ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Budget 2017—Family Incomes Package

1. NUK KORAKO (National) to the Minister of Finance: How will the Family Incomes Package in Budget 2017 help families get ahead financially?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): The $2 billion a year Family Incomes Package in Budget 2017 will help families get ahead through a combination of tax threshold changes, family tax credit increases, and additional support through the accommodation supplement. The tax threshold changes mean that anyone earning over $22,000 receives an additional $11 per week, or $20 per week more for those earning over $52,000. When combined with the increases to the family tax credit, the accommodation supplement, and the simplification of removing the independent earner tax credit, $1.3 million families are better off by an average of $26 per week under the changes coming into effect on 1 April next year.

Nuk Korako: What further assistance is the Government providing to assist families with their housing costs?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Increases to the accommodation supplement maxima and changes to the geographic areas that they apply to will further assist families to meet their housing costs. This is a very important part of the package, despite some critics' attempts to ignore it. For example, the income of a family living in Waitakere with a 16-year-old child and with one partner earning $46,000 per year will be 36c per week down from the tax and Working for Families changes, but they will will benefit by up to $100 or more per week when you take into account the whole package. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just mention to the members on my left that I need substantially less interjection than I am getting at this early stage of question time.

Nuk Korako: How does the Family Incomes Package benefit superannuitants?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The changes we are making to the tax system will have flow-on benefits to around three-quarters of a million New Zealand superannuation recipients because of the link between after-tax wages and New Zealand superannuation. For a married couple, New Zealand superannuation will increase by $13 per week on 1 April next year because of the tax changes on top of their normal adjustment. This will mean that there will have been a 35 percent increase in superannuation since we came into office. That is over twice the rate of inflation. In addition, around 15,000 superannuitants with high housing costs will see an average increase of $29 per week from the accommodation supplement changes, to help them with their housing costs.

David Seymour: Does the package, in combination with the tax changes announced by him last week as part of this Budget, shift more of the burden of Government and tax on to higher-income earners?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have seen an analysis that suggests it is a slightly higher incidence at the higher end.

Nuk Korako: What support has he received for Budget 2017 and the Family Incomes Package?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Budget 2017 is receiving a wide range of support from around the country. I was most pleased to hear the comments from young families on TV and in the newspapers about how getting some extra money every week will make their lives easier. I am also very pleased to see colleagues across the House, including the Greens and New Zealand First, understand that this package is about helping families get ahead. They voted in favour of it last Friday, and I would like to thank them for their support.

David Seymour: How does this expansion of the Working for Families policy gel with John Key's comments that Working for Families is "communism by stealth"?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the member is quite young, but some of us older ones are able to remember that we have had family benefits and other packages for families in place in this country since at least back through the 1970s—in fact, I can remember my parents getting the family benefit—so there has always been some form of assistance for people with young families. This is one example of it existing today, in terms of the family tax credits, and it is the most efficient way of supplying extra support to low-income parents with young children.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister of Finance have any confidence in his Budget being passed, seeing as we have got such a lion of anger in the form of the ACT Party member asking questions every day, challenging its veracity and its economic thinking?

Mr SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Weirdly, of course, it is a strange day indeed. But I would like to thank the member for his support, which is ensuring that we have got some votes to spare in passing the Family Incomes Package.

David Seymour: If the Minister will indulge my youthful lack of historical knowledge, could he please tell me how long has it been the National Party that is tasked with expanding taxes and transfers and the welfare State?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no responsibility for the National Party by the Minister. Budget 2017—Impact on Government Services

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Did the Minister of Finance tell him that last week's Budget cut elective surgery funding by $10 million, means the average early childhood centre effectively loses $15,000, and provides new Crown land funding for only 1,200 houses?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): No, the Minister of Finance did not—

Grant Robertson: Oh, he's misled you?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: —because that is not correct. Not correct. Now that the Labour Party has voted against the Budget, it is trying to find reasons to justify that vote, but I would say to the member that he should stop relying on Grant Robertson's numbers.

