• ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Climate Change Issues, Minister—Statements

1. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does she stand by her statement that "we have an ambitious programme of work that is going on around climate change issues"?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Climate Change Issues): Oh yes, I do.

James Shaw: Why has she said publicly that her climate change programme is ambitious, when privately officials have told her that it will not deal with 85 percent of the climate pollution that she has promised to cut?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think that what the member is referring to is that if we keep doing what we are doing today then that is exactly where we will end up, and we will not be able to meet those 2030 targets. That is why we have got such an ambitious work programme going on with climate change—so that we can actually look at how we get those 235 million tonnes.

James Shaw: Would she agree that the title of her opinion piece last October, "We're on the right track on tackling climate change", was misleading, given that officials have told her that "under our current policy settings, we are not on track to reduce emissions"?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: That is why it is quite clear that we have got the work programme going on. Amongst all the working groups, whether they are from the adaptation to the work that the Greens have been supporting with Vivid Economics—which is going to, I think, provide real advice there; from the forestry and planting that needs to go on to some of the energy targets the Minister has been setting and which I think will make a huge difference; from the work on electric vehicles to the work that we are doing in cleaning up our rivers and our waterways. All of that leads to the change that needs to take place so that we can reach ambitious targets.

James Shaw: I seek leave to table a Ministry for the Environment (MFE) briefing from May 2016, where officials say that the Government is not on track to reduce emissions and that 85 percent of emissions reductions will be outsourced to other countries.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that MFE briefing. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is not; it can be tabled.

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

James Shaw: Does she agree that it would be misleading to tell New Zealanders that "We have a target of 90 percent renewable electricity by 2025, and are well on our way", when energy experts Toby Stevenson and Greg Sise say that meeting that target is now "highly unlikely"?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Certainly, every piece of advice I am getting is that we will meet that target. We are currently at more than 80 percent. Certainly, everything that I have seen says that, actually, what they are stating is not correct. We will continue to work towards reaching what I think is really ambitious—to be 90 percent by 2025.

James Shaw: Would it be misleading for her to characterise Simon Bridges' electric vehicle initiative as ambitious, when officials tell her that it will only contribute 0.2 percent of the cut in pollution that we need to meet the 2030 target?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I do think it is ambitious. He is doubling their number. He was, in his previous role, and he is really enthusiastic about it as Minister of Transport, having two of them in his family now, I believe, alone. There is more that I think needs to be done, and I get pretty excited about where I think the future is in electric vehicles. I reckon that where it will be in 5 or 10 years' time will, obviously, be a lot different from what it is today.

James Shaw: I seek leave to table appendix 1 from a briefing from the Ministry for the Environment to the Minister in May last year showing that the electric vehicle policy will cut only 0.2 percent of emissions needed to meet the 2030 target.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular MFE report. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

James Shaw: Does she agree with officials who have advised her that failing to reduce climate pollution domestically now will "leave us increasingly exposed"?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am finding it quite amusing that the member thinks that a briefing from last May that said to me that if we continue doing things as we are now we will not reach our 2030 targets—as the Minister I turned around and I have initiated a comprehensive work programme that gets us the right information, the right facts, so that, actually this Parliament, I hope, can make the right decisions so that we are making a difference for the future. So, yes, what they said back in May is exactly where it was. We have now got the Paris Agreement, we have got 196 countries signed up, we are ready to go, and, domestically, we will play our part.

James Shaw: If what she is saying in public is the opposite of what her officials are telling her, where is she getting her alternative facts?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: What I am getting from officials and what I am saying publicly are completely and utterly in line with each other. They are saying that if we continued doing things as we were, we would not reach the goals and accomplishment we want to as a country. We have then got a committed, comprehensive work programme that, actually, the officials have been fantastic in pulling together and leading many of the groups throughout it. We will, I hope, as an entire Parliament, not just as a Government, look at the changes that need to be made that will make it better for future generations.

David Seymour: Is the Minister aware that not one single Green Party member attended last night's excellent presentation on fresh water at Mr Speaker's Science Forum?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! There is no ministerial responsibility there. Supplementary question—

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No, I just want to warn the member. I hope he is not in any way questioning a decision that I have just made. I would advise the member not to.

Dr Megan Woods: Will the Minister admit that this projected failure to meet New Zealand's greenhouse gas emission target is finally sufficient evidence that failure to plan is planning to fail, and accept the need for formalised carbon budgeting and an independent climate commission?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No.

