• ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1 to Minister, 22 March—Amended Answer

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): I seek leave to correct an answer to question No. 1 yesterday.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In response to a supplementary question to question No. 1 yesterday, in reference to exports from New Zealand to China, I referred to "more than quintupled" when I should have said "more than quadrupled".

• Oil and Gas Exploration—Policy

1. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she agree with former Energy and Resources Minister Simon Bridges that "while the world must progressively transition towards a low carbon future it can't and won't happen overnight"; if so, when will an end to exploring for oil in New Zealand happen?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes; it will happen when we no longer require things like eyeglasses, cell phones, aspirin, artificial limbs, asphalt for roads, batteries, fertilisers for agriculture, raincoats, clothing, or deodorants, as well as hundreds of other everyday products that are made with oil and gas.

Gareth Hughes: When scientists warn that we cannot afford to burn 60 to 70 percent of known oil reserves, why is the Government promoting new oil exploration? [Interruption]

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Could the member repeat his question? I had some difficulty hearing it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Without interruption from my left, we will have the question repeated.

Gareth Hughes: When scientists warn we cannot afford to burn 60 to 70 percent of known oil reserves, why is the Government promoting new oil exploration?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, of course a lot of oil is used in things that are not burnt, such as just some of those items that I have listed.

Gareth Hughes: Does she think her block offer decision opening up the possibility of oil rigs on the shore of Lake Te Ānau is consistent with how the Government promotes the region and the lake in its "100% Pure" campaign?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: My understanding is that this is a block offer that enables people to consider exploration. It does not actually mean that permits are granted, and it is something where New Zealand needs to at least know what resources we have.

Gareth Hughes: Why is she prepared to risk the last Māui's dolphins by opening up 35 percent of their sanctuary for oil drilling?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, of course I am not, and, in fact, in Taranaki and the region conservation efforts and exploration have coexisted since the 1960s—well before that member was even born. More than 20 wells have been drilled in offshore Taranaki, where there have been six petroleum permits and two mineral permits either in or overlapping the sanctuary. In this time there has not been a single incident reported involving Māui's dolphins.

Gareth Hughes: Has the Government ring-fenced the royalty from oil production to pay the $885 million upwards estimated cost of decommissioning its oil rigs, or is that expected to come out of general Government spending?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It would be a bit foolish to ring-fence it, since in just the last 8 years there has been $3.2 billion paid in royalties and levies by the industry, and if we ring-fenced all of that that would be considerably more than the expected $880 million over the next 25 years for decommissioning costs.

Gareth Hughes: Given the oil industry cannot even have a conference without massive protest, oil companies are leaving New Zealand, and around the country Churches, councils, and universities are all divesting from fossil fuels, when is this Government going to get with the times and support clean energy over fossil fuels?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am not allowed to use the word for that question, given that it was the Green Party that caused so much disruption yesterday at the petroleum conference in New Plymouth. If only that member had come on the plane a bit earlier, he would have been there to see it like I did. I can tell him that the protesting and appalling behaviour by some of the people there was not from the delegates but actually was from his friends in the Green Party, led by Russel Norman.

• Prime Minister—Statements

2. JACINDA ARDERN (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement regarding the SAS actions in Afghanistan in 2010 and the alleged loss of civilian life that "so far there doesn't appear to be new material to justify an inquiry"?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Jacinda Ardern: When he stated yesterday that he "had an initial briefing from the New Zealand Defence Force about the incident and the inquiries that had already taken place", what specific inquiries was he referring to?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: In as much as I can answer that question without knowing exactly what the Prime Minister's thoughts were when he said it, I would imagine he was referring to the investigations that were undertaken on behalf of the New Zealand Defence Force at the time questions were raised.

Jacinda Ardern: Has he seen the full International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) report that was used by the Defence Force to claim there were no civilian casualties?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am sorry; I cannot answer that question as to whether he has read the whole report—I imagine so, but I cannot know exactly what he has read.

