• TUESDAY, 21 MARCH 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Ministers—Portfolios

1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Has he required all his Ministers to be properly briefed on issues within their portfolios; if not, why not?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, but they should always be willing to listen and take on more information and more advice.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When his Minister for Land Information was asked, on Sunday's Q+A, "Can New Zealanders find out exactly how much New Zealand land is owned by a foreign buyer?", why did he reply: "The answer is yes."?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am sure he was referring to the fact that you can see the applications that have gone through the Overseas Investment Act and what happens to those applications.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How is that possible, and what is his Government hiding, when journalists and local residents trying to find the conditions put on overseas buyers of New Zealand land get refusals from the Overseas Investment Office on spurious grounds such as "substantial collation" or privacy?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am advised that it is a pretty complex picture and, just by way of example, the most recent figures about the amount of land bought by foreigners are inflated very significantly by one large forestry block, where the owners restructured their company. Because our foreign ownership rules are so tight, that block of forest got counted twice, adding something like 300,000 hectares to the apparent amount of land that was bought.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can he confirm that the 465,863 hectares transferred into foreign ownership in 2016 equals 3.24 percent of New Zealand's total farmland—sold off offshore by the National Government in just 1 year?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I do not confirm that. In fact, I can confirm that around a tenth of that area was actually bought by overseas owners. As I just explained to the member, the 465,000 figure is inflated, at the very least, by 300,000 hectares that is attributable to one forest, which was already in foreign ownership. The company restructured in a way that meant that 150,000 hectares was then counted twice, because our foreign ownership rules are so tight that when a small change of shareholding occurs in existing owners it is counted as a new foreign owner transaction. So the member's number is actually the gross number, and it is over 10 times the net change. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! If I could have less interjection from my immediate right, I would be grateful.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the rules are, to quote him, "so tight", can he confirm that since his Government came to power in 2008 it has approved the sale of a massive 1.5 million hectares of land—

Hon Member: What?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —1.5 million hectares of land—into foreign ownership?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Can I bring a bit of sunshine into the member's life. As we have pointed out, just this year, although there have been transactions recorded of 465,000 hectares, 300,000 of that was simply one transaction counted twice that was already owned offshore, and actually the net amount this year was only 40,000 hectares, which is on par with what it has been over recent years.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a Land Information New Zealand letter to a journalist on the question of denial of information, dated 7 February 2017, and, second, a Parliamentary Library request for research showing that the transfer of land by this Government last year alone was, compared with our farmland, 3.24 percent.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table two things there. One is a letter from Land Information New Zealand and the other is a Parliamentary Library research paper detailing some overseas ownership transactions. Is there any objection to either of those pieces of information being tabled? There is not. They can be tabled.

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

• Prime Minister—Statements
•
2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement "we're not here to shy away from the hard issues", which was tweeted from his account and then deleted?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, I stand by the full statement, which was originally made when I announced funding for 1,100 additional police staff earlier this year. At that time I said: "This significant taxpayer investment comes with a range of challenging performance targets for police. They include higher attendance at home burglaries, seizing more assets from organised crime, reducing deaths from family violence, and reducing reoffending by Māori. Meeting these targets will not be easy, but we are not here to shy away from the hard issues."

Andrew Little: Why does he refuse to take real action now on water, on housing, on superannuation, and on multinational tax avoidance, and instead repeatedly promise changes well into the future that he knows he can never be held accountable for?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is an interesting question, because we have just made an announcement about national superannuation. The member is asking us to take real action now, rather than the announcement, which I presume means another flip-flop and that he will be going back to the policy that Labour agreed with before it disagreed with it.

Andrew Little: Putting aside the Government's own flip-flops, why will he not take any meaningful action on water quality or pricing before the election, instead leaving it to future Governments to deal with the issue?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member will be aware, the Government publicised a framework that, for the first time, measures the quality of our fresh water across New Zealand, which has not been done consistently at all before, sets some targets, and makes sure that we are all accountable for improving the quality of our fresh water. That is real action, and right now it is driving real investment across our farming industry in reducing its impact on fresh water, and there is also the Government freshwater fund of $100 million, which is being spent.

Andrew Little: Why has he spent 8 years refusing to fix the housing crisis with a Government-led building programme and a ban on foreign speculators, instead leaving it to the next Government to clean up that mess?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: There has been a whole range of action on housing, from special housing areas through to introducing the brightline test, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, and most recently, the $1 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund, currently under negotiation with councils, and that comes on top of HomeStart, which is designed to help 90,000 young Kiwis into their first home.

