1. Prime Minister—Housing

1. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his and his Ministers’ statements in relation to housing?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, I do stand by my statements. In terms of my Minister’s statements, yes, but I would need to see the full context in which they were made.

Andrew Little: Does he stand by his statement that “We are building 40 houses every working day in Auckland.” given that under his Government only 23 homes, on average, have been consented in Auckland per working day, compared with 35 under the previous Labour Government?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I stand by my statement.

Andrew Little: I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library that sets out the building consents issued under the previous Labour Government and the present Government and shows the very figures that I have just quoted—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular information. Is there any objection? There is objection. [Interruption] Order! I have put the leave. The leave has been denied.

Andrew Little: Does he stand by his statement that “All roads lead back to supply.”; if so, why have the policies that his Government has implemented over the last 8 years failed to deliver an adequate supply?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Broadly, yes, I think that is right—that all roads do lead to supply. If you have a look at the demand-side things that have been applied, you would not say that they have had a massive impact, and, of course, interest rates could do but they have been falling under a National-led Government, and supporting. But the simple facts of life are that we have a construction boom taking place now in Auckland. We have more people working in construction in New Zealand, I think, than ever before, and more houses being built—considerably more houses than by the previous Labour Government, which was a complete and utter failure in this area.

Andrew Little: If it is all about supply, why is housing Minister, Nick Smith, going around saying that plummeting Māori and Pasifika homeownership levels is the fault of poor education?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As is always the case with an Andrew Little question, one needs to check the fine print. The point the Minister was making—[Interruption] I actually happen to have in front of me his exact quote, if the member wants me to embarrass him and read it back to him, but the simple facts of life are that the Minister was making the point that there is a correlation between income and people’s capacity to own a house. He was simply making the point that Māori and Pasifika, by definition at the moment, have a lower level of income.

Andrew Little: If it is all about supply, why are four of New Zealand’s major banks banning loans to offshore speculators while housing Minister, Nick Smith says: “The impact of offshore speculator is diddly-squat.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member would have to ask the banks about their motivations—I simply do not know. But I stand by the view that the most accurate information that we have is not whether someone’s name is Chinese in the phone book but whether they actually fit the criteria under the Land Information New Zealand information. Certainly, talking to the banks myself, I have not ever picked up from them that they consider this to be a terribly significant issue. But, interestingly enough, the member seems to be telling the House this afternoon that it is not about supply when it comes to housing, and yet the only two things that Labour has announced in relation to housing are that it wants to build a lot of houses—who knows where and how—and that it has adopted the National-led Government’s policy of metropolitan urban limits.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a very long answer.

Andrew Little: If it is all about supply and the homes are not there, does he now accept that his housing policy has failed and the buck stops with him?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I stand by the view that the Government has a comprehensive plan when it comes to housing, and that plan is working. That is why we are now building 40 houses a day, and under the previous Government we were building 10. That is why there are vastly increased numbers of consents for new houses in Auckland, and why the Government has taken the steps it has.

Andrew Little: Does he stand by his statement blaming falling homeownership on people buying houses later, getting married later, and having children later, given that homeownership fell for every age cohort from 20 to 85 in the last census?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. Unlike the member, I do not just make things up. In the interests of an informed debate, let us not worry about the advice I get. Let us go to the 2008 advice from Statistics New Zealand presented to the previous Labour Government, when it goes on to talk about: “Possible causes [of reducing homeownership] include increasing participation in alternative forms of long-term investment, a high level of student debt, higher house prices relative to incomes and people forming families later in life.” [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the Prime Minister. There is little point in carrying on with the barrage coming from my left. [Interruption] Order!

Andrew Little: Will he listen when I tell him it is not too late to adopt Labour’s policies to shut out the foreign speculators, remove Auckland’s growth limit, and build affordable homes for families to buy so that once again we can restore the Kiwi Dream of homeownership?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I will listen to the facts, which are that homeownership rates fell under the previous Labour Government. Going back to my answer to the last question, here is the incoming briefing to the previous housing Minister in 2008, under the Labour Government. The advice here is that changes in lifestyle—[Interruption]—these people do not want to hear the answer because they know we are right. They know we are right. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again we are in the situation where Mr Little has asked a question but it appears that Mr Little’s colleagues are not that interested in the answer.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I seek leave to table the briefing to the incoming housing Minister that quite clearly points out that changes in lifestyle—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That information has already been put on the net and is available to all members.

