• ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Economic Programme—Fiscal Strategy

1. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Finance: What is the Government doing to ensure the longer-term strength of the New Zealand economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): This Government is continuing to implement its strong economic plan, focusing on building better public services and infrastructure, steadily reducing net debt as a percentage of GDP, and ensuring the benefits of economic growth are shared with Kiwi families. The results are paying off. New Zealanders are benefiting from more jobs being created, rising real wages, and lifts in exports. But, most importantly, we are also restoring resilience to the Government's books so that New Zealand can withstand any future shocks that may come along.

Melissa Lee: How is the Government ensuring that New Zealand companies continue to innovate and develop valuable products over the long term?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Innovation and the development of new products and services is a very important part of ensuring a resilient economy, and new data released last week showed a significant jump in the research and development conducted by New Zealand companies. Businesses spent $1.6 billion in the year 2016, which was a 29 percent increase from the previous survey 2 years earlier. These figures are tangible evidence that the Government's initiative to stimulate businesses to fund their own research and development activities, with the help of Callaghan Innovation and the research and development growth grant programme, is working and working well. In addition, rising research and development in New Zealand is a sign of the confidence that businesses have in themselves and in our economy.

Grant Robertson: Can he confirm that those research and development statistics released last week show that, as a percentage of GDP, the Government's spending on research and development went down in the last year?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not have that exact number in front of me, but, fortunately, I can confirm for the member that the Government programme known as Innovative New Zealand substantially increases research and development in New Zealand over the next few years. The important point for the member to note is that the increase in business-funded research and development was from 0.54 percent of GDP to 0.64 percent of GDP, which was very significant growth and, actually, the largest growth seen for many years.

Melissa Lee: What is the Government doing to ensure that the economic strength he talked about earlier is shared among the regions?

Dr David Clark: Well, that's a good question. Good question.

Stuart Nash: Good question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Well, if it is a good question, then we will hear the answer.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Last week's regional GDP growth figures demonstrate that most of our regions are growing well, notwithstanding some members talking them down. Through the regional growth programme, the Government is supporting opportunities in our regions to further boost investment, jobs, and incomes. In Northland, for example, the Tai Tokerau Northland Economic Action Plan contains over 50 actions to support and enable growth. Successes to date include the Government's commitment of $4 million for the Hundertwasser Art Centre, the opening of the Pou Herenga Tai—Twin Coast Cycle Trail, and the supporting of the Tai Tokerau Resort College in the Bay of Islands.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: And the bridges? And the bridges?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This is on top of our very significant investment in new roads, new bridges, and ultra-fast broadband. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order, Mr Joyce!

David Seymour: What is the Government doing to ensure that this growth is shared with major metropolitan centres such as Auckland?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, let me count the ways. As a resident of that city myself—or just north of that city—I think we have all known that in that city, actually, it is quite hard to move for all the construction cones that are around the place at the moment. I think of the Southern Motorway widening, I think of the Auckland Airport motorway widening, I think of the Waterview tunnels, I think of the Southwestern Motorway, I think of the Northern Corridor, and that is just the roading projects.

Melissa Lee: What confidence do businesses have in the strength of the New Zealand economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Recent confidence surveys provide further evidence that New Zealand's now nearly 6-year period of stable expansion will continue. In yesterday's quarterly survey of business opinion, businesses reported that their own activity outlook remains strong, prompting the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) to state that annual growth in the New Zealand economy will remain solid, at around 3 percent per annum over the coming quarters. And today's ANZ job data shows that the regions continue to lead the charge with more jobs, with every single one of the eleven non - main-centre regions experiencing stronger annual job ad growth, and, in fact, in most regions it is above 15 percent.

Grant Robertson: Well, in light of his reference to yesterday's NZIER quarterly survey of business opinion, can he confirm that it shows a net drop in business confidence?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, and I bring news to the member that, actually, confidence does vary month to month and quarter by quarter. But I am pleased to report to him that NZIER refers to a "modest drop in business confidence". A net 16 percent of businesses expect better economic conditions, and businesses report their own activity holding firm, suggesting annual growth in the New Zealand economy will remain solid—around 3 percent over the coming quarters. But Mr Robertson is, you know, absolutely entitled to continue with his trainspotting.

