• ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Economic Outlook—Medium-term Forecast

1. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Finance: How is the New Zealand economy expected to perform over the medium-term?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): This week the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released its concluding statement of its article IV review of New Zealand, which notes that our economy is undergoing a broad-based economic expansion driven by residential and infrastructure investment, migration, and the dairy price recovery. The IMF expects this growth to remain strong and above trend into 2018. This positive outlook supports the view from Treasury that economic growth will be around 3.5 percent for each of the next 2 years.

Todd Muller: What does the IMF say about the Government's fiscal strategy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The IMF considers that the Government's fiscal strategy is broadly appropriate, and notes we are already incorporating higher infrastructure spending and new growth-friendly measures at a time when the economy is forecast to be growing above its potential. It also notes that the strong fiscal position provides room for the Government to further accommodate the needs of strong population growth, including the higher infrastructure expenditure signalled by the Government in the Budget Policy Statement. It allows the Government to give additional attention to our identified Budget priority areas of supporting low and middle income earners, improving public services, and reducing the country's debt.

Todd Muller: What recommendations did the IMF make for New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The IMF made a range of recommendations, some of which we agree with, and many of which are already under way. This includes consideration of the introduction of debt-to-income ratio limits, further strengthening of the banks' balance sheets, measures to increase housing supply, and greater trade liberalisation. The IMF also suggested a broad-based capital gains tax but we believe the better approach is targeting housing investors with the 2-year brightline test, the discontinuation of depreciation, and the resident withholding tax for overseas-based investors.

Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that real wages are due to increase by less than 1 percent across the next 3 years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: My answer to the member would be: "According to whom?".

Todd Muller: What other reports has he seen on the performance of the economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think there are many New Zealanders who are interested in the performance of the New Zealand economy. I see that Westpac Banking Corporation recently released its quarterly economic forecast, in which it states that "New Zealand finds itself in something of a sweet spot right now.", with the economy growing at a steady pace for some time and with a pipeline of building work and also dairy price recoveries expected to drive above average GDP growth for the next few years. It further notes that New Zealand stands out as a strong performer within a difficult global environment.

Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that Treasury has forecast that real wages are due to increase by less than 1 percent across the next 3 years and that labour productivity is due to fall again this year, making New Zealand's position as the fourth worst performer for labour productivity in the OECD even worse?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In terms of productivity performances, the member knows that is quite a long lagging indicator, so it will be some time before we know whether that prediction comes to pass. But in terms of real wage growth, yes, I am aware of the Treasury predictions, but the good news is that real wages have been growing substantially over the last 8 years. In fact, wages have been growing at approximately twice the rate of inflation, and I have more confidence that that trend will continue than the one being predicted by Treasury in this forecast.

• Social Housing, Minister—Statements

2. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Social Housing: Does her statement that the Prime Minister's commitment to 65,000 Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS) places was for the number of "places the Budget appropriation provides" mean she considers the commitment met, even if there are not 65,000 tenants actually housed using income-related rent subsidies?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Social Housing): No. I would, however, like to make it clear that my reference on Tuesday to budgeted places can only ever be an estimate as we work in total dollar terms, because the amount paid to any IRRS household varies significantly due to the personal circumstances of the household, the rent they pay, and the area they live in. In the former Prime Minister's speech the member is referring to, the former Prime Minister made it clear he was targeting a $40 million a year increase in the appropriation. I can tell the member that from then until now, it has, in fact, increased by $108 million a year.

Phil Twyford: What is the point in creating ghost subsidy places if there are not actually going to be houses to put people in? Where are the people supposed to live?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The member entirely misses the point, which is that the important thing is the number of places we have available for people who qualify for a social house. That number currently sits at around 66,000. We have indicated we want to take it to 72,000. All of those—

Phil Twyford: People aren't living in those 60—

Hon AMY ADAMS: —Mr Twyford, listen carefully now. All of those places are eligible for an IRRS. Money is available. People can fill them whether they qualify for an IRRS or not. They are eligible for an IRRS.

Phil Twyford: Is the reason that she has changed the target not that the Government has not built enough houses because it has taken $1.8 billion out of Housing New Zealand in taxes, dividends, and interest payments—enough to build 5,000 new State houses?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The member is simply wrong. The Government has increased the number of social houses available. The Government has increased the appropriation available to fund social housing places. The Government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars more than the Labour Government did, and it is delivering stock that is not only more in number but is warmer, dryer, safer, and more modern than the decrepit state of affairs we inherited from Labour.

