ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Economy—Reports

1. NUK KORAKO (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the progress of the New Zealand economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): The New Zealand economy continues to track in a positive direction, as judged by the latest household labour force survey. The data, released by Statistics New Zealand today, showed that in the first 3 months of this year the percentage of unemployed people fell to 4.9 percent. In real terms, that means there are now 29,000 more people in employment than there were at the end of December last year, taking the total employed to a new record in New Zealand of 2,539,000. In the March year, 137,000 jobs were created. The number of jobs being created has grown faster than growth in the working-age population now for the sixth quarter in a row.

Nuk Korako: How is this job growth helping the wider economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is encouraging that in the March quarter 12,000 more people moved into full-time work and 16,000 more into part-time work. Many of these jobs are in key sectors of the New Zealand economy. Last week, for example, I announced that the Government would allocate an extra $11 billion in capital over the next four Budgets, so it is heartening to see that the construction sector is a key area for job growth and has record highs. Likewise, with tourism, one of our biggest exporter earners, it is encouraging to see the number of jobs in the accommodation and food services sectors continuing to grow strongly.

Nuk Korako: What progress has been made with youth employment?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am pleased to report that the number of young people not in education, employment, or training fell to 12.8 percent. That means we have 4,000 more young people either participating in the economy or building up their skills. There is, of course, still more work to do in this regard, and that is why the Government will continue to push policies—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but there is a level of interjection that now makes it unreasonable. I cannot hear the answer. One particular member who is interjecting a lot has a question later in this question time; it would be unfortunate if he was not here to ask his own question.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I said, there is still more work to do in this regard, and that is why the Government is continuing to push policies that support robust economic growth, particularly in regional New Zealand, and create exciting opportunities for young people.

Nuk Korako: How do Kiwi workers benefit directly from New Zealand's strong economic growth?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Not only do the Statistics New Zealand figures show that there are more jobs available, but we are also seeing steady wage growth as well. Wages grew by 2.1 percent over the year, taking the average annual wage to $58,935. That compares with inflation, which was running at a very similar percentage—2.2 percent as well, in fact—

Grant Robertson: Yeah, that would be below it, wouldn't it, Steven?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —but like most reasonable—sorry?

Grant Robertson: That would be below the rate of inflation.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, it is actually exactly the same, but thank you. Anyway, looking at the trend, after-tax wages look set to continue rising, as they have done for several years, even after adjusting for inflation. Australia—Diplomatic Relations with

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Why, under his prime ministership, has the relationship with Australia reached the point where, according to him, Australia is making policies that are detrimental to New Zealanders living there "either without telling us or at short notice"?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): I disagree with the premise of that question. The relationship with Australia is a very close one. Issues do arise from time to time, and this has happened over a number of years with different Governments. For instance, it remains a fact that the biggest reduction of New Zealanders' rights in Australia occurred in 2001 in an agreement executed by the last Labour Government. We of course are talking to the Australians about the direction of our relationship, our core shared interests, and how these policies can be communicated in order to reduce uncertainty, but I can say that the most recent decision shows the benefits of having surpluses in New Zealand. Australia has deficits—that is why it is looking to cut entitlements.

Andrew Little: Moving 16 years on, has he ever discussed student fees with Malcolm Turnbull before this week's announcement?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. I would not necessarily expect to. The Australian Government, as I said, has significant deficits. It is trying to manage its way to surplus, and, as I understand it, New Zealanders in this case are caught up in policies that affect all Australian university students.

Andrew Little: When he specifically discussed the rights of New Zealanders in Australia with Malcolm Turnbull a week ago, did Mr Turnbull discuss the change in student fees with him at that time?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. At the time there was a discussion about the arrangements related to the extended time to become citizens, with confirmation from Prime Minister Turnbull that the Australian policy change does not affect the deal that he entered into last year with New Zealand. I want to record my thanks to the Prime Minister for that action.

Andrew Little: What representations has he personally made to Mr Turnbull on this issue this week?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government's official position will be presented by the Hon Gerry Brownlee when he visits Australia tomorrow. I have had informal discussions with Mr Turnbull, simply about the nature of the issues.

