• ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Ministers—Confidence

1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers; if so, why?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, because they are competent and capable.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he have confidence in his Minister of Finance, previously the Minister for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, when its present Minister, Simon Bridges, had to ask questions of his staff on why almost $39 million was spent in the last financial year on contractors and consultants by his predecessor, the Hon Steven Joyce?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Minister of Finance is an improvement on the last one—I can assure the member about that. I know that in the process of the Budget, they will be going through departmental expenditure with a fine-tooth comb.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a document obtained under the Official Information Act (OIA), dated 9 September 2016, detailing the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's recruitment consultant spend with just some of the companies of the all-of-Government contract.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that information obtained under the OIA. 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.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he have faith in the Minister for Building and Construction, who yesterday disputed the Auckland Council's records confirming that well over 13,000 fewer dwellings have been completed than consents in the 5 years to October 2016?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I understand there is some dispute about that member's version of those numbers. The fact is that we have the longest, strongest construction boom the country has seen in decades under way. Last year around 10,000 houses were consented in Auckland, and we would expect that that would continue. That construction boom is a sign of a growing economy, where more Kiwis are staying home, and we believe that is a good thing.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he have confidence in the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, when in a written answer received from her today she questioned whether foreign-owned Latitude Financial Services was a large company, despite it having assets of $1.4 billion, revenues of nearly $300 million, and was last the subject of an Overseas Investment Office application in 2015? If she does not understand what a large company is, how did she get her job?

Mr SPEAKER: There are, I think, three questions there. The Prime Minister can address any of the three.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I do have confidence in the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. I am not aware of the particular circumstances the member is referring to.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: To help the Prime Minister, I seek leave to provide information just received and not publicly available: the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs' reply to me on why this foreign-owned company has not filed financial statements with the Companies Office, which is something it is obligated to do.

Mr SPEAKER: Can I just check—I take it that it is an answer to a written question?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes.

Mr SPEAKER: And can I just be assured that it is one that has just been received by the member, and, therefore, has not yet been published?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Precisely, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Therefore, I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular answer. Is there any objection? There is none; it can be tabled.

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If—from Official Information Act answers—Police are still working through deployment details, where is the soundness in public policy behind the Minister of Police's boast about increased police staffing, when she does not know where the police are going to go? How did she work out what numbers were needed?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Minister of Police is not boasting about the increase in police numbers. It is a decision of the Government to increase the police numbers: 11,025 staff, 880 of them uniformed. But the Minister is not the Commissioner of Police. The numbers have arisen out of consultation with the Police, but, in the end, the commissioner will decide where they go.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he have confidence in the Minister of Defence, who has provided no update about the defence headquarters when he knows that this building will now have to be demolished?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am advised that, actually, the Government does not own the defence building. In fact, I do not know why the member is picking on the Minister of Defence, because that Minister knows more about earthquake building and compliance than anyone in this House and anyone except the most experienced engineers. So I would be more inclined to listen to his advice than to listen to the member's advice.

• Economic Growth—Impact on Tax Revenue

2. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Finance: What impact is New Zealand's growing economy having on the Government's tax revenues?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): New Zealand's growing economy is having a number of positive effects: increased exports, rising real wages, and, as I mentioned yesterday, good growth in employment. That growth is flowing positively through to the Government's books. Core Crown tax revenue in the year to November, which is the latest data, was $72.9 billion, up from $67.5 billion in the previous November year, an increase of 8 percent, or 6.6 percent in real terms.

David Seymour: Can the Minister describe a scenario where a growing economy would not increase the Government's tax revenues?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member, of course, is quite a strong advocate for decreasing tax revenue, so I could imagine one if he were ever the Minister of Finance.

Andrew Bayly: How does this growth in tax revenue compare with Treasury's forecasts?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It compares well. As I have stated in the primary answer, tax revenue was up 8 percent over the previous year. That compared with a forecast increase in Budget 2016 of 4.7 percent. So it is again worth reminding members that forecasts are only forecasts, whether they are positive or negative.

David Seymour: Did the Minister intend to imply in his earlier answer that the only way taxpayers will get tax relief is if ACT holds the Treasury benches?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is drawing a long bow, and no. I think, for the sake of the whole country, if that were what was required that would be a very bleak outlook, because it does not appear it will happen for some time yet.

Andrew Bayly: How does our financial position now compare with where it was at the height of the global financial crisis?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It has been a significant recovery. Tax revenue in the year to November 2016 was $72.9 billion, compared with tax revenue in the November 2009 year of just $51.8 billion. So it has grown 27 percent in real terms, when adjusted for inflation. Of course, back in those days we had bigger deficits, because we maintained spending for the vulnerable in society and through the Canterbury earthquakes. These increases do highlight the importance of having the right economic policies in place to encourage economic growth.

