ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Working for Families—Spending

1. JACINDA ARDERN (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Has total spending on Working for Families decreased while his Government has been in office; if so, by how much?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Spending across the various tax credits that make up Working for Families was $2.568 billion in 2008, and the half-year update released last December forecast to be $2.392 billion for 2017. This equates to a difference of $176 million, or a reduction of 6.86 percent. Of course, this Government does not measure success by how much we pay people through Working for Families or the welfare system. The ultimate measure of success is how increasing wages and jobs from a strong economy can support people to no longer require such assistance.

Jacinda Ardern: Can he confirm that in the 2011 Budget, his Government cut $448 million from Working for Families by reducing entitlements?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I cannot provide that exact number for the member. What I can confirm for the member is that in the March year of 2011 the number of families that were supported by Working for Families was 421,000 families, and that has reduced since then to around 329,000 families—which is good news, because they are no longer dependent on the Working for Families programme.

Jacinda Ardern: Does he stand by the Minister of Finance's statement in 2011 that Working for Families was cut by $448 million so that the money could be used on "reducing borrowing", borrowing that has in fact increased by billions of dollars since that time?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member may not be aware that when we came into office we were greeted with the news from Treasury that the rather large spending programmes of the previous Government were going to provide a decade of deficits to the New Zealand economy. Of course, we made a number of changes to the Government's expenditure profile in order to cope with that. We also paid for the support of the vulnerable people through the global financial crisis. We paid, also, for the rebuild of Christchurch. This may all be unfamiliar territory for the member, but the Government has done a good job of supporting New Zealanders and, also, getting back into surplus.

Jacinda Ardern: Can he confirm that the increase in Budget 2015 to beneficiary families of $25 per week also included an increase in the Working for Families abatement rate, leaving 18,000 families worse off and reducing the amount that beneficiary families actually received?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. What I can confirm for the member is that the point she made about the Budget is correct, and that is that we made the first increase in benefits in real terms by any Government for a very, very long time, including, as far as I can remember, a number of Labour Governments that did not get round to increasing benefits in real terms for anybody. In terms of the indexation, the Government does have a programme to target Working for Families to lower-income families that need it, and we are pleased to provide that support.

Jacinda Ardern: Will this be another Budget where his Government gives with one hand what it has already taken away from families with the other?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, this Budget will be about supporting an economy that provides more and more jobs for New Zealanders. We now have over 2.5 million New Zealanders employed in this country, for the first time—in fact, 2.5 million and another 30,000 on top of that. That is the definition of success, not how many people we can make dependent on the State, which is the Labour Party's definition of success. Economy—Reports

2. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the New Zealand economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): This morning the Reserve Bank released its official cash rate (OCR) decision and its latest Monetary Policy Statement. In leaving the rate unchanged at 1.75 percent, the bank noted that global economic growth has improved recently and has become more broad-based. It has helped to boost commodity prices, as we saw recently with Fonterra's last Global Dairy Trade auction, where prices have risen now for the fourth time in a row. The overall strengthening nature of the world economy is good news for New Zealand. The Reserve Bank's growth outlook for our country remains positive, and it says it is further supported by high levels of household spending and construction activity.

Chris Bishop: How will this ongoing growth affect the inflation outlook?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Reserve Bank noted today that the factors behind the rise in consumer price inflation last quarter looked to be temporary, with food and petrol prices expected to ease in the near term. The bank expects inflation will drop to 1.1 percent over the next 12-month period, which is lower than in the previous Monetary Policy Statement. Looking further out, inflation is not expected to return to the 2 percent mark until June 2019, which is the middle point, of course, of the bank's target band. As a result, New Zealanders can expect wages to continue to grow faster than inflation, which is an established trend under this Government.

Chris Bishop: How is the low inflationary environment likely to feed into interest rates?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The good news for households and mortgage-holders is that the Reserve Bank expects to keep the OCR unchanged until inflation picks up in 2019. Even then, it currently expects the OCR to reach only 2 percent by mid-2020. Of course, these are projections and cannot take unexpected events into account. The Government has long encouraged households to prepare for an eventual rise in interest rates. They should make financial decisions based on what could be afforded at a slightly higher interest rate, not on what they can afford today.