Jacinda Ardern: Does he consider the ISAF report to be independent; if so, why?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As far as he is aware, the report itself was not done by the New Zealand Defence Force but by the Afghani Government as well as other defence forces, and, as such, it is independent.

Jacinda Ardern: If the ISAF report, which the Defence Force is relying upon, was sufficient, why was a similar report in 2013, where the ISAF have claimed that there were no civilian casualties in a drone strike, later debunked by the United Nations; and is this really the kind of evidence the Government wants to base its claims on?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The Prime Minister is waiting for the Minister of Defence and the Chief of Defence Force to go through those reports. He has not made decisions at this time. It has been 48 hours since we saw the allegations, and he will be making decisions from there.

Jacinda Ardern: Why did Wayne Mapp, who was in Afghanistan during the raid, state that there was "enough supporting evidence" around claims of civilian casualties to make it "a credible claim", and yet he continues to maintain that the evidence does not exist?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I stated, the Prime Minister is still going through the information. At this stage he has not seen enough for there to be an inquiry, but it has been only 48 hours. He will continue to investigate that and will make decisions in due course.

Jacinda Ardern: What evidence does he require to justify an inquiry into the allegations that have been made?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: He will be going through all of it. He will be going through it with the Chief of Defence Force. I cannot actually state exactly what that will be; you do not know what you do not know.

• Economy—Reports

3. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): This morning the Reserve Bank released its official cash rate decision. In leaving the rate unchanged at 1.75 percent the bank noted that New Zealand's growth outlook remained positive, supported by ongoing high levels of household spending and construction activity, strong population growth, and accommodative monetary policy. It noted that house price inflation has moderated and in part reflects loan-to-value ratio restrictions and tighter lending conditions, but it also noted that it was still uncertain as to whether this moderation will be sustained. The bank also noted what it said was an encouraging fall in the trade-weighted exchange rate.

Andrew Bayly: What risks to the economy did the bank identify?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The main risks identified by the bank were international ones. Although it noted that indicators in other advanced economies have been more positive over the last 2 months, major challenges remain, with ongoing surplus capacity in other parts of the global economy and extensive geopolitical uncertainties. Responding to that geopolitical uncertainty is a key focus of this Government, and the Prime Minister will speak about New Zealand's trade policy in the context of that world environment in Auckland tomorrow.

Andrew Bayly: What are the Government's fiscal priorities to manage the economy's growth and manage potential risk in Budget 2017?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We have four key priorities for Budget 2017: firstly, delivering better public services for a growing country, providing all New Zealanders with the opportunity to lead successful and independent lives; secondly, building the infrastructure we need in a growing and modern economy; and, thirdly, we need to keep paying down debt as a percentage of GDP. We have set a target of reducing net debt to around 20 percent of GDP by 2020, and that is to make sure we can manage any shocks that may come along in the future. Finally, we remain committed to reducing the tax burden, and, in particular, the impact of marginal tax rates on lower and middle income earners, when we have the room to do so. It is very important to remember that the money the Government spends comes from hard-working Kiwi families.

• Education—Funding

4. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Why has her Government cut more than $523 million from early childhood education by, among other things, removing the top funding band for services that employ 100 percent qualified teachers?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Our Government has not cut funding to early childhood education (ECE). Since we came into Government we have almost doubled funding, to over $1.8 billion.

Chris Hipkins: How does she reconcile that claim with Budget documentation from 8 March 2016 that states: "What we have done: significant savings have been made in the last few years. Over $528 million of savings in ECE have been made since 2009, including by removing the 100 percent qualified teacher funding band."?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I easily reconcile that by saying that a Government, in every year, makes a choice about whether it is getting the best for an investment. So overall funding has not been cut, but particular investments within the funding have changed. For instance—

Hon Ruth Dyson: It says savings.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes, you see, that is what a Government does. It has a look at what is working, decides what is more effective, and invests in that. And this Government has decided that one of its key priorities is to increase participation. Another has been to extend 20 hours to Playcentre and to kōhanga reo, because this Government also believes that parents should choose which option they want to send their children to, and that could be teacher-led, centre-based early childhood education, or it could be parent-led and home-based. We support those choices.