David Seymour: In light of the Minister's earlier answer, how much more revenue does this Government have to collect than its expenditures require before it will consider reducing tax rates or adjusting tax brackets?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I have said previously to the member, there are a number of considerations that the Government has in terms of allocating its budget—for example, public services, the infrastructure that the Government invests in, and also, of course, making sure we get debt down to below 20 percent of GDP, which is a target this Government has set to happen by around 2020. But, yes, tax considerations are very important, and, as I have said more than once in this House, it is important to remember that the money that this Parliament gets to appropriate comes from the work of hard-working Kiwis.

Andrew Bayly: What impact is the improved financial position having on the Government's surpluses?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is too early to say yet, as I would note we have some significant costs coming through, like the Kaikōura earthquake, and, of course, other demands on spending to support a growing economy. It does, however, show the importance of fiscal discipline and a focus on economic growth in what is still an uncertain global environment, so that we are in a position to deal with any significant economic shocks, and also unplanned events, like the earthquakes that Kaikōura has just experienced.

• Children—Government Measures to Ensure Health and Well-being

3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Is the Government doing a good job at ensuring the health and well-being of every New Zealand child?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): I believe the Government is doing a good job of ensuring the health and well-being of most New Zealand children, but there are children for whom we should be—and are—doing more. No Government has spent more time understanding in gritty detail the persistent deprivation and hardship of some New Zealand children, and that is why we took two steps. One was the extra $25 a week for all beneficiary families with children, starting on 1 April last year. That is also why the Government from 1 April will have a new children's agency to revamp the care of the children who come into the care of the State.

Andrew Little: Is he concerned that the Salvation Army and now today the Children's Commissioner say there is no evidence his Government's policies have had any impact on reducing child poverty?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I disagree with them, for two reasons. [Interruption] No—for two reasons. One is that the Salvation Army measures published do not take into account the first increase in welfare benefits in 40 years over and above Consumers Price Index inflation—[Interruption] Well, it just did not count it, because it has not covered that period yet. The second reason is this: there are now 40,000 fewer children in benefit-dependent households than 3 years ago—40,000 fewer children in benefit-dependent households than 3 years ago. The Children's Commissioner and the Salvation Army may not regard that as progress; we certainly do, and so do the families who work so hard to get themselves off benefit and into work.

Andrew Little: Does he agree with the Children's Commissioner that the current level of child poverty is unacceptable, and is he concerned that the Children's Commissioner found no evidence his policies are making a difference?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said, I do not actually agree with the Children's Commissioner. I do not believe he is taking into account actual changes for children and the change in approach that the Government is taking, which is twofold: first, to increase incomes where that is possible in a number of ways, including lifting benefit levels and lifting the minimum wage; and alongside that to dig into the multigenerational cycles of criminal offending, child abuse, and welfare dependency, which afflict the lives of far too many children. That is why we are changing the way the Government does business, ranging from family violence policy to the new children's agency to break those cycles.

Andrew Little: Why does he continue to say that the increase in benefit levels implemented by his Government and increases in the minimum wage, which have now been completely wiped out by increases in housing costs according to the Salvation Army, are somehow this panacea to child poverty, when every other element of evidence says it clearly is not?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Unlike the member, we do not think there is a simple panacea to child poverty, because a lot of it is to do with deeply ingrained patterns, which the Government has actually reinforced in some cases, and now we are trying to change that. But if the member thinks that $25 a week is worth nothing to those households, then he ought to get a bit more realistic about what their lives are like. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The interchange here—[Interruption] Order!

Hon Annette King: Sorry, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate that.

Andrew Little: I am obliged, Mr Speaker. How can he say—the Prime Minister, that is—that his Government is doing well for New Zealand's children when we have more homeless children than ever before, and including, now, children living under tarpaulins?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I mentioned, when I think the member or someone else raised the case yesterday that, apparently, there were some children living under a tarpaulin somewhere, this is a country that has the resources to be able to meet that kind of very serious housing need. Of course a rise in house prices has put some pressure on housing costs in families. That is why we look forward to the Labour Party's support for the changes in the Resource Management Act and other changes in local government to make sure we can get more houses on the ground faster, because that is what those families need.

Andrew Little: Is he satisfied that in National's 9th year in Government more than 41,000 children are admitted to hospital with diseases linked to hardship, and when will he accept that his cuts to health services are causing this problem?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. In fact, a feature of this Government's pursuit of social policy is relentless dissatisfaction. There is always more that can be done, particularly for our most complex and vulnerable families. So, for instance, in the case of hospital admissions, the rheumatic fever project has been pretty successful. We have cut rheumatic fever rates by around 40 percent over 3 years with a pretty complex set of solutions, and we are going to continue down that path with that particular problem and cut hospital admissions.