Dr Megan Woods: Wasn't the question. Try again.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was very definitely addressed, and I do not need advice from Dr Megan Woods.

Phil Twyford: Why does the Government not just build more State houses instead of using Housing New Zealand as a cash cow so that it does not have to continue spending millions of dollars every month putting homeless Kiwi families up in motels?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Perhaps if the member did not talk all through my answers, he would hear me say that we have created 66,000 places and we have announced that we are on a plan to take that to 72,000 houses. Seventy-two thousand is more than 66,000. The number is going up, we are spending more, we are making them better, and we are making them more fit for purpose.

Phil Twyford: Will the Minister admit that creating social housing places or Budget appropriations is not the same thing as actual houses that people can live in with an IRRS?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The 66,000 social housing places are actual real houses with walls, roofs, kitchens, plumbing, and every single one of them is eligible to receive an IRRS. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Twyford. You have had your opportunity.

• Transport, Minister—Announcements on Whangarei to Northport Highway

3. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has the Government made on the Whangarei to Northport highway?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): The Government recognises the absolute importance of a reliable roading network to support future economic growth in Northland. That is why last week I was pleased to announce that up to $500 million will be invested to upgrade State Highway 1 linking Whangarei to Northport. The investment will see 22 kilometres of State highway upgraded to four lanes, with the section between Oakley and Port Marsden Highway expected to be completed within 3 to 5 years, followed by an upgrade between Whangarei and Oakley to be finished in 5 to 7 years. This upgrade will make travelling along this stretch of highway safer, will result in shorter travel times, and will also ensure the future prosperity of Northland by providing a very reliable and resilient connection to the port.

Dr Shane Reti: What other transport projects is the Government delivering to support economic growth in Northland?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Last week I was joined by the member in marking the completion of two State highway projects. The first was an $18 million upgrade of State Highway 1 over the Brynderwyns, where the current road is being realigned in places, tight corners removed, and a median wire rope barrier installed in an effort to bring down the high crash rate on the road. The second was an upgrade of State Highway 1 through Whangarei to remove bottlenecks and improve safety for those travelling through the city. The Government also marked the start of new two-lane bridges at Matakohe, and the members should keep an eye out for further progress on other projects later this year. These projects are just a part of the Government's multibillion-dollar investment north of Auckland, demonstrating our commitment to the region and its great future.

• Schools, Funding—Percentage Change in Operational Funding and Teacher Salaries

4. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: What was the percentage change in operational and teacher salaries funding for schools on a per child basis, once inflation and roll growth have been taken into account, between 2008 and 2016?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I welcome this question today, as the member is finally admitting that there has been a funding increase, despite his many erroneous proclamations that there has been "a funding freeze". First, I want to clarify for the House that operational funding and teacher salaries, which are the components in the member's question, are not the only components of school funding. Schools, for example, also receive funding for learning support, for curriculum resources, and for professional learning and development. However, the percentage change in operational funding for schools on a per child basis, once inflation and roll growth have been taken into account, between 2008 and 2016 is an increase of 18 percent per child—1-8, 18 percent per child. Between 2008 and 2016, teacher salaries have gone up in real terms by 3.36 percent. This cannot be broken down per student, as the member's question asks, as salaries are dependent on the age of the student and the experience of the individual teacher.

Chris Hipkins: Does she believe it is fair and accurate to say that funding for schools has gone up by 35 percent, as she has claimed, by using figures that include early childhood education funding, which has increased mainly as a result of more children participating?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do think it is fair and accurate to say that Vote Education has gone up by 35 percent, because it has.

Chris Hipkins: Did she state that funding for schooling has gone up by 35 percent?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am not aware that I have made that particular statement—

Grant Robertson: Yeah, well, you did.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Well, perhaps the member—

Hon Member: Google it.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Well, I do not spend my time on Google like that member does; I spend it on Planet Earth amongst research and evidence. So what I can tell the House is that Vote Education has gone up from just over $8 billion in 2008 to $11.04 billion in 2016, which represents a 35 percent increase.