Andrew Little: Is Dr Tim Molloy, president of the College of General Practitioners, right or wrong when he says of this Budget "There's nothing in it. I'm not surprised—I'm disappointed and seriously underwhelmed.", and tax cuts will be "completely negated if the cost of healthcare goes up."?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, I am sure that Dr Molloy, if he considered all aspects of the lives of his patients, would actually disagree with himself, because the fact is that a whole lot of his patients will be considerably better off because of the Family Incomes Package, and those with more complex requirements, including the need for health services, will find that a range of initiatives from the increase in spending in health through to the social investment initiatives will aid his patients. So I am sure that Dr Molloy would figure out he is not correct.

Andrew Little: What does he have to say to the people who will not be able to get surgeries or home support services as a result of his Government underfunding district health boards (DHBs) by over $200 million a year in the Budget?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: What I would say to them is that the health services have a very large amount of extra money over the next few years, and that will be allocated by the DHBs where they believe the need is greatest. I would also say to them that they should not take too much notice of Labour's theoretical calculations about the amount of money, because what matters are results, and this Government will remain strongly focused on getting better results in healthcare.

Jami-Lee Ross: Did the Minister of Finance tell him that last week's Budget will increase the incomes of 1.3 million families by an average of $26 per week?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes he did, and he told me that 156,000 of the poorest families will gain by an average of $35 per week, and he told me that 750,000 superannuitants will also gain with the couple rate of New Zealander superannuation expected to increase by around $22 per week from 1 April next year. But he has fallen down on one task, and that is properly explaining to the leader of the Labour Party and the finance spokesman of the Labour Party that when they use case studies, they should take into account all the measures the Government has put in place, and not just pick one or two. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Andrew Little: Why, when in 2010 he and his Government cut more than $700 million out of Working for Families, have they, last week, restored only $370 million a year to Working for Families? Why is he continuing to rip working families in New Zealand off?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Labour is getting so desperate it is now defining a cut as a smaller increase than the bigger one that could have happened, and he is now working off figures from 7 years ago. Those families are all significantly better off, and they are better off because this Government did not take the advice of Labour over 6 or 7 years and spray money at everything; we actually looked after the public resources. Now we have surpluses, and now we have some choices.

Jami-Lee Ross: Did the Minister of Finance tell him about any feedback that he has received on the Family Incomes Package?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As a matter of fact, he did—the Minister of Finance being someone who has a real skill for listening to the New Zealand public. He advised me that the package has had widespread support around the country and within the Parliament. The Minister of Finance advised me, somewhat to my surprise, that the Greens had voted for the package—and he advised me that New Zealand First had voted for it—having advised me some time ago that the Greens and Labour had a memorandum of understanding, which indicated that they were communicating closely on all matters. The Minister of Finance advised me that the Greens did not tell Labour—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! We are now getting well past the original part of the question.

Andrew Little: Moving on from the misleading statements of the Minister of Finance, are early childhood education providers—

Hon Maggie Barry: Misleading statements of his own.

Andrew Little: Is that the latecomer talking? Are early—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I know the member was responding to interjections, so I want the interjections from my right to cease while the supplementary question is asked.

Andrew Little: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will maintain decorum. Are early childhood education providers right or wrong when they say this Budget "means the average childcare centre loses $15,000 in real terms." because per-pupil funding is frozen?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, they are not correct. The early childhood funding has expanded, pretty dramatically actually under this Government, by almost $1 billion. It was around $800 million when we became the Government; it is now over $1.7 billion. Of course some people are going to say that they did not get as much as they wanted, but one of the reasons for that is we wanted to spread the benefits of growth right across the community, particularly to the type of families who the member was trying to quote this morning—the family in West Auckland—when he just happened to leave out, or Grant Robertson just happened to leave out, the fact that they could be eligible for up to $80 per week of accommodation supplement.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact, Prime Minister, that far from being confident about his Budget, he is cutting and running off to Samoa for 4 days—4 days—for its independence day celebrations, which begins on 1 June, not tomorrow, and, therefore, he is not able to and does not want to face accountability in this House?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: It will be—in fact, it is not quite 4 days—longer than that member has spent in the Northland electorate since he became elected. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is it a point of order? [Interruption] Order! I want to hear the point of order in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, he started out and he was going so well until he decided to start telling lies.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. The member asked a very political question; he can expect a very robust answer. Does the Prime Minister wish to complete his answer?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I was just going to point out to the member that I have a lot of relatives in Samoa and it would be rude not to meet them all while I am there.