Andrew Little: When we have 90,000 children in New Zealand living in the worst kind of poverty, is it not time that he showed some leadership, put politics aside, and picked up the Children's Commissioner's call to lead a cross-party plan to reduce child poverty in New Zealand?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the last thing those families are waiting for is a cross-party plan that includes the participation of one party that is pulling itself apart over picking one mediocre candidate. I do not think they will be able to contribute that much to a child poverty plan. What those children need is more of what the Government is doing, and that is raising their incomes and working with those families to break the cycles of dependency.

• Police—Safer Communities Package

4. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Police: How will the Government's Safer Communities package make police more accessible and easier to reach?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Police): It is important that people can contact the police at all times of the day and night, whether the matter is life-threatening or less serious. That is why our Safer Communities package includes a new non-emergency number that people can ring to contact police when their issue is not urgent enough to call 111. There are currently more than 300 local police station numbers, many of which are not answered 24/7. The new number will mean people can get through to police any time of the day or night.

Ian McKelvie: How will the new non-emergency number work?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Many people have found themselves in a situation where they need to speak to the police and it is not serious enough to call 111, and they do not know who to call or how to get through. People will be able to ring the new number for anything non-urgent. It will also be linked with the 111 system so they can be transferred immediately if it is something that is more important, and they will be able to report things like suspicious activity, historic or low-level crime, or simply ask advice of the local police.

Ian McKelvie: How will the number help police respond to people more quickly?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The number will be answered by some of the new 245 non-sworn police staff. They will be well trained to assist people with whatever they need. Thanks to the extra 880 sworn officers we are funding, there will be more police out patrolling and ready to respond when they receive these calls.

David Seymour: Has the Minister asked the commissioner to prioritise more police hours at community policing centres such as the Epsom community policing centre?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Where police are deployed is entirely up to the commissioner. However, he has assured me that because of these extra police more than 15 stations that were open only business hours will now have a community police person 24/7. So that is good news.

Stuart Nash: Is the increase in announced police more, less, or exactly the number of sworn police she asked for?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is exactly what I asked for in the Cabinet paper.

Stuart Nash: Is the 880 announced police more, less, or exactly the number of sworn police the Police asked for in its original business case requesting greater resource?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Since the Police wrote the Cabinet paper, it is exactly what it asked for in the Cabinet paper.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! A point of order has been called. It will be heard in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a record of a video on Twitter, at 9.20 a.m., from that Minister, saying 140 of the 880 sworn officers will be going into rural New Zealand, which indicates she knows a lot more than she is saying—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I am not prepared to put the leave. It is obviously something from the media, available to members if they want it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Just before the member makes his point of order, I hope he is not in any way going to relitigate a decision I have just made. But I will hear from the member.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: My point is that not every member of this Parliament is on Twitter.

Mr SPEAKER: No, but every member—[Interruption] Order! Members who want the information can be on Twitter and get it if they find it useful. [Interruption] Order! Mr Mark.

• Economic Growth—Distribution

5. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he believe working New Zealanders are getting a fair share of economic growth?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Yes—a fair and growing share. Thanks to the growing economy, more New Zealanders than ever before have jobs, and we have seen 21 consecutive quarters of wage growth above inflation. That is the longest period of continuous real wage growth since that series began in 1993. Overall, since 2008, average Kiwi wages are up around 25 percent, which is almost double the increase in the cost of living over the same period. That means the purchasing power of Kiwi workers and households is steadily rising.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, is it correct then that, for him, working people are getting a fair share when, according to Statistics New Zealand, an annual housing cost increase of 11 percent last year wiped out most of the wage increases, leaving the average household in New Zealand with less than a dollar a day more in their pocket?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: After housing costs, the increase for the average earner was $365 over the year. But I would point out to the member that, yes, housing costs rose significantly last year, but, fortunately, they are nothing like what they used to be, because back in 2007, housing costs, average mortgage repayments on a median-priced house, cost 49 percent of the average wage, and now it costs 38 percent. So although costs have gone up in the last year, they are significantly lower than they used to be under the Labour Government.

Grant Robertson: So—to confirm—the Minister of Finance believes a fair share in economic growth for the average working household in New Zealand is less than a dollar a day?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I did not say that.

Grant Robertson: Yes, you did.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I did not. I pointed out to the member that the particular statistic he raises in terms of $365 after housing costs is in the household expenditure survey, but in terms of the growing share of the economic growth for New Zealand wage earners, over the last several years, real wages have been growing at twice the rate of inflation. Wages have been growing at twice the rate of inflation. Mr Robertson is very good at trying to pick out one statistic from a small period of time, but, apart from him, the rest of us who are not trainspotters are interested in what happens to New Zealanders over time.