• Prime Minister—State of the Nation Address

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Why was there no mention of the housing crisis in his State of the Nation speech last week?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): I did mention housing. I said the Government is building the roads, schools, and houses needed to support our growing communities. We will continue this year with our comprehensive plan to increase the supply of housing, and, in particular, working closely with the councils, which make almost all the decisions relevant to getting any house or subdivision consented.

Andrew Little: Is it seriously his position that there is no housing crisis?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government's position for some time has been that the answer to fast-rising house prices is to get more houses on the ground faster, and the biggest step forward was the new Auckland Unitary Plan, which this Government legislated to do in 3 years instead of 10. That finally—as of about September last year—enables sufficient supply to be built, and the market and the Government is getting on with building it.

Andrew Little: Why can he not admit there is a housing crisis when Demographia—an internationally renowned research organisation—rates Auckland as the fourth most unaffordable housing market in the world?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The reason for that is because of 20 or 30 years of misguided planning in Auckland, which was designed to stop the city growing. Now that the approach has changed, we have record house building going on in Auckland, and, in fact, in a number of places across the country.

Andrew Little: When the Salvation Army says housing speculators are distorting our economy and creating homelessness, why will he not show leadership and crack down on those property speculators?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: What the market needs, and the homeless and the families who are struggling to pay their rent or borrow enough money for a house, is more houses. The good news is we now have record numbers of housing being built, and the pipeline for housing and infrastructure building over the next 4 or 5 years is bigger than New Zealand has seen for decades.

Andrew Little: Now that the Salvation Army has joined Labour's call for a Government-led affordable house building programme, when will he admit the cause of the housing crisis is his failure to lead in building more houses?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member—who we know who is not happy about a lot of things going well—will not be happy as he sees the Government's building programme unfold this year. As the owner of one in every 16 houses in Auckland, we have initiated large-scale projects in Tāmaki and Northcote, on top of the completion of Hobsonville, with many more to come.

Andrew Little: In light of his statement in his maiden speech: "what I do bring to this job is a willingness to get into the argument rather than avoid it.", why is he ducking and dodging and denying the housing crisis?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: In respect of getting into the argument, I can recall, when I was the Minister of Finance, raising the idea a number of years ago that one of the reasons for rising prices was lack of supply and being laughed at and criticised by the Opposition, who have now come round to the view, as has Auckland City Council, that the problem has been planning that stopped the supply of housing when it was needed. That is now changing, and the houses are getting built. It will take a number of years of over 10,000 houses a year to get to the right number.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the population of Rotorua—net—is coming in from overseas under his mass immigration programme, where is the Rotorua size infrastructure and housing, roading, and hospitals that has to supply the issue of demand? And if he has not got a plan for that, why do you think we going to believe the gobbledegook he is saying today?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may be disappointed in this, but although the number of people coming in is up somewhat—

Hon Members: Oh!

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: —no, no. The biggest change is New Zealanders not leaving. A party that calls itself New Zealand First should know that and be pleased about it. And because so many New Zealanders have stopped leaving because they prefer to live here, we are building more houses, more roads, and more schools to accommodate them.

Andrew Little: Will he front up to New Zealanders and join me in Mt Albert for a public debate on housing in the next 2 weeks or, like the gingerbread man, is he just going to run, run, run away? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House now deserves to hear the answer.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I suggest the member invite Poto Williams along, because I am sure that would be a much better debate, and—

Hon Member: And Willie Jackson.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: —oh, and Willie Jackson.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am asking for a little more cooperation during question time. I will accept some level of interjection, but when it is out of control, I will have to deal with it a bit more severely.

Andrew Little: Will the Prime Minister be absolutely clear with me and this House—will he join me for a debate about housing issues in Mt Albert in the next 2 weeks, yes or no?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would not want to deprive the voters of Mt Albert, or the public of New Zealand, of the sheer entertainment value of a debate between Andrew Little and Poto Williams, so I am going to stay home.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! One interjection there went a bit far. It had better cease.

• Economy—Reports on New Zealand's Performance

3. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the performance of the New Zealand economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): While the House was away, I received a number of reports highlighting the strong performance of the New Zealand economy. Standard and Poor's has made a recent decision to affirm New Zealand's AA foreign currency and AA+ local currency sovereign credit ratings with a stable outlook. That reflects international confidence in New Zealand's economic and fiscal performance. They also noted improvement across a range of measures such as our current account deficit, our net Government debt, and our overall fiscal performance. This follows the release of GDP figures in December showing a higher than expected 1.1 percent growth rate for the September quarter for the New Zealand economy and 3.5 percent over the last year.