Chris Hipkins: Does she accept that most schools will not receive an inflation-adjusted increase to their operation budgets this year due to her funding freeze announced in the Budget, and how does she expect those schools to cover the increases in their power bills, lawn mowing, art supplies, and everything else, if not by making cutbacks?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do not accept that, because what has been distributed to schools in 2017 is $1.35 billion in operational grants—which means more, not a freeze. In addition, $12.3 million has been targeted to those schools that have children who come from long-term benefit-dependent homes. Something like 98.4 percent of schools have received a share of that funding, and the balance that have not, have not because they do not have students who come from long-term benefit-dependent homes.

Chris Hipkins: How many schools will receive an increase in funding as a result of the new funding formula that she just announced, how many will receive a decrease, and how many will not receive any change?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do not hold in my head how much the dollar changes for 2,438 schools, but if I had had warning of that I would certainly have made an attempt to do so. What I can tell the member is that if 98.4 percent of schools are getting a share of the net new $12.3 million then their funding has gone up, depending on—

Chris Hipkins: Not if inflation's gone up more.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: —the composition of the roll at their school. If the member understood more the portfolio he is ostensibly the Opposition speaker for, he would understand that it is a very complex system. We provide more funding for different year groups. We provide more funding where learning support is required. We provide more funding, new classrooms, and schools than the previous administration did. So there is not a straight line average that would serve the member's appetite for simplicity.

• Education, Minister—Announcements on New Schools

5. TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on delivering new schools for our growing communities?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I was delighted to announce that Auckland, Tauranga, and Canterbury will each see a new primary school opening its door for students in 2019. Late last week I signed establishment notices for Flat Bush South East School in South-east Auckland, Pyes Pa West School in Tauranga, and Lincoln South School in Canterbury. Last week I had the honour of accompanying the Prime Minister and officially opening Haeata Community Campus, the tenth brand new school in Christchurch since the earthquake, which contributes to the completion of 16 school projects in the Greater Christchurch area this year, and starting another 17. The schools—Haeata, along with Rolleston College, which I attended with my colleague the Hon Amy Adams—are fabulous examples of innovation, collaboration, and modern learning, and in the case of Haeata, have been overwhelmed by community support, with over 900 students already enrolled.

Todd Barclay: What other recent announcements have been made on progress for school property in other communities of New Zealand?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: And the good news just keeps on coming. I also announced, alongside my colleague Minister Kaye, that ShapEd has been selected as the preferred bidder for the Minister of Education's third public-private partnership. This $220 million project will see four brand new primary schools built in Auckland and Hamilton, and two secondary schools rebuilt in Christchurch. The new schools include Kumeu - Huapai Primary School, Flat Bush South East Primary School, Sylvester Primary School in Hamilton, and Scott Point Primary School. Shirley Boys' High and Avonside Girls' High School will be rebuilt on a collocated site in Christchurch, and, alongside my colleague Minister Kaye, I also recently announced that the Government is investing $800,000 to build two new classrooms at Te Anau Primary School, in the member's electorate, to accommodate the projected roll growth. And the House erupted with applause for this investment in our young people!

Chris Hipkins: Did the Government fail to spend $54 million of the funding it had allocated last year for school construction projects; and isn't this flurry of announcements now just more proof that the Government is frantically trying to play catch up after cutting nearly 14 percent of the funding for school capital projects over the last 8 years?

Mr SPEAKER: Two supplementary questions there.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I think that parents, as I said yesterday, will be worried about the kinds of maths that the Labour Opposition seems to engage in. No, there has not been a flurry—or if there has, it has been every year that we have been in Government, because we have been building classrooms, redeveloping and refurbishing schools, building new schools, and working with schools to design collaborative environments. I invite the member to go visit some of those schools and hear how happy and excited those communities are.

• Environment, Minister—Statements

6. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by his statement that New Zealanders will have access to "open, honest information on the state of our rivers" with the Government's Clean Water package?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Yes. The first step we took on improving information on fresh water was establishing the Land, Air, Water Aotearoa (LAWA) national website, which is jointly run with the Cawthron Institute and regional councils and which provides site-specific, real-time data. The second step is our Environmental Reporting Act, which took effect in 2016, which the member's party opposed. In April we will see the first domain report on fresh water produced independently by the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment. The third step is the maps and website released as part of the Government's package, which, for the first time, gives consistent information across New Zealand on all our rivers over 40 centimetres deep and lakes that are greater than 1.5 kilometres in perimeter, totalling 54,000 kilometres.