Andrew Little: What has happened since John Key stopped being Prime Minister that means Australia no longer seems to notice that New Zealand is even here anymore?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Australian Prime Minister did come visiting, and their rugby teams may have noticed being run over pretty regularly in the Super Rugby. As the member will, I am sure, appreciate, the Australian Government has deficits. It has got its own political decisions and its own political dynamics. It is not at all surprising it does not consult us on every political decision that it makes—nor would we expect to consult it.

Andrew Little: Will he secure a reversal of Australia's policy so that New Zealanders over there continue to pay domestic fees, as Australians do in New Zealand?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I certainly would not want to raise expectations that a decision made by the Australian Government, in the context of its Budget with significant deficits, is going to suddenly be turned round for a small proportion of the university population in Australia. I would not want to mislead New Zealanders in Australia or in New Zealand that that is likely.

Andrew Little: When will he stick up for the rights of New Zealanders living in Australia, and make sure that our reciprocal arrangements with Australia are actually reciprocal?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We do advocate for the rights of New Zealanders in Australia. But the member will, I am sure, be aware that that does not give us veto rights over the decisions of another sovereign Government over what entitlements its citizens have or over determining who is a citizen of Australia. We do not get to decide that.

David Seymour: How long has Australia been an independent, self-governing country?

Mr SPEAKER: No, there is no prime ministerial responsibility for that question at all. [Interruption] No. Prime Minister—Statements on Pike River Mine

3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on Pike River mine; if so, how?

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware that there is a drift runner used to transport workers in the mine, located near a borehole by the slimline shaft, and that there is photographic evidence of this?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have no reason to disbelieve the member, and I can advise him that if we proceed—as we proceed with the most recent project, which is to work with the families on unmanned entry using much-improved technology, compared with 6 years ago when that video or photo may have been taken—then we may be able to see in more detail and get more evidence of what went on not just with that vehicle but in the mine in respect of the explosion.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is true, Prime Minister, then why, when he met with the Pike River families in January, did he refuse their request for an HD camera to be put down the boreholes near the slimline shaft, which has already happened before with the official contractor? Why did he refuse—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not recall that I did, but I do remember a pretty intensive discussion with the families. I do remember them recording their grief, their frustration, their concern for getting manned entry into the mine, and a subsequent agreement that we would have a project focused on unmanned entry because that is a safe way to try to meet some of their objectives, such as finding out whether there is further evidence related to the deaths of their loved ones or related to the cause of the disaster.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If a drilling contractor has obtained the photographic evidence of what is down through that shaft into that mine and the families have asked to also have that information from a later examination of a camera going down there, why did they refuse them in January when they asked specifically for that right?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not recall such a request or such a refusal. It is possible that the request was made; I cannot see any reason why it would have been refused. We do not have the photographic evidence. It will be held by the police or the company. In response to the request of the families, I understand that by the end of this week all the relevant video will be made available to them again, as it has been in the past.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that the drilling contractor, who has been paid almost $5,000 per month for two drill rigs to do nothing for 3 years now, is contractually bound to not make any comments or statements upon any matters arising out of his service to the Pike River mine and that his contract has a specific section gagging him from media comment, as is supplied in this document here?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not familiar with the terms, with either the contractor or who he is contracted with, or the nature of the contract itself.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If it all is as he says, why is there a specific, extensive confidentiality clause that prevents the drilling contractor from talking to the media about what he has seen and has evidence of?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a question the member would need to address to the people who wrote the contract and the reason for it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I'm asking you.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not know about any aspect of that arrangement.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If Solid Energy is owned by the New Zealand taxpayer, and if he and his colleagues have nothing to hide and do not think it is a laughing matter that 29 people lost their lives, then why will not he release the drilling contractor from his contract and grant the Pike River families the right to see this information that was taken from within those boreholes?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: On the face of it, I cannot see any reason why all the relevant material cannot be seen by the families. In fact, that was the process of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy, where the families had legal representation through the length of the whole commission. The commission had full powers to obtain all and any evidence that it wanted. There is an Official Information Act process. As we have said, the families have used that, as I understand it, recently. The police are turning over all the video evidence, and video evidence was made available to the families at a much earlier stage as well.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Can the Prime Minister provide a reason why the Police have from day one done everything possible to keep evidence from the families, including videos and shots from inside the mine?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place, as the member would know, we have no responsibility for the operational decisions of the Police. It would be wrong, actually, for me to even try to answer a question about its process. Secondly, he can ask the Police if he wants. Thirdly, from what I have seen, there is no evidence that Police has behaved improperly. Nor can I think of any reason why it would.

Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In respect of the Prime Minister's last answer to that supplementary question, Speaker's ruling 175/3 states that "There is no convention that Ministers are not answerable to the House for operational matters in the departments or agencies falling within their portfolio areas. Even though a Minister may not have legal control, the Minister assumes the political responsibility to the House to answer such questions. Legal responsibility and political responsibility are different things."

Mr SPEAKER: And what is the member's point?

Richard Prosser: The Prime Minister was declining to answer Mr O'Connor's question on the grounds that it was an operational matter.

Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister did not decline to answer the question. The Prime Minister addressed the question, and certainly to my satisfaction. Tai Poutini West Coast Economic Action Plan—Treatment of Conservation Land

4. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Economic Development: Nā, ka uru atu ki roto i Te Mahere Mahi Ōhanga Tai Poutini West Coast, a Te Kāwanatanga, he whakatuwheranga ake o te whenua taiao mō te mahi maina? [Will the Government's Tai Poutini West Coast Economic Action Plan include opening up conservation land for mining?]

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister for Economic Development: The proposed action plan is still under development by the region. The member, along with the rest of us, will see shortly what local businesses, local community leaders, and local people propose to boost regional economic growth and add jobs to the West Coast, but the member can be assured the Government will listen carefully to what the region proposes.

Metiria Turei: Did any potential buyers of Solid Energy's assets approach the Government and ask for new mining opportunities in conservation land, or for rule changes to make it easier to open new mines; if so, who?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not aware of any such approaches—certainly of Ministers—in that regard. I am not sure that that is actually linked too closely to the regional growth plan anyway.

Metiria Turei: Can he confirm that the Government intended to sweeten the Solid Energy deal by offering new mining areas in conservation land to potential buyers, including Bathurst Resources, Talley's, and Phoenix Coal?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I cannot confirm that at all.

Metiria Turei: Did Government Ministers or officials tell potential buyers of Solid Energy's assets that new coalmining opportunities might be made available to them on the Buller plateau or other conservation land if they bought Solid Energy's assets?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This is quite a long, long way from the primary question. To the best of my knowledge, for the member's benefit, the answer is no, but if she had actually signalled that this was her line of questioning, then I would have had more of an opportunity to check more fully with colleagues.

Metiria Turei: Was he aware of or involved in placing any pressure on the Minister of Conservation or on Conservation officials to open up land for coalmining, contravening the purpose, which is to "advocate for the conservation of natural and historic resources"?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again, this is a million miles from the primary question in terms of what the member is asking. All I can say, though, is that the member will be aware, as are organisations like Forest & Bird and others that have been quoted in the media recently in regard to the issues that the member raises, that there has been a long ongoing discussion between Ministers and wider stakeholder groups in terms of which parts of the Denniston Plateau would be available for mining or not. I do not think that specifically relates to the Tai Poutini West Coast Economic Action Plan.

David Seymour: If the Government has not done any of those things, what is it doing to encourage the extractive industries?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the questions now—and that one particularly—have led a long, long way from economic development. That has nothing to do with economic development on the West Coast. I invite, now, a further question from Metiria Turei—[Interruption] Order! In calling the questions, we do need to focus back to the portfolio of economic development.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister remember in 2010 when 50,000 New Zealanders marched in the streets to stop mining on conservation land and in national parks, and can he assure all of those New Zealanders that the Government is not engaged in any backroom deal to revive the coalmining industry on conservation land?