Andrew Little: Why has he sat on his hands on the multinational tax avoidance issue year after year given that he was first advised about it in 2012, while other countries have cracked down on it, and with his revenue minister now admitting the issue will be left to the next Government?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I know the Government is making a lot of policy announcements, and it is hard for a policy-free party such as the Labour Party to keep up with what we are doing. Just a couple of weeks ago, the Minister of Revenue issued the next round of measures to deal with multinational taxation, which come on top of some of the toughest rules in the developed world in dealing with multinational taxation.

Andrew Little: Why will he not restart contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund now to help meet the future cost of superannuation, and why is he instead leaving the issue for a future Government in 2037 to deal with?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government made an announcement a few weeks ago about raising the age of national superannuation, broadly supported by the New Zealand public. Additional contributions to the superannuation fund will not make a big difference to that but what would help New Zealanders is if the Labour Party returned to its original policy to raise the age rather than pretending there is no ageing population, which everyone knows.

Andrew Little: Why is it that with water, housing, superannuation, and tax avoidance his answer is always to make a promise but leave actually doing anything about it to the next Government, and just when are we going to see real leadership from him?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: In each case, as the member has now discovered from asking the questions, we have made announcements, including on the superannuation age, on multinational tax, and on the billion-dollar Housing Infrastructure Fund. Even if the member is not that supportive of all the policy measures the Government is taking, we would be interested to know whether he has any policy on any of those things at all.

• Economic Growth and Confidence—Reports
•
3. SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on growth and confidence in the New Zealand economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): A number of recent economic indicators show that New Zealand's 6 years of almost continuous economic growth is likely to continue. Last Friday, the BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index was released. The Performance of Manufacturing Index (PMI) reached 55.2 in February, which is three points higher than in January and the highest level of expansion since September last year. In fact, New Zealand's manufacturing sector has been in expansion almost constantly since October 2012, demonstrating the increasing diversification of our economy and the Government's balanced approach to ensuring New Zealand's future prosperity.

Scott Simpson: What do current levels of confidence in our economy indicate to the Government about the economy's likely growth prospects?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Also last Friday, we saw the latest ANZ-Roy Morgan Consumer Confidence data for February. This result was another strong 125.2—well above the long-term average of 118. The ANZ noted that its model combining business and consumer confidence indicators pointed to GDP growth of higher than 4 percent. Now, I think that is too optimistic, but it does reinforce the view that the New Zealand economy continues to perform well relative to other countries and is delivering security and confidence to hard working Kiwis.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, is ANZ senior economist Philip Bawkin correct that, year on year, GDP per capita growth of 0.6 of 1 percent is less than half the annual average for per capita growth since 1993?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I stand corrected, but my understanding is that Statistics New Zealand posted a figure of 0.9 percent for the year, which is not stellar but also significant, and it continues to grow.

Grant Robertson: Less than half the average.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the member is well known for his trainspotting of picking a particular statistic, but if he actually looks across the GDP growth, he will see that New Zealand is one of the strongest performers in the developed world.

Scott Simpson: How is growth in the services sector continuing to support New Zealand's economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The index of services confidence released yesterday showed a slight dip for the month of February, but it was still the second-highest level of expansion since November 2015. In particular, employment rose by 0.9 to a measure of 54.6, which means it has now entered its fifth-year straight of expansion. The data released in the last few days across manufacturing services and consumer confidence—and also GDP growth last week—indicate the ongoing success of the Government's long-term programme for economic growth.

Scott Simpson: What reaction has the Minister received from commentators looking ahead at New Zealand's economy through 2017?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The consensus amongst economic commentators is for continued economic growth through this year and also into 2018. The ANZ observed that consumer confidence is solid across all regions—Auckland being the most optimistic, followed by the South Island outside of Canterbury. Westpac noted in its consumer confidence commentary that confidence in the household sector remains at healthy levels. The Government remains on track to deliver a Budget in May that will balance economic growth over the medium to longer term while also addressing the longer-term environmental and social challenges.

• Finance, Minister—Statements
•
4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Yes, especially the statements from last week, which the member will be familiar with: "The member has to be careful with his trainspotting of quarterly figures.", and also that he needs "new talking points, because the New Zealand economy is one of the fastest-growing economies in the developed world ...".