Catherine Delahunty: How comfortable would he be letting his children swim at sites like the Manawatū one at Weber Road and many other sites that the LAWA website, confusingly, gives a thumbs up for swimming but also warns there is a toxic algae bloom?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Greens—like normal—exaggerate the risks from algae blooms. There has been only one example in New Zealand of anybody getting sick from an algae bloom, and that was in my own electorate of Nelson. I think it is scaremongering on behalf of the Greens, which will only result in discouraging people from getting out and enjoying a swim. The website that we have created specifically identifies those rivers where there is a risk from algae. That greatest risk is to small children, or to dogs that may chew the algae.

Barbara Kuriger: What would be the impact on a region like Wellington of adopting the alternative standard of rivers having to be within the tolerance of water quality 99 percent of the time?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, water monitoring by the regional council over the past summer every week shows that the Hutt, the Ōtaki, and the Ruamāhanga rivers each had only one exceedance of the guidelines, and those were on days when the river was in flood. In respect of the Waikanae River, every one of its tests was clear. Under the policy being advocated by the Opposition, every one of those rivers in Wellington would be deemed unswimmable, despite the fact that only those people with a lack of common sense would want to go swimming in a river in flood. We want a plan to improve our rivers, but not an impractical plan that discourages New Zealanders from getting out and enjoying our great outdoors.

Catherine Delahunty: Does he think it is confusing for the public, including dogs and small children, that a river can have a warning for the toxic algae bloom while still meeting this Government's standard of being safe for swimming?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: What I do know is that for the 9 years of the Labour Government, supported by the Greens, there was no information at all—no information at all. The new website provides good information—

Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —on E. coli—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Catherine Delahunty: I asked the Minister about whether he thought this information was confusing. I am not interested in his rant about the Labour Party.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! But in the final part of the answer given by the Minister—

Catherine Delahunty: Very hard to hear.

Mr SPEAKER: When the member then rose to her feet, the answer was definitely addressed, in the final part. The member may not have heard it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave to actually table the recordings by the Wellington Regional Council of all the rivers in the Wellington region that show that the times when they were unswimmable were when they were in flood. Other than that—

Mr SPEAKER: Is that information publicly available on the Wellington City Council website?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, it is actually not. It is analysis that has been provided.

Mr SPEAKER: I will take the member's word for it. Leave is sought to table that particular analysis. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Catherine Delahunty: Given that there is no up-to-date, daily data on the LAWA website for freshwater sites for all of Northland, Auckland, Waikato, and 30 other sites around the country, how are people supposed to know whether they will get sick from swimming?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The problem is that when our rivers go into major flood, the E. coli levels go through the roof, and the only party that is stupid enough in this Parliament to stand up and pretend that it can somehow stop rivers flooding is the Green Party, and I just make a plea that it might get someone with a little bit of science or practical experience, so this Parliament can debate sensible policy.

Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked about why there was no up-to-date daily data. It was a specific question, not an opportunity for a personal attack.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer was certainly direct and political. I think, on this occasion, the member has a point. I do not think the question has been addressed, and I will invite the member to ask the question again.

Catherine Delahunty: Given that there is no up-to-date daily data on the LAWA website for freshwater sites for all of Northland, Auckland, Waikato, and 30 other sites around the country, how are people supposed to know whether they will get sick from swimming on that day?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is not practical to provide information every single day on every single stretch of the 54,000 kilometres of river. I am already getting criticism from regional councils that the Government's requirements for more information are going to impose costs on ratepayers. But where the Green Party is wrong is that if people apply a little bit of an iota of common sense and do not swim when rivers are in flood and follow the advice that is now more comprehensive than has ever been provided, Kiwis can get out and enjoy a good swim in the bulk of New Zealand's rivers.

Catherine Delahunty: Will regional councils get an immediate increase in Government funding to ensure that better data collection and monitoring is undertaken on rivers and lakes, so that New Zealanders can make better decisions about when swimming in fresh water will make them sick?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This Government has increased the investment in cleaning up our rivers by sixfold and actually under far tougher economic circumstances, when members opposite chose to spend diddly-squat on our rivers. In respect of the cost of monitoring, yes, there will be some cost for regional councils. The difference between this side and the Opposition is that we are being practical and realistic about it.

Catherine Delahunty: Given how murky the information on the LAWA website is, should people rely on the Ministry for the Environment website, where many of the rivers only have data as up to date as 2014?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would question that member holding—saying they cannot rely on an independent scientific institute like the Cawthron Institute in my home community in Nelson that is well reputed for providing independent environmental information and is responsible, with regional councils, for maintaining the information on the LAWA website. What I would say to the member is that before this Government there was no website, no information, no maps, and that is where we have taken a substantive step forward.