Hon Members: Eight long years.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need reminding about the term of this Government.

2. Government Financial Position—Surplus and Crown Debt

2. JONO NAYLOR (National) to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to increase surpluses and start repaying debt?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): As the Budget outlined, forecasts are for growing surpluses and debt falling below 20 percent of GDP by 2020. The Government has achieved balanced books so far by focusing on getting results, rather than spending more money. We continued the approach of small additional allowances in Budget 2016, with a net operating allowance of $1.6 billion per year. This is compared with the eighth and ninth Budgets of the previous Government, which averaged $4.3 billion of new money per year.

Jono Naylor: How is the Government seeking to better manage its balance sheet to assist with debt reduction?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The amount of assets the Government owns continues to grow every year, and currently the New Zealand taxpayer owns $280 billion worth of assets, so even small improvements in their management can drive significant gains. Budget 2016 allocated $1.4 billion of new money for capital expenditure. However, because of capital recycling we are actually spending around $2.6 billion of new money. The drive to better use our balance sheet follows on from the Government’s share offer programme, which freed up $4.7 billion for the Future Investment Fund to reinvest in new assets, rather than having to borrow to pay for the Government’s new capital investment.

Jono Naylor: What are some of the assets that have been provided by the $4.7 billion Future Investment Fund, without having to borrow?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Future Investment Fund, which is now being used, has allowed for significant investments in new roads, schools, and hospitals. It also provided $1.3 billion towards projects in the Canterbury rebuild. Outside these headline measures, it also allowed for further investment in core infrastructure for the Government and the country—that is, investment in the security and intelligence services, ultra-fast broadband, SmartGate at the border, our contribution to international organisations, a contribution to refugee resettlement facilities, and also helping to free up land for more housing.

Jono Naylor: How is the Government’s focus on fiscal prudence supporting the wider economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Probably the most important contribution is that it has meant the Government is focusing on the productivity of its own services—that is, getting better results for the money that we are spending. Around 70 percent of the New Zealand economy is services, and about half of those services are Government-run services. So the best contribution we can make to the broader economy is to make sure our own services are more productive—that is, when we spend money, we get results for New Zealanders.

3. Prime Minister—Government Policies

3. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he still stand by all his Government’s policies after eight years?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

James Shaw: When he told the Contractors Federation in 2007 that National had a plan for solving “a severe home affordability and ownership crisis”, why is the home affordability and ownership crisis worse now than it was then?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have all of the data with me, but what was clear back in 2007 was that the then Labour Government had no answers and no response to the issue.

James Shaw: Why does he now believe that falling homeownership rates are because young people prefer to rent when he said in 2007: “National will be resolute in our commitments to the goal of ensuring that more young Kiwis can aspire to buying their own home.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: One of the ways of proving that is there are more Kiwis in work than before, more young New Zealanders are choosing to stay in New Zealand than go overseas, and the Government has established the KiwiSaver HomeStart programme, which was never there before. Core base interest rates are a quarter of what they were back then—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was around falling homeownership rates, and the Prime Minister has not addressed that.

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I will invite the member to ask the question again. Could I just ask for a little bit of assistance from my left-hand side. I found it very difficult to listen to the answer, because of the barrage that was coming from my immediate left.

James Shaw: Why does he now believe that falling homeownership rates are because young people prefer to rent, when he said in 2007: “National will be resolute in our commitments to the goal of ensuring that more young Kiwis can aspire to buying their own home.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The basis of the member’s question is either too narrowly stated or out of context.

James Shaw: When he said in 2007 that homeownership rates were predicted to plummet over the next decade, and given that they are now at the lowest levels in 60 years, are we to now understand that that was, in fact, an election promise?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The election took place in 2008.