• Prime Minister—Statements

2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements regarding New Zealand's free-trade agreement with China; if so, why?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes. Our free-trade agreement (FTA) with China has been a success for New Zealand, and our exports have more than tripled since the FTA entered into force in October 2008. In fact, New Zealand now has a trade surplus with China.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If unqualified—and to quote him, "the FTA with China has been an enormous success"—why has New Zealand's biggest company, Fonterra, performed so disastrously in China's supposedly growing dairy market to the extent that Chinese companies have now got control over our high-value infant formula industry in just the last 6 years that he was Minister of Finance?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is really a matter for Fonterra and its shareholders. It is a private business. Its track record over time is that it has made decisions that create significant wealth for New Zealand. I am sure there are examples that that member can find where it has made decisions that did not work. That is business.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the trade imbalance since the FTA's signing is $10 billion—and it is—in China's favour, why is the door to high-value chilled lamb exports being opened only after China has got control of New Zealand's largest meat exporter, Silver Fern Farms Ltd; Taranaki Abattoir Company Ltd, Prime Range Meats Ltd, Oamaru Meats, and Hutton's?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first instance, the member's comment on trade balance does not take into account, I think, tourism, because, taken as a whole, essentially, we sell more to China than it sells to us. Secondly, the rural sector has waited many years for access of chilled meat to China, because it is worth considerably more as a chilled product than a frozen product. I would have thought the member would have welcomed the opportunity for businesses in the regions, including in his own electorate, to get better prices for their product. I cannot understand why he is against that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can New Zealanders trust that his Government is not selling them out when Chinese media reports, such as in the China Daily, report that National MP Dr Yang and the president of the National Party himself, Peter Goodfellow, are donkey deep in a new high-level Chinese business network?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would think that our members of Parliament ought to spend some time with people who run businesses and create jobs and investment. That may be a strange, new, and threatening idea to that member, but even the jobs in his own electorate will depend, to some extent, on the success with which businesses can export to China and other markets. I suggest the member visit a few businesses, talk to some of the people who work in them, and find out how the workers would like it if the businesses closed down and they did not have jobs.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Prime Minister preaching to someone who lives in his electorate when he does not; and what degree of—[Interruption] No, he does not. He is not called "Double Dipton" for nothing!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! Now the member will rise. There are two supplementary questions there. Half the trouble is the tone of the questions that are being asked. I do not want to have to put up with more interjections coming from my right-hand side. If we can have a simple supplementary question in line with the Standing Orders, I would be extremely grateful.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What degree of naivety permeates the National Party mind that led to the Australian Government getting a free-trade deal with China far superior to ours, and why are we therefore forced to be upgrading it?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: New Zealand's free-trade deal was signed up to in 2008 by the previous Government—with our support, because it was a good idea at the time. It has turned out, despite that member's opposition, to be a very successful free-trade deal, including any number of businesses in his own electorate that benefit from it.

Hon Steven Joyce: He should visit his electorate.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I know he visits a lot of hospitality businesses, but he should try some export businesses.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a translation of the China Daily of 28 March this year about the donkey-deep nature of the National Party's involvement.

Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that that would not be freely available to members, I will put the leave. The House will decide. Leave is sought to table that—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What was it?

Mr SPEAKER: The member wants further explanation. It is a Chinese newspaper article that has been translated, and it was dated March this year. Leave is sought to table it. Is there any objection? There is objection.

• Government—Initiatives and Outcomes

3. JACINDA ARDERN (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Given the number of commitments his Government has made to achieve outcomes in 2040 or later, does he think that his Government is addressing important issues with sufficient urgency?

Mr SPEAKER: As I call the Prime Minister, I have been informed this answer may be longer than normal.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, including some issues that are, by definition, long-term issues. We have been, for instance, the first Government in over 40 years to increase benefits for families with children. We have focused strongly on getting better results for children in our schools and on more people receiving the correct healthcare, including much higher immunisation rates. We have focused strongly on supporting families who are on welfare to get them into work, with the result that we now have 50,000 fewer children living in benefit-dependent households than we did in 2011. The Government is focusing strongly on investing to support the growth of the economy, which means that we now have record levels of infrastructure investment and building of houses.

