to send to parents, explaining whether their child is at, above, or below standard, is not going to be seen by the child?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Again, I am not claiming; I am telling the member and the House that, as this policy has evolved, I have made it clear to schools that we require at a system level to report to the Ministry of Education. We have evolved several forms of national standard reporting—

Iain Lees-Galloway: I thought it was all about parents knowing. No clue.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: It would be quite helpful if that member spoke to his colleague rather than to me, if he needed clarification. We have—[Interruption] Oh, pathetic—look, we have asked for schools and teachers to make sure that the reports they make to parents are helpful in understanding where their child is, what their next learning step is, and what the school is doing about that. That is very clear, I trust, to the member and all his colleagues.

• Prime Minister—Statements

12. DENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his reported statement on New Zealand Superannuation, Key's promise not to tinker with the pension age was "a product of its time"?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): I stand by my full statement, which was "That was a product of its time, where there was a need to establish trust, and I think it was a sound decision then because the election was followed by a recession, which could have caused real insecurity for older people."

Denis O'Rourke: Why should anyone approaching retirement trust him not to change the age of eligibility, means testing, or universality for New Zealand superannuation?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because Government policy is clear that national superannuation will remain in the current way it is calculated, and, actually, through some pretty tough times the Government has been tested on that. National superannuation has risen at twice the rate of inflation during the period that this Government has been in place.

David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister confirm that raising the age of entitlement for New Zealand superannuation would not affect Denis O'Rourke or anyone else over 67?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just want to hear the point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Because I suspect that the nature of that question is a personalised attack on certain members of Parliament here, which is likely to lead to disorder—and very quickly—if he carries on in that line, that question should be stopped. It is not in the Prime Minister's purview to consider any personal circumstance here when the question is about a category of people who have retired. He is talking about members of Parliament, which is not part of his authority or ambit of operation.

David Seymour: Speaking to the point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from David Seymour.

David Seymour: Far from it. I was simply seeking to illustrate the question by reference to a fine, upstanding member of Parliament who happens to be a bit senior.

Mr SPEAKER: I was hoping that that point of order might have helped. But the question, in my mind, was not derogatory of any member; it was not delivered in that way. The question is in order and it can be addressed by the Prime Minister.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is no possibility of that.

Denis O'Rourke: Why should anyone trust him not to reduce the amount of New Zealand superannuation when in 1998, when he was Associate Minister of Finance, there was a reduction from 65 percent to 60 percent of the average wage?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is prime ministerial responsibility—the Rt Hon Prime Minister.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The legislation in this House sets out the formula by which national superannuation is calculated, and there is no intentional policy to change that.

© Scoop Media