Chris Bishop: How does New Zealand's economic performance compare internationally?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Statistics New Zealand's latest growth figures for New Zealand show our economic growth in the year to September, at 3.5 percent, was the fifth-strongest in the whole developed world, ahead of Australia on 1.8 percent, the USA on 1.6 percent, Canada on 1.3 percent, and the euro area on 1.7 percent.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Take out your mass immigration and you've got nothing.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sure Winston has alternative facts. This demonstrates how New Zealand's focus on developing a strong and open economy is delivering good results for Kiwi families, especially relative to most of the rest of the developed world.

Chris Bishop: What reports has he received on the performance of the labour market?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Last week's household labour force survey showed a continuing strong growth in the labour market. With 137,000 jobs now created in the last year, the employment rate for New Zealanders has reached an all-time high of 66.9 percent of all adult New Zealanders, while the labour force participation rate has also reached an all-time high of 70.5 percent. With Treasury's half-yearly fiscal update predicting a further 150,000 jobs over the next 5 years, New Zealanders will continue to see the benefits of a growing economy.

Chris Bishop: What reports has he received on inflation?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: New Zealand, along with many other similar countries, has been operating in a period of historically low inflation and historically low interest rates. Statistics New Zealand's recent figures show the consumer price index inflation rate has risen slightly in the year to December 2016, to 1.3 percent for the year, with the bottom end of the target band for the Reserve Bank being reached for the first time in 2 years. This compares to an inflation rate of just 0.1 percent in the year to December 2015. It may signal a return towards more normal levels of low inflation, but we will have to see how the year unfolds.

• Prime Minister—Statements

4. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, how?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There were two parts to that question. I am very interested to know the answer to the second part.

Mr SPEAKER: I will invite the Prime Minister, if he wishes, to address the second part. [Interruption] He does not. [Interruption] Order! It should be very obvious, even to the member, that how it was addressed was by rising and answering the question. It has been addressed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the Government has been "working on a package to boost police numbers since last May", why, as Minister of Finance, did he deliberately starve police of funding when that was being requested by then Minister of Police Hon Judith Collins?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: You would need to talk to the Minister of Finance about whatever discussions those were. I can assure the member, though, that for the Government the safety of our communities is a top priority and that in the last Budget significant funding was allocated to police to pay their consistently increasing wages. After that, discussions began on how we could use the police better in order to achieve safer communities where police can catch more criminals now and prevent more crime in the future.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why, if the evidence shows the Hon Judith Collins having multiple meetings with former Prime Minister John Key and Mr English's Treasury officials pleading for more police funding, did he do his best to make sure she did not get that funding when he was the Minister of Finance?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Ms Collins was a very competent police Minister and, like all Ministers, was advocating for greater than her fair share of the Budget, which is always the case. I am sure the current finance Minister is finding that that is what is happening. There is absolutely nothing unusual about Ministers putting forward bids and not getting what they want.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does his stopping his rival for leadership of the National Party from getting funds for her portfolio because it might make her look good and then having her sacked as the police Minister see him rakishly last week finding extra police funds not point to National being a tawdry cesspit of internecine internal fighting?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there may be some prime ministerial responsibility, the Rt Hon Prime Minister.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member should not talk about the deputy leadership contest in New Zealand First like that. We think it is a very worthy and tough fight, which everyone seems to know about.

• Superannuation Fund—Government Contributions

5. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Economist Shamubeel Eaqub that "Government should be in the business of making long-term investments"?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): I would answer that question by saying that it depends on what we are talking about. A good example of where we are making long-term investments is the progress we have been making in social investment through the Better Public Services programme in areas like reducing long-term welfare dependence, supporting vulnerable children, and providing better skills for our young people. This investment is worth it because of the benefits that it can bring in terms of New Zealanders living healthy and productive lives. That example, I absolutely agree with.

Grant Robertson: Why did the Government break its 2009 commitment to resume contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund when there was an operating surplus?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the Government, as the member may recall, if he has been following these things, made a commitment that we would resume contributions to the Superannuation Fund once net debt was back below 20 percent of GDP.

Grant Robertson: No, that was later.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is right. That is the current commitment that we have made, Grant. I appreciate you are the trainspotter of the Opposition, but that is where we are at.