Chris Bishop: What risks to the economy did the Reserve Bank identify?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The main risks identified by the bank were international ones. While the bank has shifted to a more upbeat view of the global economy, it notes ongoing risks around surplus capacity and, of course, extensive political uncertainty. Those international political uncertainties are one of the reasons why the Government is committed to reducing net public debt to between 10 and 15 percent of GDP by 2025. At that level, New Zealand will have the capacity to absorb not just external shocks but also any internal shocks, like natural disasters, without extra taxes and without slashing entitlements. Government Financial Position—Surplus

3. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: What conditions would need to be met for him to declare that the operating surplus in the Budget is sustainable?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): I am not sure that a ministerial declaration would make anything more or less sustainable. That said, I would say to the member that a sustainable surplus is one that looks to be sustained over a period of time.

Grant Robertson: Is it a condition of a sustainable surplus that there would be a reduction in the 41,000 New Zealanders who are homeless?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not think the member's numbers are correct. I think he has just gone to the Labour Party research unit and gone with whatever numbers he has. My definitions of "sustained" and "sustainable" are approximately the same; it is when something occurs over a period of time. So, for example, if you were going to have a decade of deficits, then that would probably be a sustained period of deficits.

Grant Robertson: Would it be a sustainable surplus if 40,000 New Zealand children continued to be hospitalised with preventable diseases?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In terms of the member's numbers, I always have to be a bit careful with those, because he comes up with them and puts the most negative view of life on them that he can. This Government invests very significantly in public services. It has reduced, for example, the impact of diseases like rheumatism in young children. We constantly work to improve the indicators of health, education, and other indicators of family well-being.

Grant Robertson: Is it a sustainable surplus if there is no contribution made to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In terms of the priority of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, can I say this to the member: actually, there are all sorts of different priorities that New Zealanders have at a period of time. We were pleased with the decision we made to postpone contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund so that we could pay for the rebuild of Christchurch and so that we could pay for supporting vulnerable people through the global financial crisis. We are in surplus now, but we do want to get debt down further. We have committed to resuming contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund once debt is below 20 percent of GDP, which I notice would be much earlier under this Government than under any other Government that is possible in this House.

Grant Robertson: Is it not true that the kind of surplus that he is going to generate is an accountant's surplus, built on massive social deficits and infrastructure deficit, and all he is going to be able to do on Budget day is claim credit for putting back what he has already taken away from New Zealand families?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure how familiar the member is with the accountancy profession, going by all the questions he asks me in the House, but this Government is absolutely focused on making sure that New Zealand is in a sustainable position, and that includes getting debt down so that we have net debt below 20 percent of GDP by 2020. I note the member does not think that is necessary. I think the member thinks he could put that off and spray money around. Well, the evidence of events like the Christchurch earthquakes and also, in fact, the Kaikōura earthquakes is that that is a fool's position to take. Broadband, Ultra-fast—Announcements

4. MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister for Communications: What recent announcements has he made on the Ultra-Fast Broadband programme?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister for Communications): This morning I announced the start of phase two of the ultra-fast broadband (UFB) programme, with Hikurangi and Hokitika being the first towns to commence the build, under the extension of the UFB programme. In January the Government announced a $300 million investment to extend UFB to another 423,000 New Zealanders, across a further 151 towns. Having access to fast and reliable broadband is critical for regional towns like Hikurangi and Hokitika, and through the Government's investment both Northland and the West Coast will have the same world-class broadband as Kiwis living in other centres.

Maureen Pugh: How is the UFB programme tracking against initial expectations?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am very pleased to report to the House that more than a third of New Zealanders with access to UFB are now connected faster than we had thought. The March 2017 quarterly broadband report released today shows the number of households, businesses, schools, and hospitals connected to UFB has increased 12 percent in the past 3 months, to over 367,000. We are investing more than $2 billion in world-class UFB and Rural Broadband Initiative programmes, which will allow 85 percent of New Zealanders to access UFB by the end of 2024 and provide vastly improved broadband in New Zealand's rural communities. Housing—Affordability and Availability

5. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Construction: How can the Government's housing policy be a success, as the Prime Minister said, when four out of five renters cannot buy a house in their area without going into financial hardship?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Construction): Firstly, because we have been successful in trebling new home construction from the all-time low of late 2008 to a level of investment of over $12 billion a year—an all-time high. Secondly, it is because of the successful ramping-up of assistance to first-home buyers. In 2008 the Government provided only $10 million worth of assistance. The KiwiSaver HomeStart scheme is now providing $700 million worth of assistance per year. Thirdly, I would note that the housing affordability measure yesterday, mentioned by the member, showing four out of five people in that category is actually a lower number in housing affordability stress than when National became Government.