Grant Robertson: On the subject of his statements last week—that it was important to ensure that all companies in New Zealand were paying their fair share of tax—does he think that Apple paying virtually no company tax in New Zealand for 10 years is Apple paying its fair share of tax?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: You would have to be careful about commenting on individual taxpayers, but we have a comprehensive programme of ensuring that international, multinational companies pay their fair share of tax. But also, we have to do it in such a way that it is balanced, because we have to understand that New Zealand companies that operate overseas are likely to experience the same rules that international companies experience here. So we have to be careful, to make sure that the international rules balance the requirement for taxing in-country versus taxing also in the source country where the companies live.

Grant Robertson: Why did his Government not undertake an inquiry into multinational tax avoidance when it was recommended to them in 2012, again in 2014, and again in 2016?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member might be hiding under a rock, but, actually, there is a comprehensive series of initiatives on multinational taxation, which the Minister of Revenue has released—in fact, a whole range of activity that is going on and is being consulted on at the moment, pending being put through legislation alongside the OECD. So the member might like to pretend, from his talking points, that nothing is happening, but obviously quite a lot is happening.

Grant Robertson: Why is an investigation into multinational tax avoidance happening now, in 2017, when his Government rejected advice to do it in 2012, 2014, and 2016—[Interruption] No, no. Answer me; do not talk to them.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, school teacher Grant has appeared. Actually, it started under the previous Minister of Revenue, Michael Woodhouse, last year, and now it is in the hands of the current Minister of Revenue. Again, I invite the member to go back and look at the IRD website, at all the work that has been done, and then come back and ask us some serious questions.

Grant Robertson: Will he commit to implementing change to ensure that multinational companies pay their fair share of tax before the election in September?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Obviously, we have got to advance it through the law book—and subject to the legislative requirements. Certainly, this Government is keen to introduce things as quickly as it can, alongside the OECD, and we are committed to it. In terms of the actual date, I will come back to the member, but perhaps the Labour Party would like to help us pass through our legislative programme in a whole range of areas, including, for example, the reforms to the Resource Management Act.

• Family Violence—Announcements
•
5. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has the Government made about family violence?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): Following on from last week's introduction of the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill, today Minister Tolley and I announced that the Government intends to hold a family violence summit in June. We have always been clear that family violence is not something that the Government can solve on its own. Getting people together to reflect on the changes that have been made so far, and that are continuing to be made, is important. We need to challenge people across society to think about how we can act differently and the part we all have to play, because making real, lasting change requires all of our communities to work together, and the summit will be an important part of this.

Joanne Hayes: How will the family violence summit help to inform the work of the ministerial group on family and sexual violence?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The summit provides an opportunity for us to reflect with the sector on the work to date and to help shape the work programme going forward. For example, one thing that the legislation introduced last week focuses on is creating early intervention points before violence escalates. The summit gives us the opportunity to discuss with the sector how we can best make use of these earlier intervention points and how a social investment perspective could help determine our responses.

• Water Supplies—Statements
•
6. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Tū ai a ai i runga i te mana o āna kōrero i whakapūrongotia rā, he "whakaparahako", he mahi "heahea rawa atu" te whakamahi, te kawe wai rānei a ngā kamupene pire wai?

[Translation: Does he stand by his reported statements that charging companies who use or take water would be "ridiculous" and "farcical"?]

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): No. Those comments were made in respect of the proposal to ban water exports—not charging.

Metiria Turei: Does he think that the Prime Minister, Bill English, is "ridiculous" and "farcical" for seeking advice on the charging of water bottling?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Not at all. Last Tuesday on the bridge I said that the Government was happy to have a discussion around charging but not on bottled water in isolation, because it makes a very small fraction of the amount of water take.

Metiria Turei: So then he disagrees with the Prime Minister, who has asked for advice on the charging of water bottling?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Not at all. I have said I am happy to have a discussion both around the issues of allocation and charging. In fact, we set up a technical advisory group and work programme last June to do just that. What we want to do though is ensure that we are being fair and considered and consider all water users.

Metiria Turei: Why would New Zealanders even trust him to even consider a recommendation to price the commercial use of water when just last week he described that process as ridiculous and farcical? Why would they trust you?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have the quote, exactly, in front of me. It was: did I support a ban on exporting water? And I said "I think it's a bit farcical in the sense that it's such a small amount of water." I am open-minded about a charge but it would need to be done in a careful way to ensure that all water users are treated equitably.