Andrew Little: Are 500 principals, who wrote an open letter to him, right or wrong when they say that the funding freeze means they cannot afford to pay teacher-aides better without cutting their hours?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: They are wrong in referring to a funding freeze; no such thing has occurred. But I think where we would agree with the principals—if not with the Labour Party—is that it is the way the money is spent and the results we achieve for children that matters more than the Labour Party calculations about how much money it thinks schools could have got. You do not show you care about education just by spending hundreds of millions on it. You show you care by making sure that each child gets the opportunity free education should give them, and that is the opportunity to become a functioning, literate, and numerate citizen.

Andrew Little: What does he say to home buyers who can look forward to house prices rising at three times the rate of wages according to his Budget's forecasts?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would say to them that there are more houses being built now than there have been for many decades and that, particularly if they are in Auckland, the best thing they can do is tell the Labour Party to stop opposing large developments in Auckland, such as the Three Kings and the Point England development, because they would allow for thousands more houses in Auckland, which would certainly help the price of houses. But Labour insists on opposing the developments there while promising a "castles in the air" housing policy here.

Andrew Little: Why does he think that he knows better than GPs about health, better than principals about schools, and better than young couples about the housing crisis, and can he not see that after 9 years of failing all those people, it is time for a fresh approach, not a shoddy election bribe?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course we do not know more about those specialised professional tasks than the people who carry them out, but some of them have been misled by the Labour Party. This is where the leader of the Labour Party and those groups have something in common. If they are relying on Grant Robertson's numbers, they will be embarrassed. Prime Minister—Decisions

3. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's decisions?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, especially the Family Incomes Package in the 2017 Budget, which provides around $2 billion to support family incomes. It will benefit around 1.3 million families by an average of $26 a week. I am pleased to see that the member supports this decision, because it will help so many low and middle income earners with young families, and it is impressive that the Greens thought supporting those families was more important than supporting a dysfunctional and flailing Labour Party.

James Shaw: Does he stand by his Government's decision in last week's Budget to cut funding for rheumatic fever prevention when rheumatic fever rates are rising?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would have to check the details about the actual funding for rheumatic fever, but I can tell the member this: this Government set up the rheumatic fever scheme, with, I think, $60 million at the time. It has been innovative, it has had a significant effect on rheumatic fever rates, and the lessons from that have been applied to the new Better Public Services result around reducing hospital admissions for children for preventable conditions. So essentially we are taking the rheumatic fever scheme and applying it on a much wider basis, so that we can have more healthy children, and fewer of them going to hospital.

James Shaw: Does he stand by his Government's decision in last week's Budget to stop insulating homes at the end of this year?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: A law has been passed precisely to make sure that all homes are insulated where that is reasonably possible—

Phil Twyford: No—rental properties.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: . —all rental homes. I cannot help feeling that the Greens are running into the same trap as the Labour Party, and that is that now that those members have decided to vote against the Government on the confidence motion, they are trying to find reasons for that vote.

James Shaw: Can he confirm that the law that he just referred to—the change in the insulation standards that the Government introduced in 2016—is based on 1978 levels, will not come into effect for another 2 years, is lower than the current building code, and is lower than officials recommend for a healthy home?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I cannot confirm any of those things.

James Shaw: Has he seen reports that there are still 600,000 homes in this country with poor thermal performance, which are cold and damp in winter, and which make the people who live in them sick?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen all sorts of reports about the state of our housing stock. That is one of the reasons why the Government has legislated in the way that we have just described, and it is also a reason why we have now put in place for the first time systems for dealing with children, in particular, who show up in hospitals with diseases that may be related to the poor state of the house that they are in. The good news is that more new houses are being built than ever, the State housing stock has been significantly improved since this Government came into office, and the standard of houses in New Zealand is rising.

James Shaw: Does he agree with Otago University professor Philippa Howden-Chapman that home insulation is "a very, very good investment"; if so, why is he not funding it under his social investment programme?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member may be aware, the Government has spent hundreds of millions on subsidising the insulation of homes, and has come to the view that the best thing from here is to make it a requirement for all those who do own rental homes to insulate them. It seems to me, in the same way we do not spend money subsidising the spouting or hanging doors in homes, that that should be an integral part of the standard of the home.