James Shaw: When he promised in 2010 that his signature tax shift would discourage excessive borrowing and housing speculation, does he consider it a failure that a record 46 percent of Auckland homes are now being sold to investors and speculators?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We reject parts of the member’s question, but there have always been investors in the market. As I have said on numerous occasions, and, in fact, as supported by both the incoming advice from the Minister for Building and Housing and the advice from Statistics New Zealand to the previous Labour Government, there have been a wide range of reasons why homeownership rates have declined over the last 30 years—over the last 30 years. One of them is societal changes—clearly rising house prices also has an impact.

James Shaw: Given that the most common length of time for an Aucklander to hold on to a property is now less than 1 year, is it fair to say that after 8 years of his Government’s housing policies Auckland is a speculator’s paradise?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, for anybody that sells property other than their main family home in under 2 years, they are subject to the Government’s brightline test. Even if they do buy a family home and sell it within 1 year, they would also need to satisfy the intent rules as established by the Inland Revenue Department. I think when the member says—if I have understood his question correctly—that the average hold time is now 1 year, I think that is factually nonsense. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I want to call the next supplementary question, but we cannot have the discussion occurring between the two front benches.

James Shaw: What has changed since 2007 when he said that rapidly rising house prices threatened a fundamental part of our culture, our communities, and, ultimately, our economy?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: A lot has changed. New Zealanders have decided that this a good country to stay and live or to return to, as opposed to the 35,000 a year who were deserting to Australia. Interest rates are a quarter on base rates of what they were back in 2007 and 2008. The Government has, through its policies, seen the creation of more jobs in this economy than ever before since 2008.

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Once again my question was around rapidly rising house prices—

Mr SPEAKER: No. The question was not as specific as that. The question started with “What has changed since 2007 …”, and that gave the opportunity for the Prime Minister to explain.

4. Health Services—Funding Levels

4. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Is the Government investing enough in health, given the health expenditure data he supplied to media last week shows health funding increases failing to keep up with cost pressures in 2016/17, 2015/16, and the year before that, and the year before that, and the year before that?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Absolutely, yes. The information that the Ministry of Health supplied shows that during the term of this Government overall funding has kept up with cost pressures. Some years are slightly ahead and some are slightly behind, but that is the overall picture. Budget 2016 delivered $568 million of new funding for health, the biggest single increase in 7 years. Vote Health has increased by over $4 billion under this Government. I seek leave to table the documents supplied to me by the Ministry of Health showing that overall funding is ahead of cost pressures under this Government.

Mr SPEAKER: Can I check whether that information has been made publicly available.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, it has not. It has—

Mr SPEAKER: I will accept the Minister’s word and put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular document, is there any objection? There is none.

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

Hon Annette King: Why did he get the Ministry of Health to compile new numbers on health expenditure last week, in a form never used before, that is not in line with Treasury’s fiscal strategy model, and was not used by Treasury’s Vote Health team to brief the Minister of Finance on Vote Health?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The reason I asked for those numbers is that Mrs King continues to say that health has been cut by $1.7 million when, in actual fact, it has been increased by $4 billion. She continues to make up a story about the Government not funding demographics and cost pressures when, in actual fact, these figures, supplied by the officials, show that funding is ahead of cost pressures and demographics. So it is, basically, because Mrs King makes stuff up—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not going to help.

Hon Annette King: Why did the new health funding model he asked for, which had never been seen before, use as its basis for inflation cost pressures the labour cost index, which Treasury said does “not reflect the actual labour and other input cost pressures in the health sector …”?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, that is not the case. Look, this is a simple table that shows the amount of new funding that has gone in, it shows cost pressures, and it shows that funding is ahead of cost pressures. It is purely to counter Mrs King’s misinformation that she has been putting out there consistently. The fact is, she is wrong; funding is ahead of cost pressures. Sorry, but it is the truth.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a Treasury briefing to the Minister of Finance dated 27 November 2012 titled Budget 2013: Strategy for Vote Health, which has the words I said in my question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not need any more. Is the Treasury document the member is proposing to table freely available?

Hon Annette King: Well, it was in 2012.

Mr SPEAKER: It was in 2012. Then members can source it if they want it.