Catherine Delahunty: Considering he has insisted that New Zealanders use common sense when judging water quality, why will he not take common-sense measures and stop dairy conversions and subsidise irrigation that will prevent pollution from dirtying our rivers, rather than wasting our time with an incoherent clean water plan that the public cannot understand or make use of?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Unless you adopt the sort of extreme position of, for instance, Mr Joy, who wants to ban farm animals in New Zealand from 2050, then we need—[Interruption] That is true. That is what he said. We do not hold that position. We hold a position that says that, actually, New Zealand can have a strong, growing agricultural sector, and if we put an extra 56,000 kilometres of fencing in, this country can enjoy good water quality, and families can enjoy a swim but they can also have a job and an income.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister understand that his proposed swimmable standard allows rivers to be categorised as swimmable, despite effluent and nutrient pollution at levels that his own standard says cause nuisance slime growth?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The irony is that the 540 E. coli level of swimmability that is behind the Government's standards was set when that member was in the Cabinet room. It was set in 2003, with that very member's—

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about slime, not E. coli.

Mr SPEAKER: I heard your question; I am not sure whether we are going to get the answer. I think, as the best way forward—as it has now become disjointed, because it was not an easy question—I am going to invite the member to ask the question again.

Hon David Parker: Does he now understand that his proposed swimmable standard allows rivers to be categorised as swimmable despite effluent and nutrient pollution at levels that his own standard says cause nuisance slime growth?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The swimmability standard was set in 2003 by the previous Labour Government. What we have provided is a website that does not just include information on E. coli but also provides information on the level of algae where that is an issue—albeit with respect to lakes, it is recorded as the algae level—with more comprehensive information than has ever been provided for New Zealanders.

Hon David Parker: This is a publicly available document, but it is 100 pages long. I seek leave to table the page of the standard that classifies as a "swimmable river" rivers that have nuisance blooms of periphyton—

Mr SPEAKER: I need to know what the actual document is, please.

Hon David Parker: It is the document that the Minister released last week, Clean Water, and it is page 34 of the appendix.

Mr SPEAKER: No; it is available to all members if they need to make reference to it.

• Social Development, Ministry—Collection of Clients' Data

7. CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she agree with the Prime Minister, who said, "I must emphasise that increasing access to data will not be at the expense of security or risk to privacy" in regards to the Government's collection of private client data from contracted social services?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Yes, absolutely. Just like doctors and counsellors, who collect similar data, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has robust procedures for gathering and protecting personal information, and has done so safely for decades, from a variety of sources. Of course, we are working closely with the Privacy Commissioner to ensure that clients' privacy rights are protected. The Government is not interested in personal files or case notes, and MSD will not be looking at individual records. As I have said before, it is about having the data so that we can better understand what services are needed, what is effective, and where the gaps are. I think both taxpayers and the people who access these services expect the $330 million that the Government funds in community-based social services every year to be spent on the programmes to get the very best results for vulnerable children, young people, and adults.

Carmel Sepuloni: Does she consider the rights and privacy of citizens seeking assistance from community law centres to be more important than the rights and privacy of citizens seeking support from mental health and addiction services, Rape Crisis, or Women's Refuge, given that community law centres have recently been made exempt from private client data-sharing requirements, or are they just lucky to have legislation to protect them?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Community law centres are not funded by MSD through community investment, and the whole purpose of collecting data by MSD through community investment is so that we can ensure that the right services are available to all of New Zealand's vulnerable children, young people, and adults.

Carmel Sepuloni: Is she aware that Rape Crisis spokesperson Andrea Black has been told by clients that "They would not seek help with us if they knew this was going to happen.", in response to the Government's collection of private client data; if so, is she concerned that under her watch, survivors of sexual assault will be putting off accessing support services they desperately need?

Mr SPEAKER: Two supplementary questions—the Hon Anne Tolley.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well, providers will ultimately make decisions about whom they will provide that service to and for. I would encourage any provider with concerns or questions that they feel have not been answered by MSD to talk to MSD urgently so that their concerns can be allayed. They will then be able to reassure their clients about how this data is being used, but, more importantly, about how it is being protected, ensuring that they continue receiving funding for those services.