Mr SPEAKER: There are two supplementary questions there; the Minister can address either or both, if he wants.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again—just a clarification: was the member referring to mining in national parks? Is that her question?

Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the member to clarify.

Metiria Turei: I can re-ask the question, if you would prefer?

Mr SPEAKER: No, no, just—

Metiria Turei: I said both on conservation land and in national parks in my question.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: What I can tell the member is that in relation to the Tai Poutini West Coast Economic Action Plan, which is the premise of her primary question, I am pretty sure it does not actually have anything in it about mining on conservation land or at the national parks, but we will all have to wait and see until the actual plan is produced, and the member will have to wait along with the rest of us.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister advocate for more coalmining on conservation land?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not know that I can see inside his mind right at this point, but I can tell the member that in relation to the Tai Poutini West Coast Economic Action Plan, which is the subject of her question, I do not think the Minister is spending his time thinking about opening up conservation land for more mining. Better Public Services—Updates

5. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of State Services: What updates can she give about the Government's commitment to Better Public Services?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of State Services): Today the Prime Minister announced a new set of 10 Better Public Services (BPS) targets, which sets clear expectations about what we expect the Public Service to achieve for New Zealanders. We first introduced BPS targets in 2012 to ensure the Public Service was focused on achieving tangible outcomes that would result in people being healthier, better educated, and more likely to be off benefit. Five years on, the targets have driven real improvements, so it is the perfect time to refresh them and set new targets.

Jonathan Young: What have the targets achieved so far?

Carmel Sepuloni: Everyone's asking that.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: That is a very good question, and the member might like to listen up, because she is quite interested in this: the proportion of the population on a main benefit is the lowest it has been in a March quarter since 1997.

Carmel Sepuloni: Seventy-four thousand additional hardship grants.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, no, no—you wanted to hear it. One more time for the member, sorry: the proportion of the population on a main benefit is the lowest it has been in a March quarter since 1997.

Carmel Sepuloni: Where have they gone? Where are they?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: If the member is wondering where they are, that would be those for whom employment is up. Employment is up, and that has actually had a huge benefit. Between 93 and 94 percent of 8-month-olds are fully immunised. It is going very, very well.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That in no way was a proper ministerial answer. It was long, it was indulgent, and it was false.

Mr SPEAKER: It was certainly a very long answer, but it was then responding throughout to very substantial interjections coming from a member on my left. Further supplementary question?

Jonathan Young: What are the new targets?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The refresh includes six brand-new targets, which focus on the issues that are most important to people, such as having healthy mums and babies, and increasing educational achievement. The new targets include: having 90 percent of pregnant women register with a lead maternity carer in the first trimester—currently it is about 65 percent, so going to 90 percent will make a huge difference; reducing the number of hospitalisations for children with preventable conditions; improving the literacy and numeracy of children, focusing particularly on that higher achievement of students in year 8; and reducing serious crime. These are just a few. Budget 2017—Potential Tax Cuts

6. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Prime Minister Rt Hon Bill English that "tax cuts are on the table" for Budget 2017?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Of course. I always agree with the Prime Minister. I have found, over the last 8½ years, that both the previous Prime Minister and the current Prime Minister enjoy it when their Ministers agree with them, and it is appropriate to do so. I am considering four priorities in preparing for Budget 2017: firstly, increasing public services for a growing country; secondly, building the infrastructure needed in a growing country; thirdly, reducing net debt as a percentage of GDP; and fourthly, when the opportunity permits, looking to return some money to hard-working New Zealand families. Those are the four priorities. As for the specifics of Budget 2017, I can advise the member that he has only 22 days to wait.

Grant Robertson: Why did he say last week: "I wouldn't be characterising anything we do primarily as tax cuts."?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I understand the member's new-found enthusiasm for these matters, but he will have to wait 22 days, and I will answer his question.