Phil Twyford: Does he accept that with such low numbers of Aucklanders getting help from HomeStart, the scheme has failed in the place where first-home buyers most need help, and the fact that he is now looking at bumping up the price limits for the third time in 4 years simply means that his scheme cannot keep up with house prices under his policies?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that the KiwiSaver HomeStart scheme in its first year helped 12,000 New Zealanders into their first home. In the last year it has helped 15,000 New Zealanders into their own home. This is the most generous support that a Government has provided in more than a generation, to get people into HomeStart, into homeownership.

Phil Twyford: It's not working, Nick.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I simply say to the member opposite that, yes, it is working and it is very popular.

Sarah Dowie: Does the report released yesterday by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment have information that highlights successful initiatives in improving housing affordability?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, the report does highlight the dramatic improvement for both first-home buyers and renters in Canterbury, to the point where housing is way more affordable today than it has been—long before that city was hit with earthquakes. The strategy adopted in Canterbury was to radically free-up land supply and create genuine competition in the provision of sections. I note that the price of an average section in Christchurch is now $190,000, as compared with $530,000 in Auckland. It paves the way for what we need to do in other areas, and that is why things like the Resource Management Act reform and the National Policy Statement on Urban Development show the way forward on improving affordability.

Phil Twyford: When he said "It appeared Auckland house-hunters were holding back until prices stabilised and supply increased", did he know that the average Auckland house price has gone up by more than $100,000 in the last year and that the supply shortage is getting worse by 6,000 houses a year, on top of the 40,000-home deficit that has built up on his watch?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would invite the member to have a look in the mirror, because during the last Labour Government house prices more than doubled, and it did nothing. Secondly, I would note that with the huge ramp-up in housing construction in Auckland as part of the supply, the last 6 months has seen house prices in Auckland flat. I think members of the House should welcome that.

Phil Twyford: Does he agree with the Salvation Army, the country's most respected social agency, which today endorsed Labour's KiwiBuild plan, and said: "Rather than messing around with the transfer of State houses, the Government needs to be a whole lot more ambitious about the number of affordable houses it can build."

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The current Government is building more houses directly than any in more than 25 years. In respect of KiwiBuild, I would just love the Labour Party to explain how it can possibly recycle the money every 3 months to be able to achieve its targets. It is a pipedream, it is a sound bite, it is anything but a credible policy.

Phil Twyford: Did he keep his HAM, or Housing Affordability Measure, hidden from the public for so long because it quantified the national housing crisis, showing that 86 percent of renters in Auckland cannot buy a house without going into financial hardship; or was it because it was so politically damaging, as his officials suggested?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Unlike members of the Opposition, this Government respects the independence of Statistics New Zealand. In fact, I know members opposite repeatedly attack it but I would draw to their attention that the Housing Affordability Measure shows that the worst deterioration in housing affordability occurred between 2003 and 2008, during which period the Labour Government did absolutely nothing. Kaikōura Recovery—State Highway 1 Clearance

