Questions to Ministers

Finance, Minister—Unemployment

1. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement, made on the day Statistics New Zealand reported that 151,000 people were unemployed, that “the Government did not intend to do anything specific to tackle rising unemployment”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): No, I do not stand by that, because I did not say it. What I did say is that—

Grant Robertson: How could they have got it so wrong?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: You would have to ask Radio New Zealand. What I did say was that the Government would not be chasing around the unemployment numbers, 3 months to 3 months. We take a longer-term point of view because that is the realistic one, and that is to reinforce and encourage businesses that are doing well to invest, to employ more people, and to grow. In fact, the Government has around 500 specific actions to achieve this, all listed in the Business Growth Agenda, which I hope the member has read. This is part of the reason why the proportion of 15 to 19-year-olds not in education, employment, or training has fallen to the lowest level ever recorded.

Grant Robertson: In light of his taking a long-term view, why has New Zealand slipped in the OECD rankings on unemployment from first in 2005 to 15th under his watch?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are a number of reasons why that has changed, and that has a lot to do with the global financial crisis, which we know—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need to be able to hear the answer. I do not mind some interjection, but when it is a barrage, that is not acceptable.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The other significant reason was the unwinding of the debt-funded, Government-funded bubble that led to those low levels of unemployment, but unsustainable levels of unemployment, back in 2005.

Grant Robertson: Given his reference to the global financial crisis, did the United States and the United Kingdom also experience the global financial crisis, and how is it that their unemployment levels are now lower than they were in 2008?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There were, of course, higher levels of unemployment in those countries back in 2009-10, so they are still in a recovery from a recession that actually started in those countries back in 2009. We have recovered, and now we are going through another softer patch, for the obvious reason of lower dairy prices.

Hon Annette King: So we’re going up in unemployment?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Economies do go up and down, and the member should get used to that.

Barbara Kuriger: What steps is the Government taking to support more jobs and higher wages?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said, the Business Growth Agenda sets out 500 specific actions, but I will just list a few: introducing the 90-day trial period, which I understand the Opposition is still against; reduced income taxes and taxes on investment and savings; reduced ACC levies by $1.5 billion since 2012; alongside local government, spending $110 billion on infrastructure in the next 10 years; and negotiating a wide range of free-trade agreements, so our businesses can sell more—for instance, to North America—and create more jobs. But the Labour Party is, apparently—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Grant Robertson: Given that list of actions and his 500 actions in his glossy Business Growth Agenda, how come unemployment is 6 percent and heading towards 7 percent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: For the pretty obvious reason that when an economy slows down, the rate of job creation slows as well. The fact is that the drop in dairy prices has taken billions of dollars of income out of the New Zealand economy, as the member has pointed out himself. If it is not coming in, it cannot be there to pay wages for more and more jobs. So we have had strong job creation. It has flattened out a bit at the moment, but we have every confidence that because of our 500 policy initiatives it will pick up again.

Sarah Dowie: What further steps is the Government taking to support employment?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In particular, the Government has taken a large number of the steps to assist the transition of young New Zealanders into the labour market. A range of schemes, from targeting NCEA level 2 pass rates through to the Youth Guarantee, mean that there are now more young people than ever—or a larger proportion than ever of young people—who are going to employment or training, and that is a real success.

Grant Robertson: Is it correct that under his watch New Zealand has never ranked higher than ninth in the OECD in terms of unemployment, and the only times we have been as low as 15th have been under his watch?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have not checked that information, but I will—I have not checked that information, but I will. The important thing is that New Zealand is showing considerable resilience in the face of global economic shocks and domestic ones: a recession in 2009-10, a large earthquake, and now a softening in our commodity prices. All through that we have had consistent job growth, up until quite recently. The labour market has worked very well, and we have every confidence that although there is a slow-down in job creation at the moment, it will pick up again.

Grant Robertson: Can he promise New Zealanders that he will get back to first in the OECD rankings on unemployment, as we were in 2005, at any point in his three terms as finance Minister?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, because for a lot of New Zealanders it would be a meaningless promise; for instance, for most New Zealanders what matters is the employment rate—that is, the proportion of the available workforce that has jobs—and in New Zealand that is at the highest levels that it has ever been. We have got among the highest levels that we have ever had of the proportion of working-age New Zealanders who actually have a job and are available for work. So for most New Zealanders that is actually a more important measure of success.

Grant Robertson: Does he think that his employment policies are a success, and if he was to go ahead and say that, would that not make him a liar and a hypocrite?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. I am not going to allow that question. I will allow the member to rephrase it—

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday in this House you made a very specific ruling about what was and was not unparliamentary language. I phrased my question carefully to fit within what you said yesterday was acceptable in terms of unparliamentary language.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not got exactly what was said yesterday, but I am not happy with that question, which, effectively, implies that a member is a liar and a hypocrite. [Interruption] Order! It will lead to disorder—[Interruption] Order! I am inviting the member to rephrase this question. If it is not rephrased, I will not allow the question.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In your explanation you said that the reason that you were not accepting the question was because of the implication that a person was a liar and a hypocrite, in this case. That is precisely the thing that yesterday you said was acceptable: the implication from the Prime Minister that if we were to say something that would mean that we were to protect rapists, “go ahead”. That is exactly the same formulation that you found acceptable for the Prime Minister, but it is somehow not acceptable for me.