Chris Hipkins: Why did the National Government cut funding for services that employ 100 percent qualified teachers, and what analysis, if any, has it done to measure the impact that decision has had on the quality of education and care that children receive?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: This is another area where there is a yawning chasm between our Government and the Opposition. This Government is not so much about goals as the Opposition has espoused. We are committed to increasing qualified teachers, and under our Government they have increased. They have increased from about 61 percent under the previous administration to 75 percent under this Government; something like 97 percent of teacher-led centres are funded for 80 percent - plus qualified teachers. So, in fact, qualified teachers in early childhood education have increased under this Government from way beyond where they were under that administration.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question asked why the Government cut funding for services that employ 100 percent qualified teachers, and what analysis had been done on the impact of that decision. The Minister has not addressed that. She has given a lot of background information but she has not addressed the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I will certainly have a look at it later, but on this occasion I am going to make an instant judgment. I think it was addressed. In fact, there were two questions within the supplementary question, and that makes it more difficult because there should be only one leg to a supplementary question, but the member took an opportunity to put two questions there. I think, certainly, one—in fact, probably both of them were addressed.

Chris Hipkins: Why did the National Government cut funding for services that employ 100 percent qualified teachers?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: We made a decision that we would see an increase in qualified teachers by the mix of policy investments we were making, and our decision has been borne out by the fact that we now see an increase to 75 percent, over the 61 percent that was in place under the previous administration.

Chris Hipkins: Does she believe that children who are attending services that previously had 100 percent qualified teachers and have had their funding reduced under the National Government are receiving a better standard of early childhood education as a result?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: New Zealand—apart from Sweden and Australia—leads the world in terms of adult-to-child ratios. We know that we have highly safe and good quality services, because the Education Review Office (ERO), which independently assesses early childhood centres, has found that there has been a significant decrease in those reported to ERO for poor service, from 28.8 percent under the previous administration to just 2.6 percent under our administration.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked specifically about the quality of services that—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! On this occasion, I am going to invite the member to re-ask his question.

Chris Hipkins: Thank you. Does she believe that the children attending services that have 100 percent qualified teachers that have had their funding cut under the National Government are receiving a better or worse standard of care and education as a result of that decision?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Perhaps if I explain why I chose to answer this question the way I did previously—it is that part of the proxies that are used to determine quality of delivery are adult-to-children ratios, are reports of low-quality performance, are the choices that parents make, so that early childhood education—

Hon Trevor Mallard: And the qualifications of the staff.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: See, early childhood education is a third more affordable now than it was in 2007, and, in the end, it is not actually what I believe—or past-it former members of Parliament—what matters is what parents believe, and parents get to choose what option of early childhood education they wish to be involved with. The fact is more parents are choosing under this Government, because we now have nearly 97 percent of all kids participating in early childhood education. [Interruption] I know it is a lot of information for the member to absorb. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Mallard.

Chris Hipkins: Why has the National Government not implemented its 2008 campaign pledge to lower the teacher-child ratio for under-2-year-olds from 1:5 to 1:4, or does she think it is OK for five under-2-year-olds to be cared for and educated by a single teacher?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I will refer the member back to my answer to the primary question. Our Government is continually monitoring what we are doing in education.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Why?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: We have a responsibility to taxpayers—that is why—to make sure that the dollars they pay are being invested wisely and we can see impact for that occurring. So that is what we have done. We have made different choices. But the overriding fact here is that, within those choices, we have increased funding year on year.

• Police, Minister—Statements

5. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by all her statements regarding Police numbers and allocation of Police resources?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Police): Yes.

Darroch Ball: Does she stand by her statement: "Deployment of police officers is absolutely at the discretion of the police commissioner, and it is not for politicians to be deciding where our police force should be around the country."?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes.