James Shaw: If a 6:1 benefit-cost ratio to tackle a problem that puts kids in hospital 40,000 times and kills more people than the road toll every year does not meet the criteria to be considered a good social investment, what does?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are lots of proposals that meet the criteria for sound social investment, but, as I have already explained to the member, because of the significance of insulation, we have legislated to require insulation to a specific level in all rental homes. Budget 2017—Vote Health

4. SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that Budget 2017 will invest an extra $3.9 billion over four years into Vote Health, taking the total health investment to $16.77 billion in 2017/18?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes indeed. Delivering better health services for a growing population remains this Government's No. 1 funding priority. This is reflected in Budget 2017. The additional funding will deliver a range of new initiatives to meet cost pressures as well as population growth, including an extra $1.76 billion over four years for district health boards to invest in services and to improve access.

Simon O'Connor: How much has health funding increased in recent years?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: An extra $888 million is being invested into health services for 2017-18. That is the biggest increase in 11 years. The total health investment is $16.77 billion in 2017-18. That is an increase of around $5 billion across our nine Budgets. None of this would have been possible without the steady management of the economy, which has allowed us to maintain sustainable investment into our health services.

Dr David Clark: Is the reason he prefers to add 4 years' worth of health spending that he gave district health boards (DHBs) only $439 million for 2017-18, when his officials told him that the total cost pressures for DHBs was $644 million in the last year alone?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, I believe the 4 year total convention was started by Dr Michael Cullen, and this Government has continued with that.

Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table a paper showing that his ministry advises, based on demographic pressure, that in the last year alone, the cost was—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need the source of the document.

Dr David Clark: It is an OIA response.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular OIA response. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is not. It can be tabled. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House. Finance, Minister—Statements

5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements on the health of the New Zealand economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Yes, particularly my statement during last week's Budget speech, where I said, "a strong economy can never be taken for granted. It must be nurtured and worked on or it will quickly go backwards. While the world economy is growing, there are plenty of risks and plenty of political uncertainties that could affect us."

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If, as he told Q+A on Sunday, our economy is "performing as a country a lot better than the UK, the US, Australia, Canada, Europe"—which is not a country but he said it was—"Japan, at the moment," which of these economies' GDP growth is based mainly on consumption and mass immigration, like our GDP growth is?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is simply incorrect. The reason this country is growing is that we have strong Kiwi businesses working hard and getting out there and selling their goods and services on the world stage. That is resulting in New Zealand becoming more attractive in very high levels of employment, so we need to attract more skilled workers. The member may want to slow down the New Zealand economy because it is going a little bit too quickly for him, but, actually, I think most people are positive about the benefits of economic growth in terms of wages and increasing incomes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If there is the remotest shred of evidence of that being true, why did the Reserve Bank Governor, Governor Wheeler, agree that the GDP growth is a sham once open-door immigration is subtracted, when he said to the select committee: "If where you're going is to say 'Look, in terms of per capita GDP growth, it's a lot less impressive', that's indeed correct—just like the rate of productivity growth in the country is disappointing."?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I was not familiar with Mr Wheeler's comments, but I am pretty sure he is not the sort of person to use the word "sham". I think the sham here is Mr Peters' comments about Mr Wheeler's comments. But in terms of the question of GDP growth per capita I am pleased to report to the member that the forecast from Treasury in the Budget indicates a GDP per capita growth of above 1 percent, and heading up towards 2 percent in different years, in the years ahead. It is a solid GDP per capita growth. The member raises a good question about productivity, and that is why the Government invests so heavily in the Innovative New Zealand programme, which is all about lifting levels of research and development and skill development to help lift productivity over time.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is true—

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Ha, ha! If that is true why then did page 10 of the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update state that we are growing because of open-door immigration—their words, not mine—and why did very respected company director Kerry McDonald criticise unplanned mass migration and the effect it is having on real export growth, housing affordability, low wages, and labour productivity?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Kerry is respected—particularly by the member—but in terms of our growth can I just make the following point to him: we have, in this country, the second-highest rate of employment, currently, of our adult population—