Grant Robertson: Would the threshold changes he was talking about last week mean that some people would pay less tax?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again, the member is getting slightly ahead of himself. There are, literally, 3 weeks and 1 day to go until the Budget, and then I will have the opportunity to share with him the result of the Government's deliberations.

Grant Robertson: Why was he prepared to share with the media last week that he was considering threshold changes; and will he now tell the House whether or not those threshold changes he talked to the media about last week would mean that some people would be paying less tax?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have been discussing the potential for threshold changes publicly for a long time, and that remains part of the discussion. In terms of what, if anything, would change as a result of those considered threshold changes, it would be a case of just having to wait and see until Budget 2017, which is on 25 May.

David Seymour: Does he stand by his statement made on The Nation, 2 weeks ago, with respect to cutting tax: "I would like to one day. Can I do it this time? I still don't know. Maybe."?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do think that is a reasonable summation of what I was thinking at the time.

Grant Robertson: Is the real reason that he has suddenly got so shy about talking about tax cuts not that he knows New Zealanders will reject a tax cut that might be worth a packet of cheese slices a week when families are living in cars and garages?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again, we will have to see what happens on 25 May. I notice that a number of commentators have been supportive of the idea. In fact, I can quote one here, who said: "We'll see what the Government does in the Budget, because they have indicated they might move thresholds. I think that's fine, because that should happen periodically." That was one A. Little, on 27 April 2017.

Grant Robertson: Is the Minister telling the House that New Zealanders will get a meaningful tax cut in the Budget, of $20 to $30 a week, as promoted by former Prime Minister John Key, or is he now really shy about tax cuts because New Zealanders know money needs to be invested in social services that his Government has run down?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The really good news about having a strong economy is that the Government does have choices—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which you haven't got, and everybody knows it now.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —well, the member may not have heard, actually. He might have been busy at lunchtime, but, actually, the employment figures have just come out for the March quarter, which show another 29,000 more Kiwis are in jobs, which is living proof of a strong economy. Actually, that does give the Government choices. In terms of what choices the Government takes, well, we will be able to announce those on 25 May. In terms of the member's concern for social services, we share that concern. The Prime Minister announced today a $321 million investment in new social investment initiatives, including $68.8 million in ensuring young children get a better start in life. This Government is focused on achieving on a range of fronts for New Zealanders. Social Investment, Minister—Announcements

7. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister responsible for Social Investment: What recent announcements has she made about social investment?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister responsible for Social Investment): Today I was delighted to join with the Prime Minister in announcing that Budget 2017 will include a $321 million social investment package, with 14 initiatives designed to help our most vulnerable to improve their circumstances. Social investment is about tackling our most challenging social issues and intervening early to help the most at-risk New Zealanders lead better lives, become more independent, and cost taxpayers less in the long run. The funded initiatives are also about supporting better cross-agency ways to target some ingrained social issues across those with complex needs, and the work of the newly established Social Investment Agency that I announced last month will help provide the resources and support to embed this approach.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will the new agency help deliver the Government's focus on social investment?

Hon AMY ADAMS: We are on the precipice of what could be the most remarkable transformation in how we deal with social services in New Zealand. We are pivoting the system around to help social sector agencies shift away from focusing just on their specific areas to better understanding their customers and being able to assess the impact of their interventions across an individual's life. The new stand-alone Social Investment Agency will replace the existing social investment unit currently operating as part of the Ministry of Social Development, and will provide robust all-of-Government social investment advice. This includes applying rigorous and evidence-based investment practices to social services and developing innovative new commissioning approaches. It will also be tasked with building the social investment architecture for all-of-Government and NGO agencies to use to help frontline staff fine-tune services and make them better targeted. Environment, Minister—Statements

8. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by his statement that the Government is determined to move 1,000 kilometres of waterways per year to a higher swimming standard?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Yes. The Government's Clean Water package categorises river and lake water quality into five swimming grades from excellent to poor, based on four statistical tests of their E.coli data. The Clean Water package requires improvements across all those categories so that by 2040, 50 percent are excellent, 20 percent are good, and 20 percent are fair—totalling 90 percent. This will require 1,000 kilometres of river and lake margins be moved to a higher grading each year till 2040.