Grant Robertson: Is it a fair share for working New Zealanders when average ordinary-time hourly earnings dropped in the December quarter, according to the latest household labour force survey—which he was very keen on yesterday?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: If the member wants to talk quarterly numbers in any statistical series, he can. But I will tell him what I think is fair. What I think is fair is that in this economy 66.9 percent of New Zealanders have employment, which is a higher proportion of adult New Zealanders than ever before. We have the second-highest rate of employment in the whole OECD, and Kiwi wages are growing at double the rate of inflation. Back under the previous Labour Government they were growing, but only at the rate of inflation.

Grant Robertson: Is he prepared to do anything new or different to give working people a better share of growth in the economy than a dollar a day, or is his idea of a fair share when consultants earn $40 million in one year on his watch at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE)?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In answer to the second part of the member's question, the consultancy costs at MBIE are going down. The costs of core Government administration are going down. It does not matter how often the member says what he just said, in terms of workers in the economy, the simple fact of the matter is that average Kiwi wages are up 25 percent since 2008, which is double the increase in the cost of living over the same period. We have seen 21 consecutive quarters of real wage growth, and the member can focus on one quarter if he likes, but, actually, for real New Zealanders it is about the trend over time.

• Prime Minister—Statements

6. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes.

Jan Logie: How could he say in his Prime Minister's statement that he is looking forward to a strong and effective relationship with the Māori Party, when his Government introduced the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill despite knowing how fundamental tino rangatiratanga is to Māori and the Māori Party, particularly in respect of their own children?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is ongoing discussion about the way that the objectives that the member is referring to are achieved in that bill. The Government believes that we have gone a long way to recognising the fact that many Māori children are in State care and that that system should be very responsive to and respectful of their whakapapa and their whānau. Just exactly how that is captured in legislation has been a subject of a lot of discussion, and no doubt there will be more.

Jan Logie: Does he agree with the co-leader of the Māori Party Marama Fox, who said about this bill, "We cannot have a new stolen generation by removing links to whakapapa in this new design."?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member has the opportunity to look at the legislation and decide for herself whether that is a correct assessment. I would say that it is not, but we do share with the Māori Party a strong desire to change what has happened to so many of our most vulnerable children. New Zealand can do a better job, and under this Government we will do a better job. After a number of years of very hard work, to which a lot of people have contributed with goodwill, on 1 April the new organisation will begin, starting a period of another 3 or 4 years of significant change. In the end, this is fundamentally about protecting our children better, particularly those who are most at risk.

Jan Logie: Will he push ahead with removing the requirement to prioritise placing tamariki Māori within their own whānau, hapū, or iwi despite the Māori Party describing these changes as creating a new stolen generation—surely a pretty fundamental disagreement?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I acknowledge that when we are dealing with issues related to our children and the awful circumstances in which the State would take them from their families—bearing in mind that it is a rare and very unfortunate occurrence—in those circumstances some strong words are going to be spoken. I do not happen to agree with the member's description of either side of the argument.

Jan Logie: Does he agree that the Government is breaching Te Tiriti by cutting across rangatiratanga and putting tamariki Māori at further risk, as the Māori Women's Welfare League said in its claim to the Waitangi Tribunal against these policies?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I do not agree with that, nor do I think it is fair to characterise any number of these groups as fundamentally opposed to the policy. Many of them have participated because they know in nitty-gritty detail what has gone wrong, so they have participated in the whole process of setting out to put it right and change the system. It happens that at this stage, against the background of an enormous amount of goodwill and a surprising breadth of consensus about what is radical change—the most radical change in the care of our children in decades—there are some issues about how the intent is expressed in the legislation. But we actually have very similar intent, and I do not agree with the characterisations of Government policy.

Jan Logie: Is he concerned that his old friend the former co-leader of the Māori party, Dame Tariana Turia, knowing the content of the legislation, is threatening to march on Parliament again, saying "If we can walk for our land, if we can walk for our foreshore, we can certainly act for our tamariki."?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course I would be concerned about anyone who is as focused as Dame Tariana on the welfare of our children feeling that strongly. That is why it is a good idea for us to make sure everyone understands what is at stake and understands what the actual legislative proposals are—because it is not that well understood that the legislation is available for scrutiny—participates in a select committee process, and makes propositions about how they think these issues can be resolved. I am sure it will take a bit of movement to achieve that. Ideally, we would be able to get, at least, significant agreement on the way forward.