Metiria Turei: Does he agree with the OECD, which has said today that New Zealand has some of the lowest environmental levies in the world, or does he think that the OECD's key recommendation to protect water is ridiculous and farcical?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The OECD actually commended the Government on the progress that has been made on environmental charges. It is our Government that introduced a waste levy in 2009, it is our Government that introduced a price on carbon in July 2010, and the Minister for Climate Change Issues is progressively lifting those. We just need to be careful on the issue of water, around charging, because the sorts of proposals that I have seen from the Opposition would bankrupt New Zealand's most important industries.

Metiria Turei: Is the Minister comfortable with new bottling ventures, like the plan to sell pristine water from Mount Aspiring National Park, piped directly on to ships offshore, going head?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That particular proposal was consented way back in the 1990s, and it comes as no surprise that it has not been taken up. I do note that if you look at the number of consents approved for bottling and export, less than 1 percent of those that are consented are actually being used. All that has occurred on the West Coast is a renewal of that consent about a year ago, with the support and approval of the local iwi, the local council, and the Department of Conservation.

Marama Fox: Does the Minister still agree that nobody owns the water when farmers are able to sell their water allocation as an asset to improve the value of their farm, or independently of a farm sale?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is the longstanding position of consecutive Governments that the water is a public resource that is not owned by any one group. There have always been charges for water services—for instance, if a council provides storage, treatment, or piping, or if irrigation companies are providing services associated with the water.

Metiria Turei: Is the reason the Prime Minister took this problem off him, and offloaded it instead on to officials for after the election, that the Government is not going to do anything and does not want to pay the electoral price for the commercial use of water?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is quite the opposite. The Government set up a work programme, approved by Cabinet last May, that specifically set up an expert technical advisory group on both the pricing and on the allocation of water, quite specifically in the terms of reference. We just simply say that having a very narrow discussion around water bottling is actually not where the main game is if New Zealand is going to improve its freshwater management.

Marama Fox: Does the Minister then agree that water given freely to corporates is a form of corporate welfare?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There are about 20,000 water permits across New Zealand. A large number of those are held by New Zealand companies, by individuals, and by others, and they are crucial to the core horticultural, agricultural—many of our industries. It has been a longstanding practice that water is not charged for the natural resource.

Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the member as she asked her question, but just for the record, the Māori—the fourth word in that question is spelt wrong; it should "ia" as opposed to "ai", just for the record.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for his assistance.

• Ministers—Cabinet Manual
•
7. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Has he required all his Ministers to read the Cabinet Manual; if not, why not?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): I expect Ministers to be familiar with the Cabinet Manual, even if they cannot recite it word for word.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can he confirm that Minister McCully had full Cabinet approval when he co-sponsored United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 denouncing Israel?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have said previously, he did not require a specific Cabinet approval for policy that was long-standing New Zealand Government policy.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked for confirmation of Cabinet approval, and that answer says he did not require it. I still have not had the answer as to whether he did—whether he required it or not—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no—[Interruption] Order! On this occasion, the question has been addressed with the answer that was given.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no—can I ask you for a point of clarification? Does that mean that he got approval or he did not?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister addressed the question by saying approval was not required. The way forward now is with further supplementary questions. If the member does not wish to, I am happy to move immediately to the next question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Prime Minister confirm that Mr McCully got approval on that resolution, and did the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, the Hon Maggie Barry, nominate Dame Jenny Shipley to chair the committee for the James Cook 250th commemoration in accordance with Cabinet and State services guidelines?

Mr SPEAKER: There are two supplementary questions there. The Rt Hon Prime Minister can address one of them or both.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The connection between the two seems to me to be tenuous at best, but I am happy to go and check up on the matters related to the Hon Maggie Barry's nomination of Jenny Shipley.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did this Minister, Maggie Barry, not advise the Cabinet appointments and honours committee that 6 months before the nomination of Jenny Shipley going before the committee, she had already—in writing—promised Dame Jenny Shipley the job?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member may be aware, Mrs Shipley was an experienced member of Parliament, who would know as well as anyone else that no appointment is confirmed until or unless the Cabinet appointments and honours committee confirms it, and then Cabinet confirms it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister also unaware that there is a declaration to be made about such a conflict of interest, and what is the propriety of this Minister, Maggie Barry, and the Minister of State Services, Paula Bennett, giving—and I quote them—"exceptional increase" above the daily maximum for this role?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would be surprised if Mrs Shipley has raised this with the member to speak on her behalf, so I am not sure just whose cause he is advocating here. But I am quite happy to check whether all procedures were correctly followed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table seven sets of documents, and I am happy to outline what they are—it is the evidence.