Hon Annette King: Does he expect New Zealanders to believe that the five consecutive budget cuts to health spending shown by his own figures have had no negative impact on New Zealanders waiting for health services?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I certainly do not expect them to believe Mrs King’s figures when, in actual fact, funding has gone up by $4 billion under this Government. I can tell the member over there that, actually, she would struggle to name a single service that has not improved over the last 8 years. There are more doctors, more operations, more appointments, and more New Zealanders are getting better services all the time under this Government. As usual, it is very different from when she was in charge. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Annette King, that will not help me trying to control the House. Will the member just stand and ask a supplementary question? [Interruption] Order! Right—[Interruption] No, we are not going to have the interjections from the Prime Minister; we are going to get back to supplementary questions.

Hon Annette King: Why not admit that he has been caught out trying to cover up accumulated shortfalls in the health budget since 2010-11, affecting people like Sharon Cooper, who is in desperate need of knee surgery and has been declined three times in the last year, so far?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Why does that member not admit that she keeps on making up figures that are completely untrue? I do not know Sharon Cooper, but rather than exploiting that person, why does she not ring up my office and we can see if we can do something for her. Of course, when you are losing the argument on funding, you try personal attacks. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table my letter to the Minister of Health, writing about Sharon Cooper, on his request, which he has not bothered to reply—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last part—[Interruption] Order! The last part almost makes me inclined not to put the leave. On this occasion I will put the leave. It is a letter from the member to the Minister. [Interruption] No, I need to put the leave. If the member wants clarification—

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: But you need to give the date of any document—

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and I can do that. What is the date of the letter, please?

Hon Annette King: The date of the letter is 31 May. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table a letter from the member to the Minister, dated 31 May. Is there any objection to it being tabled? [Interruption] There is objection? No? There is no objection.

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

5. Bowel Cancer Screening—Investment

5. ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that the Government is investing $39 million over four years to begin to roll out a national bowel screening programme?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes I can. As part of the $568 million invested in health as part of Budget 2016, $39 million over 4 years is being spent on a national bowel screening programme. Around 3,000 New Zealanders are diagnosed with bowel cancer every year, and it is a major killer. Once implemented, a national bowel screening programme is expected to screen over 700,000 New Zealanders every 2 years.

Alastair Scott: Where will the roll-out start and how long will it take to roll out across all district health boards?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member will be delighted to know that the programme is on track to start in the Wairarapa District Health Board as well as Hutt Valley District Health Board in 2017, subject to final business case approval. It is expected there will then be a progressive roll-out across the country in 6-month blocks over 2018 and 2019. This staged approach is in line with international best practice in adoption of screening programmes. Once in place, district health boards will offer a bowel screening test every 2 years to people aged 60 to 74, the age at which 80 percent of cancers were found in the Waitematā District Health Board pilot programme.

6. Prime Minister—Statements

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

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes; by standing here and saying so.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he stand by a statement in November last year that refugees “go through a proper vetting process, and a lot of work is done to establish that they are genuine refugees.”; if so, why?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question: yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he have confidence in the Refugee Status Board, which is responsible for approving or declining applications for refugees and for protection status in New Zealand; if so, why?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have intimate knowledge—the member would really need to put that question down to the Minister—but I do not have any advice that it should have concern to me.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If he does not have advice, then why did he make the statement in the first place, given that the Immigration and Protection Tribunal has overturned hundreds of decisions since 2011 made by refugee and protection officers who have interviewed each claimant; and would he agree that the claim process is seriously flawed?

Mr SPEAKER: There are two questions there. The Prime Minister can address one of them.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the member using a big growly voice will not make me feel any more frightened. Secondly, we stand by the view because there is a very thorough process that both the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees goes through and then our own immigration people when it comes to vetting people who come to New Zealand.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why would he make the statement that refugees “go through a proper vetting process, and a lot of work is done to establish that they are genuine refugees.” if he does not know, given his previous answer, that that is a fact?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because it is correct, and because, if the member goes back and looks at the question he asked me, it was about the particular entity in question and whether I had any concerns about it. I do not know information about the particular entity; I know about the process. But I have not had any information that would indicate to me that there is a problem with the entity.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Amongst numerous examples, how could an Iranian man granted refugee status in 1998 on fraudulent grounds subsequently make six return trips to Iran, have that refugee status revoked in 2007, yet overturned by the tribunal in 2013?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member will appreciate that I cannot comment on an individual case.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Prime Minister assure New Zealanders that we are not allowing in people who do not respect our laws and allowing people who are coming here to treat women as cattle, unless they are first fully vetted?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There are two important points to the debate. Firstly, people are vetted, and a part of that vetting includes an interview to see whether they are likely to have and share the sorts of values that are consistent with New Zealand society. Secondly, when they come to New Zealand, as part of the process they go through at Māngere there is an induction into the New Zealand way of life. It includes things like New Zealand’s laws and customs and culture. It includes aspects of the way of our life, like how we treat women and children, that homosexuality is OK, and how we treat our environment.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Putting aside that no one knows where “Mānge-ray” is—