Marama Fox: If we are to believe the statistics that say 63 percent of children in the care of Child, Youth and Family are Māori and 71 percent of young people in prison are Māori, is the Government prepared to continue to negotiate with the Māori Party to ensure that the rebuild of Oranga Tamariki is done with a kaupapa Māori perspective?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course we are. As coalition partners, we are always open to a discussion, as the member knows. I think we do need to keep in mind, for those groups outside the Parliament, that we do not want to let a philosophical discussion between adults get in the way of a better path for our children. Sometimes these things are easier to solve in practice than in theory.

Jan Logie: How can the Government push ahead with these policies, described as creating a new "stolen generation", against the informed opposition of the Māori Party, Dame Tariana Turia, the Māori Women's Welfare League, and, most recently, the Iwi Leaders Forum?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We will be pushing ahead because if the alternative is to leave in place the system that has destroyed the lives of many of our most vulnerable children and whānau, in my view there is only one choice, and that is to change it. Now, of course, whether we can bring everyone along with that change is still open to debate, but the member should not be in any doubt that we are proceeding, because every month we take means that some of our children are suffering in ways that are avoidable.

Marama Fox: Can the Prime Minister confirm that subsequent legislation that governs the rebuild of Oranga Tamariki will reflect adequately the position of Māori when dealing with Māori children?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course that is what we would like to achieve.

• Broadband, Ultra-fast and Rural—Progress

7. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for Communications: What progress can he report on the rollout of the Ultra-Fast Broadband and Rural Broadband initiatives?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister for Communications): Today I released the latest quarterly broadband update, which highlights that 31 percent of New Zealanders with access to fibre are now connected to ultra-fast broadband (UFB). That is up 13 percent in the last 3 months. This means that over 320,000 households, businesses, schools, and hospitals are connected to UFB nationwide. Today's update also shows that deployment of the first phase of the UFB programme is 71 percent complete, with 21 towns now fully fibred, and over 300,000 rural households and businesses now able to access much faster broadband.

Sarah Dowie: How does the recent announcement of phase 2 of the UFB programme help deliver on the Government's targets?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The overall deployment of UFB is now some 6 percent ahead of schedule, and uptake is continuing to track above expectations, with New Zealand boasting the second-highest growth rate for fibre subscriptions in the OECD. The extension of the UFB programme, which was announced at the end of January, will see another 423,000 New Zealanders able to access fibre by the end of 2024 across a further 151 towns. By the end of 2024 more than 84 percent of New Zealanders will have access to UFB fibre under both phases of the Government's UFB programme. It is fantastic to see more and more Kiwis getting on board with UFB, as access to fast and reliable internet helps create an environment for economic growth, and is critical for helping businesses and communities all around New Zealand to thrive.

Clare Curran: Why do the people who live on the fringes of Auckland, Taupō, Rotorua, Napier-Hastings, Upper Hutt, Nelson, and Queenstown, or in Kaitāia, Warkworth, Wellsford, Ōtorohanga, Whangamata, Kaikōura, Culverden, Waimate, Waikouaiti, and many more towns have to wait until 2023-24—that is 6 or 7 years—to get connected to ultra-fast broadband 2? Is it not true—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The question is far too long. I will give the Minister an opportunity to answer it.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I would note that Labour in fact voted against it, and under this Government it is happening. I am really proud that over time we are getting to 85 percent. We have gone from the back of the pack in the OECD to above the middle, and, actually, under the packages and the hundreds of millions—in fact, the billions—of dollars invested by this Government, we will be there at the very front of the OECD in ultra-fast broadband. I am really proud of that.

• Building and Construction, Minister—Statements on Increase in House Construction

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): My question is for the Minister of Housing—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will ask the question as it is written on the sheet. If he cannot manage to do that, I am quite happy to move to the next question. Question No. 8—Phil Twyford.

PHIL TWYFORD: They don't have a Minister of Housing, that's the problem.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I gave the member a chance. I am very tempted to move immediately to the next question. I will be generous on this occasion, but the member had better not abuse my generosity.

8. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does he stand by his statement, "this building boom is 30 percent stronger than the boom back in 2004 in inflation-adjusted terms"; if so, what does he think has been a larger cause of that, the 137 percent increase in the cost of building a home in Auckland or the fall in consent numbers there by 2,185?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Construction): I absolutely stand by the statement that the current building boom is 30 percent stronger than in 2004. The raw numbers are $19 billion in 2016 as compared to $11 billion in 2004 that adjusts to $14 billion in today's terms. That is a $5 billion real increase. The exact increase is 34.8 percent. There are two reasons the value of building work is much higher compared to the number of homes. The current building boom is not just houses. We have record levels of commercial, industrial, and infrastructure construction. That should be welcomed, because we want jobs, schools, and services for people, as well as homes.