Mr SPEAKER: We will have just a brief description of the seven.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Very brief. The first is a letter and job description, dated 13 May 2016, where Maggie Barry makes the offer. The second shows emails between Dame Jenny and the CEO of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, dated 26 May 2016, confirming that the role is subject to the Cabinet appointments and honours committee and would require a declaration from that Minister. The third is a memo to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, dated 10 November, outlining the appointment process for the "independent chair", including Dame Jenny, who was listed at the top, not alphabetically—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just want very brief descriptions.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Fourth is a memo from Minister Barry, dated 24 November 2016, to that committee stating specifically that no conflicts of interest on that appointment existed.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Move on very quickly.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Fifth—it gets worse—is from 5 December 2016 and 6 December 2016, between that Minister, in contact with Dame Jenny, and involving Paula Bennett, asking for the per diem to be changed. Sixth is a document dated 7 December from Minister Barry to Paula Bennett, lobbying for, as I say, the exceptional per diem and outlining the gruelling indicative workload she would be forced to endure—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Move to the last one, quickly.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No. 7—last but not least—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! I do need some assistance from my right-hand side. Points of order should be heard in silence. Can we have the seventh document, please?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you, Mr Speaker. They do not like it, I know. The seventh and final document is from Minister Bennett to Minister Barry, dated 9 December 2016, backing both the exceptional fee and for this fee to be paid on an annual basis, like a salary. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table those seven documents, which have been very adequately described. I do not intend to summarise them again for the benefit of the House. Is there any objection to all of those seven documents being tabled? There is not; they can be tabled.

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

David Seymour: How does any of that conduct compare with being sacked from Cabinet three times by three different Prime Ministers?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no ministerial responsibility.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! No, I will call the member when I ready.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will call the member when I have silence on my right-hand side. Point of order—the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Not only is that statement utterly false, but, worse still, we are not going to take it from a cuckolded puppet.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. That is not a point of order. If he wants to take the matter further, he is welcome to do it. [Interruption] Order! I will hear—it had better be a point of order—from David Seymour.

David Seymour: I take offence at being referred to as a cuck by someone who smoked for 60 years.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not going to move on that.

• Code of Conduct for Teaching—Progress
•
8. MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister of Education: What progress has been made on the development of a code of conduct for the teaching profession?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am advised that the aptly named Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand has worked very closely with teachers, education leaders, and peak bodies to develop a draft code of professional responsibility and standards for the teaching profession. The draft code was launched for consultation by the Education Council on 10 March, and it will help to inspire confidence and a high level of trust in the teaching profession by those who are at the very centre of learning: children, and their whānau. It will also help to ensure that the profession is honoured as one of high quality and integrity. The draft code, underpinned by standards, will also provide employers with a strengthened disciplinary framework to better ascertain what types of behaviour would be determined a breach.

Maureen Pugh: What role has the education sector played in the development of this draft code of conduct?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: It bears repeating that the Education Council has involved the education sector extensively in the development of the draft code of professional responsibility. Teachers, education leaders, and peak bodies have participated in surveys, workshops, focus groups, and meetings, and their views have been instrumental in the development of the draft code and accompanying professional standards. I would like to acknowledge the very hard work of the Education Council and thank all those who have been involved so far for their dedication and commitment to such an important framework. I am advised that the draft code is out for public consultation until 21 April, and I would encourage everyone to provide their feedback to the Education Council.

• Housing, Rental—Affordability and Security
•
9. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does he believe the rental market is affordable and secure enough for New Zealand families; if so, why?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Construction): The quality of rentals has markedly improved with this Government's aggressive home insulation programme that has seen 300,000 homes retrofitted and our new law that requires the remaining 180,000 homes to be insulated by 2019. In respect of rents, they have gone up by an average of 3.4 percent since 2008, as compared with an average increase of 5.2 percent for the previous 8 years. The rental market is most affordable and secure where we have aggressively increased supply in places like Christchurch, where rents have dropped by 10 percent in the last 2 years.

Phil Twyford: When rents are up nearly 40 percent since his Government took office, and when rents are rising twice as fast as incomes in Auckland, is that a reasonable level of increase, or is it yet another symptom of his out-of-control housing market?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that both nationally and in Auckland the rate of rent increases under this Government has been significantly and markedly less than what it was under the previous Government, when it did nothing.