6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Transport: Of the slips that have to be cleared to re-open State Highway 1 north and south of Kaikōura, how many had machinery and workers on the job clearing them yesterday, and how many didn't?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): The North Canterbury Transport Infrastructure Recovery alliance had workers and machinery on six of the 10 major slip sites still to be cleared on State Highway 1 north and south of Kaikōura yesterday. Four major slip sites did not have workers or machinery on them yesterday, for various reasons, such as some slips nearing completion, geotechnical investigations continuing to determine the safest method to remove remaining loose or dangerous material, and priority being on the most complex and time-consuming slips.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: With all these slips right now having no machinery or workers clearing them, why is the work schedule designed to suit the contractors and not the local quake-affected people?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I entirely disagree with the member. Strong progress has been made. It is not as a result of the contractors; it is as a result of things like Cyclone Debbie and Cyclone Donna and other work going on. But actually I have seen many times—I appreciate that the member has gone there for the first time yesterday—the strong progress that is being made on those roads. It is on time, on budget, and we will have access at the end of this year.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, I was cleaning up in Cheviot just about a month ago.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I have the question, please.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given the work rate of one shift per day per week, and not weekends—and not weekends—[Interruption] No, he has got the picture right. You are upside down, but that is the right way up. Given the work rate of one shift per week and not weekends, does he think that work schedule remotely addresses the urgency required to clear State Highway 1 at Kaikōura, 6 months on from the earthquake?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, it is good to see that the member thinks that these workers have a work rate comparable to his, but can I tell the member, quite clearly, that actually I have seen them. They are working from dawn to dusk—and in some cases getting up very early—going very hard, and good progress is being made. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need a little less interjection from my right.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the locals down there are saying that the rate of progress is slow and not as the Minister says, and that there are far too few resources being devoted to the re-opening of the State highway 6 months on, why have he and his colleagues and the local member of Parliament not given it the priority it deserves?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The member is wrong. I have been there many times to check on the progress. I think the member knows full well, actually, that this House passed a law to, effectively, suspend aspects of the Resource Management Act. We have committed $812 million to this, the workers are out there, as weather and safety permits, every single day, and I note when the member says that the Government is not prioritising, it was only at the end of last year when he was complaining about how much we were prioritising it over his local electorate.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked to answer questions on Kaikōura. The last answer was, first of all, not relevant to the question he is being asked, and, second, it fails because it is false—demonstrably false.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. If the member wants us to carry on with a further supplementary question, we will have it. [Interruption] Order! I will have the supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, you will get it. Is it a fact that the locals are right when they say that it is Monday to Friday, never on the weekend, and that the Government is letting contractors stretch this work out to milk more money out of the taxpayer rather than treating the disaster recovery 6 months on with the urgency it deserves?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, it is not. In fact, if you look at what has happened here, the work, in spite of the weather and the dangers involved, is proceeding well. The costs actually have gone down from what we thought, at about $1.4 billion to $2 billion, to more like $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion to do both the road and the rail. There is a real confidence about the work that is being done that there will be full access by the end of the year. I think that if you think about that and the progress that has been made, it is faster than any significant project like this that we have seen in recent history. Mental Health Services—Demand and Funding

7. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Health: How many more New Zealanders are accessing district heath boards' mental health and addiction services nationally now than in 2007/08, expressed as a percentage increase; and what is the corresponding percentage growth in funding for mental health and addiction services over the same time period?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): District health boards (DHBs) fund a wide range of mental health and addiction services, from services in the community provided by NGOs in primary care through to hospital-based services. Given this complex mix, it is not possible to specifically quantify the percentage increase in patients accessing DHB-funded mental health and addiction services. However, we all know demand has increased, but so has funding, from $1.1 billion to $1.4 billion a year.

Dr David Clark: Does he agree with Dr Cullen, owner of Khandallah Medical Centre in Wellington, who said of Dr Coleman's recently announced mental health quality initiative—a review that is not a review—that "It can't take five years. Things will go wildly wrong."?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, that Dr Cullen is not the Dr Cullen I am familiar with, but what I would say to that Dr Cullen is that I would urge him to read the speech that I gave last Thursday entitled "Social investment in mental health", which lays out the Government's approach to these very complex and difficult areas in general.

Dr David Clark: Is he now denying that his officials last month told a primary health organisation (PHO) that a proposal for primary mental health teams had to wait to be considered under the ministry's strategic plan next year?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, I think the member may be referring to the M4 plan, which is a mental health plan for primary care access that has been developed by four PHOs, and which Labour has announced today as its own plan. Of course, this plan is already in train, in terms of being considered by the Ministry of Health, and, of course, we have got a Budget coming up and an election campaign in which details around funding and whether or not it may progress would be released and considered.

Dr David Clark: Given that answer, will he finally accept that he has dropped the ball on mental health and adopt Labour's policy to introduce primary mental health coordinators whose job it is to ensure that people in our communities with mild to moderate mental health needs no longer fall through the chasms that have emerged under his watch?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: What I would point out is that this policy Labour has announced today is actually the idea of a group of PHOs, and it has already been referred to the Ministry of Health. But the member has gone on extensively about so-called health underfunding in mental health, yet all the Labour Party has come up with today is a policy that would increase mental health spending by only 1.4 percent, which is actually less than the rate of inflation. So I will leave it for members to decide whether, after all the hype and all the rhetoric, that is an adequate response.

Dr David Clark: So is he now denying that his officials last month told a primary health organisation about primary mental health teams: "that it is not in a position to support a proposal of such a scale"?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: So, look, I do not go to every forum that the 1,400 health officials run around the country, but I think what they have said is actually pretty fair—that they are not in a position to announce Government policy. They are the officials. They are considering this proposal from the PHOs, and that is exactly as it should be.

Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table a paywalled report about the Ministry of Health's lukewarm response to primary mental health teams from the New Zealand Doctor magazine last month.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular article. Is there any objection? There is objection. Kaikōura Recovery—Progress

8. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Civil Defence: What reports has he received outlining recovery progress 6 months after the Kaikōura earthquake?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Civil Defence): Yesterday I was in Kaikōura with local MP Stuart Smith, who is doing a great job of supporting his community through this event, and I can report to the House that activity in terms of the response and the recovery is progressing well. Over the last 6 months there has been a massive whole-of-Government approach to supporting the communities through, particularly with the recovery, and new funding of around $860 million has been invested so far. A few examples—and I apologise if this answer is a bit longer than normal, but there is a long list: more than $17.5 million from the earthquake support subsidy has been provided to 862 businesses in Kaikōura, Wellington, Marlborough, and also the Hurunui districts; an additional $1 million grant is now available for businesses in the local region to apply for; $5.7 million has been invested to restore the Kaikōura marina to its full functionality; and the list goes on and on. We are doing a huge amount to support the people in this area as the 6-month mark approaches on Sunday.

Stuart Smith: How did the earthquake impact local infrastructure and how are repairs progressing?

Hon NATHAN GUY: That is a very good question. Scientists report that land movements and shaking were amongst the strongest ever in New Zealand's history, causing wide-spread damage to infrastructure. Progress reinstating the coastal route, which I saw firsthand yesterday—both the road and the rail is progressing very well, and costs could be, like the Minister of Transport has estimated, well over $1 billion. The quake has also caused significant damage to farmland and to fisheries—a major uplift in the coastline and about over 100,000 slips on a lot of the local farms. The Government is doing what it can to support the primary sector and other communities through this event.

Stuart Smith: What recent Government announcements will help the recovery for quake-struck farmers and growers?

Hon NATHAN GUY: It was pleasing to see yesterday that the Minister for Primary Industries made a significant announcement of $5 million of new funding to support quake-affected farmers and growers. This fund will support projects to investigate long-term land use options and, also, provide professional advisory services for their future land options. It will be administered by the Ministry for Primary Industries, and it will make a difference to that community. Earthquake Recovery—Business Assistance Package

9. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he think that his Government's assistance package for quake-affected businesses, some who have lost 60 percent and more of their trade and clientele, is remotely adequate and fair?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister for Economic Development): Yes, I do, because we have been supporting Kaikōura as a Government since the start of these earthquakes and will continue to do so strongly. Indeed, to date, the Government has provided over $17 million in payments to support quake-affected businesses. This has helped businesses hang on to staff, and it has provided breathing space so that they can enact their own recovery plans. Because of Kaikōura's isolation, we provided the subsidy to Kaikōura businesses for longer than we did before—for a full 24 weeks after the earthquake, compared with 14 for businesses following the 2011 Canterbury quakes. The recently announced business recovery grants programme will continue the Government's support by delivering more targeted support to help businesses through the winter until State Highway 1 reopens.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When local businessmen and -women tell me that they have never even talked to "Steven" Smith MP—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member—[Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. Is there a point of order?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that he does not know his own members' names, but it is a duty in this House to get other members' names right.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to invite the member to start his supplementary question again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When local businessmen and -women tell me that they have never ever spoken to "Steven" Smith MP and I have to tell them he is not called "Steven"—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! We will let the member have his question and he can try to make a scene if he wants by misnaming the member; that is his business.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no. I am asking the question my way—all right?