Mr SPEAKER: Can I have the supplementary question, please, without the lead in?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s all right. The member doesn’t know where Northland is.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, that is why you got wiped out, son. That is why you lost it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 190/1: “Supplementary questions must not be prefaced with a statement.” Could the member now ask his supplementary question, please.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who does he have confidence in: the refugee and protection officers who interview each claimant, or the tribunal, which has, in countless cases, subsequently overturned their decisions on appeal?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have confidence that the system works at all levels.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I table two documents? The first is a very-difficult-to-find tribunal case—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear this in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —dated 2 May 2013, and the second is a refugee and protection claim process map prepared on request. That is from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) in 2015.

Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave for both those documents: a tribunal case dated 2 May 2013 and an MBIE document. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.

7. Resource Management Act—Processing of Consents

7. SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for the Environment: What does the latest monitoring report on the Resource Management Act 1991 say about the number of late consents and the time it takes for new plans to be completed?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): The number of late resource consents has dropped by 92 percent from over 16,000 in 2008 to just over 1,200 in the last year. This reflects the changes the Government made in its first phase of Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms where there was a penalty on councils if they went beyond the 20-day statutory period—$450,000 of fees that had to be refunded—and I think that incentive has improved council performance. In terms of plan making, the average time for councils to write a plan is over 8 years and to change a plan is over 4 years. That is much too slow when you have got a sector like housing moving from a lull to a boom inside 3 years. That is why one of the most important priorities in the Government’s second phase of RMA reforms is to make changes to ensure that that is a lot quicker.

Scott Simpson: What does the latest monitoring data on the Resource Management Act show in relation to consent monitoring and compliance?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The report shows that 88 percent of resource consents in New Zealand are meeting all of their compliance requirements. That is to be welcomed, because a key purpose of the RMA is looking after the environment well while simultaneously making sure we minimise the compliance costs. One of the further ways in which the Government wants to improve that is through national environmental standards—of which we have another four in the pipeline—so that we can get costs down while still protecting the environment.

Scott Simpson: What does the latest monitoring data on the Resource Management Act say about the cost of resource consents?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The report shows that $76 million has been spent over the last year in processing resource consents. It does show that there have been savings since our first wave of RMA reforms. One of the significant things it shows is that a decision to make a consent notified increases the cost by fivefold. There are also still cases where the cost of a resource consent is greater than what the actual cost of the building project is, and, again, the RMA reforms that we have before Parliament allowing councils to waive the need for a resource consent have the capacity to reduce that $70 million - plus cost.

8. Financial Systems—Stability

8. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank Governor that concerns about the stability of the financial system are rising as a result of rising house prices in Auckland and other regions?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I agree with the governor on many things. I agree with his comments, made just last week, that the domestic economy continues to be supported by strong net immigration, construction, and tourism. As the Government has said, one of the consequences of limited housing supply is increased risk of a house-price correction. That is the overseas evidence, and in the judgment of the Reserve Bank Governor that is a risk to system stability. That is why the Government is focused on improving supply by working with councils on a range of initiatives.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I respect your rulings about addressing the difference between addressing and answering a question. That was a question on notice. I do not believe the answer addressed whether or not the Minister agreed with the statement of the Reserve Bank Governor quoted in the question. She mentioned—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I agree with the member. I am no wiser now as to whether the Minister does agree with the Reserve Bank Governor or does not. It is a relatively specific question. Could the Minister address the question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, said: “I generally agree with most statements made by the Reserve Bank Governor.”