Grant Robertson: Is the New Zealand Superannuation Fund correct when it says that the fund is $20 billion worse off because his Government has failed to contribute 1 cent to the fund since 2009?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I think you can make all sorts of hypothetical and theoretical suggestions, but the Superannuation Fund, of course, does not exist in isolation. In fact, New Zealand had a thing called the global financial crisis (GFC) and, also, another thing called the Canterbury earthquakes, Grant. Those things all had an impact on the Government's accounts, and the Government, therefore, made a decision to focus more on the here and now for that period than on the Superannuation Fund. I think that the people of Canterbury, and also vulnerable people around New Zealand, are pleased at that decision.

Grant Robertson: Are tax cuts a higher priority for him than restarting contributions to the Superannuation Fund?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, they are not a higher priority, but I do consider it a priority to think about hard-working Kiwis who pay—

Grant Robertson: Ha, ha!

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: You laugh at them, Mr Robertson; they are not laughing. They work hard, they provide for their families, they meet the cost of everyday living, and, actually, this Government does focus on them. I appreciate that Grant Robertson thinks he can always spend their money better than they can; we do not.

Grant Robertson: What kinds of short-term priorities lead him to believe that it is a good idea to take $20 billion from Kiwis' future retirement—bearing in mind they are the very people carrying record household debt? Is solving New Zealand's long-term problems something for somebody else to deal with?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sorry; the member's maths is hugely challenged, because it has not been taken at all. We have decided that there are priorities that New Zealanders have in terms of meeting the costs of the Canterbury earthquakes and including also providing for people during the tough times of the GFC, which, I have to say, the public appears to have supported for a considerable period of time. If the member is saying that instead of doing those things, we should have put the money in the Superannuation Fund, he is entitled to make that argument, but, actually, I think he is wrong.

Question No. 4 to Minister

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): In all the excitement I forgot to seek leave to table evidence under the Official Information Act (OIA) of meetings with the Prime Minister, Treasury, and Police Commissioner regarding police resourcing desperately being sought at the time by the then Minister of Police, one Judith Collins.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular information released under the OIA. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

• Police, Minister—Announcements

6. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of Police: What announcements has the Government made about investing in police to make our communities safer?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Police): Thank you to the member. Last week the Prime Minister announced that we will be boosting the number of police staff by more than 1,100 over the next 4 years. This $503 million package, which includes 880 sworn police and 245 non-sworn staff, is about getting the worst offenders off our streets as well as preventing crime. The package is just another step on from the 600 extra police put in place since National came to Government and our investment in mobile technology, which has freed up the equivalent of 350 front-line officers.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What areas will the new police target?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: This package has been carefully put together to target both crime prevention and catching the worst offenders. Five hundred officers will be out in the community responding to emergencies, dealing with youth crime, and investigating burglaries; 140 will be dedicated to our rural and regional areas; another 140 will investigate serious offending such as child abuse, sexual assault, and family violence; and 80 will target organised crime gangs and methamphetamine. The new police will be spread around the country, where each district will get a share.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What results can New Zealanders expect from this significant investment?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The investment of more than half a billion dollars comes with challenging performance targets for police to make a real difference in real New Zealanders' lives. The targets include: 98 percent of home burglaries will be attended within 48 hours; 95 percent of New Zealanders will live within 25 kilometres of a police presence 24/7; $400 million worth of assets will be seized from organised criminals, up from $230 million in the last few years; and a reduction of deaths and family violence. These are among some of the targets that we expect them to achieve.

Stuart Nash: What convinced her, merely 7 months after the Government's 4-year plan stating "no new police until at least 2020" was signed off, that an increase in police numbers was so important that it became the first election promise made by the Government in the new year?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It would be fair to say that a number of issues did. As has already been identified by many, including in this House, the good work of the former Minister of Police had already started progressing that work in that way. We had already committed the equivalent of over 900 police in the last 8 years, so now was the time to look at the next investment into police and into our communities. So that is exactly what we did, but we were really, really clear that we wanted to make sure that the targets that those police achieved were for the betterment of all New Zealanders.

• Immigration New Zealand—Steps Taken to Ensure Validity of Visas

7. DENISE ROCHE (Green) to the Minister of Immigration: What steps, if any, did Immigration New Zealand take to ensure validity of the visas of the nine students currently seeking sanctuary in a church, including any interviews with these students to determine the accuracy of their application before they came to New Zealand?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): This may be a little longer than most primary answers. I beg your indulgence. I am not aware of the exact numbers or identities of the individuals currently inside a church in Auckland, so my answer is in respect of the nine Indian students the subject of recent media, unlawfully in New Zealand, who were represented by Mr Alastair McClymont and whose requests to stay in New Zealand were declined. I am aware two of those individuals have departed New Zealand voluntarily and I understand some of the remaining seven are amongst those inside the church.