Ron Mark: What, for 1 hour a week?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE:—of any country in the OECD. And 80 percent of it is full-time work—80 percent of those people are working full-time. We have the second-highest rate of employment in the OECD. So if the member wants to slash migration, as he says, and to keep skilled migrants away, as he is certainly saying that he wants to do, that would undoubtedly slow and perhaps even stall the New Zealand economy. I appreciate that might be because the member thinks everything is happening a little bit too quickly for him but, actually, for most New Zealanders it is positive.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! All of the answers are very long.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If any of that is remotely true, why is highly respected former director of the Reserve Bank Michael Reddell saying of his claim—[Interruption]—and he does, on page 2 of his latest report, and he quotes the Minister—that "Our economy is 14 percent larger than it was just 5 years ago."; "Yes, but the population is about 8 percent larger. That would leave an annual average growth in per capita terms of 1.1 percent."? How come that Minister cannot get that through his thick head?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last part is completely unparliamentary and not necessary. [Interruption] Order! The Minister can address the first part of the question.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I stand corrected, but I do not think Mr Reddell has ever been the director of the bank. I think he worked at the bank. As I say, I stand corrected on that—that is my memory of it. I actually have no idea what the member was trying to ask, but I think it was something about per capital growth. Can I say that in terms of per capita growth he just needs to look at the predictions, which he quoted so effortlessly from the Budget before, which shows per capita growth of well above 1 percent each year over the forecast period. Finance, Minister—Statements

6. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that "I just don't think of the Budget in terms of the election cycle"?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Yes. New Zealanders have worked hard over the last 8 years. They have made sacrifices and they have turned this country around. Now that the economy is responding well to the Government's sensible, consistent economic plan, we have the financial capacity, finally, to help New Zealand families share in the benefits of stronger economic growth. I thank the member for his question.

Grant Robertson: Why then did he prioritise giving tax cuts, something called "an election bribe 8 years in the making" by Tracy Watkins, to people like him and me over ending homelessness?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I can assure the member I was not thinking of him at any stage in the preparation of the Budget process. But in terms of families' incomes, I was thinking about New Zealand families. I was thinking about the low-income families with large numbers of children who are potentially struggling to get ahead. I was thinking of those with high housing costs. I was thinking about middle-income New Zealanders who get to $48,000, which is not even the average wage these days, and are facing a 30-cent-in-the-dollar tax rate. And I was thinking about people who are struggling to get emergency housing, and you will see things in the Budget about that. I think New Zealanders will see a balanced Budget, which focuses on things that matter to New Zealanders.

Grant Robertson: Why did he prioritise tax cuts over funding early childhood education, to make up for the $110 per child, per year cut that has happened under his Government?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is wrong. The Government has invested something like $1.1 billion more in the education services, including fully funding roll growth at early childhood centres and also providing a targeted payment for childcare centres where there are children who are at risk, and that is all in Budget 2017. The member may not have got to that bit. But the important thing is, actually, it is important to think about family incomes. I appreciate the member never ever wants to think about family incomes, but this Government does.

Grant Robertson: Why has he prioritised tax cuts over funding for primary healthcare, which has led the president of the Medical Council of New Zealand to say that GPs will need to raise fees?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again, the member is wrong. This Government has prioritised $7 billion in new expenditure in public services in this Budget, including $3.9 billion in the health sector, which, as the Minister has pointed out, is the largest increase in 11 years. So there is no way the member can say that. And yes, this Government is focused on family incomes. This Government thinks of those families who are earning and working hard, and who do not actually have the ability to get ahead. The tax package, the family tax credits, and the accommodation supplement will help them, and we are very proud of that.

Grant Robertson: Why has he prioritised tax cuts over support for growing the economy, leading Xero's New Zealand country manager to say: "The Budget has let down small businesses and the tech sector."?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again, the member is wrong. The Budget puts a significant investment into the Innovative New Zealand programme around encouraging the development of research and development. We have just had, actually, the biggest increase in business R & D recorded in New Zealand for many years. I appreciate the member is going around trying to find reasons why Labour voted against the Family Incomes Package last week, but he is a little late. They should have changed their minds and voted for it, like the Greens. Budget 2017—Social Investment Approach

7. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister responsible for Social Investment: How does Budget 17 support a social investment approach to Justice?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister responsible for Social Investment): As part of the Government's $321 million social investment package that the Prime Minister announced earlier this month, Budget 2017 provides an extra $46.8 million over the next 4 years to fund two new initiatives to support the Government's social investment approach to justice. The first is a $32.9 million burglary prevention initiative, targeting those under 25. It helps to fund services to change offender behaviour and support victims. The second is a $13.9 million investment into 14- to 16-year-old offending, over 4 years, to help young people alter harmful behaviour, increase self-control, and reduce future offending.