Carmel Sepuloni: How does she expect the public and service providers to have confidence in her approach to private, sensitive, client data-sharing, when the Privacy Commissioner is conducting an inquiry after she has already recklessly inserted the requirements into contracts?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes, I do understand that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is responding to requests to have a look at the collection of individual client-level data by contracted providers, but the Ministry has been working with the Privacy Commissioner throughout the process to ensure clients' privacy rights are protected, and we have invited the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to be part of a collaborative approach to working through what needs to be in place to ensure that the client-level data that we are collecting does protect the interests and rights of individuals.

Carmel Sepuloni: If the Privacy Commissioner highlights serious concerns about the Government's private client-data collection through the inquiry, will she significantly adjust the approach or abandon it altogether?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well, of course, if working collaboratively with the Privacy Commissioner, we will listen to any recommendations that he has to make. However, this Government makes good use of data in order to make sure that the $330 million we spend every year out providing community services goes to the people who need it. We want to make sure that we fill any gaps in services, and so we will continue to work with the sector to make sure it understands there is no intention to look further than that client-level data and protect the privacy of those clients.

Jan Logie: When organisations working with male survivors of sexual abuse report "Many clients don't even want to give their full names due to social stigma", how does the Minister think those men are going to access a service that requires them to give the Government their full names, addresses, and children's details?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I said before, providers ultimately make decisions about whom they will provide a service to and for, and I would hope that providers would be able to reassure their clients that there will be sufficient protection of client privacy in order for them to access the services that they want.

Jan Logie: Why were community organisations not consulted or even made aware of the new requirement to collect individual data until it appeared in their contracts?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I absolutely reject that. This has been talked about. In fact, I have stood in front of audiences of NGOs and talked about this for 2 years now.

Jan Logie: Will the Minister review this ill-thought-through policy in light of significant organisations saying clearly that they will not hand over clients' private data in return for funding?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This Government is determined to make sure that the $330 million the Government spends every year on providing services to the community goes to the people who need those services and to make sure that there are no gaps and people left without services.

Darroch Ball: How long has the Minister known about the breaches of contract, including potential fraud and corruption, during the contract between the Ministry of Social Development and Pacific Media Network, delivering the Pasefika Proud campaign, which has seen the taxpayer ripped off to the tune of $1.5 million?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well, that is very wide of the question—

Mr SPEAKER: It is.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY:—and I have no data and I have no advice to actually provide an answer to that question.

• Environment, Minister—Reports

8. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for the Environment: What advice has he received on the parallel planning issues for New Zealand from the just released UK Government Report, "Fixing our broken housing market"?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): The UK white paper highlights restriction on land supply as the No. 1 cause of Britain's housing unaffordability. Prime Minister Theresa May notes in the report that the housing market in the UK is broken, with average house prices eight times incomes, and the negative impact this is having on homeownership rates and the housing costs for low-income families. It identifies restrictive planning policy as the No. 1 problem and proposes reforms to free up land supply, require councils to plan for growth, and simpler and quicker planning processes. The report parallels the recommendations of the New Zealand Productivity Commission.

Melissa Lee: What specific provisions in the Government's Resource Legislation Amendment Bill, set down for second reading today, will help address these fundamental causes of housing market failure?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The bill contains five critical reforms. Firstly, it introduces a new specific function for councils to ensure they provide sufficient development capacity for growth. Secondly, it streamlines the planning process for bringing new areas available for housing, reducing the process from years to months. The third change is it removes appeals on subdivision consents for areas that are zoned residential. A fourth change is removing the duplicate charges of development contributions and financial contributions under both the Resource Management Act and Local Government Act. The fifth change is the planning standards that will make it so much simpler for people to get on and build houses. The bill is a litmus test for which parties in this Parliament are serious about addressing housing.

Melissa Lee: How will the bill's changes to the Reserves Act and the Public Works Act help support increased housing supply?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There are examples where changes in reserves can both increase housing supply and amenity. At Three Kings, the area of reserve is retained and actually expanded, but also reconverted to provide for much better recreational space and much better amenity for the local community. The bill enables resource consents and reserve changes to be dealt with in one integrated process. Housing developments require infrastructure, like roads and pipes, and their construction can be delayed under the Public Works Act. The process is made faster, with more generous compensation. The payment for an affected landowner, over and above market values, increases from $2,000 to $35,000, with an additional $10,000 incentive for early settlement. I credit Maurice Williamson with that particular innovation.

• Immigration, Minister—Statements

9. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, why?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): Yes; because I believe them to be accurate.