Time prevents a detailed description of each step in each application, but the steps would include an immigration officer checking that the applicant had made a declaration on the form that, amongst other statements, includes: "I have provided true and correct answers to the questions in this form. I understand that if false or misleading information is submitted, my application may be declined without further warning." Another step would be to check that on the completion of the statement "I have attached evidence that I have access to sufficient funds to support myself through my intended stay."—of the nine individuals represented by Mr McClymont six were interviewed either in person or by phone to discuss their studies, and several of those students were asked directly about their financial documents. The questions included the purpose of gaining qualifications, a test of their understanding of the tertiary institution they planned to enrol in and of New Zealand generally, and questions of the applicant's bona fides; that is, their intentions on the completion of their studies.

DENISE ROCHE: Why did the Minister claim on Radio New Zealand on 3 February that "Immigration agents will interview them, check and confirm that they understand.", when Immigration New Zealand records show that three of the students were not interviewed and two other interviews were conducted with education agents posing as the students?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The questioner asked about immigration agents. I presume she means immigration officers. My answer was in respect of the process generally, not exhaustively. In respect of the three who were not specifically interviewed—it is not a requirement—the explanations that were given in the applications were considered to be satisfactory and consistent with what one would expect, and no interview was required. But, as I said, six of the nine were indeed interviewed.

Denise Roche: I would like to table this document. It contains information collated by the lawyer of the five students, and is a summary of Immigration New Zealand records of the visa processes for all nine students. It contains specific dates and notes about which students—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The document has been well and truly described. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table—

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Speaking to the question first, can I ascertain whether or not the permission of the applicants has been granted for that private information to be released?

Mr SPEAKER: Can the member assist with that?

Denise Roche: My understanding is—through their lawyer—yes, it has.

Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. It will be for the House to decide. Leave is sought to table that particular information. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Denise Roche: What message does it send to people who want to study and eventually settle in New Zealand that this Government is more interested in the profits of educational providers and immigration agents than in supporting the victims of fraud?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The broader message is this: there are around 125,000 student visas granted every year, and the overwhelming majority of those applicants provide applications that are true in all respects. They come here to get a world-class education and, overwhelmingly, they go home satisfied with their experience. I think that is still the message that it sends.

Denise Roche: Why is his Government happy to use discretion to grant citizenship to non-resident billionaires but refuses to show compassion for students who have paid thousands of dollars of fees and who simply want to finish their education?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That is probably a question best directed to the Minister of Internal Affairs, given that he or she would be granting citizenship—

Hon Annette King: "He or she"—what is it? Is he a he or a she?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, I go back in time. I say "he or she" because the person the subject of that question was granted conditional residence in 2006 by Labour under the far flimsier immigration instructions that existed at that time, including for money and time in country. That applicant did not commit fraud on either of those applications, and I think that is the significant difference.

Denise Roche: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like the question answered, which was about the compassion shown to students who are—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. [Interruption] Order! The question was well and truly addressed. It was significantly involved then with response to an interjection. It has been addressed.

• Child Poverty—Salvation Army Report

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): To the Minister of Social Development, is she concerned that child poverty rates of up to "20 percent have become entrenched into New Zealand's economic and social structure" according to today's Salvation Army report?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders around questions are relatively specific, and there needs to be sufficient evidence for the claims that have been made in a question provided to the Clerk's Office. To have an allegation like that presented as fact when, in fact, all it could ever be presented as was an opinion from the Salvation Army would seem to me to make the question at least questionable; if not, in fact, out of order.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): That complaint is easily rebutted by the fact that that is an accurate recitation of what is in the Salvation Army report. That is all that is being asked for as a way of authentication by the questioner, and his complaint is a nonsensical one.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for his comment. He is in fact, on this occasion, correct. I had a good look at the report. The question as it is—[Interruption] Order! The question as it is worded says that it is according to the Salvation Army report, and I can find exactly the quote then used within that report. If the member wants further assistance, I suggest he look at Speaker's ruling 184/3 by Speaker Jack. It was in 1970, so it may just precede the member's involvement with this House, but it certainly says that questions can use excerpts in reports and attribute them to that, and it has done so in this case. It has now become a bit disjointed between the asking of the question and the answer. I am going to invite Carmel Sepuloni to repeat the question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I have dealt with the matter.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): No, speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee on this occasion.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That does beg the question as to whether the question is asking the Minister to have an opinion about the opinion, or whether the question is: "Does she have concerns that the Salvation Army are putting around this sort of tripe?".