Mr SPEAKER: No, it is not, and I do not want to spend much more time on this, or we will move to the next question. The first instance with the Prime Minister was when no one took objection at the time. That is the point I have laboured to this House. If exception had been taken, and I should have acted quicker, and I have acknowledged that to the House—but no one took exception at the time. In this occasion, I have taken exception to those remarks at the time. I am therefore saying they are unacceptable. They will lead to—

Hon Annette King: But has the House?

Mr SPEAKER: I do not want to ask the member to leave, but if she is going to interject while I am on my feet, she gives me no choice. So I am inviting the member to re-ask the question, without that imputation. Otherwise, we will move immediately to the next question.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, no—

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Grant Robertson: No, Mr Speaker, you yesterday—I raised a point of order as the person who had raised objection to the Prime Minister’s statement. I raised the point of order on Tuesday immediately after the Prime Minister used the phrasing that I have used in this question—immediately after. The “if” in the “go ahead”, which you told me yesterday made the Prime Minister’s statement acceptable—that is the framing I have used in this question today. And I raised my point of order about that immediately when the Prime Minister did that.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I happen—that is not correct, according to Hansard, because I happen to have the Hansard in front of me. You raised your point of order after the Prime Minister had finished saying: “if those members want to protect sex offenders, rapists, or murderers, go ahead. I am not going to.” I do not find—[Interruption] Order! I do not find anything unparliamentary in that, but to imply that a member of this House is a liar and a hypocrite, I do find unparliamentary, and therefore I will not allow the matter to be relitigated. I do not want to take a question off the member, but if he does not want the question, we can move very quickly—

Grant Robertson: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. Order! I am on my feet. We have spent now approximately 5 minutes on this matter. My decision is absolutely final. Members do not have to agree with my decision, but they have to accept it. I am happy to accept a fresh point of order, but I will not have the matter relitigated.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have the Hansard in front of me from yesterday, in fact, where you were ruling on the point of order that Grant Robertson raised.

Mr SPEAKER: Can I have the page of the Hansard?

Chris Hipkins: I have got the online version printed out, but it is immediately after—I am happy to read it for you, if you want me to. But you said that the member needs to actually quote the words that were said, and I happen to have them: “The Prime Minister, towards the end of the answer, says ‘If those members want to protect sex offenders, rapists … go ahead. I am not going to.’ I see nothing unparliamentary in that, as I have already stated categorically.” The issue is: what is the difference between that statement and the statement that you did rule unparliamentary? The only difference is the word “if” at the beginning of it.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Bill English.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Whatever the merits or otherwise of the issue of logic that the members raise, it is a longstanding convention in this House that those terms that the member used have always been ruled out, no matter what the circumstances or context. It would be a drastic departure from convention in this House if suddenly, on the basis of that sort of specious argument, they are now regarded as parliamentary. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! When I look back at the offensive remarks on Tuesday, those remarks were “You back racists”—

Hon Member: “Rapists”.

Mr SPEAKER: —“rapists”; I apologise. That implies that we all do, including me; in fact, it was addressed to me more than to members. That should have been addressed at the time. I should have addressed it at the time. Other members should also have addressed it at the time. No one did, so we have got to move past that situation. This one I am addressing at the time.

Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just would like your guidance on this. How do we create a convention that protects us from that kind of language, which you have just said is unparliamentary? Because, presumably, those other words were created and that convention was accepted. How do we do that in this House? Because some of us really need that to happen.

Mr SPEAKER: The way we need to do it is by making sure that I act at the time, and in the times that I do not act—because I do not hear everything; this is a noisy environment—members themselves must act immediately. The problem with Tuesday was the time lapse that occurred and other statements that occurred in those 3½ minutes.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A fresh point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: I would be pleased.

Chris Hipkins: I think going forward it might be useful for the House if you were to consider in a more deliberate way and perhaps come back to the House with whether, in fact, premising any unparliamentary remark with a question or a hypothetical—saying “if”, “what”, you know, or so on—would also make it unparliamentary. I think if you were to make such a ruling, you would have the full support of the Opposition in that, because an unparliamentary remark is unparliamentary regardless of whether it is made in a statement or in a question.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think it requires any further work. The members themselves can look at Standing Order 380, “Content of questions”: “Questions must be concise …”—and, if you look particularly at paragraph (1)(c)—must not include “discreditable references to the House or any member of Parliament or any offensive or unparliamentary expression.” I am very lenient in the way I interpret Standing Order 380, because many, many questions, from all members—particularly supplementary questions—if I was strict, according to Standing Order 380, would be ruled out. I think it would make this place quite antiseptic; I do not think it would be helpful to political debates. I do not think I can respond in the way the member is asking me to, because it is a matter of me judging situations as they arise. To try to formulate them, and set down a Bible to guide me, I think would create difficulties for me and, frankly, would create difficulties for members of this House.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have one more point of order. Just for absolute clarity, for my sake: the second statement that the Prime Minister made, which was when I did take my point of order on Tuesday—when he said “If members want to protect [etc., etc.] then go ahead”—for you that is acceptable, and that is not an unparliamentary piece of language? Can I just clarify that.

Mr SPEAKER: That is exactly what I have said.