The second reason is that in 2004 there was an unusual one-off boom in shoebox apartments as small as 40 square metres. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. The level of interjection now is totally unreasonable. If I have to take more action, I will do so.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We now have a point of order.

Hon David Parker: You having called my colleague Clare Curran to order for an overly long question, the Minister is now being allowed to make a very, very long answer, better characterised as a speech.

Mr SPEAKER: And as I have pointed out to the member many times, I am the judge of that, but I did neglect to inform the House at the start of the question that my office had been advised the answer would be longer than normal to fill the details. I was distracted because of the way the question was delivered at the time. The Minister can now complete his answer.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Buildings costs per square metre have risen more slowly under this Government at an average of 5 percent per year as compared to 8 percent per year under the previous administration.

Phil Twyford: Why is he boasting about the biggest building boom in history, when the real difference between now and the last peak in 2004 is not the number of homes being built but that building is getting more expensive, and if the cost of building had remained the same as in 2004, the value of building work today would be half of what it is today, only $9.5 billion compared to the $19 billion he boasts about?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I think that member should be welcoming the fact that more houses were built last year than in any year for more than a decade. In respect of cost increases, the member should ask the colleague sitting next to him, because the cost per square metre of building houses grew by 8 percent per year under the previous Government and has grown by about 5 percent per year under this Government.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What reports has the Minister received in support of the Government's housing policies?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have read reports saying you cannot boost house construction overnight and that it would take any Government many years to achieve a goal of 10,000 houses per year. I have also read reports from the same person saying that the Government does not control house prices. I agree with both of those statements from Mr Little.

Phil Twyford: Will he confirm that the number of dwellings consented in the last year is not higher than in 2004 or 1974, but only the cost is?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The number of homes built last year was just under 30,000. That is a record period of 5 years of 20-plus percent growth, it is the highest in 10 years, and in all of New Zealand's history is exceeded only by two other years. In anybody's terms that is a building boom.

Phil Twyford: When the actual number of dwellings consented per 1,000 of population is 6.2, less than half the 13.1 in 1974 when Norman Kirk was Prime Minister, how can he claim we have the most building activity ever?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If the member reads the history of what occurred in 1974—it was a Labour Government where spending was out of control and there was a massive building boom that collapsed in 1976. What you see from this Government is steady ongoing improvement. This is the longest and strongest period of home construction growth, of 20 percent per year, 5 years running.

Phil Twyford: When will he stop trying to confuse the public with alternative facts and admit that his housing policies have failed, that not enough houses are being built, and that the dream of Kiwi homeownership is falling further and further behind?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is a bit rich, from the man who is the architect of Chinese-sounding names. I am happy to stand by my figures any day, compared with some of the garbage that member has been spinning.

Phil Twyford: I seek leave to table analysis done by the Parliamentary Library based on Statistics New Zealand's building consents issued data, produced earlier today.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular information, sourced from the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none.

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

• Infrastructure—Resource Management Act Reforms

9. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister for the Environment: Are the Government's resource management reforms helping deliver timely consenting decisions on the infrastructure New Zealand needs to support a growing economy?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): An important change that National made in our first phase of Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms is a streamlined board of inquiry process for nationally significant projects. This provides a one-step hearings process and a legal requirement for decisions to be made within 9 months. This has enabled major projects like the $630 million Kapiti Expressway and the $1.4 billion Waterview Connection to be consented in a timely way. Both projects, which are due for opening in the next month, are a product of the successful reform.

Jami-Lee Ross: What further infrastructure projects are being considered for the streamlined board of inquiry process introduced by the Government?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Today I have announced that the $700 million Northern Corridor Improvements project on State Highways 1 and 18 in Albany is nationally significant and is to be referred to a board of inquiry, chaired by Environment Court judge Melanie Harland. I have also jointly determined with the conservation Minister, Maggie Barry, that the $1.5 billion East-West Link project between Onehunga and Mount Wellington will be referred to a board of inquiry, to be chaired by retired High Court judge, the Hon John Priestley. These boards of inquiry will ensure a robust process and a fair say for communities, but also a timely decision, which is so important for Auckland with its transport issues.

Eugenie Sage: Does he think the RMA is supporting 21st century economic development when it still allows new climate-polluting coalmines, as if we were in the 1900s?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am very proud of this Government's record with the emissions trading scheme, which, actually, has seen emissions from the electricity sector drop significantly. Actually, under the previous Government, of which the Greens were part, we saw an increase in thermal emissions from the electricity sector. We came into Government at 65 percent, and it is now up to 80 percent. I understand from the Minister of Energy and Resources that we are on target to get to 90 percent renewable by 2025.