Jacinda Ardern: Does he think the time it takes to travel from the CBD to Auckland Airport is acceptable; if not, why is he proposing to wait 30 years to fix it?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: It does take a while, and one of the reasons is the major project just outside of the airport, designed to speed up, exactly, the travel time. But we will continue to work intensively with Auckland Council on the basis of the common transport plan we now have, called the Auckland Transport Alignment Project. There will always be debate about what the priorities are. The Government is focused strongly on getting the Waterview Connection open, on the East-West Link, on the Northern Corridor Improvements—all multibillion-dollar projects—and on the City Rail Link (CRL), which the taxpayer is paying over a billion dollars for. These are all projects designed to improve transport in Auckland.

Jacinda Ardern: Given the New Zealand Transport Agency says traffic volumes to Auckland Airport have risen by a third in the last 4 years, how long does he expect the delays will get before he proposes delivering rail to the airport?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member could talk to the council and the Government officials who are working on it to get that level of technical detail, but she may—one of the next big steps, of course, will be the opening of Waterview and she may remember that this Government passed legislation that ensured that it was consented within 9 months, so now it is completed. If we had stuck with the Labour Party's legislation, the construction on Waterview would be just getting going now, and, in fact, it is now almost finished.

Tim Macindoe: What recent steps has the Government taken to address some of the important issues facing New Zealand?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have announced a $500 million package of 1,100 more police staff—that is 1,100 more police staff. We have extended ultra-fast broadband to 151 towns and also made an announcement about a transition to a higher age for national superannuation over the next 20 years, a position that I think the member asking the question used to support until they recently changed their minds.

Jacinda Ardern: Will he do the same thing he did with the City Rail Link and postpone the growth and prosperity of Auckland as long as possible before finally conceding defeat and funding the infrastructure we so desperately need?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is always a list of projects in Auckland and this Government has invested in all the major projects. The CRL, of course, is a taxpayer subsidy to a project that is fundamentally the responsibility of Auckland Council, and 3 years ago this Government saw fit to pick up half the tab for that multibillion-dollar project and it is well under way. Over the next few years we hope that Auckland Council will have the same level of commitment of resource to transport projects in Auckland as the New Zealand Government does.

Jacinda Ardern: Can he confirm that by the time Auckland gets rail to the airport under his plan he will be 86, I will be 66, and Todd Barclay will be into his teens? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will now hear the answer.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I pointed out to the member—she may not have caught up with this, but the plan in Auckland is one that has been generated by the central government, Wellington, and the Auckland Council. For the first time ever we have a common transport plan, and consistent with that we are doing the Northern Corridor Improvements, the East-West Link, the CRL, Kirkbride Road, the Southern motorway, the South-western motorway—it goes on and on. It is a multibillion-dollar series of projects, and one of the reasons it is hard to get around Auckland is there is so much road construction going on, but you cannot avoid that.

Tim Macindoe: How is the Government's solid and stable management of the economy and public services directly benefiting New Zealanders?

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question is about the achievements in the year 2040 or later. I think that Mr Macindoe's question is about things that are happening now and, actually, it should relate to what is happening in 2040.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need assistance, when I consider where subsequent supplementary questions have gone and the answers that have been given, that question is quite in order to be answered.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course, some of the results of the Government's support for the economy are quite immediate: 130,000 new jobs last year; lifting the minimum wage to $15.75 an hour, which was a campaign, I think, a few years ago for it to get to $15, and it is higher than that. But some of the impacts of policy are long-term. We just launched the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki that is designed to have an impact that is multigenerational, and it is the first time a Government has taken that view of changing the life course of our most vulnerable children, just as our system for measuring the quality of freshwater has to be adapted to fit with what actually happens in ecosystems and how long it takes water bodies to change.

Jacinda Ardern: When his Government does not want to deliver rail investment or lower carbon emissions or cleaner water for decades, why is he so fond of kicking every kind of infrastructure deficit down the road for Labour to address?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the member had focused on Budgets, she would know that, I think, it is about $3 billion has been invested in KiwiRail, and that is before you get to the very significant Metro Rail investment. I could go through the list of roading projects again for the member, if she would like—and rail: the CRL, which is an over $2 billion project; the East-West Link, which is currently being consented; the Northern Corridor Improvements, which are currently being consented; Waterview, which will be open soon; Kirkbride Road, which is holding the member up when she is trying to get home from the airport; the electrification of rail in Auckland; the upgrade of the Wellington rail system—

Mr SPEAKER: Bring the answer to a conclusion.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: —very large infrastructure investment.