Darroch Ball: Why, then, did Minister Tolley stand up in the House yesterday and acknowledge that the Police Association needs more youth aid officers in order to do its job, given the pending increase in Youth Court age, saying: "That is what this Government intends to do."; or was Minister Tolley in no position to make those guarantees?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is entirely appropriate to say that we need more youth aid officers if we are putting up the age from 17 to 18. That is not saying where they are going to be deployed, which certainly is not the role, but to say that we need some more officers is completely within her arc.

Darroch Ball: Has the Minister had conversations with the Minister for Social Development promising allocation of personnel to youth aid in order to cope with the increased demands with an increase in the Youth Court age; if not, why not?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: There have been many conversations through the Cabinet process and Cabinet committees, where we were discussing raising the age from 17 to 18 and what that would mean for police resources, justice resources, and everything else, because it will mean a complete change.

Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Ron Mark. [Interruption] Order!

Ron Mark: They love me. Given that the police commissioner told—[Interruption] Shh, shh! Given that the police commissioner told the Law and Order Committee that he presented to you a business case for 880 sworn officers and 245 non-sworn officers, which was subsequently approved, why could you not tell the House last week, when I asked you, how many new police were being deployed into rural New Zealand—or were you not listening?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Quite clearly, this Government has announced that there will be 1,125 more police staff. Can the member not read?

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does that mean she was not listening?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member wishes to—

Ron Mark: Supplementary question.

Mr SPEAKER: That might improve things. I will give him a supplementary question.

Ron Mark: If you received a business case for extra police from the police commissioner, as he said you did, why can you not tell the House how many police you have funded for places like Northland, Horowhenua, and Rangitīkei?

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Paula Bennett—without bringing me into the question or the answer.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: To the member: it is very clear. Yes, the police commissioner obviously put forward a business case. No, the police commissioner in that business case did not specify what numbers would be going exactly into what districts—which I have said many times. What will happen now is the police commissioner is out talking to those district commanders, doing an analysis of what the needs are in the different areas within their districts, and they will then be deploying them as the need is.

Ron Mark: Given the high amount of interest in this, when you attended your first graduation of police recruits—Wing 303—last week, and police told you that the majority of the wing would be deployed to Auckland and Counties Manukau, why did you not ask how many were going to provincial New Zealand?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, I did not attend a graduation service, but I will allow the Deputy Prime Minister to answer the question.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I did attend my first graduation last week, and what an impressive 39 recruits they were. They are actually going to be going to all districts, I believe. I asked each of them, actually, where they were going and how much they were looking forward to it, and they were very proud, as were their families.

Ron Mark: When the Minister announced the extra 880 new uniformed and 245 non-sworn staff over the next 4 years, why did the Minister not tell New Zealand that Police are also laying off 200 police staff this year—or does the gagging order applied to them also apply to the Minister?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I categorically say that 200 police officers will not be laid off this year. The member has his facts completely and utterly wrong, and should be careful who he speaks to.

• Homelessness—Government Response

6. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Social Housing: What recent announcements has she made to reduce homelessness in Auckland?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Social Housing): This morning, with the Mayor of Auckland, I announced the launch of Housing First Auckland, which aims to house 472 chronically homeless Aucklanders and provide wraparound services to address the underlying causes of their homelessness. The programme is based on a successful international model, which has also been trialled through The People's Project in Hamilton. The Housing First model recognises that it is easier for people to address issues such as mental health and substance abuse once they are securely housed. The priority is to quickly move people into appropriate housing, then immediately provide wraparound services to support their ongoing success.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What does the evidence tell us about the effectiveness of the programme?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Internationally, Housing First has proven to be a very effective model for sustainably addressing homelessness. A US study of 1,800 homeless people with psychiatric disabilities found that 5 years after programme entry, 88 percent of the clients housed by the programme were still housed. Locally, The People's Project in Hamilton advises that 252 people have been moved from a homeless situation over the past 2 years, and that 94 percent of them have retained their housing.