Grant Robertson: So why was my question unacceptable?

Mr SPEAKER: Because of the terms you used. But I have explained it.

Grant Robertson: The terms I used? OK.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes.

Grant Robertson: Why does he think it is acceptable that after 7 years as Minister of Finance the best that he can do is 15th in the developed world, and rather than telling unemployed New Zealanders, as he did on Radio New Zealand the other morning, to “try harder” to get a job, should not he be the one who is trying harder?

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member, the question in my mind is certainly in order, but if I were to strictly interpret Standing Order 380, that question would not be in order. I think it is a good example of where we have moved. The question is in order; it can be answered.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would certainly have to check the member’s second, probably wrong allegation of something I said, but in respect of unemployment—

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Allow the—I will hear from the member.

Chris Hipkins: On a strict interpretation of the Standing Orders, the Minister’s answer would also now be out of order.

Mr SPEAKER: And I absolutely agree with that. It was unnecessary for the Minister to respond in the way he did. That is absolutely true. Would the Minister now complete his answer.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I disagree with the member’s statement. The fact is that New Zealanders have a strong rate of job creation. It has—

Grant Robertson: 15th in the world, Bill.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If he wants to measure them against the rest of the world, New Zealand’s participation rate is one of the highest in the developed world. That is, the proportion of the working-age population that is in work or available for work is one of the highest in the developed world. That is a measure that matters to a lot of New Zealanders. So we can trade measures, but the economy has shown it has been remarkably resilient through difficult circumstances, and we have every confidence that, to the extent that the Government can influence it, the employment outlook, which is currently soft, will strengthen over the next couple of years.

Financial Systems—Stability

2. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the stability of New Zealand’s financial system?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yesterday the Reserve Bank released its 6-monthly Financial Stability Report, which found that our financial system continues to perform well despite a deterioration in the outlook for global financial stability. The banking system is maintaining sound levels of capital, above minimum requirements, and growth in bank deposits has kept pace with growth in lending. Lower interest rates—in fact, the lowest interest rates in 50 years—are allowing borrowers to repay their debts faster. Our net external liabilities have declined from a peak of 85 percent of GDP down to 62 percent, supported by higher household savings. The softening economy may mean that these numbers worsen a bit in the short to medium term, but I would expect to see continued improvement in the long term.

Barbara Kuriger: What does the Reserve Bank have to say about risks to New Zealand’s financial stability?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: They point out risks that I think the House is pretty familiar with: the low prices in the dairy sector, which mean there are risks for that part of the dairy sector that has high debt; and also their view that Auckland house price increases are too high and are not sustainable. That is why we are working closely with the Auckland Council on a wide range of measures to improve supply and improve the planning system. In respect of housing, the Government has introduced tax measures such as the brightline test, the Reserve Bank has introduced the investor loan-to-value ratio restrictions, and on 1 April next year there will be a withholding tax payable by foreign owners of houses when they sell those houses.

Barbara Kuriger: What recent data has he seen on Auckland housing?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The most important is the annual number of building consents, which in Auckland is currently running at the highest in 10 years, at 8,700. It needs to keep growing to keep up with growth in population and growing demand. There is some recent anecdotal evidence that the housing market in Auckland is slowing down, but we would need to see numbers for another 6 months in order to see whether it is a long-lasting effect. The recent National Construction Pipeline report projected an extra 80,000 homes over the next 6 years.

Barbara Kuriger: What other reports has he seen on New Zealand’s economic resilience?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The International Monetary Fund published its concluding statement on New Zealand this week. It pointed out that the flexible exchange rate is an important economic buffer, so the drop in the exchange rate will help our economy adjust and grow again. Farmers are employing a range of measures to adapt to lower dairy prices. Finally, it pointed out that the banks are well capitalised, so they can handle a period of lower dairy prices or a slow-down in house prices.

Returning Deportees—Proposed Legislation

3. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Justice: Does she believe proposed laws dealing with deportees, including those from Christmas Island, will sufficiently uphold the rights of New Zealanders?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Associate Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Yes. As the Minister has previously stated, the intention of the returning offenders legislation is to mirror as closely as practicable the existing framework that applies for the monitoring and supervision of offenders who have served their sentence in New Zealand. Our primary concern is to uphold the rights of law-abiding New Zealanders who live in the communities that these offenders will be returning to.

Metiria Turei: How many New Zealanders are currently detained on Christmas Island?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think it is approximately a couple of hundred, but I would need to check that to be precise.

Metiria Turei: Of those New Zealanders currently being detained on Christmas Island, how many have convictions for rape or for murder?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I cannot give the member numbers on behalf of the Minister. What I can be very clear about, though, is that on the most recent advice to the Minister, from yesterday, we know that there are sexual offences, indecent treatment, or dealings with children under 16. We know there is manslaughter. We know there is robbery, and some very serious assaults. I agree with what Minister Dutton of Australia has said, that it is a—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was answered at the start when the Minister said he did not know.

Metiria Turei: Of those New Zealanders currently detained on Christmas Island, how many have finished serving their sentence and are being detained solely because they are awaiting deportation?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, I note the primary, and I do not have that detail to hand.

Metiria Turei: Of those New Zealanders currently being detained on Christmas Island, how many are detained not because of a criminal conviction but because their visa was revoked on character grounds?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Again, I note the primary. I do not have those numbers.