Mr SPEAKER: No. The member is now on the dangerous ground of an attempted derail. What the question is asking is whether the Minister is concerned with a suggestion that has been raised in the Salvation Army report. That is a—[Interruption] Order! That is a perfectly legitimate question. It will now be asked again, and then we will hear whether the Minister is indeed concerned.

8. CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Social Development: Is she concerned that child poverty rates of up to "20 percent have become entrenched into New Zealand's economic and social structure" according to today's Salvation Army report?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): No, and I disagree with their actual conclusion, which is that—and the full quote is: "In other words, child poverty rates of between 8% and 20% have become entrenched in New Zealand's economic and social structure." I would also point out that the statistics that the Salvation Army uses are not new numbers; in fact, they are taken from the Ministry of Social Development's Household Incomes Report, which we released in September last year, and which were released again by the Children's Commissioner in his Child Poverty Monitor report late last year. I say to the member that if you read the actual tables that are published in the report, instead of selectively quoting headlines—in particular, material hardship rates have consistently fallen over the past 5 years. Furthermore, I would note—as I have noted each time these figures have been released—that this report does not take into account the Government's $790 million child hardship package, which provides more childcare assistance for low-income families, increased Working for Families payments, and raised benefit rates for the first time in 40 years.

Carmel Sepuloni: In light of her answer, is the Salvation Army then wrong when it says that the "culpability of Government in this lack of progress should be noted—especially through its welfare reforms, which have yet to identify any positive impacts on the lives of poorer New Zealand children"?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: If the member had listened to my answer, of course I dispute what the Salvation Army's conclusions are, taken from the evidence, not even to mention the fact that over 50,000 children are no longer living in benefit-dependent homes, when all of the evidence shows that as long as they are living in benefit-dependent homes, they are destined for lives that do include hardship and poverty. This Government has done more than any Government to lift those children out of poverty.

Carmel Sepuloni: When the Prime Minister claimed that he was "proud of the steps the Government has already taken" toward child poverty, does that include the fact that child poverty rates have not improved over the last 5 years?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Just repeating the same stuff does not make it true. If you look at the facts in the report itself, they show considerable progress has been made. Is it enough? No. Is this Government content and doing nothing more? No. We all want to make sure that every single New Zealand child in New Zealand has the opportunity to live a great life, and all the long list of things that this Government has done, which the Prime Minister spoke about the other day, are all destined to help those young New Zealanders live that great life.

Carmel Sepuloni: Did she agree with Colonel Hutson when he said that "entrenched child and youth poverty has become the new norm.", and that "politicians must stop just voicing sympathetic rhetoric and actually take real action to reduce child poverty numbers."; if so, will she continue to ignore the Children's Commissioner's call for a cross-party consensus on a target to reduce child poverty?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No, I do not agree with that gentleman's conclusions. I do agree with him that it is time that politicians like those in Labour stop talking about poverty and join with this Government and back this Government and all the measures we have put in place to lift those children out of poverty.

Carmel Sepuloni: Given child poverty rates have remained alarmingly high over the last 5 years, despite benefit numbers going down, does she accept that her failure to collect and analyse off-the-benefit outcomes means that "Just what has happened to these people and whether they are better off or worse [remains] a mystery."?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have said several times in this House that we have commissioned research pre- and post-welfare reforms to see exactly what happens to people who go off benefit. But the evidence is very clear—and the Labour Party really has to get to grips with it—that a life dependent on taxpayers' benefits leads to a life of hardship and poverty, not only for the people who are dependent on that support, but for their children. So the best way out of poverty is to get people into work, and that is what this Government has focused on. We are being successful with it. We know that for some people it is difficult. We are providing training. We are providing money for things like driver licences. We are doing everything we can to support people into employment, because that is the best way to lift them out of poverty.

• Communications, Minister—Announcements on Ultra-fast Broadband

9. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister for Communications: What recent announcements has he made on the Ultra-fast Broadband programme?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister for Communications): Last month I was very pleased to join the member in North Canterbury to announce that the Government is investing over $300 million to extend ultra-fast broadband (UFB) to more than 151 additional towns across New Zealand, plus 43 suburban fringe areas around the largest centres that were covered by the first phase of the programme. This extension will provide up to 85 percent of New Zealanders, in both rural and urban areas, from Ruatōria to Reefton, with access to world-class broadband by the end of 2024.