Phil Twyford: Will she be advising her colleagues that the only long-term sustainable way to reduce homelessness is by fixing the housing crisis, and when will she adopt Labour's winning policies like banning foreign buyers, building 100,000 affordable homes, and stopping Bill English's sell-off of State houses?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, the causes of homelessness are complex and varied, but what I would tell the member is that, actually, my colleague the Minister for Building and Construction has been in charge of a very comprehensive programme of work to address the complete failure under the Labour Government to see adequate housing built. As a result of the work programme of this Government, we are now seeing one of the most intense periods of construction activity in New Zealand's history.

• Environment, Minister—Statements

7. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by his answers to oral questions No. 6 and No. 11 on Tuesday this week?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Yes, in the context in which they were given.

Hon David Parker: When someone goes into the supermarket or gas station and buys a bottle of pristine New Zealand mineral water, do they own the water in the bottle or just the bottle?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I suspect it is not much different from owning the soft drink or owning the beer or even my home brew.

Hon David Parker: Given his obvious commercial expertise, at what point in the supply chain did the water in the bottle gain a monetary value—was it when it was drawn from the source, when it was bottled, when the distributor bought it from the bottler, when the distributor sold it to the retailer, or when the customer bought it?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is not nearly as complicated as the member would have it. When someone puts water in a pipe—say, a council—it is then able to charge for the services of the storage, for the treatment, and the like. When water has services added to it, such as when it is made into my fine home brew, it adds in value considerably.

Hon David Parker: Why should companies using New Zealand's precious water as a raw material for what they are bottling not pay a royalty back to the New Zealand public?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government is happy to have a discussion about charging for water, but we need to do so in an equitable way. When I hear proposals from the likes of Stuart Nash of charging 10c per litre, a price that would devastate our dairy industry—

Hon Steven Joyce: The horticultural industry.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —or the horticultural industry, like in his own area—then I just simply say that the Government needs to go about this in a fair way that considers all water users.

Stuart Nash: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is the second time that the Minister has said that I have made a statement that I have never made, and I would like to see evidence of it.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Dr Nick Smith before I make a ruling.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would be happy to table the article of the newspaper in which he advocated a 10c a litre charge on all water users.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The addition by the Hon Dr Nick Smith will not actually help the order of the House. The member needs to look at Standing Order 359. If he feels he has been misrepresented, then there is a process that he can follow. It is not a matter of raising it as a point of order in the House.

Hon David Parker: Is the Minister surprised that New Zealanders can see through his delaying tactics on applying a royalty to commercial water use until after the election in the same way they saw through his low water standard categorising polluted rivers as swimmable?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: On both fronts I am more than happy to stand on this Government's track record of water reform, because when that guy was in Government for 9 years Labour did absolutely nothing.

• New Zealand Cyber Security Strategy and Action Plan—Reports

8. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Communications: What reports has he received on the implementation of New Zealand's Cyber Security Strategy and Action Plan?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister for Communications): Today I released the first annual report on the implementation of New Zealand's Cyber Security Strategy and Action Plan, launched in December 2015. The report sets out progress under the four goals of the strategy: achieving cyber resilience, building cyber capability, addressing cybercrime, and enhancing international cooperation. I am really pleased to report that New Zealand is making really good progress to improve its cyber-security, and although there is no room for complacency, this Government is leading an ambitious programme of action to fulfil the vision of a secure, resilient, and prosperous online New Zealand.

Jonathan Young: What are the next steps under the strategy and action plan to improve New Zealand's cyber-security?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The areas of focus this year include supporting the development of New Zealand's cyber-security industry, working on our cybercrime plan, helping small businesses to protect themselves online, and the launch of a national Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT). CERT NZ will open its doors next month as the central place for New Zealanders, businesses, and Government agencies to report cyber incidents. It will provide trusted advice on preventing cyber threats, responding to incidents, and will work with CERTs in other countries on incidents that have cross-border implications. The establishment of CERT NZ will help to protect critical infrastructure in the digital economy as we play our part in the global effort to improve internet security.