• Fishing Industry—Monitoring

4. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he agree with the reported view of the Ministry for Primary Industries that there is nothing wrong with the fishing industry being allowed to monitor itself?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): No. The reported view is incorrect, and Newstalk ZB has now changed the headline that the member is referring to. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) never made such a statement, as it would be misleading. As the regulator, it is important that MPI retains independent oversight of the industry. However, I think there is benefit in allowing the industry to manage some administrative functions. There are five levels of audit in place to ensure the information is correct.

James Shaw: Does he see no conflict in having FishServe, a company that is owned by New Zealand's fishing industry, monitoring the catch of species like red snapper, John Dory, and blue nose—all of which have been overfished by that industry?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Well, monitoring is indeed a broad term. Most people's understanding of monitoring is about compliance monitoring. But punching and recording numbers is not the same as compliance monitoring. Compliance monitoring is the sole function of MPI; it is the regulator and it has complete access to FishServe's records. As I mentioned in the answer to my primary question, there are five levels of audit as well.

James Shaw: Is he confident that FishServe is accurately reporting on overfishing, given that MPI identified errors in 17 percent of forms reporting commercial fishers' catch?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Yes, I do have confidence in the audits that are in place. Of course, they pick up any issues as they work their way through. There is an MPI audit, there is a financial audit that is done by Ernst and Young, there is a FishServe internal audit, and there is also catch effort auditing. And the member may be aware that MPI is going to be rolling out, starting on 1 October this year, electronic reporting. As a result of that, that will speed up the efficiency of FishServe. It will actually also mean more transparency and moving away from paper-based records, where there are currently some errors.

James Shaw: Can the Minister confirm that in 2013 he gave FishServe new powers to determine when bans on commercial fishing could take effect in overfished areas?

Hon NATHAN GUY: First of all, these powers were originally devolved to FishServe in 2001 by Pete Hodgson. The 2013 Order in Council just rolled them over. The changes that I made in 2013 were making FishServe the approved service delivery organisation; before this it was the Seafood Industry Council. And, secondly, allowing FishServe to manage client number management in sequencing, i.e., one, two, three, four—very technical changes indeed.

James Shaw: Surely he will concede that if FishServe has the power to decide when fishing bans take effect, then it does have a regulatory role in the fishing industry?

Hon NATHAN GUY: I think I have addressed that already this afternoon by saying that FishServe is basically just a collection of data. MPI has access to all that data. When a fisher, indeed, does go over their annual catch entitlement (ACE) they need to go and get more ACE, or, indeed, there is a financial penalty through deemed values that I set, as Minister.

James Shaw: Can he assure the House that there is nothing in the 14 reports on fish dumping investigations, which MPI is currently refusing to release to university researchers, that raises the same kinds of issues highlighted in the Operation Achilles scandal last year?

Hon NATHAN GUY: MPI has been incredibly transparent, particularly on the back of the Heron report, where there was a huge amount of information that was released. MPI has continual investigations under way, and when they are at specific stages it is not appropriate for it to release that information.

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question then was quite specific, in relation to the 14 reports—the 14 specific reports—that MPI is currently withholding from university researchers. The Minister did not address those reports.

Mr SPEAKER: No, but the question was not specific enough. It talked about "Can he assure the House there is nothing in those 14 reports?", and mentioned that they were being withheld. The first thing is, the member responded by saying MPI is very transparent. The question has been addressed.

James Shaw: Yes!

Mr SPEAKER: If the members want assistance—and I have told the House many, many times—with their questions, tighten them up.

James Shaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will he ask MPI to release the 14 reports on fish dumping investigations that it is, so far, refusing to release?

Hon NATHAN GUY: The member has been in the House a while now; he should know that politicians do not get involved in matters that are to do with prosecutions or investigations. I do not tell MPI when to release official information; it releases it itself when it is ready.

• Regional Economic Growth—Reports

5. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister for Economic Development: What reports has he received on regional economic growth across New Zealand?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister for Economic Development): Last week Statistics New Zealand released GDP statistics for New Zealand's 15 regions, which showed the regions continue to grow strongly, with 12 of our 15 regions seeing economic growth in the year to March. The strongest growth was seen in the Bay of Plenty, with a very strong 7.7 percent. Meanwhile Northland, Auckland, Waikato, Manawatū, Wanganui, Wellington, Canterbury, and Otago all grew by more than 3 percent. All up, across New Zealand, this led to growth for the year of 2.1 percent, and it is being driven by such factors as strong construction and tourism activity, as well as a falling exchange rate and low inflation rates.