Sarah Dowie: What evidence is there to support these initiatives?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Through the investment approach to justice, which has been working on this for the past 18 months, which uses to data to identify risk early and identify evidence-based interventions to reduce risk, manage offending, and reduce the number of victims, the Government has been able to target intervention points to achieve the greatest results. Through our youth offending initiative we expect to reduce the number of estimated future offences by between 18 and 32 percent and make savings between $166 million and $347 million in justice services over the next 20 years. We know that robberies committed by those under 25 have been identified as one of the highest risk groups for future offending, and through the burglary prevention initiative we expect to reduce the number of recidivist offences by between 17 and 38 percent a year.

Darroch Ball: Does she really think the social investment approach for youth justice, after 9 years, is working when between 2015 and 2016 the serious offending by teenagers has increased by 12 percent nationally, teenage burglary is up by 13 percent, teenage robbery is up by 40 percent, teenage homicide is up by 40 percent, and teenage sexual assault is up by 5 percent?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, what I would point out to that member is that the social investment approach is just getting under way, and absolutely we believe it will significantly reduce reoffending. But what I can also tell the member is that while we have been in Government we have seen a reduction in youth crime of 38 percent—[Interruption] I know it does not suit the member's narrative, but work with me here—a 38 percent reduction in youth offending, and reductions in police apprehensions of young people of between 40 and 50 percent. The number of youth graduating into the adult court has halved while we have been in Government, and the social investment approach will take it even further.

Darroch Ball: Does she really think it is working when robberies committed by 15- to 19-year-olds in South Auckland are up by 80 percent, in Canterbury are up by 67 percent, in Northland are up by 55 percent, in Waitematā are up by 45 percent, and in southern are up by 45 percent and yet there has been a decrease in convictions in courts for that same age group over that same time period?

Hon AMY ADAMS: We are very well aware that there has been a spike in robberies in recent times, but what I would say to the member is twofold: first of all, there has been a 49 percent reduction in the number of young people committing serious offences, and the social investment approach is targeting exactly that. The difference with this Government is that we have the data, the evidence base, and now the funding to make a real difference about it. Housing, Rental—Accommodation Supplement

8. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Social Housing: Does she believe an increase in the accommodation supplement will help to reduce the rate of rent or house price increases?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Social Housing): The accommodation supplement has never been about trying to set or reduce market rents or house prices; it is about assisting people in need with housing costs. What I do think the boost we announced last week will do is make life a little bit easier for the 136,000 families who will receive, on average, an increase of $36 a week, leaving them with more in their pockets after they pay their rent. This, along with the Family Incomes Package—which every party in this House apart from Labour supported last week—will make a significant difference to millions of New Zealanders, because we are a Government that not only cares about these families but does something about it.

Phil Twyford: Does she accept that while the accommodation supplement provides some relief from rising rents, $1.5 billion a year on rent subsidies is fiscally unsustainable; should the real solution not be actually building affordable homes—or did the courier research focus groups not show that one up?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, thanks to the sensible fiscal management of this Government, we have the resources to support New Zealanders in need, and now that we are back in surplus, that is the first thing we are doing—we are supporting New Zealanders who need an increase in their accommodation supplement, as part of a wider Family Incomes Package. For the party that voted against it to lecture us on better support, when this Government not only has a sustainable, funded, credible housebuilding programme—we are the ones who are helping 1.5 million New Zealand families, while Labour voted against it.

Phil Twyford: Does she accept that a half-billion-dollar annual increase in accommodation supplement spending over 9 years in office represents the final capitulation of her failed housing policy?