• Freshwater Management—Glacial Water

9. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Should New Zealanders get a say over whether a private company can extract glacial water flowing out of a national park in the heart of the South West New Zealand Te Wāhipounamu World Heritage area?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): All New Zealanders get an opportunity to have a say on how water is managed when a council works through its regional plan, as occurred with the West Coast in 2014. Whether they get a say on an individual application is up to the council, depending on the scale of the application, the rules that it has in its plans, and its environmental effects on the application. The Okuru Enterprises proposal in South Westland was originally publicly notified and submitted on when first consented.

Eugenie Sage: Is it acceptable that the West Coast Regional Council repeatedly renewed a 25-year-old consent behind closed doors to allow Okuru Enterprises to sell pristine water from a national park, before it finally lapsed?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The West Coast Regional Council went with five authorities that were affected parties: the Department of Conservation, Fish & Game New Zealand, the local iwi, the Westland District Council, and a local landowner. All five of those parties approved of the renewal.

Eugenie Sage: Is he saying that New Zealanders have no right to have a say on water exports, even where the water comes from one of our national parks and where it is being taken in such large quantities that it is not being put in bottles but is being pumped into ships?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Every New Zealander had an opportunity, when the West Coast Regional Council publicly notified its water plan, to have a say. Given that this application has been sitting around for about 20 years unused, there was ample opportunity for the member or anybody else to be able to submit to the regional council that there should be limits or some special process around such applications.

Eugenie Sage: When over 16,000 New Zealanders signed a petition opposing giving away our water, how is it OK for the regional council not to tell anyone about this plan to take billions of litres of water from our national park?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I remind the member that New Zealand uses only 2 percent of its freshwater resources. I further remind the member that the Government does not support a ban on the export of water, which last year was only 8 million litres—a very, very small fraction of the amount of water that is extracted in New Zealand.

Eugenie Sage: Does he accept that his proposed changes to the Resource Management Act, as our major environmental law, will make it even harder for the public to have a say on projects like this bulk water export being given away for free?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Quite the opposite. The resource management law reform bill before Parliament will improve the way our fresh water is managed. It is a very simple area. Most people in this Parliament would welcome stock being fenced from our waterways, and I would invite those parties that are genuinely concerned about water quality to support that bill so that that national requirement can come into place.

• Resource Legislation Amendment Bill—Progress

10. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister for the Environment: When will the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill be ready for Committee stage?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): It is ready now. My ambition would be to have the bill passed through next month, but, ultimately, the legislative priorities are determined by the Leader of the House.

David Seymour: How does the Minister think the public will interpret the fact that it has become ready within 2 hours of ACT and United Future challenging the Government to support the amendments and put the bill up after 2 years of wrangling with the Māori Party?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have sought to get the support of all of the Government support parties. The difficulty is that ACT has said the bill does not go far enough; the United Future party has been concerned that the reforms go too far. As a consequence, we have negotiated in good faith with the Māori Party. We have a good bill and the most substantive reforms to the Resource Management Act (RMA) in 25 years, and if, actually, we want more houses built, we want more jobs, and we want better environmental control, then parties will support that bill.

David Seymour: Did the Prime Minister at the time, John Key, not tell the Minister a year ago that the offer made today was on the table, and has been for the entire interceding period?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have been very aware of both the ACT Party and the United Future party's positions. They have actually been opposite. That is, the United Future party has been concerned that the reform has gone too far; the ACT Party has been concerned that it has not gone far enough. This is a centre-right Government, and I actually think that the reform and the agreement that we have reached with the Māori Party is a good way in which to advance this important reform.

David Seymour: I seek leave to table a letter from the ACT Party and United Future to John Key, Prime Minister at the time, offering a united front last March.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It does not need further description. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is not.

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

David Seymour: How does the Minister believe his backbench colleagues will react to the fact that it has taken 2 years to pass a substantially watered-down Resource Management Act reform bill, which includes Mana Whakahono a Rohe requirements that duplicate requirements already in sections 6 and 7 of the Act?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, the provisions in sections 6 and 7 are very different from the iwi participation arrangements. I would remind the member that prior to this term of Parliament the Government put out an options paper on the RMA, and the iwi participation agreements were in the Government's original proposals. They were there before we entered into discussions with the Māori Party, and they are there because the obligations to consult with iwi are already in the law, and it is our view that the iwi participation arrangements will ensure that occurs in a more effective way.