Dr Shane Reti: How is the Government working with regional New Zealand to ensure it continues to grow strongly?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: We are working intensively with 10 regions through the Business Growth Agenda and the regional growth programme to help lift the growth rates in the years ahead. We are committed to helping every region in New Zealand achieve its potential, by both attracting new investors and investing in the infrastructure for growth—be it ultra-fast broadband to 150 more regional towns or key regional transport projects up and down the country. Economic action plans have already been launched for Tai Rāwhiti, East Coast, Southland, Bay of Plenty, Northland, Hawke's Bay, and Manawatū-Wanganui, and we are now looking at action plans for the West Coast and Canterbury.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table information from the Parliamentary Library that says that the average growth rate for the last 10 years in Northland is 1.4 percent.

Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that information. Is there any objection to it being tabled? No. It can be tabled.

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

• Health, Minister—Statements

6. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statements in response to yesterday's urgent question on the typhoid outbreak in Auckland where a 52-year-old woman has died?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes.

Dr David Clark: When should his officials have publicly notified there was a death caused by a typhoid outbreak—the day public health officials learnt about it; 3 days later, when the Ministry of Health finally found out; or 4 days after that, once family members, church, and church community had come in contact with the woman who had died from typhoid fever, as well as other potentially affected relatives and community members?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, that is a matter of judgment, but I think what can be said is that lessons will be learnt from this whole episode. The point I would make, though, is that typhoid is actually spread either by water-borne means or by the handling of food by people who have been infected. So there is not a risk, I am advised, of contracting it from a person who is deceased.

Dr David Clark: Can he confirm that the woman who died, her friends, her immediate family, and two connected church communities were never told by his ministry that she had typhoid fever, that it is contagious, and that these communities only learnt of the seriousness of the situation through media reports 1 week later?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, I cannot confirm that. It is not the role of the ministry to communicate information. It would be the role of the Auckland Regional Public Health Service. It has the responsibility in this case.

Dr David Clark: Does he think it is adequate to have only one dedicated professional with Samoan language and cultural expertise in an already stretched Auckland public health service to respond to disease outbreaks in a population of over 1.4 million people?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That is an interesting and valid question, and that is one of the matters that will be addressed in the debrief—

Dr David Clark: Oh, for goodness' sake! You're the Minister.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: —just listen to the answer—and they do need to look into exactly what has gone on in terms of the liaison and the communication. That is an important point that will be raised.

Dr David Clark: Were cases at Auckland City Hospital isolated and quarantined as soon as typhoid was diagnosed?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: All the advice I have had is that they have been absolutely clinically correctly handled.

Dr David Clark: Not true.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, it is true.

Dr David Clark: Is it not actually true that when this woman died last week on Monday, public health officials already knew they were dealing with typhoid since they had been dealing with an outbreak since as early as 20 March, when three other members of the same Mount Albert church community were admitted to hospital subsequent to an earlier church event?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: My understanding is that 20 March was not the date of the notification of the first case. But, look, all of this will come out when the Auckland Regional Public Health Service reviews its handling of this whole outbreak.

• Police, Minister—Confidence

7. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister of Police; if so, why?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, because she is a competent and capable Minister and is working with the Police to implement a $500 million package that involves a net increase of 1,100 new police staff over the next few years.

Ron Mark: How can he have confidence in his Minister of Police when she made a premature announcement on 14 February that there would be 140 new rural officers, yet has no idea where they would go, and on 23 March she stated that district commanders were currently doing an analysis on what Police's needs are?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: There have not been any premature statements. The Police put together a case for more resource. The Government ultimately came forward with a proposal for 1,100 new police staff. The member may not be aware but the Minister of Police does not allocate the staff. That is the statutory responsibility of the police commissioner. In fact, the Minister is not allowed to direct the police commissioner around detailed matters of staffing allocation, so the member may want to address his questions to the commissioner, who seems to be working with the district commanders.