David Seymour: Does the Minister know what the Prime Minister had in mind when he challenged the Labour Party to support further resource management legislation reforms earlier today in question time?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Parliament has the major second phase RMA reform bill before it. It will enable us to build more houses, it will enable us to create more jobs, and it will enable us to address transport issues. That is why I get so frustrated with members opposite, who want solutions on those problems but will oppose the very measures that will address them.

Hon David Parker: Given that more houses were built during the mid-2000s than are being built now, how can he blame the RMA for that decline, given the RMA was in force back then—as it is now—and that he has already spent 8 long years blaming everyone else to avoid taking responsibility for the housing crisis that National has caused?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That member should take responsibility for the very specific changes that Labour made to the RMA, because in the 2002 amendments it determined that regional policy statements and—it is noteworthy—the tight metropolitan urban limit actually took dominance over housing. That, actually, for the Productivity Commission, was at the core of Auckland's problems. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Twyford.

Eugenie Sage: What does the Minister say to the people of Waimakariri, who are worried that they will not be able to have a say about a big new quarry in their neighbourhood because National changed the RMA so that they do not have to be consulted?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The ultimate decision about what activities are permitted in a district, such as a quarry, rests with councils. But help is on the way in that the new RMA reform bill provides for standardised plans so that we can get a greater degree of consistency. But let me make no bones about it: this Government's ambition with the RMA is to support jobs, to support new houses, and to support growth, because at the moment, the RMA is preventing New Zealand from being able to make progress on those fronts.

Eugenie Sage: When his current controversial changes to the RMA further reduce the public's ability to have a say in decisions that they care about, are his reforms not all about tilting the Act in favour of development and against communities and the environment?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, the RMA reform bill is about tilting in favour of more houses, and it is true that members of the Greens and the Labour Party favour consultation and appeals over people having roofs over their heads.

• Te rai Beach—Public Consultation on Access

10. TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Why did he refuse to allow public consultation regarding access to Te Ārai Beach in line with his responsibilities under the Crown Forest Assets Act 1989?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): The member mischaracterises the situation a little in this matter, in her question. It was not a case of refusing to allow for public consultation. The Act is quite clear, and in this case required that the responsible Ministers consider whether the change significantly affected the public access easement. Having reviewed the easement proposal, I am satisfied that it does not, and, in fact, that it improves public access to Te Ārai Beach.

Tracey Martin: What advice has he received regarding section 27(1)(b) of the Crown Forest Assets Act 1989, where interpretation requires the responsible Minister to accept submissions from any person or organisation not less than 40 working days after a published notice in a principal metropolitan newspaper, in circumstances where an easement is cancelled?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I did receive advice in terms of how to respond to the application, and I did consider the submissions that were made. It is important to note that the land is iwi-owned land with a public access easement on it on to Te Ārai Beach. The iwi sought a change to the current easement to allow for a larger public carpark near the beach, and that necessitated a realignment of part of the public access way by around 25 metres. To be clear, public access is still guaranteed, and, in fact, improved, with the access way increased in width from 8 metres to 58 metres for the first 800 metres, and from 8 metres to 20 metres for the remaining 220 metres.

Tracey Martin: Is the Minister aware that his Treasury has confirmed in written statements that "There is a small section of the existing easement"—that is, the public access—"that is to be cancelled"; if so, how does he justify his refusal, in his letter dated 7 February 2017, to allow public consultation on the public access to Te Ārai Beach?

Mr SPEAKER: There are two supplementary questions there—the Hon Steven Joyce.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In answer to the second part of the question, because it was quite clear that the responsible Minister's test was to consider whether the change significantly affects the public access easement. I reviewed the easement proposal, and I am satisfied that it does not, and, in fact, it improves public access to the beach.

Tracey Martin: When will his Government put the rights of New Zealanders to public access to their coastline, and to public consultation first, before the whims of mega-rich foreign buyers, or does the fact that members of the Cabinet play golf on this exclusive club somehow give dispensation?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Dear oh dear, the member is well wide of the mark here. It is important to note that this change actually enhances the access. I went through it earlier for the member; I am happy to take her through it again. I considered it carefully. I considered the submissions and made a decision. I appreciate that in many cases the member and her party are against any form of development, but it is important that, actually, the Ministers follow the Act.

Tracey Martin: I seek leave to table a letter from the Minister dated 7 February 2017 to the New Zealand Fairy Tern Charitable Trust and Te Arai Beach Preservation Society, where he outlines the reason that he has declined public consultation.

Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify the date of that letter?