Mr SPEAKER: Finish the question. [Interruption] Order! I will give one more opportunity for the member to get the supplementary question done and dusted. Otherwise, I am moving on.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How I phrase the question is how it was put to me, and I am just telling you what I heard yesterday.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The member, if he chooses to misname the member for a political point, I am going to allow him to do so. I am going to ask this side of the House to stay quiet so we can get the question out of the way and get the answer out of the way.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When local businessmen and -women tell me they have never seen the local MP or that he has never talked with them, and if, as he says—or Nathan Guy says—that they are standing "shoulder to shoulder" with Kaikōura locals 6 months on, why has some Government team not gone from one end of Kaikōura to the other to speak with business owners and staff about the financial assistance they so desperately need?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: With respect to the member, this is a silly, silly point that he is making. Stuart Smith has been indefatigable in relation to the earthquakes. He has been at every end of that. He has been relentless. In fact, the paper trail will show his dedication and questioning of Ministers on these issues. Ministers also have been there many, many times. I appreciate that the member was only there for the first time yesterday, but if he had been there earlier, what he would have seen is $17.5 million—the longest, biggest support package for businesses New Zealand has seen in recent times—and more targeted support continuing to happen, because we stand behind those people following what has happened there.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why call local business owners liars when so many businesses are on their knees, having lost 60 percent or more of their profits, and what in the Government's assistance package will keep them going over the next 18 months until their customers are back?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No one is doing what the member suggests. Having been there many times and having talked with a number of businesses, what I think I can say is that the experience is variable. Indeed, there are a number of businesses in food, which, with the workers going in and fixing the roads, are doing well out of what has happened and are getting back on their feet. There are others that are still finding it difficult, and that is why the support has moved to targeted assistance, to help and to get these businesses back on their feet, because we have supported the people of Kaikōura from day one, and we continue to do so.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If his Government can give $1.6 million to South Canterbury Finance, over $200 million to Hollywood, $42 million per year to Skycity Casino, and hundreds of millions to Rio Tinto, why can it not give an adequate wage support package to the quake-affected businesses and workers in Kaikōura?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I appreciate the member has got his funny little conspiracies and grievances that go back a millennium or more, but the truth is that over a billion dollars is going into repairing that road there. We are working with Pace to do that. There are many other—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is about the business and wage support package, not the roads—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. If he asks a political question like the last one, then he had better stand by for the answer that has been given by the Minister.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Very shortly, over a billion dollars is going into that corridor and many more millions into supporting the people of Kaikōura through tourism, the harbour, business support, and other areas as well. I think the member's claim is pretty lame, actually. Draft Pay Equity Bill—Effects

10. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does he believe the draft Pay Equity Bill will make it easier for women to be fairly paid for their work?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): When it is passed into law, yes.

Jan Logie: Why is the Government proposing that women first need to compare their jobs with men in their own workplace, sector, or industry when the courts have said that comparators must be males whose pay is not also undervalued in female-dominated sectors?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, it is for a number of reasons, but that is not all that the courts said about that. They did say that when a comparison was appropriate, it should be with male employees with the same or substantially similar skills, responsibility, and service, performing the work under the same or substantially similar conditions, and with the same or substantially similar degrees of effort. It then went on to say there may be if those inquiries of other employees of the same employer or of other employers in the same or similar enterprise, industry, or sector would be in an appropriate comparator group. My strong inference that I take from the courts' words is that you start from the industry and the employer and then work out if there is not a comparator available.

Jan Logie: Does the Minister recognise that by saying you need to start in your workplace or your sector, that some of those same workplaces and sectors will be undervalued in female-dominated areas?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, then they would not be a valid comparator. What the courts said—and what the draft bill says—is that they have to be a male-dominated industry, or at least one that is not subject to pay inequity because of the dominance of women in that occupation.

Jan Logie: Why is the Government proposing to make women meet additional historical and labour-market criteria in order to prove the initial merit of their claim to their employer?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Because we are being guided by the very good recommendations of the Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles, which I thought made some very good recommendations—we accepted them.

Jan Logie: Why is the Government proposing to allow women access to employer information only once they have already proven the merit of their claim?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That very question is being asked of the unions, because this is what we are doing: we are having a conversation over the exposure draft, and I am listening very carefully to that. I would not rule out a change as a consequence of that submission.

Jan Logie: Why is the Government proposing to deny women with a successful court-determined pay equity claim the commercial standard of up to 6 years' back-pay?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The issue of back-pay is a vexed one when it comes to pay equity, because, unlike an equal-pay claim—which I note, under the old definition, has not actually been successfully made for decades—throughout the process, employment agreements have been agreed. To then re-litigate those would be very difficult. So, on balance, what was agreed—and, indeed, it was certainly the agreement of Terranova and the Ministry of Health—was to start from a point where pay inequity was agreed to occur.