Ron Mark: What confidence can the public have in her pledge to recruit and train 880 new officers when the Herald on Sunday confirmed that police, due to budget constraints, have cancelled 13 training courses, and deferred another nine, including Criminal Investigation Branch induction, child protection, specialist interview techniques, and crime scene photography?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is the responsibility of the commissioner to ensure that he has a professional and well-trained police force. It is up to him and, as I understand it, it is not unusual for him to make decisions that might shift resources around. But he can be assured that the Government is funding and has committed to 1,100 new staff, including 880 new uniformed staff.

Ron Mark: Why does he have confidence in her when 2 weeks ago she showed her ignorance of facts: when asked whether police staff were being made redundant she denied it only for the Police Association—

Hon Paula Bennett: No, I didn't. You said 200.

Ron Mark: Settle, Petal.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member's question is very long. The interjection then—which was in response to an interjection, I accept—is not helpful. The member will start his question again and I do not want an interjection from my right hand side.

Ron Mark: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why does he have confidence in her when 2 weeks ago she showed her ignorance of facts: when asked if police staff were being made redundant she denied it only for the Police Association and the Road Transport Association to join New Zealand First in saying jobs were being axed and threatening the safety of trucks on our roads?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the member is probably wrong about what he said, which would not be unusual. The police have done a very good job of changing the way they operate to improve the safety of our communities and our roads. I know that the member, as has been his habit in the past, likes to retail police-type gossip, but they are doing a fine job and the member should stop trying to undermine their credibility.

David Seymour: How does the Prime Minister think the Minister of Police feels being called a petal by a toadstool?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That will not help the order of the House, Mr Seymour, and the question is out of order.

Stuart Nash: How can he have confidence in his Minister of Police when police are so under-resourced that on Sunday a liquor store manager was told that an officer could not be sent less than 100 metres over the road from the Newmarket Police Station to arrest a shopkeeper he had caught.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the member is referring to arresting the shoplifter, not the shopkeeper. Look, I am advised the police receive 4,600, 111 calls not every month or every week but every day, and we trust their professionalism to make the best decisions instantaneously on the spot, without consulting the Opposition or the Minister of Police about where they can deploy police for the safety of our community. I can understand the shopkeeper's concern about it. The practicality is that someone on the end of the phone has to make a snap decision.

Ron Mark: How can he or anyone have confidence in that Minister when this answer to a police Official Information Act (OIA) request, received on 24 March 2017, shows that at 3.45 on the morning of 17 January there were only 238 officers on duty from Kaitāia to Bluff, including just three officers for the whole of Northland?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have confidence in the Commissioner of Police, who runs—

Ron Mark: You're hanging him out to dry.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, I know that if the member had the opportunity, he would like to run the police rosters, but, actually, in New Zealand that is unlawful. The police commissioner has to run the police rosters and I know that over time, within the constraints of the complex industrial relations arrangements that the police have, he has changed considerably the way it works to ensure that more police are on when more crime is likely to be committed.

Ron Mark: I seek leave to table a revised police OIA received on 24 March 2017, that states that at 3.45 on 17 January—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! We do not need any more of the description, because it was well and truly contained in the question. Leave is sought to table that particular OIA response dated 24 March 2017. Is there any objection? There is not.

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

• Prime Minister—Statements

8. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that he said yesterday, in the context of question time, that "If there was substantial evidence of civilian deaths, we are interested in that.", and given former defence Minister Wayne Mapp's comments that "it was also possible there were other casualties. In particular, the death of a 3-year-old girl.", how can he possibly conclude that an inquiry into the actions by all New Zealand and other coalition troops is not required?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do stand by the statement, and as I have stated, the reason why we have not initiated an inquiry is that the Chief of Defence Force, following his statutory obligations, has investigated the claims of war crimes and misconduct made in a recently published book and has found that those claims have not been substantiated, including the fact that the locations talked about in the book are locations where New Zealand troops did not go.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that the basis of evidence that the Prime Minister just cites comes from the party that would actually be itself investigated, and given that the Prime Minister of 2017 disagrees with the Minister of Defence of 2010, who has recently said "As a nation we owe it to ourselves to find out", is that not a sufficient case for an inquiry?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I understand that the former Minister of Defence, who made these comments as a private citizen, based them on a documentary aired a number of years after the incidents—a documentary put together by one of the authors of the book. So he watched a documentary and then made commentary based on that, which was then republished in a book and published in the media. So it does not amount to any new analysis or any new information, but I can assure the member that all the evidence I have seen demonstrates that New Zealand troops at all times acted consistent with their rules of engagement and with the level of professionalism and care that we would expect them to operate to, even in circumstances where there is real pressure and real danger.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that the basis of evidence that the Prime Minister continues to cite in the last answer represents the same party that would itself be under investigation, how is this not a case where an inquiry is justified, under the Inquiries Act 2013, on a matter of public importance where the members of the inquiry must act "independently, impartially, and fairly"?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Really for two reasons—first is that these inquiries were made within days of the event, by the coalition forces and the Afghan Government and police at the time, who were independent and acting on assertions that there were civilian casualties. The facts as adduced then have been consistent right through. Nothing has actually altered. The Chief of Defence Force has legal obligations to investigate these things. It is not a matter of whether we think he should; he has to, under our law. I am persuaded by the professionalism of the Chief of Defence Force and made it clear that if there was any sense that the defence forces were misleading the civilian government that controls them, that would be a very serious matter. I do not believe there are any grounds to believe that the Defence Force has acted in a misleading way.