Metiria Turei: Given that the Minister has released some information about the convictions of some of the detainees, when will she release the rest of the information about the convictions of the detainees?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The situation is reasonably clear. There are legal reasons in Australia, and, I think, in New Zealand, why that information cannot be provided. In any event, it is quite clear that the information has been provided to the New Zealand Government on the basis that it is not disclosed in full—that it is provided in confidence and not for public dissemination.

Metiria Turei: Is the Minister concerned that the laws governing the deportation of New Zealanders explicitly state that the rules of natural justice do not apply?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: If the member is referring to the proposed legislation, I think that it is a very fair piece of legislation—in that what it is seeking to do is mirror, as far as practicable, what happens on release from prison in New Zealand.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would ask your advice. The Minister has misunderstood my question. I would seek your indulgence to ask the question again in a way that would provide him with more information, because he is definitely—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will allow it in this case, but can the member, in asking the question, be clear whether she is talking about the proposed law, because that would help?

Metiria Turei: No, that is what I think the Minister misunderstood.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I do not blame the Minister for being confused, because I was equally confused.

Metiria Turei: Is the Minister concerned that the laws governing the deportation of New Zealanders from Australia contain explicitly the statement that the rules of natural justice do not apply to those New Zealanders?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, in so far as there is ministerial responsibility, the Hon Simon Bridges.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The Minister does not have responsibility for Australian legislation.

Metiria Turei: How is it that the New Zealand Minister of Justice is not concerned that New Zealanders set for deportation from Australia are being deported under a law that explicitly states that the rules of natural justice do not apply to them?

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Simon Bridges, in so far as there is ministerial responsibility.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The member is entirely misinterpreting what was said. I have never said on behalf of the Minister of Justice that I am not concerned. It has been made quite clear in this House a number of times that this Government disagrees with Australian policy on this—that we have advocated for New Zealand detainees and, importantly, for the victims of crime. As I made quite clear in the primary answer, though, our primary concern is the rights of law-abiding New Zealanders whom offenders return to here in New Zealand.

Early Childhood Education—Early Intervention Service

4. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Why has funding for the early intervention service declined since 2010 when the ministry has reported that demand for the service is rising and its ability to respond to referrals on time is declining?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I am advised that funding for the early intervention service has not declined since 2010. What the member will be referring to is a reduction in expenditure in the early intervention service arising from the centralisation of support functions at a regional level between 2010 and 2011. Ensuring greater efficiency in the support functions of the ministry has enabled it to provide services to a greater number of children. The demand for the early intervention service has increased significantly. This year the service assisted an additional 2,818 children with early intervention services over our target for 2014-15. This is in part due to the success of the Government’s focus on more children participating in quality early childhood education.

Chris Hipkins: Why did she indicate in answer to written parliamentary question No. 13282 of this year that funding for the early intervention service had decreased from $41 million in 2010-11 to $40 million in 2014-15?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do not have to hand the specific written parliamentary question. The distinction I am drawing to the attention of the member and the House is between expenditure and funding. So although the amount went down by $2 million, the funding into the service did not change. Secretarial shared support services became shared across the ministry, and that explains the difference between those two numbers.

Chris Hipkins: How many eligible children did not receive an early intervention service within 90 days of referral last year?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do not have that operational detail to hand—

Dr David Clark: Oh!

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do not have that operational detail to hand, but certainly I can get that for the member. What I can tell you is that 11,500 was the target for our service, and we exceeded that by 2,818.

Chris Hipkins: How many children were on a waiting list for early intervention services over the last year for more than 6 months?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Again, I cannot provide that level of operational detail. What I can repeat is that 11,500 were targeted for services. We exceeded that by 2,818.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek some guidance from you as to what recourse a member can have when they put down a relatively specific primary question, indicating the direction of supplementary questions, and ask very specific supplementary questions that they do not get answers to?

Mr SPEAKER: The recourse is to try again another day, I guess, or use more supplementary questions now, or to put it down specifically in the form of written questions. Those are the three options. My duty here is to judge whether the questions has been addressed. When a Minister says they do not have that information at hand, then the question has been addressed. I think the member actually knows that point.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a further point of order. In cases where Ministers have not prepared that information and do not have that information to hand—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Chris Hipkins: We have only a limited number of supplementary questions each day. Will members get additional supplementary questions if Ministers do not prepare and do not answer the questions?

Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need assistance. The answer to your question is probably no.

Chris Hipkins: Did the Ministry of Education fail to provide early intervention support for over 6,000 children within the 90 days required in 2014, and does she think that this is acceptable?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I cannot speak to that specific detail, but what I can tell you is that it is not acceptable. That is why we have been undertaking a special education review up and down the country this year. We have met with extraordinary numbers of parents and providers to understand what the challenges are so that we can improve the support. We do that, however, in the context of this Government having raised the funding into special education by 26 percent. It now stands at $530 billion.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek some further guidance from you as to what Opposition members can do when a Minister says that they cannot answer a question and then goes on to provide a short speech on a whole range of other issues.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now starting to trifle with me on this matter. I have said on many occasions in the House that I will judge the length of answers. Often I think it has been answered very quickly and the additional information is simply superfluous. Sometimes I judge that the information may be of value to members.