Catherine Delahunty: Will that 1,000 kilometres per year include the Selwyn Waikirikiri River, which was once a popular swimming spot but last summer was reduced to a puddle and therefore too small to be included in the waterways the Government is promising to make swimmable?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government's national targets—and this is the first time a Government has set any targets around national water quality—is focused on the 54,000 kilometres of waters that are more than 40 centimetres deep. We are also advising regional councils on those smaller water bodies to also improve those. In fact, we are proposing a very specific change to the national policy statement to require all water bodies to be improved for recreational water quality.

Catherine Delahunty: Will Lucas Creek Ōkahukura be included in the Government's 1,000 kilometres per year, given that the Minister wrote it off as a river that "nobody has ever wanted or tried to swim in".?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Lucas Creek is a creek. The policy is about improving lakes and rivers. I do acknowledge there are some smaller water bodies that are significant for communities and it is important that regional councils improve water quality in those as well. The analogy I would make to the member is that central government focuses on State highways; the local communities focus on local roads. In exactly the same way, the Government's freshwater policy is focused on those larger rivers and lakes, but there is still a very important job for regional councils to improve water quality in smaller water bodies.

Catherine Delahunty: How determined can the Government really be, when the goal for swimmability applies to only 10 percent of rivers and lakes, and the principal scientist involved in the Clean Water package called its standard "less precautionary".?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government's Clean Water package around swimmability focuses on those water bodies that are more than 40 centimetres deep. It is true that there are hundreds of thousands of kilometres of smaller water bodies. Actually, 90 percent of them flow into those lakes and rivers, so the only way in which regional councils will be able to meet this Government's ambitious targets for improving water quality is to improve it both in those lakes and rivers and in those smaller tributaries that feed into them. National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Suitability

9. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that increased rates of NCEA attainment are leaving school leavers better prepared for further study, training, or employment?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister of Education): Yes, because under this Government there are more young people leaving with a qualification fit for a diverse economy and further study and training. However, we will continue to work hard to improve our system.

Chris Hipkins: How can she claim that they are better prepared for further study, training, or employment when 64 percent of year 13 students achieved NCEA level 3 last year but only 49 percent achieved university entrance—fewer than in 2008?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Because in 2014 we made university entrance harder, and the reason we did that is we could see that a group of students were struggling. But what I can confirm for the member is that we have seen increases in the number of young Māori and Pasifika students graduating with Bachelor's degrees, and we have actually, even though we have made it harder, seen an increase in those young people getting university entrance.

Chris Hipkins: In that case, is she concerned that last year there was a 12 percent gap between the NCEA achievement at level 3 of European students, or Pākehā students, and yet for Māori and Pasifika students that gap was 23 percent and 30 percent respectively; if so, how are Māori and Pasifika school-leavers better prepared than they were in 2008, when the gap was between 3 and 6 percent?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Obviously, as I have said before, we will continue to work hard to improve our system. However, the reason we are very confident that we are strengthening Māori and Pasifika achievement is that on a range of levels they are doing better. They are doing better not only in terms of more young people staying in education longer, and we can see that in NCEA level 2. We have seen a 17 percent increase for Māori—those 18-year-olds leaving with NCEA level 2—and 17 percent for Pasifika students. As I said before, we have seen a 9 to 14 percent increase in those leaving with Bachelor's degrees, for Māori students, and an increase from 7 to 10 percent for Pasifika students with Bachelor's degrees.

Chris Hipkins: How are Māori and Pasifika students better off as a result of increased NCEA attainment when fewer of them are gaining university entrance relative to European or Pākehā students under the current National Government?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: There has always been a gap. Our point would be that—

Chris Hipkins: It's getting bigger.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I do not agree with that. As we have said before, we have made university entrance harder. We did that on purpose, because it is not in the best interests of students if they are taking out student loans and then struggling to pass. If I actually look at the numbers that are in front of me, in 2011 the year 13 students with university entrance—and this is before we made it harder—was 30.6 percent New Zealand Māori, and it is now 31.4 percent. In 2011 the number of Pasifika students was 27.4 percent, and it is now 30.7 percent. But, again, we made it harder in 2014.