• Budget 2017—Government Priorities

9. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with former Prime Minister John Key that a meaningful tax cut would cost "$3 billion I reckon", and is this a higher priority for him in the upcoming Budget than restarting contributions to the New Zealand Super Fund?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): I agree with the former Prime Minister that that amount would certainly represent a meaningful tax cut, but I also think that a $1 billion package or a $1.5 billion or a $2 billion package, depending on how it was targeted and over what time period, might also represent a meaningful tax cut. In terms of priorities for Budget 2017, I have publicly set these out and helpfully will do so for the member again—firstly, delivering Better Public Services for a growing country; secondly, building the infrastructure we need in a modern economy; third, paying down debt as a percentage of GDP, with a target of achieving 20 percent of GDP by 2020-21, at which time we would restart contributions to the Superannuation Fund. And, 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.

Grant Robertson: Was John Key correct when he said that a $1 billion tax cut package would only give average earners $7 or $8 a week and was not a meaningful tax cut?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I see what the member is trying to do, but I do not propose to design the 2017 Budget on the floor of the House today.

Grant Robertson: If he is going to spend $3 billion on tax cuts, what essential social spending programmes will not be funded, to afford those cuts?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Budget is coming. I do believe we intend to have the House receive the Budget on 25 May this year. There are not too many more sleeps left yet, Mr Robertson, and all these questions will be answered at that time.

Grant Robertson: We are going to enjoy the next few weeks. Does he think that Adrian Orr, chief executive of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, was referring to him yesterday when he said "Recent public comments illustrate that many people don't understand what the New Zealand Super Fund is and what it does", given his reluctance to restart contributions to the fund?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Mr Orr would have to speak for whom he was referring to, but I actually read that and thought he was referring to Mr Robertson.

Grant Robertson: Was the Superannuation Fund wrong to describe comments such as his, that it is wrong to save for the future when there is debt to be repaid, by describing those comments as misleading, or will he now admit that it is just his ideological addiction to tax cuts that is putting restarting contributions to the Superannuation Fund last in his priorities?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In terms of the member's apparent quotation of my comments, he is incorrect. But, actually, I would say to him that it is important to think of the incomes of people today, as well as the incomes of people in the future. The member and his party often come down to the House and talk about the spending pressures on low- and middle-income earners or housing costs for people and, actually, their incomes are very, very important when you are considering those matters. So the member may say he does not care, but I certainly do.

• Meat Industry—Chilled Meat Exports to China

10. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent agreement has the Government made to support export growth in the red meat sector?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Recently, trade Minister Todd McClay and I announced a memorandum of cooperation that allows for the chilled export of meat into China. This 6-month trial will initially involve 10 meat establishments, agreed in conjunction with industry. China is New Zealand's second-largest market for beef and sheep exports. New Zealand exported around $1 billion worth of frozen sheep and beef exports last year. It is a trade that has grown by five times since 2011. It is a fantastic story.

Sarah Dowie: How will this announcement increase the value of our red meat exports?

Brett Hudson: Good question.

Hon NATHAN GUY: That is a very good question. Chilled meat is worth around twice the value of frozen meat, and this announcement will, potentially, be worth hundreds of millions of dollars for our red meat sector down the track. With great air links to China, our exporters now have the opportunity to fill returning planes with chilled meat as demand grows. Also, the recently signed veterinarian agreement with Iran opens up this market for sheep and beef products. In the 1980s, they took one in every four sheep that were exported. I am very proud of what the Government has achieved for meat exporters, ultimately, lifting farm gate returns.