Catherine Delahunty: What is her response to the 89 percent of early childhood council centres surveyed in October this year that said they had not received education support worker services for children with dyslexia, dyspraxia, and autism for the amount of time that they required them?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Well, first of all it was 80 percent, which amounted to 100 services out of 5,230. My answer is the same as to the previous question. We are concerned about some of the difficulties being experienced in the special education system, and that is why we are reviewing it. I welcome the select committee report that the member is referencing.

Catherine Delahunty: Will she commit more funding for early intervention services so that the delayed development of children with learning differences does not create more costs for the education, health, and justice systems, and children are not struggling under the label of failure?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: We are finding in the review that too much of the provision for special education is siloed into specific programmes. So the early intervention programme is one of a range of support services that are provided for early childhood education provision, and we are looking at how we can relax the boundaries between those services so that we can help more kids, without tripping over these programme parameters.

Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you Minister; that is very helpful. But I just did ask whether the Minister would commit more funding.

Mr SPEAKER: I wish the question had been as simple as that. We will allow you, on this occasion, to ask an additional supplementary question. Make it as a simple as that, and then we can assist with an answer. Catherine Delahunty—an additional supplementary question.

Catherine Delahunty: Will the Minister commit more funding, given the increasing numbers of children—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, this is where we get into trouble. I am trying to help the member. If the member just rises and asks whether there will be increased funding—but when she starts to add more and more, it gives the Minister every avenue to answer the other parts of the question. I am trying to help the member. I am giving her extra assistance here; I am being very generous on a Thursday. It is, effectively, an extra supplementary question. I invite her to ask it.

Catherine Delahunty: Will the Minister commit more funding?

Mr SPEAKER: To?

Catherine Delahunty: To early intervention services, so that our kids get their—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is all we need.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: There is already more funding available to that group of children. They are just not all called early intervention services. There is an early hearing service, there are services for speech therapy, there are services for different disabilities, and we are trying to bring all of those together into a wraparound service, rather than siloing them into one programme.

Hon David Cunliffe: Ashamed!

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am not ashamed, actually—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has now been addressed.

Health Service—Healthy Lifestyles

5. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Health: How will the new high-profile public awareness campaign starting today encourage people to make healthy lifestyle changes to tackle obesity?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Today we are launching a campaign to improve children’s health by encouraging small but long-term changes to diet and exercise habits. Kiwi sports stars, including Olympic gold medallist Valerie Adams, Silver Ferns captain Casey Kōpua, All Black Israel Dagg, Black Caps skipper Brendon McCullum, and Warriors star Shaun Johnson are fronting the campaign. Some ideas parents can pick up on include substituting unhealthy snacks with healthy snacks, rewarding kids with activities instead of food treats, and making water the first choice. In addition, we are launching a new website

Hon Members: Speech! Speech!

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: —you will learn something, so just listen—which provides families with affordable meal and activity ideas, which is one of the key things parents asked for during our recent research.

Mr SPEAKER: I stated earlier, and it may have been missed by Carmel Sepuloni, that I will judge when I think an answer is too long, not the junior Opposition whip.

Simon O’Connor: How does this campaign fit into the Government’s wider anti - childhood obesity plan?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: This public awareness campaign is one of 22 initiatives contained in the Government’s Childhood Obesity Plan announced last month. New Zealand is one of the first OECD countries to have a target and a comprehensive plan to tackle childhood obesity. Other initiatives include front-of-pack health star ratings for common foods, support for more sport and physical activity in schools, and referrals for kids from B4 School health checks for further expert medical advice and guidance, if required. Overall, our plan is a comprehensive package that will address one of the country’s most serious health issues.

Hon Annette King: Does he agree with Jamie Oliver, who has come out in support of Labour’s obesity plan because it is based on ministry advice and evidence, which he ignored?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am sure if Mr Oliver saw the full extent of Labour’s policy he would probably have a different comment to make.

Hon Nikki Kaye: What other reports—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need to be able to hear—

Hon Annette King: Yes, you need to hear this—

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I would like to try to hear it, so it would be useful if the deputy leader of the Labour Party could ask her colleagues to stop interjecting through it.

Hon Nikki Kaye: What other reports has he had of obesity policy announcements?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have had reports of a New Zealand politician drawing parallels between herself and Hillary Clinton—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member may have a point of order shortly, but that question in my mind is designed to do nothing but create disorder by attacking—

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is just called humour, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is not going to help the order of the House one bit. Question—[Interruption] No, I have dealt with the matter.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Are you serious?

Mr SPEAKER: I am very serious. I would have thought the member knew that.

Police, Minister—Statements

6. TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by all his statements?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Did the question get heard by the—

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Police): Yes, I heard the question. Yes.

Tracey Martin: Does he stand by his statement in Hansard that “the police and other social agencies had worked very hard to ensure that there will not be a repeat of this.”, with reference to the Roast Busters case?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes.

Tracey Martin: Does he stand by his statement in Hansard that “… I am confident, hopeful, and optimistic that this does not reveal a culture of ambivalence towards the complainants.”?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes.