Ron Mark: If our immigration policy settings are making sure "the right people come in and the wrong people don't.", does that include the over 1,800 unschooled migrants for the Christchurch rebuild since 2011?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Emphatically, yes. Those people are needed to rebuild our second-largest city. Despite the very good efforts that this Government is going to to make sure that Kiwis are being trained and getting the jobs that are available, there will still be a very strong excess demand that will be met by the international labour market.

Ron Mark: If our immigration policy settings are "just about bang on", why did he approve pet groomers, fitness centre managers, massage therapists—among others—and 760 approvals that were either not recorded or stated since 2010?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Clearly because there was a demand for those roles that could not be met locally. But I should add this: if the member is concerned about the number of labour market - tested visa holders, he should look to his own party. The number of those visas granted in the last 10 years has gone down materially by more than a third since that member's party was supporting Labour in Government.

Ron Mark: If our immigration policy settings are making sure that the right people come in now, why are 30 unemployed migrants granted citizenship—or do we have a shortage of unemployed New Zealanders?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: If they were granted citizenship, that is probably a question best directed at the Minister of Internal Affairs, but, I should say, it was because they were entitled to.

• Tertiary Education—Initiatives with the Asia-Pacific Region

10. Dr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What announcements has he made to grow New Zealand's ties with the Asia-Pacific region through new tertiary education initiatives?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): Today I announced, during a visit to Victoria University of Wellington, the establishment of three new Centres for Asia-Pacific Excellence (CAPEs). This is a major investment in cross-institutional centres of excellence in language, culture, politics, and economics, focused on countries or groups of countries within the Asia-Pacific region. The centres will help individuals better prepare to connect and do business with the Asia-Pacific region, and provide initiatives for small to medium sized enterprises wanting to grow their understanding of these neighbouring regions. Much of our trade, tourism, and migration are focused on the Asia-Pacific, so it makes sense to deepen our understanding of the region.

Dr Jian Yang: What geographical areas will these Centres for Asia-Pacific Excellence focus on?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Each CAPE will focus on a different area of speciality. They will facilitate student and faculty exchanges and become a focal point for New Zealand's relationship with that part of the world. The first CAPE, led by the University of Auckland, will specialise in North Asia. The second, led by Victoria University, will focus on South-east Asia, and the final centre will specialise in Latin America, and will also be led by Victoria University, in partnership with the University of Otago, the University of Auckland, and the University of Waikato. Each centre will be a nation-wide resource to deliver benefits to New Zealand as a whole.

Dr Jian Yang: How does the establishment of CAPEs support the Government's wider Business Growth Agenda?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: A priority for this Government is to build a more competitive and productive economy. The Centres for Asia-Pacific Excellence programme is part of the Building Export Markets work stream of the Business Growth Agenda, which will provide centres of excellence for New Zealand businesses to draw upon as they build international connections and seize opportunities overseas. CAPEs will do this by working with businesses to understand their needs and the type of initiatives they will find useful for growing their Asia-Pacific understanding and capability.

• Mental Health Services, Canterbury—Staffing

11. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Health: Does he think that the levels of staffing are acceptable in mental health services at Canterbury District Health Board when staff are saying they are fearful for their own safety and are feeling anxious all the time?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): I would just like to start by congratulating the learned Doctor on his elevation to the health portfolio, and note his instant impact in getting health moved from question No. 1 to question No. 11 on a Thursday. As regards the question itself, although this is an operational matter for the district health board, any assaults on staff are unacceptable. As the general manager for mental health for the Canterbury District Health Board (DHB) has said regarding staffing levels, "We are confident that our levels are sufficient to keep the services functional and safe. It doesn't mean incidents don't happen." As the acting chair of the district health board told the Health Committee yesterday, staff assaults in the district health board have dropped from 2,000 to 700 per year. The final thing that I would say is that the Government has increased mental health spending in Canterbury by 25 percent over the last 8 years, including a $20 million package last year. Last week I was down in Christchurch with Mayor Lianne Dalziel, launching a $6 million fund for community resilience. Mental health is a difficult area, and of course there is always more to do.

Dr David Clark: Is the Minister comfortable with money being taken from older people's healthcare to prop up mental health services in Canterbury?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is not being.

Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table a letter showing that the Canterbury District Health Board is being forced to reallocate funding to cover mental health—

Mr SPEAKER: I just need—whose letter is it?