Hon AMY ADAMS: First of all, the member should look at the total net figure of the package, which is actually closer to about $295 million in accommodation supplement. Secondly, we are very happy to be in a position fiscally to help New Zealanders in need with their housing cost. Thirdly, if only we had not had to spend the last 8 years fixing the fiscal mess we were left, we might have been able to do it sooner.

Phil Twyford: Why is she happy to give out rental subsidies that ultimately benefit landlords, but she refuses to build anything like the number of affordable homes that are needed, she refuses to ban foreign buyers, and she refuses to reform the planning rules that stop our cities from growing?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, first of all, I as an individual do not do any of those things, as Parliament does, and, actually, this is the Government that has reformed the planning rules, while Labour voted against them. This is the Government that is legislating for developments like the Point England reserve bill, Three Kings, and the Riccarton Racecourse, and that party voted against them. What I think the House can take from this line of questioning is that Labour is opposing putting up accommodation supplements, and that Kiwi families who rely on them should not expect to get a red cent if Labour ever gets into power.

Phil Twyford: What has changed since 2015, when the Government accepted official advice not to boost the accommodation supplement because of fears that landlords could pocket the extra money and rents could be pushed up?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Since then we have had a piece of research from the Ministry of Social Development that has looked at this very carefully and looked at whether there is any evidence that the last round of accommodation supplement increases did lead to rent increases. It found no such evidence, and, as a consequence, we were happy to take that advice and give a little bit of money to the New Zealanders who need it—something that they clearly should not expect from Labour. I just ask Labour members to be honest and tell us that they will reverse them. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That particular question has now been asked and answered. We move to question No. 9. [Interruption] Order! I do not want to have to ask the Minister to stop interjecting again. Children, Minister—Announcements on Support for Vulnerable Children and Young People

9. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister for Children: What recent announcements has she made regarding funding to support vulnerable children and young people?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children): Last week, as part of Budget 2017, I announced that this Government is investing another $434.1 million in new initiatives to support vulnerable children and young people through the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki. This means that the Government, through Vote Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, is spending a total of $857.7 million on the commissioning and delivering of child-centred services. This new ministry's funding will be 18 percent higher than 2 years ago when it was part of the Ministry of Social Development. The funding will support the radical overhaul of care and protection in New Zealand and is part of a 4 to 5 year transformation programme to build a system that is focused on prevention and early intervention.

Joanne Hayes: What does this funding mean for caregivers of children in care?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Budget 2017 sees an extra $26.4 million for a caregiver support package that will see the Government provide more support to around 4,500 caregivers. Working with caregivers, we have been told that they want a 24/7 support service, more targeted training, more support for children with higher needs, and more effective recruitment and retention strategies—and this is what this Government has delivered in Budget 2017.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I suspect the Minister may have been reading from an official document, in which case I am asking her to table it so I can hand it on to the member who asked the question in the first place.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the second part is not necessary. Was the Minister quoting from an official document? She was not. Early Childhood Education—Funding per Full-time Equivalent Children

10. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: What was the change in real terms in total annual Government funding per full-time equivalent child in early childhood education between 2009/10 and 2014/15 according to the data posted on the Education Counts website?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children): on behalf of the Minister of Education: I am advised that in real terms entitlement and equity funding to providers per full-time equivalent (FTE) child in 2009-10 was $8,476 and in 2014-15 was $8,486. This is an increase of 0.12 percent. As a Government we are focused on ensuring that all children get the best start to life by participating in quality early childhood education before attending school. This is particularly important for those young people most at risk. I am also advised that the total annual Government funding per FTE, which includes things such as participation programmes, is a difference of minus 1.67 percent.

Chris Hipkins: Why did she not point out in her answer to the question on total Government funding per child for early childhood education that that figure has declined by $538 per child per year during the time period in question?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I quoted the figures that I was given on advice, in answer to the primary question. However, I would point out to the member that early childhood education funding has increased every year under this Government, and that for every $1 a parent spends on early childhood education, the Government spends approximately $4.80.

Chris Hipkins: Does she believe that cutting more than $500 per child per year from total Government funding for early childhood education has made it easier or harder for parents to afford quality early childhood education for their kids?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I repeat: this Government has been focused on ensuring that all New Zealand children are able to readily access a variety of types of early childhood education. We have focused on ensuring that children are able to participate, and we have increased the funding for early childhood education every year since we have been in Government. In fact, by the year 2020 it will reach $2 billion that the taxpayers invest in early childhood education.