Tracey Martin: Has he, in recent meetings with the Commissioner of Police, inquired whether the law on intimate covert filming was considered in the recent case of young men taking photos of unconscious young girls where they dangled their penises over the girls’ faces?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: As the member is probably aware, by law the Commissioner of Police must act independently of the Ministers of the Crown, particularly in relation to the enforcement of law and the investigation and prosecution of offences. However, I have made inquiries about the incident that was the subject of media reporting earlier this week. I would say—and I caution the member—that, on the advice I have received, not all the facts were present in the media reporting. I cannot go into the operational detail, but I am satisfied on the information I have been given that the investigation was conducted thoroughly and sensitively, that the decision not to lay formal charges was made after legal advice, and that the young woman involved in the incident is satisfied with the outcome and the police’s support.

Tracey Martin: In light of that answer, why should young girls and their families have any confidence in this Minister and the New Zealand Police if cases such as this continue to merely result in a warning to perpetrators?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It is not for me to judge the utility of that warning, as the member suggests. My role is to make sure that police activities are such that the public can have confidence in the quality of investigations, and the feedback from the young woman involved is a very good barometer of that.

Prime Minister—Statements

7. KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Kelvin Davis: Can he confirm that there are no New Zealand - born rapists and murderers on Christmas Island, contrary to what he said in the House on Tuesday?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not necessarily agree with the member’s characterisation of it, but the Prime Minister has pointed out the broader issue here around the detention of Kiwis in Australia, which is that many of them have committed serious crimes. The ones who are detained have said that they do not want to come back to New Zealand.

Kelvin Davis: Why did he say “We are not on the side of sex offenders; we are on the side of New Zealanders.” when the number of serious sex offences has skyrocketed by more than 1,000 a year under his watch and fewer than half of those are now solved?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the Government can point to consistent and, for the first time ever, very focused activity on reducing assaults on children. In fact, one of our Better Public Services results is to reduce substantiated assaults on children. No Labour Government ever set out to do that.[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! If a member from the front bench wants to leave, I can assist.

Kelvin Davis: Are his Government’s $160 million of cuts to police funding, in real per capita terms, the reason that fewer than half of rapists are being caught on his watch compared with two-thirds in 2008, and does this not show his disregard for the victims of these crimes?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: First, the member should understand that policing is a matter for the Commissioner of Police, not the Prime Minister. [Interruption] Well, it is an important constitutional distinction, which, clearly, the Labour Party does not understand. Secondly, Policing Excellence and Policing Excellence to Policing Excellence: The Future, the two change programmes that the police have implemented, is the most intelligent, community-focused, and prevention-focused policing that New Zealand has ever seen. It may be true and it may be the case, that reporting of domestic and sexual violence is higher. That indicates confidence that the police are increasingly able to deal with this scourge on our society. The police have the full support—and I am sure they would tell the member this—of the Government in addressing these serious issues.

Kelvin Davis: Does the dramatic rise in unsolved sex crimes on his watch not show that he a hollow man who is happy to hurl insults in the House but is failing to keep Kiwis safe in their homes?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member does himself no good by crassly overstating his case. [Interruption] It is true. The reporting of sexual crime has increased because there is more confidence that it is better understood and better dealt with. Just by way of example, this Government inherited a complete shambles of Government programmes aimed at vulnerable children and family violence. In fact, it took several years to find all the bits of a shambolic, unpredictable set of interventions set up by the Labour Government, and they should go and ask groups like the family violence prevention groups and Women’s Refuge, and they will tell that member that he has no idea what he is talking about—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is now going on for too long.

Kelvin Davis: Has he ever said a person was suitable to be a Minister in this Government while knowing that that person was under investigation for sex offences?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I am not going to allow that one to proceed, because of a matter that is currently before the courts, and I refer the member to Standing Order 115(2). I will allow the member to replace that supplementary question.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have Kelvin Davis’s question. I have made a note of it, and I have it with me. He did not refer to any specific case at all. So I just want to be clear because, hypothetically—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Yes, I accept that. Listen—I think the member is genuinely raising a point. This is a dangerous area for everybody, where this Parliament, as long as I am here, will respect the separate jurisdiction of our judicial system. I think it is a dangerous question. I am ruling it out, but I am going to replace it with an additional supplementary question for the benefit of the member, and I will not entertain further discussion, because that, of course, defeats the very purpose of Standing Order 115. Kelvin Davis.

Kelvin Davis: No, actually. I think the point was made—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! To the Deputy Prime Minister: I am on my feet. Question No. 8—Scott Simpson.

Tourism—Diversification of the Economy

8. SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Associate Minister of Tourism: What contribution is tourism making to diversify the New Zealand economy?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Associate Minister of Tourism): The tourism industry is continuing its impressive growth. The total tourism spend in the year to March 2015 was nearly $30 billion, up more than 10 percent compared with the year before. Tourism now represents 17.4 percent of our total exports, up from 15 percent, and is our second-largest export. The growth in tourism, along with success in other export industries, such as international education, ICT, wool, and wine is contributing to our increasingly diverse and growing economy.

Scott Simpson: What contribution is tourism making to job growth?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: One in every eight jobs is now directly or indirectly related to tourism. There are 168,000 New Zealanders who are directly employed in tourism, with a further 128,000 indirectly employed. Tourism is worth $10.6 billion, or nearly 5 percent of our GDP. Many regions are benefiting directly, including places like Matamata. Hobbiton Movie Set and Farm Tours has hired 92 new staff in the past 3 months and now employs more than 200 people.