Phil Twyford: Does he think that it is a "problem of success" when working families like Invercargill woman Lisa Calder end up living in a house bus because the uncertainty in the rental market makes living in a bus a more stable option?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: As a constituency MP of 25 years, there have always been difficult situations where people's housing has been inadequate. The answer is that increasing supply and the sorts of comprehensive reforms of the likes of the Resource Management Act, which his party has refused to support, will actually make the material difference, long-term, for families like those he speaks of.

Phil Twyford: Why has he not updated the Residential Tenancies Act to give renters more security of tenure after 8 years in Government, given that more than half the population are renters and the average tenancy is less than a year?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member's facts are, firstly, incorrect; 64 percent of New Zealand homes are owner-occupied. Secondly, in respect of the issue of the Residential Tenancies Act, I am actually very proud of the record this Government has with requiring smoke alarms, requiring insulation, and the new compliance and enforcement unit that is ensuring that our tenants do have access to good-quality homes.

Phil Twyford: Does he think it is fair to renters that they have to pay letting fees of up to the equivalent of 2 weeks' rent at the very time they have to find 2 weeks' rent in advance and up to 4 weeks' bond; if not, what is he going to do about it?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note the issue around letting fees is the same law that was actually in the Residential Tenancies Act that was passed by the Labour Party. The key issue, if we are serious about helping the level of housing costs, whether it be for first-home buyers or whether it be for renters, is actually to enable more houses to be built. This Government is making great progress with a large-scale building boom and 30,000 homes being built. I just wish members opposite would support key reforms, like to the Resource Management Act, that would actually make a difference.

• Air Services—Trading Partners
•
10. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Transport: What steps has the Government taken on strengthening New Zealand's air services with trading partners?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Last week I announced that New Zealand will benefit from a number of new air services agreements with, for example, Kenya, Botswana, the Dominican Republic, and Guyana, and an amended agreement with Italy. Other successful negotiations to expand and enhance air services opportunities were conducted with Belize, Nicaragua, and Spain. We have also signed an air services agreement with Colombia, providing opportunities for code-sharing between each nation's airlines. New Zealand's approach to liberalising air services has allowed for an open, competitive market, facilitating increased air traffic, lower airfares, and stronger international trade links.

Dr Shane Reti: What economic benefits will the new air services agreements bring to New Zealand?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Of course, as an island nation, New Zealand relies heavily on its international air links. These new agreements will further enhance New Zealand's international air connectivity between Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas. International visitor arrivals set a new record in 2016, with 3.5 million for the year. This figure was up 12 percent on 2015. Worldwide, New Zealand has air services agreements with 61 countries and territories, and 20 are awaiting signature. I am excited that the new air services agreements will boost tourism, create new trade opportunities, and strengthen the existing strong personal ties between New Zealand and the rest of the world.

• Water, Bottled—Royalties
•
11. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by his many statements last week that it's not worth looking at a royalty on water used for bottling?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I stand by my actual statement: you cannot look at charging for bottled water in isolation. My plea is that a discussion on water pricing be done in a thoughtful and careful way, because bottled water is such a small fraction.

Hon David Parker: How does he reconcile his statements last week with Bill English now asking an advisory group about charging a royalty on water used for bottling?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I just quote from the statement that I made last Tuesday on the bridge: "We have got an important piece of work being done by the technical advisory group on the options for both the allocation and charging for water, and if we are going to have a conversation about it, we need to do it thoroughly, carefully, and make sure we are fair to all users."

Hon David Parker: Why did the Prime Minister, Bill English, say yesterday that Ministers were writing to a technical advisory group to investigate a price on water, but only for the bottled water industry; and why did he say the opposite in the answer to Metiria Turei's question earlier today?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Last May, Cabinet agreed to the setting up of the technical advisory group and the work programme, and all I did yesterday was to write, with Minister Guy, to the technical advisory group and make sure its deliberations include the issue of bottled water.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point of that question was, I thought, pretty clear. It was to try to tease out this issue—that the Minister is saying "You can only look at all water." whereas the Prime Minister was saying "only bottled water".

Mr SPEAKER: The only way forward is that I invite the member to repeat his question, as asked.