Chris Hipkins: Does she think the disparity between groups of students is being improved by the significant differences in subject choices being offered to students—for example, the fact that Māori, Pasifika, and low-decile students are more likely to be in non-academic subject areas?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I make a range of points here. The first point is that it is up to students, parents, and whānau what subjects they take; it is not the Government. The second point that I would make is that the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) qualification is made up of unit and achievement standards, and for every student there are basic numeracy and literacy requirements, so we have a lot more Māori and Pasifika students—as result of our Government's investment and all of the hard work of teachers and principals—who are leaving with those basic requirements. If the member wants to make a range of judgments about some of those unit standards, he needs to understand that their qualification is made up of a range of components including numeracy and literacy, and I would challenge him to start naming those unit standards, and walking in and meeting some of those people who have those unit standards and telling them to their face that he thinks their qualification is inferior.

Chris Hipkins: Did her predecessor receive advice suggesting that the National Government's change to the minimum literacy and numeracy requirements for NCEA was resulting in students having worse literacy and numeracy when they obtained NCEA, but that changing it would compromise the Government's ability to reach its Better Public Services target of 85 percent of students receiving NCEA level 2?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: It is a bit difficult, because I have been in the role for 24 hours, to determine what advice the previous Minister received. But what I can tell the member is that I am very proud that our Prime Minister in terms of numeracy and literacy today announced that we are setting new Better Public Services targets, which will see us have a target of 80 percent of year 8 students having numeracy and literacy requirements. But also, it is backed up by a $40.7 million investment in areas like severe behavioural issues but also oral and language communication issues. So we are prepared to invest to lift and raise achievement and we are walking the talk as we are today. Pacific Peoples, Minister—Confidence in Integrity of Pacific Advisory Appointments

10. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: Is he confident with the integrity of all Pacific advisory appointments made by him or his predecessor?

Hon ALFRED NGARO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): Yes.

Darroch Ball: What concerns have been brought to the Minister's attention regarding possible alleged incidences of nepotism, cronyism, or mishandling of funds regarding Government-funded Pacific programmes or appointments?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: It is my expectation that any public money spent has internal checks and systems in place to monitor spending and accountability. The Ministry for Social Development has previously provided a statement on the complex nature of a number of different issues involved, and I support that response.

Darroch Ball: What is the mess regarding Government-appointed Pacific funding and representation that the Minister has been tasked with "cleaning up"?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: There has been no such delegation to clean up. Benefits—Adequacy

11. CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Social Development: Is she concerned that the latest quarterly benefit figures showed that more Kiwi families are unable to put food on the table, pay for children's schooling costs, and are relying on emergency accommodation support?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): No, because it is mischievous of the member to categorise things in this way. If you look at the long-term trend, hardship payments have gone from over 1.1 million in 2010-11 to fewer than 900,000 in 2015-16—the last full year of figures. I also think it is important to point out that this is the number of payments, not the number of individuals or families. The last quarterly benefit figures actually show that the number of people receiving a benefit is the lowest March quarter since 2008, and, as the Deputy Prime Minister has already said, the lowest as a proportion of the population since 1997, and today we see the unemployment rate drop below 5 percent and the number of employed people increase by 1.2 percent. I am very proud to be a member of a Government that is there to help and support people when they are in need but that also works with them to get them off a benefit and into work, so that they can live independent and successful lives.

Carmel Sepuloni: Does she consider it a success of the Government's welfare system that emergency food grants have nearly tripled since 2012 and accommodation support spending has increased by $20 million in the last 6 months compared with the same 6-month period a year ago because of the housing crisis, which her Government refuses to acknowledge let alone address?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I said, I am very proud to be part of a Government that makes sure that the assistance is there for people when they need it most, and, in fact, we have made access to those special needs grants available online, so that people do not even have to come into a Work and Income office to get access to them. We have made it simpler to do that. And I would like to point out to the member that this Government was the very first Government to actually invest in emergency housing to make sure that people in need of housing were able to access it, and we were the first Government in 43 years to increase the amount of money paid to people reliant on a benefit.