Scott Simpson: What evidence is there that the tourism industry will continue to grow?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We are actually ahead of track to reach the ambitious target of generating $41 billion in tourism revenue by 2025. We are seeing growth in the number of visitors from our major markets such as the US and Australia, and we have had a 35 percent increase in the number of visitors from China. And, of course, just yesterday Qantas and American Airlines announced a new direct service between Auckland and Los Angeles, making New Zealand an even more accessible destination for American tourists.

Health Services—Asthma and Respiratory Conditions

9. Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party) on behalf of MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister of Health: What is he doing to ensure vital services to promote the understanding and management of asthma and respiratory conditions amongst Māori are maintained given that funding to the only Māori Asthma Society in New Zealand will be discontinued at the end of 2015?

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just seek some clarification. I have not had a chance to look it up in the Standing Orders yet, but I am sure you will be able to. My understanding is that Ministers cannot ask primary questions in the House. My understanding may be wrong—I have not had a chance to check that—but if you could clarify that, that would be useful.

Mr SPEAKER: To the best of my knowledge, I was aware that Marama Fox was called away urgently. I will ask the Clerk, because this is an important issue. Ministers can ask questions. So, yes, the answer can now proceed.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): District health boards are responsible for providing health services for their populations, and for allocating their share of the record $15.9 billion health budget in a way that meets the needs of their local populations. The Māori asthma society, to which the member refers, has a contract to provide train-the-trainer courses, but the review of the contract showed low uptake, and the decision was made to spend the money in a way that would deliver better health outcomes.

Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: How many contracts for Māori health providers were cancelled over the last 2 years, and to what value?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The ministry has hundreds of contracts across the sector, and we would need to go away to check them. If the member would like to set down a written question I would be happy to provide a considered answer. What I can tell the member is that recently the ministry reported on the health literacy demands on both whānau and health services around asthma management for Māori children. The ministry is using this report to improve care, and is also currently considering an asthma and respiratory indicator for the 2016-17 district health board Māori Health Plans.

Tax System Changes—Announcements

10. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Revenue: What recent announcements has he made on how the Government is making tax simpler?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Revenue): Yesterday I released two consultation documents as part of the Government’s Business Transformation programme to modernise and simplify tax administration. The first is making it simpler for businesses to manage PAYE and GST, with proposals to make PAYE and GST systems fit with business processes rather than the other way around. The second discussion paper looks at the Tax Administration Act and how the current systems might be made simpler for everyone and more flexible for the future. The Government is also focused on making business tax simpler, and will consult on this in 2016.

Andrew Bayly: How is the Business Transformation programme progressing?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The Inland Revenue Department’s Business Transformation programme is now planned to be completed within 7 years instead of the 10 years originally indicated. This is because we have selected a core tax system that is built for tax, proven in a significant number of other tax jurisdictions around the world, and that will require minimal customisation. I also expect the project to come in well below the high end of projections of $1.9 billion. It is now likely that new Crown-funding requirement will be under $1 billion. I am pleased that the programme will also deliver more benefits for New Zealanders and businesses than originally proposed.

Andrew Bayly: What opportunities are there for New Zealand companies in the Business Transformation programme?

Hon TODD McCLAY: We have always said that the programme will use a mixture of New Zealand and international expertise. New Zealand companies have received 67 percent of the spend to date—supporting businesses and creating jobs. Yesterday I announced that next month a sample of Xero and Mind Your Own Business (MYOB) customers will be able to file GST returns straight from their accounting software to the Inland Revenue Department, rather than having to file a separate return. This will be rolled out to all Xero and MYOB customers, and in time will be extended to all other software providers. This has very practical benefits for businesses, cutting the amount of time it takes for them to meet their tax obligations, and it is an early step in integrating business and tax processes.

Child Poverty—Measurement

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): My question is to the Minister for Social Development and asks: Does she stand by her statement, when asked whether child poverty was—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I expect silence, when this question is being asked, from members to my right. The member might have to start her question again.

11. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by her statement, when asked whether child poverty was too high in New Zealand, that “it is very difficult to use one measure to determine poverty and hardship”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Yes.

Jacinda Ardern: Can she confirm that her Government did just that, and used one measure to determine poverty and hardship for her Government’s Budget package, and it was the measure that produced the smallest number of children?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Quite the contrary. The Government looked at the considerable work produced by the Ministry of Social Development, and of course it produced that annual report on household incomes. But we were very focused—and we are unapologetically very focused—on those children, between 60,000 and 100,000 depending on where you draw the line, who are experiencing the most severe hardship. In fact, the $790 million package that formed the basis of Budget 2015 targeted 190,000 children with the first increase in benefits in 43 years, and the increase in Working for Families targets about 380,000 children. That is almost half a million children in New Zealand who will be benefiting from this Government’s focus on reducing hardship.

Jacinda Ardern: How did she determine that just 60,000 to 100,000 children in poverty needed her Government’s assistance, when, based on income measures, there are 305,000 children in poverty?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The first thing I would say to that member is that we need to all be very careful when we use the term “poverty” that we actually know how we are defining that. There are a range of assumptions and judgments that are made in defining what poverty is. I will not go into them, but I would suggest that members of the Opposition might like to read section E in the Ministry of Social Development’s 2015 Household Incomes Report. What I would say to that member is that we looked at the accepted OECD range of hardship measures to determine those children on whom we were going to focus that part of the Budget package.