Matt Doocey: How will UFB2 support economic development in regional and rural communities?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Phase two of the programme is a significant investment in our regions and forms part of the Government's commitment to helping our regional economies grow and diversify. More than $30 million will be spent on installing fibre in Canterbury alone, and it is estimated that the UFB initiative will generate more than $33 billion in economic benefit. While the full fibre roll-out will be completed by 2024, we have prioritised 29 towns in Northland, Bay of Plenty, Gisborne, Hawke's Bay, Manawatū, Wanganui, and the West Coast, which will have their UFB builds fast tracked to be complete by the end of 2020. We are working closely with councils, businesses, and iwi in these areas to help them thrive and realise their full economic potential.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If any of that is remotely true, why is it that in Northland the rate of investment is a fraction above 50 percent of what is being spent in Auckland?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I doubt, in fact, that on a population basis that is even true, and I am saddened that the member does not believe me, but let me give him the facts: over $33 million by 2020 is being invested across Northland. I appreciate he is not going to, but if he just said thanks, I would take it.

Matt Doocey: How does UFB2 help achieve the Government's ambitious targets for connectivity?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The first phase of the programme is ahead of schedule in delivering fibre to the premises of 75 percent of New Zealanders by 2019. The second phase of installations will start in 2017 and be completed between 2018 and 2024. Phase two of the build will see each build area completed within a 12-month period in order to provide as little disruption as possible. By 2024 approximately 85 percent of New Zealanders will have access to fibre, far exceeding our original target of 80 percent by 2022. This will put New Zealand among the leaders in the OECD for access to fibre and means that more Kiwis will be able to tap into the benefits of fast and reliable internet right across the country.

• Prime Minister—Statements on President Trump

10. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements in respect of President Trump?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon David Parker: Why did he tell New Zealanders, in relation to his phone conversation with President Trump, that "I couldn't describe for you exactly the words, because actually I don't remember exactly the words", and how does he reconcile this with the precision of his recollections in other media interviews?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have been asked by a number of people about what I said to President Trump around the immigration ban, and I can recall those words exactly because I used exactly the words that I have used in public.

Hon David Parker: When he raised the highly sensitive matter of the US travel ban and told President Trump in no uncertain terms that New Zealand disagrees with the policy and wouldn't implement it, why did President Trump meekly thank him for his view, when he is notoriously thin-skinned for even slight criticism, had brutishly attacked a federal judge who blocked it, and hung up on the Aussie Prime Minister—or can he not recall that part of the conversation either?

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

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you inferring there is not prime ministerial responsibility for the question I have asked?

Mr SPEAKER: No. I am certainly saying that there is a lot—[Interruption] Order! I am saying that there is a lot in the question, which is the member's opinion of a leader of another country. I am inviting the Prime Minister to answer it in so far as he feels he has prime ministerial responsibility.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The discussion I had with the president was a civil and courteous and thoughtful discussion.

Hon David Parker: Was the Hon Chester Borrows correct when he told a public meeting in Whanganui on Monday that the Prime Minister would tell President Trump that New Zealand "would condemn and resist President Trump's discriminatory policy" and that it was "a direct attack on conscience, choice, and religion", or did he choose instead appeasement over firm Kiwi principles, and choke—assuming he can now remember the words of that part of the interview?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, there are two supplementary questions. The Rt Hon Prime Minister can address one or both.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I chose to communicate in terms that people understand, New Zealand's view about the immigration ban. As for the member for Whanganui, he was not party to the discussion. I am not sure what was said at his public meeting. I can only tell you and the public what I said on the phone call.

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

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Supplementary?

Mr SPEAKER: I will just have the point of order first, and then I will come to the supplementary.

Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table a transcript of the Hon Chester Borrows' comments to that public rally, when he told the rally precisely what the Prime Minister would tell President Trump.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I do not need any more. I need to know—where is the source of this transcript?

Hon David Parker: It is from a video clip that is not publicly available, because I am the only one who has got it.

Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! This matter is easily resolved. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular transcript. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is objection.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does he believe that the lack of courteous and considerate conversation has led to a large number of thin skins in the Labour Party?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, there is no ministerial responsibility there whatsoever.