• Social Services—Private Client Data-sharing Requirements and Advice

11. CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Social Development: What advice did she receive from the Privacy Commissioner during the development of the private client data-sharing requirements for contracted social services?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I did not directly receive any advice from the Privacy Commissioner during the development of the proposal to collect individual client-level data. I did, however, receive a letter from the Privacy Commissioner on 10 March this year regarding his provisional conclusion of his inquiry into the proposal to collect individual client-level data. I had a constructive meeting with the Privacy Commissioner on 14 March to discuss this, and I understand that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has been working closely with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) throughout the development of this proposal to ensure client's privacy rights are protected.

Carmel Sepuloni: How can we trust that the Government is "working collaboratively with the Privacy Commissioner" and "will listen to any recommendations that he has to make", when she ignored the recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner during the development of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I refute the assertions in that question.

Carmel Sepuloni: Why is she still going ahead with the collection of private client data from social services, when 62 percent of people felt that data should not be shared between organisations, as the risks outweigh the benefits, and numerous social service providers have spoken out against it, as well as privacy lawyer Kathryn Dalziel and University of Canterbury Dean of Law, Ursula Cheer? Is it because she thinks she is right and all of these service users and experts are wrong?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I have said many times before, we need this information so that we can better understand what services people need and use. That means we can target our funding to those services that New Zealanders find most beneficial and that actually produce results. Collecting and sharing this information is essential if we are to ensure that people do not fall through the cracks and that we are supporting the most vulnerable in our community. MSD and, now, the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki spend $330 million of taxpayers' money every year providing social services in our communities. Everyone would desire that that money be spent efficiently and effectively, and that is what we are attempting to do.

Carmel Sepuloni: How can she and her department continue to railroad social service providers for private client data, using their funding, when last night she had to shut down the portal where providers submit their data because it was compromised?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I understand that the ministry was made aware that a provider's folder, which did not contain any information or content, was viewable by other users of the system.

Carmel Sepuloni: What if it did contain content?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No, it had no content in it. As a result of that portal and in light of that technical issue, I met with the chief executives of MSD and the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki this morning and insisted that we stop using that Department of Internal Affairs portal, because I do not have the level of confidence required in the system. I have instructed them to go away and come up with an alternative solution. I have also asked that that alternative solution be independently assessed, and I would welcome the Privacy Commissioner's involvement in that system development.

Carmel Sepuloni: If the Privacy Commissioner's report that is due to be released to the public tomorrow recommends delaying or cancelling altogether the Government's plan for private client data-sharing requirements for contracted social services, will she put in place his recommendations?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Privacy Commissioner has not even released his report, so it would be most inappropriate for me to comment on it. I do not have responsibility for his report. But what I can say is that I welcome his report and I will be asking both MSD and the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki for advice on the matters that he raises. As I say, I met with him recently and I look forward to working with him to address any concerns that he may have.

• Project 1000—Updates

12. ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister for Social Development: What updates can she provide on the progress of Project 1000?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): In July last year, the Government launched the Matariki: Hawke's Bay Regional Economic Development Strategy and Action Plan 2016, which included as one of the actions Project 1000. This is focused on supporting 1,000 local people, including beneficiaries, into new jobs over the next 3 years. I am absolutely delighted to report that, to date, 231 people have been placed into employment and that we are well on track to meet that target of 1,000 people by July 2019. That is fantastic news because the evidence tells us that there are significant financial and social benefits to being in work. By encouraging businesses to employ local people, we are supporting the regional labour market and helping people to get ahead.

Alastair Scott: What are some of the initiatives in place to help link up businesses with people who are looking for work?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There are currently 16 initiatives that sit under Project 1000, because we are working collaboratively with employers on the ground to achieve that target of connecting 1,000 people with sustainable work. These include employer-led initiatives in the horticulture sector and partnerships with iwi and hapū. Other initiatives include partnerships with local government organisations and the health sector, such as the one between the Ministry of Social Development, the Hawke's Bay District Health Board, and the Hastings District Council, which will support up to 50 youth into paid community project positions with a focus on clients with health conditions and disabilities.

© Scoop Media