Hon Peter Dunne: Can the Minister recall when he last had discussions with either the ACT Party or the United Future party; was it 2015 or 2016?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I can very well recall that my office sought to seek a meeting with that member, and over 5 months the member could not find time—a frustration that was shared by my colleague Amy Adams, the previous Minister for the Environment. As a consequence, the Government entered into an agreement with the Māori Party, and we are a Government that acts in good faith for our parties, and that is why we will continue with our agreement with the Māori Party.

David Seymour: Does the Minister believe that anyone will take seriously his claim that this Resource Management Act amendment is more substantial than any of the previous 17 that have been made over the past 26 years, and, in particular, does he still stand by his statement that: "There's no question in my mind that we have to break through the stranglehold that the existing legal metropolitan urban limit has on land supply" if we want to make housing more affordable; if so—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! You are now getting to three supplementary questions.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: When we get to the Committee stage, I am looking forward to pointing out to that member the very specific provision in this bill that introduces an obligation on councils to provide more land for housing and industry.

• Disability Care—Disability Support Services

11. POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Minister for Disability Issues: Is the withdrawal of services for 1,200 disability support users across the country the "significant culture change" for the disability support system that she announced earlier this month?

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister for Disability Issues): No. The significant cultural change is about implementing the Enabling Good Lives principles, which is something that disabled people have been advocating for for many years. It will provide disabled people with more choice, more control in their lives, and more opportunities—something that I am sure the member would support.

Poto Williams: Is she able to guarantee that the 1,200 people that IDEA Services Ltd is saying will have their services cut will be able to access appropriate replacement services?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: Yes. The services have not been cut. IDEA Services Ltd has been reviewing its business to take a strengths-based approach and to focus on the areas that it is especially good at, which are community, residential, and day services.

Poto Williams: Does she accept that IDEA Services Ltd faces limited funding and pressure on its services, requiring it to cut its disability support service business by 5 percent?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: No. In actual fact, IDEA Services Ltd's funding has increased from $143.5 million last year to $151.9 million this year. This is absolutely in line with the increases that we have had right across the disability sector.

Poto Williams: Has IDEA Services Ltd received sufficient funding from the Government to cover minimum-wage increases over the past 6 years?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: Yes. IDEA Services Ltd has had money for its "between service" appropriation, and it is part of the new service information that is coming forward.

Poto Williams: Which other disability support providers are at risk of being unable to maintain their current service levels due to almost 9 years of inadequate funding to meet even basic inflationary cost pressures?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: That is not true. This Government is absolutely focused on delivering quality disability-services, and every year since we have been in Government, the amount has increased. This year the total amount is $1.166 billion.

• Small Business—Announcements

12. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister for Small Business: What recent announcements has she made on how the Government is supporting small businesses to save time and effort using online platforms?

Hon JACQUI DEAN (Minister for Small Business): Earlier this week I announced the addition of a new tool on Business.govt.nz, the Government's one-stop shop for small business. Business owners can now use the workplace policy builder to create policies on flexible work, IT, social media, leave, and holidays. These policy builders are up to date with legislation and regulation, and users can choose to be notified on any changes to ensure they stay up to date. I also announced that more policies will be added to this tool in the future. These tools are aimed at helping small business by making workplace policies quick and easy to develop, allowing small-business people to spend more time doing what they do best, which is running their business.

Brett Hudson: How else can Business.govt.nz support small-business owners?

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Business.govt.nz is part of the Government's commitment to support small businesses by bringing together advice and guidance from across Government into one place to save businesses time and to help them make their businesses more successful. Business.govt.nz can help small-business owners with business plans, health and safety, tips for hiring, and much more. There were more than 2 million visits to the website in 2016, double that of 2014, showing that small-business owners see the value of the Business.govt.nz website.

© Scoop Media