Dr David Clark: It is a letter sent from the Canterbury District Health Board in response to an Official Information Act (OIA) inquiry dated 24 June 2016.

Mr SPEAKER: On that basis I will put the leave and the House will decide. Leave is sought to table that particular letter gained under the OIA. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none; it can be tabled. Supplementary—[Interruption] Order! I know the member has moved one seat further away, but she is still very loud with some of her interjections. I would be grateful if she would cooperate.

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

Dr David Clark: Is the Minister aware of well-documented research on natural disasters and longer-term patterns of mental health needs of affected populations, and the growing need for mental health support over time; if so, why is the Canterbury DHB still funded below the national average per head for mental health services?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes, I am aware of that research, and it shows that it actually takes about 5 to 10 years for these effects to wash through the system in a population, so we are about in the middle of that now. That is why mental health expenditure has been increased by 20 percent over the term of this Government, including an extra $20 million package that was announced last February and, most recently, that $6 million package announced in conjunction with the council.

Dr David Clark: Does he think it is acceptable that patients in Canterbury are being treated in a building that is being "shored up with big planks" and that has "visible cracks in the wall,"; if not, why did the Government not approve the move of regional mental health services from the now crumbling Princess Margaret Hospital when the Canterbury DHB asked for it in 2012?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There are two supplementary questions there.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: What the member has got to remember is that there is $1 billion being invested in the rebuild of health services across Canterbury. We have had Burwood Hospital, we are working on the main health campus, and there has been a wide range of primary care facilities worked on. There is also a business case being worked on for mental health services, so the member will just have to be patient. But I think he should look on the bright side: $1 billion is a huge rebuild—the biggest health rebuild in the history of New Zealand.

Dr David Clark: Does he think the DHB being forced to spend an additional $2.5 million on supporting clinical staff at Princess Margaret Hospital is ideal, given the wear and tear on staff, clinical isolation of the facilities, and demoralising conditions—or is it simply the inevitable price of his independently verified $1.7 billion cut to the health sector and his decision-making delays?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, there are two supplementary questions.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member has to make up his mind as to whether he thinks that the Government is spending too much or too little. Now he seems to be complaining. Having started off saying that we are spending too little, he is now complaining about an extra $2.5 million. He would be really angry if he fully understood that, actually, we are spending an extra $106 million on top of the population-based funding formula in Canterbury since the Christchurch earthquakes. The member needs to get his facts straight and stop making the figures up.

• Building and Construction, Minister—Statements

12. DENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does he stand by all his statements on building activity; if so, how?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Construction): Yes, particularly my statement that building activity is at an all-time high of $19 billion a year and the dwelling consent numbers have more than doubled, from 13,000 a year to 30,000 a year, over the last 5 years.

Denis O'Rourke: Are the Minister's claims of a "construction boom" credible when code compliance certificates issued by Auckland Council show that between 2011 and 2016 there was a gap of over 13,500 between building consents and dwelling completions, especially of high-density units?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member clearly does not understand the building system, because code compliance certificates are issued for whole units or retirement villages, so you would not expect the number of building consents that count dwellings to match the number of complexes, particularly as over the last 5 years we have seen stronger growth in townhouses, in apartments, and in retirement villages than in stand-alone homes.

Denis O'Rourke: Is it not the Minister himself who is guilty of junk science by using 2013 census data to try to prove building completions in 2017, when the yawning gap between consents and physical dwelling completions kicked off in 2013?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The reason I have confidence in the building consent numbers is that if you look over any census over the last four decades and you count the number of building consents that are issued, they are very, very close to, within 1 percent of, the number of new dwellings that are counted in the census. The second point I would make to the member is whether, in denying that there is any sort of building boom, he can explain why the labour force survey shows an increase of 70,000 more people working in the building industry. Only a blind man would say that there is not a building boom in New Zealand. Just look at the number of cranes across Auckland currently. [Interruption]

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

Denis O'Rourke: As Auckland Council and all other councils collect code compliance certificate data, but the Minister chooses to ignore it, are New Zealanders not being deliberately misled by him on the true magnitude of the continuing housing crisis?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member simply does not get it. I have got an apartment building of 50 apartments. That is 50 dwellings, but one code compliance certificate. That does not mean that the houses are not being built. In fact, if the member looks around New Zealand, building activity by every measure is at a very high level—over 30,000 houses a year, the highest in more than 10 years.

© Scoop Media