Jacinda Ardern: How does she define child poverty?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There are a range of decisions on key issues that would have a significant influence on how anyone would define poverty. It would be more time than the Speaker would allow me to go through what those are, but I would say in my mind that I would use a range of measures, both income-related—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. Members might not be interested in the answer, but Jacinda Ardern certainly is interested in the answer. I cannot see how she could possibly hear with the din that is coming, because I cannot hear. Would the member please complete her answer to the question.

Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister thinks she has completed her answer, but I still did not feel like I came away with an answer to the simple question: how does she define child poverty?

Mr SPEAKER: The way forward is to allow the Minister, if she wants, to add anything. If you think the Minister has completed—if the Minister wants to add any more? Then we will move to the next supplementary question.

Jacinda Ardern: If her Government was not manipulating figures for the purpose of this Budget, why did her Government remove one of the highest-scoring measures of material deprivation when it made its calculation for those 60,000 children? It removed it from 17 measures of deprivation to 16, to make it more convenient.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I completely—completely—disagree with the assertion of that member.

Jacinda Ardern: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act document that demonstrates that the Minister removed whether or not—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! We do not need the latter part. Leave is sought—I just need the date of the—[Interruption] It is an Official Information Act document?

Jacinda Ardern: The Official Information Act document is dated 2 November.

Mr SPEAKER: 2 November. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Finance, Minister—Answers to Question No. 1 to Minister, 11 November

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): My question is to the Minister of Finance—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member can start his question now.

RON MARK: My question is to the Minister of Finance and asks: does he stand by all of his questions to oral question No. 1—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to get the member to read the question again. [Interruption] Order! Ask the question again.

RON MARK: Sorry?

Mr SPEAKER: The member used the word “questions” rather than “answers” in his reading. Just read the question again.

RON MARK: It actually says—sorry—it actually says “answers” on what a bloody—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: That is right. [Interruption] That is exactly my point.

RON MARK: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your tolerance and guidance. We will have a better day tomorrow.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

RON MARK: To the Minister of Finance, does he stand by all of his answers to oral question—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am now specifically looking for someone to my right whom I am going to ask to leave. So the next one, I hope, will be easy for me to pick.

12. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his answers to oral question No. 1 on 11 November 2015?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I do, with one small exception, and that is that I have made a statement that New Zealanders’ savings have been positive for 5 years, which has not happened for the last 25 years. In fact, it has not happened for the last 21 years.

Darroch Ball: How can he stand by his statement that “we now have the lowest rate ever of young people not in education, employment, or training.”—being at 11 percent—when the rate was 10.3 percent when he was in Opposition?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We are just using the measures as they have been consistently measured on a consistent basis for some time.

Darroch Ball: I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library, which shows the measurement of the “neet” rates in—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been described, I will put the leave.

Hon Annette King: So you didn’t tell the truth, Bill.

Mr SPEAKER: And that was unhelpful. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Darroch Ball: Does he agree with Steven Joyce’s comment made last week: “… we will quote the ‘neet’ figure, which is the lowest it has been in 7 years, at 11 percent” when I tabled documents in the House that day proving that to be demonstrably false?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is possible that we are talking about a different group of people. The numbers that we have been quoting relate to the group that has been the highest priority to the Government—that is, 15 to 19-year-olds—and it is the lowest in that series since March 2004. It is possible that for the wider group of 15 to 24-year-olds, there were points when it was lower than that.

Darroch Ball: I seek leave to table a document entitled “Introducing the youth not in employment, education, training”—

Mr SPEAKER: The date of the document, please.

Darroch Ball: —“indicator”, which shows the—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The date of—[Interruption] Order! I am not even going to put the leave. I asked the member for the date and he continues getting his message across. I am not even going to bother.

Darroch Ball: Supplementary question.

Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Darroch Ball. [Interruption]

Darroch Ball: Well, he should know.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will now rise to ask a supplementary question in line with the Standing Orders, or he will not get the opportunity.

Darroch Ball: Will he admit that the “neet” rate has actually increased under National’s 7 years in Government—that is, 72,000 youth not in employment, education, or training, which is 6,000 more under National? That is an increase of almost a thousand young people every year.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place, as I said, we probably are talking about different groups. We are talking about 15 to 19-year-olds; the member is talking about 15 to 24-year-olds. Secondly, we look forward to the member’s constructive contribution to more solutions, because the Government has put in place, for instance, the innovative Youth Guarantee system, the Māori and Pacific trades training system, and now the youth services, which provide individual supervision—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —for every young person—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point in continuing with the answer if the member is not interested in it.

Question No. 3 to Minister—Amended Answer

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Associate Minister of Justice): I seek leave to correct an answer given earlier today in question time.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that particular purpose. Is there any objection?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: In a supplementary answer to question No. 3 on behalf of the Minister of Justice, I was asked how many New Zealanders there are at Christmas Island. I indicated that I was not certain, but I indicated a number of around 200. In fact, we do not know the exact number, but it is likely to be a much smaller number than I gave.

ENDS

© Scoop Media