Hon David Parker: Who instructed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade not to properly record his conversation with President Trump, contrary to generally accepted practice for such high-level diplomatic conversations, and will he release the American transcript of the call once it is available to the embassy in Washington?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, there are two supplementary questions. The Prime Minister can address one or either.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, I am not exactly accustomed to what the protocols are around so-called high-level conversations, but, certainly, it would not be my wish or practice to record the conversations that I have with the leaders of other countries, and certainly not to do so without telling them.

• Primary Industries, Minister—Conduct

11. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister for Primary Industries: Is he able to explain all his actions as Minister for Primary Industries; if so, how?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Mr Speaker, happy New Year to you and to the Parliament. In answer to the question, yes; and by speaking.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The Ewen McKenzie lookalike! Why, having received a letter from me on 16 January inviting him as Minister to visit drought-affected farms in Northland, did he play silly games when on 25 January, at 3.57 p.m. in the afternoon, he pretended to invite me to come the next morning to a farm in Northland, and yet he and his staff did everything not to advise where, when, and at what time the morning meeting would be held up north?

Hon NATHAN GUY: I do not need to be invited by that member to go and visit drought-stricken farms in Northland; I go and visit them on my own accord. My office did alert the member that I was coming to Northland to meet farmers, but it is commonly known up there that the member is hardly ever in his electorate.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What in the Minister's past incompetent behaviour, as the Minister of this portfolio and as the Minister for Racing, gives him the idea he can play these stupid games by claiming to invite another member of Parliament to come to a meeting and refuse to give any details as to where the meeting was held, and then claim that he is familiar with what is going on up north?

Hon NATHAN GUY: As I understand it, my office alerted the member that I was coming to Northland, and, as I say, I stand by my comments: I do not need to be invited by that member to visit Northland. I take my advice from farmers on the ground, rural support trust, and my officials, and that is why in the last couple of weeks I have visited Northland twice, and I have declared a medium-scale adverse event in terms of drought to support those farmers to get through that. And we will support those farmers.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why, when he was asked on 16 January to come to the north and examine the serious situation, which would constitute a drought, did he stoop to such stupid, venal political games as to tell the media and the National Party candidate about the meeting and yet think he could refuse to tell me the place, date, and time—[Interruption] All right, if they are the venal politics you like, that is fine by me, but when we get to power, you are gone.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The question has been asked and now can be addressed by the Minister.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have not finished.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member has finished, because I have cut him off. Supplementary questions are meant to be concise.

Hon NATHAN GUY: I think this questioning is a circus, and I have already addressed it.

• Education, Minister—Reports of National Certificate of Educational Achievement Results

12. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister of Education: What recent reports has she received on NCEA achievement for 2016?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I was pleased to see that the 2016 provisional National Certificate of Education Achievement (NCEA) results show that more students are achieving NCEA level 2, the recognised minimum qualification for success. The provisional role-based data shows achievement in NCEA level 2 has risen to 77.4 percent, or 43,911 young New Zealanders. This means that over 9,000 more Year 12 students achieved NCEA level 2 in 2016 compared with the 2008 year of the Opposition.

Joanne Hayes: What do these reports show about Māori and Pacific achievement in NCEA?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: One of the highlights of the provisional results is the significant increase in Māori achievement of NCEA level 2. It lifted by 2.9 percent in just 1 year, which is a reflection of the year-on-year increase under this Government. It is now at an impressive 73.5 percent.

Hon Member: Cherry-picking.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I know Māori success is making the former Minister unhappy, but Māori are very happy with that, because it is a lift from the parlous 51.6 percent under that Labour Government. For Pasifika, NCEA level 2 has risen to 77.6 percent from 50.5 percent in 2008. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Question No. 11 to Minister

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a letter between myself and Nathan Guy inviting him to come to Northland, dated 16 January, and a chronology of contacts with Nathan Guy's office showing what a venal, bumptious bunch they are.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am very tempted not to put the leave because of that final comment. The member should factually describe the document without embellishment. To move the matter forward, leave is sought to table the letter dated 16 January and then a chronology of interaction with the Minister's office. Is there any objection to those two documents? There is objection.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I need to remind members that points of order are to be heard in silence.

RON MARK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. For my edification, could you explain to me why when the Hon Nathan Guy made such a blatant and venal comment you did not bring him into line—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not—[Interruption] Order! Can the member resume his seat immediately. I did not hear such a comment, but I will study the transcripts later to see whether it is in the Hansard.

© Scoop Media