Jan Logie: How can this Government say that it cares about women getting paid more when it is attempting to undermine existing human rights law, creating more hoops for women to jump through, not to mention undermining the principles of justice and equality?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I can think of about two billion reasons why that is an absolute nonsense. This Government, led by the Minister of Health, has landed what has been a landmark settlement that will improve the lot of 55,000 women in this country. The bill, when passed, will be world leading. No other jurisdiction will have gone as far as this country has to improve the lot of women in the workplace. Trade—Announcements

11. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Trade: What recent announcements has he made on New Zealand's trade interests?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Trade): Today I welcomed the Government's decision to ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). It shows leadership with Japan, which has also ratified the agreement, prior to a business delegation visit led by Prime Minister English next week. Ratification sends a clear message that we see value in a common set of high-quality rules across the Asia-Pacific region, and we are keeping all of our options open. The TPP remains valuable, both economically and strategically. It will improve access for New Zealand exporters and lower tariff rates across the Asia-Pacific, including Japan—the world's third-largest economy.

Barbara Kuriger: What are the benefits to New Zealand of greater trade liberalisation amongst the TPP countries?

Hon TODD McCLAY: New Zealand has high ambitions for better market access for our exporters, and the remaining TPP countries are important. It would be the first free-trade agreement (FTA) with Japan and other countries. If New Zealand is not fighting for better market access for our businesses and our people, nobody will. It will be a common set of rules that will create greater certainty for New Zealand companies. The TPP, among 11 countries, will deliver better access and ensure New Zealand companies remain competitive in these important growing markets.

Barbara Kuriger: What are the next steps for TPP countries?

Hon TODD McCLAY: I have been meeting with trade Ministers over the last several months to chart a way forward to improve market access. TPP Ministers met recently in Chile, where we recognised the value of the TPP and committed to work together to keep markets open. I will be co-chairing a meeting of trade Ministers in Vietnam next week, where the next steps for this agreement will be discussed.

Barbara Kuriger: What other announcements has the Minister made on trade opportunities?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Earlier this week, I met with the Vietnamese Prime Minister. We agreed to set an ambitious target of doubling two-way trade to $2.5 billion over the next 5 years. Vietnam has a population of 94 million consumers, and trade with Vietnam has tripled over the last 7 years since our FTA came into force, so we need to be ambitious for New Zealand and back our exporters to succeed. I have also announced opportunities with the EU, the UK, the Pacific Alliance, Mercosur, an upgrade with China, and possibilities with Sri Lanka. All of these are part of the Government's ambitious approach, as outlined in Trade Agenda 2030. Drinking-water Contamination—Havelock North

12. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Attorney-General: Does he believe the Hastings District Council bears primary responsibility for the contaminated water they supplied to their Havelock North residents, which caused over 5,000 people to become ill, some very seriously, and has been linked to the death of 3 people?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): My belief is irrelevant. As Minister responsible for the inquiry, I accept the findings of stage one of the Havelock North Drinking Water Inquiry. The inquiry found that several of the parties responsible for the water supply regime for Havelock North failed to adhere to the high levels of care and diligence necessary to protect public health and to avoid outbreaks of serious illness.

Hon David Parker: Was he disturbed by the inquiry's finding that in recent years the Hastings District Council did not properly deal with "a relatively high number of positive E.coli readings at the bore for Havelock North, both underestimating their significance and ending water treatment before establishing the contamination source."?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: As Minister responsible for the inquiry, I was concerned at all the key findings of the inquiry, helpfully set out in paragraph 10 of the inquiry. I also note that there were a number of serious failings by the regional council.

Hon David Parker: Does he accept that the Hastings District Council and the regional council should both have known that the aquifer from which untreated drinking water was being drawn was not confined but, rather, was open to intrusions of polluted surface water?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: As Minister responsible for the inquiry, I accept all the findings of stage one of the inquiry. That includes the failings by the regional council and the district council, and, in particular, the critical lack of collaboration and liaison between the regional council and the district council.

Hon David Parker: Does he accept the finding that although the outbreak could not be pinned to any one fault or omission by the district council, had any of these failures not occurred the outcome may have been prevented?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: As the Minister responsible for the inquiry, I accept all the findings of stage one of the inquiry. In particular, I accept that there were failings on the part of many players.

Hon David Parker: Does he think it twists the inquiry's findings to say that, because no one fault can be proven to be the cause of this calamity, nobody and no entity has responsibility for the event, which is what some of the players are now saying?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: As the Minister responsible for the inquiry, I am not seeking to twist or turn over anything. I accept all the findings of the inquiry. My understanding is that the district council issued a press release yesterday in which it said it welcomed the findings. I also understand that the regional council and the district council are now, helpfully, working together—as they should have at all times—to comply with the interim recommendations of the inquiry in relation to this matter.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: No, I will just deal with the point of order.