Carmel Sepuloni: Apart from providing access online, what is she going to do about the significant increase in the number of Kiwis who are struggling to put food on the table—nearly 40,000 food grants in 3 months alone?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well, this Government has a very fine record of making help available to those who need it most. The most important thing we can do—and we are doing successfully—is help more and more people to live independent lives by helping them to get into sustainable employment. That is the first thing. But in addition to that, we are investing through the social investment in families from a very early stage, getting underneath the drivers of poverty and hardship, in order to make sure that there are long-term gains for families in need in our communities.

Carmel Sepuloni: Does she stand by her statement "it is clear that this Government's welfare reforms have had a significant impact in helping more people into work," when less than half of sole parents and only 50 percent of job seeker benefit recipients left the benefit because they obtained employment?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well, as usual, I would question that member's figures—

Carmel Sepuloni: They're your figures.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No, they are not my figures. The two figures that the member has quoted on off-benefit were, first of all, from a staff member who did a survey of a few people in town, and, secondly, from a piece of research that I commissioned that has established, pre - welfare reforms, what happened over 2 years to people leaving benefit. The second piece of research, post - welfare reforms, is still being undertaken.

Carmel Sepuloni: I seek leave to table the latest quarterly benefit figures that were released 2 weeks ago, which highlighted the exact figures that I was talking about.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No those figures—I have actually got them in front of me. They are publicly available to members.

Carmel Sepuloni: Will she accept that her Government's social investment approach and Better Public Services target of reducing long-term welfare dependency is not only failing but is leaving an increasing number of Kiwi families worse off?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I find that question sort of unbelievable, given the household labour force survey results released today and the information we released last week that shows that as a percentage of the population, we have more people employed in today's world than we have had since 1997. By anyone's calculation, that is an enormous success for New Zealanders, let alone for this Government. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Iain Lees-Galloway—[Interruption] Order! I ask Iain Lees-Galloway to cease his barracking across the House. Better Public Services Targets—Reductions in Children Experiencing Physical Abuse

12. MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister for Children: What changes has the Government made to Better Public Services Result 4—to reduce the number of children experiencing physical abuse?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children): Today the Government announced that it has set a more ambitious target to reduce the number of children experiencing physical and sexual abuse, by 20 percent by 2021. This goes beyond the current measure, set in 2012, which was to halt the 10-year projected rise in children experiencing physical abuse and to reduce those 2011 numbers by 5 percent. This is significant, as we are also broadening the target to include sexual as well as physical abuse and introducing two new supporting measures, which are, firstly, measuring the total number of children experiencing abuse of any type, including physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and neglect; and, secondly, measuring the percentage of children who have a repeat report of concern to the Ministry of Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki within 12 months.

Maureen Pugh: Why has the Government decided to reset the target for Better Public Services Result 4?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We are always looking to challenge ourselves and the public sector to provide better results and outcomes for New Zealanders. We have halted the 10-year projected rise in children experiencing physical abuse, and the trend in the numbers is declining. After an extensive analysis of care and protection, we are overhauling the system and giving it a wider focus than just responding to a crisis event in a child's life, but we do want to ensure that even more children and young people grow up in a safe environment.

Maureen Pugh: What will the Government do to achieve this new, ambitious target?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Actions to reduce the number of children experiencing physical and sexual abuse will be at the centre of a major programme of work within the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, which has five core services of prevention, intensive intervention, care support, youth justice, and transition support. While the new ministry will lead and be ultimately responsible for achieving the target, to achieve this result will take an all-of-Government approach, with cooperation and support from the ministries of Health, Education, and Social Development, as well as Police and Corrections. There is no single way to achieve this target. Actions will be taken across a number of areas, including sexual violence, family violence, whānau violence, improving parenting skills, and addressing mental health and addiction issues.

ENDS

© Scoop Media