Tracey Martin: It is 7 February 2017.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

• Economic Development, Minister—Oversight of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

11. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister for Economic Development: Is he answerable to this House for the more than $20 million in untendered contracts at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment reported in the previous year; if so, how can he be sure those contracts represent best value for money when they were not tendered?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister for Economic Development): I am the ownership Minister for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). I think what is true is that for a large entity within Government such as MBIE it is not unusual—indeed, I do not disapprove of it having contractors and consultants and using them. I think there is a range of ways that it procures these services. Just because it is not in an open tender does not mean, as the member seems to be suggesting, that it is in any way not a robust procurement process. I would note, actually—this is important, because I do expect value for money in this area and for MBIE to be continuously driving on that—that MBIE has had a good record of managing down its procurement expenditure, from, I think, some $48 million in 2012-13 to $38 million in the 2015-16 year.

Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a question on notice. The first bit he answered directly: he is the ownership Minister—i.e., he is answerable to the House. The second part asked how he could be sure that it represented the best value for money. What he went on to describe was why he believed it was value for money, but he was unable to answer the part about why he thought it was the best value for money. I do not think he addressed that, and it was on notice.

Mr SPEAKER: I listened very, very carefully to the answer, and on this occasion I do not agree with the member raising the point. The question was addressed. The member has further supplementary questions; that is the way forward.

Dr David Clark: Does he support spending $1.2 million on a single untendered contract, and is this a practice he expects to continue under his watch?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I have every confidence that MBIE has followed the rules of procurement in this area. What I would make very clear is that these are operational matters, ultimately, but I have no reason to believe that there is anything untoward here. I would also note, as I said earlier, that in a large organisation like this, which quite literally is in a range of areas and requires expertise in areas from rockets to construction to labour to administration, I would expect to see it using consultants and contracting. But I also expect value for money, and have made that quite clear. I have had an assurance that it will continue with its track record of driving down the costs in this area.

Dr David Clark: Can he explain to the House what "coaching and evaluation support for customer-centric co-design initiatives" is, and why the taxpayer is forking out $439 an hour for consultants to deliver this service?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It sounds like the sort of course the member should go on. But what I would say to the member is that ultimately we can do this and go through courses and specific consultancy services, but they are operational matters for MBIE. If the member has specific concerns in relation to them, he has appropriate processes to raise them with me, but I have every confidence that MBIE is, firstly, following the rules in this area, and, secondly, actively driving down the costs. As we are seeing, its record in this area is good.

Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seeking your clarification. I think the member was implying this was not an appropriate forum to ask these questions. You are saying it is an appropriate forum. I just ask that he respect that, because he was implying that this was not an appropriate question to be asking on behalf of the taxpayer—where that money is going. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the question was asked. There were actually two questions in there. The second part of the question was addressed very quickly by the Minister. He then went on to make comments that related more to the first part of the question. There is no doubt in my mind that the question has been addressed—clearly not to the satisfaction of the member. I think most of us will accept that, but the way forward, again, is further incisive supplementary questions.

Dr David Clark: Why has he directed his "please explain" letter to the ministry when his colleague Steven Joyce, who has form with $140,000 TV—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! And now I do apologise. I cannot hear the question because of the interchange coming from my left and my right. I invite the member to start the question again.

Dr David Clark: Why has he directed his "please explain" letter to the ministry, when his colleague Steven Joyce, who has form with $140,000 TV screens, $67,000 signs, barbecue sundecks, blow-up sheep, and hair straighteners continued in the last year to oversee untendered expenditure of more than $20 million of taxpayer money?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, because while I have got confidence that the rules of procurement are being followed here, and while I have, I think, a sense of confidence based on the fact that actually MBIE's record has been to drive the costs down from $46 million or $47 million to $38 million since its inception, the member has asked questions about these things, he has raised a number of issues in relation to a number of particular matters, and I just want to be sure and be satisfied that there is nothing in them. Given that it is the member asking the questions, there probably is not.

• Associate Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration—Announcements on the Canterbury Earthquake National Memorial

12. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Associate Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration: What announcements has she made regarding the Canterbury Earthquake National Memorial?

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Associate Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration): Today a significant greenstone installation has been placed near the entrance of the Canterbury Earthquake National Memorial. The 265-kilogram pounamu has been sourced from South Westland and gifted by Te Rūnanga o Makaawhio of Ngāi Tahu.

Joanne Hayes: How will the installation help to enhance the Canterbury Earthquake National Memorial?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: The Canterbury Earthquake National Memorial will provide a place to reflect on the events that changed Canterbury for ever on 22 February 2011. It pays respect to those who lost their life, to those who were seriously injured, and to the first responders; and it recognises the impact on the wider community. The Māori traditional ritual of touching the pounamu connects visitors back to the land and to all of those who have been there before. It is a special contribution to an area that will mean much to Cantabrians and to the families who were affected by the earthquakes.

© Scoop Media