Hon David Parker: I think the Minister took it to mean that I was implying that he was twisting the inquiry. I was not. I was asking him whether it was—

Mr SPEAKER: So what is the point of order?

Hon David Parker: My question was: does it twist the inquiry to say that no one has responsibility for the event?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I suspect the question has been addressed, but I will give the member the benefit of the doubt to repeat the supplementary question.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Supplementary, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: No, I am having a repeat of this supplementary question.

Hon David Parker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he think it twists the inquiry's finding to say that, because no one fault can be proven to have caused the calamity, nobody and no entity has responsibility for this event, which is a quote from one of the participants?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I do not think anyone is trying to twist the inquiry in any way, shape, or form. My understanding is that yesterday the district council released a press release in which it said it welcomed the results of the inquiry and it was moving on the failings that were found against it, and that all parties are working together to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did the inquiry conclude that the serious incident with Havelock North's drinking water supply was caused by intensive dairying, as asserted by both the Labour and Green parties in this Parliament last September?

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The latter part of that question is out of order and incorrect. I am the water spokesman and I have never asserted that.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The latter part of the question is completely unnecessary to the question. The question is: did the inquiry conclude that the contamination was related to intensive dairying, and the Minister can address that.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I have read through the full report, not just the key findings on paragraph 10, and I can assure the House that dairying had nothing to do with it. So the scurrilous attacks on dairying by the Greens deserve an apology.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! We do not need to go there, either. [Interruption] Order! We now move to—[Interruption] Supplementary question—Catherine Delahunty.

Catherine Delahunty: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Given that 40 percent of New Zealanders, including in Hawke's Bay, rely on clean water from aquifers for their drinking water, what actions will he recommend to ensure that aquifers are managed with better care and consideration?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility—the Hon Chris Finlayson.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I heard that comment, Mr Speaker, but as the humble Attorney-General I am responsible for the inquiry. Those questions are probably—they are very valid questions—better addressed to other of my ministerial colleagues, although I can tell the honourable member that my understanding is that all the parties to this inquiry who have been criticised recognise that there is a need to lift performance to ensure this does not happen again. But I would suggest that it would be better to address those particular questions to the relevant Ministers. As I said, I am responsible for the inquiry; I am not a general know-all.

Catherine Delahunty: As the Minister responsible for the inquiry, will he recommend the Minister for the Environment use his powers to intervene to ensure that the people are kept safe from awful sickness, including permanent health damage after drinking fresh water?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: As the Minister responsible for the inquiry, I have suggested to all my colleagues that they read the report. I do know that the Minister of Local Government is intending to write, or has already started to write, to various local authorities saying they had better know the processes. It is not a question of saying that the Minister for the Environment should do this; it is a team effort across a number of agencies.

Catherine Delahunty: Further to the team effort, given the multiple failings detailed in the report, as well as the numerous boil-water notices in other communities, how will his Government ensure that they are doing enough to protect the people of Aotearoa from further outbreaks? It may be outside your scope.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, the last comment hit the nail on the head. It is outside the scope of the Attorney-General, who, under the Inquiries Act, is responsible for the inquiry. These are very helpful and incisive questions that are better directed at the Ministers responsible.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Too repetitive. He likes the sound of his own voice.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I can assure the honourable member—and the grumpy old member for Northland—that the Minister of Local Government, for example, has got on to local authorities to, immediately—not after the inquiry's stage two report—start to address their processes so that the kinds of problems the honourable member refers to will be addressed sooner rather than later.

Mr SPEAKER: And I thank the humble Minister.

QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS Human Rights, West Papua—Petition of Maire Leadbeater

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): to the Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee: Is he confident that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has heard from all available witnesses on the petition of Maire Leadbeater urging the New Zealand—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not the question that is written before me. I will have the question started again, please.

1. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee: Has the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee heard from all witnesses who wish to be heard on the petition of Maire Leadbeater urging the New Zealand Government to address the ongoing human rights situation in West Papua?

Todd Muller (Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee): No. The committee has heard evidence from the petitioner, Maire Leadbeater, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Any decision to hear from any further witnesses will be a matter for the committee.

Catherine Delahunty: Why did the committee refuse to hear from the West Papuan human rights leader and Nobel Peace Prize nominee Benny Wenda, who was available to speak to them today as a first-hand witness on this petition?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That question is not in order. That is a matter for the committee, not for the chair of the committee.

ends

© Scoop Media