Hon David Parker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why did the Prime Minister say to reporters yesterday that Ministers were writing to a technical advisory group to investigate a price on water, but only for the bottled water industry; and how does he reconcile that with the opposite answer that he gave to Metiria Turei earlier?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Very easily. If you read the transcript of what the Prime Minister said, he acknowledged that there was an important piece of work being done on water allocation and pricing and that that piece of work should include the issue of bottled water.

Hon David Parker: Does a company that bottles water and offers it for sale own the water it is selling; if not, who does the Minister imagine owns that water?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I suspect it is not much different to the company that takes water and makes it into beer, the company that makes it into soft drink, or the council that puts water into its town water supply and charges users for that water. The water, clearly, becomes owned once extra additions are made to it, either in terms of putting it in a bottle or a pipe.

Hon David Parker: Is he concerned that Bill English's decision to delay receiving advice on a royalty on water use for bottling until after the election will be seen as a lack of the political leadership that New Zealanders rightly expect of their Prime Minister?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Quite the opposite. The timetable for the technical advisory group working on allocation and water pricing was decided in May last year, for it to report late this year or early next year.

Hon David Parker: To what extent does he attribute the collapse in public support for him and his Government over fresh water to the fact that after 8 years in office, most of our rivers outside national parks are more polluted, not less, and his latest flip-flop on the royalty on bottled water is so patently just another delaying tactic?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would refer the member to the OECD report out today that actually commends this Government for the amount of progress that it has made with the national policy statement, with the national regulations for metering, and with the fact that there are now 20 catchments across New Zealand where there are caps on nitrogen—when we actually came into Government, there was none.

Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table that OECD report, which, in fact, says that river—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. That OECD report is available to anybody who wants it. [Interruption] Order!

• Offshore Oil and Gas Rigs—Decommissioning Cost
•
12. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Firstly, happy 32nd wedding anniversary today. Can she confirm that the Crown is liable for 42 to 48 percent of the cost of decommissioning offshore oil and gas rigs through tax and royalty rebates and, if so, what is the estimated cost to the Crown arising from rigs that will potentially be decommissioned?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I have to say I cannot claim full credit for 32 years of marriage; I did share that with my husband—thank you so much, though. I can confirm that the Crown will typically rebate between 42 to 48 percent of decommissioning costs to petroleum producers, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has estimated the total cost to the Crown for all fields is between $800 million and $855 million over the next 25 or so years, and that is compared to the $3.2 billion in royalties and levies that petroleum producers have paid to the Crown in the last 9 years—a figure that does not even take into account the up to $400 million paid in tax each year.

Gareth Hughes: Is it fair that New Zealand has the fourth lowest tax plus royalty rate in the world but subsidises almost half the cost of decommissioning oil rigs, which we just heard could be up to $885 million?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I would disagree with the member there, because the information I have is that the royalties are actually at a particular level to take into account decommissioning costs in the future, and when you consider that since 2008 the Crown has received $3.2 billion in royalties and levies, plus tax, plus wages, plus a contribution of $2.5 billion every year to GDP, plus the employment of 4,600 people directly and close to 12,000 people indirectly in very highly skilled, highly paid jobs—I think we are doing pretty well.

Gareth Hughes: Given that her colleagues have repeatedly claimed to be leading the international movement to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, how does it look that she is allowing taxpayers to shoulder almost half the cost of decommissioning oil rigs—up to $885 million?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think the member has not listened quite carefully enough to one of my answers there—that is that, actually, the royalties include the cost of decommissioning. So you could say that what we are doing in the royalty payments and levies is we are getting them to pay up front for the cost of the decommissioning.

Gareth Hughes: Given that the Minister will announce the next oil and gas exploration block offer tomorrow at the petroleum conference in New Plymouth, will she consider amending the regulations so that New Zealanders do not have to pay, or miss out on revenue, up to $885 million to clean up after the oil industry has made its profit?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: What we could do, of course, if that member has his way, is miss out on the $3.2 billion in royalties and levies, plus the $400 million in tax paid each year, plus all of the wages and everything else that comes from the industry if we closed down the industry that has been part of New Zealand since about the 1860s and which is a huge contributor to our economic worth. I would remind that member that even at the worst times of the oil crisis in the last year, this has been the biggest export item to Australia, in terms of wealth, for the last 20 years. It is a huge part of our economy and needs to be encouraged in an environmentally safe way.

Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was not about Green Party policy. It was about whether she would consider amending regulations—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. If the member is arguing that the question has not been addressed, then I think on this occasion it has been addressed, clearly not to the member's satisfaction.

© Scoop Media