Chris Hipkins: Is she aware that Statistics New Zealand data shows that parents have been forced to pay 25 percent more for early childhood education over the time period in question; if so, does she think that is a sign that early childhood education is becoming more, or less, affordable under a National Government?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am advised that early learning is 33 percent more affordable for parents and families than in June 2007.

Chris Hipkins: Which is she more proud of when it comes to early childhood education: her Government's freeze on subsidies, the corresponding massive increases in what parents are paying, or her Government's removal of the requirement for 100 percent qualified teachers, which saved it more than $200 million alone?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This Government is proud of the fact that we have focused on ensuring that the most young New Zealanders get access to high quality early childhood education and that we target those who are most likely not to access early childhood education, because we know—and the evidence is clear, both nationally and internationally—that that gives them the very best start in life. Climate Change—Collaboration with Other Countries

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to have this question redirected to the Prime Minister, to whom it was originally directed—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I was unaware that this was being transferred, but I have ruled on many occasions that it is a Government's duty—in fact, its responsibility—to determine who will answer the question. The question is down to the Minister for Climate Change Issues, and that is who it is to be addressed to.

11. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does she agree that countries need to work together to combat dangerous climate change; if so, will her Government convey that view to the President of the United States this week?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Climate Change Issues): I do agree that countries need to work together. New Zealand wants all countries, including the US, to stay in the agreement. Our position on that has been clear and we do not plan on reiterating it to the President this week.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Does the Minister agree that, as Minister, she has a duty of care to protect New Zealanders from dangerous anthropogenic climate change by achieving stabilisation of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: To the extent that I can.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that the Paris Agreement makes it clear that a higher target from each party is necessary, will she commit to setting a higher target to reduce New Zealand's emissions, consistent with atmospheric stabilisation of gases?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, I believe that our target is ambitious and fair.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that for a 1.5 - degree Celsius warmer world, global emissions must reduce by 25 percent between now and 2030, and New Zealand has higher per capita income in emissions than most other countries, how can anything less than 25 percent off today's levels be regarded as a rational policy for New Zealand?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: For New Zealanders to lower their emissions and reach the 2030 target, there is going to have to be significant changes in our behaviours and the emissions that we are emitting. So, in the context of that, I believe that our target is incredibly ambitious and going to take significant change, and will play a very small—in some respects, it is kind of insignificant when you look at it in a global perspective, but significant for what we can do here in New Zealand. Tax System—Improvements

12. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Revenue: What improvements is the Government making to New Zealand's tax system?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Revenue): Talofa lava. This Government has a massive programme of work dedicated to improving the tax system. Budget 2017 will make a huge improvement to the tax system by increasing after-tax incomes. From 1 April next year the $14,000 income tax threshold will increase to $22,000 and the $48,000 threshold will increase to $52,000, and 2.533 million people are set to gain from this tax package. Those are not the only changes. We are improving the system for families and individuals but we are also improving the integrity of the tax system. New Zealanders deserve a tax system that is fair—that means everyone paying their fair share—and that is why we are cracking down on tax avoidance with new measures to strengthen New Zealand's rules for taxing large multinationals.

Andrew Bayly: What improvements is the Government making to improve the tax system for business?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The list is very long, but I will just give you a few examples. We are addressing black hole expenditure. So under proposals released as part of the Budget, many business expenses currently written off as black hole expenditure will, in fact, become tax deductible. This Government recognises that employee share schemes are an important remuneration tool for start-ups. Just today I announced the release of an issues paper aimed at improving tax arrangements to make it easier for start-up companies to use employee share schemes. Our Business Transformation stage one, implemented this February, has made it far more simple for businesses to manage their tax—

Grant Robertson: Do they make you do these questions, Judith, or do you choose?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —interact with the Inland Revenue Department, and meet their GST obligations. And—just wait, there is more—next year, from 1 April, we will have a reformed provisional tax pay-as-you-go option, which will mean that up to 110,000 small businesses will pay the tax that they need to pay as they go every month.

ENDS

© Scoop Media