Mr SPEAKER: I heard that, but that makes us none the wiser as to—this is a very specific question. It was put down on notice. This is a question about whether the Minister agrees with the Governor of the Reserve Bank’s statement that there is potential for some instability in the financial system because of rising house prices in Auckland and other regions. I know the Minister has said “We often agree with the Governor.”, but I am none the wiser, and therefore I think Grant Robertson is right. I think, to give it some coherence, I am going to ask the member to repeat the question.

Grant Robertson: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank Governor that concerns about the stability of the financial system are rising as a result of rising house prices in Auckland and other regions?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I agree with the governor on many things, and I agree with his comments, made just last week, that the domestic economy continues to be supported by strong immigration, construction, and tourism. We certainly acknowledge that there are risks with rising house prices and people’s debt to that, and that there may be a correction. In the totality of what the Reserve Bank Governor has said, he is entitled to make his opinions, and we do not have to have an agreement on whether or not we agree.

Andrew Little: Ha! Entitled to make his opinion!

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It’s called independence. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Listen, I have helped the member in getting the question asked. On this occasion, it was addressed to my satisfaction. The Minister said that there are risks—that answers the question—and those risks could occur if there was a correction. The question has definitely been addressed on the second occasion.

Grant Robertson: Why does he think the four major banks would, effectively, ban lending to foreign speculators if they were not concerned about financial stability and there was a housing bubble that is fit to burst?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Those four banks are entitled to make any decisions they like on whom they lend to, and they are fully responsible for that and that is not the business of Government.

Grant Robertson: Is Martin Hawes correct that “Most Auckland property ‘investors’ at the moment are really speculators.”, and why has the Minister allowed speculation to be the dominant feature in the Auckland housing market?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am not sure about those exact comments. Certainly I have seen the comments from the Reserve Bank Governor where 40 percent of homeowners in Auckland are investors, and we see, actually, as a consequence of that, that it does mean that there are rental properties available for those who need to rent as well, which is important. [Interruption] Well, it is. Part of it is that we actually need rental properties for those who need to rent as well. But I am not aware of those particular comments that he referred to.

Grant Robertson: Can he deny that Auckland has met three of the four preconditions for a housing bubble outlined by Martin Hawes: (1) that asset prices lose touch with intrinsic value, (2) that it attracts a lot of media attention, and (3) that they inflate in times of easy credit, and will he admit the increasing likelihood of the fourth condition, which is that they always end in a crash?

Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions, the Hon Paula Bennett.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The Minister has expressed in just the last couple of weeks concerns around the level of debt that individuals are getting into and where they have looked—at the moment they look at their ability to pay that back on a weekly basis and not actually the debt. Those prices that go up often do go down, and he has expressed concern about that in the past.

Grant Robertson: Which of the following failures by his Government is most influential in allowing the housing bubble to develop: (a) refusing to build affordable homes at scale to increase the supply, (b) repealing laws to promote affordable housing, (c) refusing to put in place restrictions on offshore speculators, or (d) encouraging first-home buyers to buy houses they cannot afford through deposit subsidies?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: That would be (e) none of the above.

9. Offenders—Support for Offenders with Mental Health Needs

9. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Corrections: What additional support is Corrections planning to offer offenders with mental health needs?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): The Department of Corrections is to receive close to $14 million in new funding from the Justice Sector Fund to enable it to purchase mental health services for offenders in prison and in the community over the next 2 years. A Department of Corrections study released today found that 62 percent of prisoners had some form of mental health or substance abuse disorder in the last 12 months and that 20 percent had both these disorders. The department will receive $10 million over 2 years to contract mental health clinicians and support workers to work with offenders in prison and the community. Contracted service providers will work with individuals experiencing mental health issues and will provide support to staff managing them. It is estimated that over 9,000 offenders will be eligible for these new services each year. The funding is for 2 years and will be evaluated at the end of that time.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What initiatives does the department have planned to address the mental health needs of female prisoners?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The department will receive an extra $877,000 to spend on social workers and counsellors to work with female offenders dealing with trauma and to support them with parenting and family issues. Female prisoners are a small proportion of the prison population. However, they play a significant role in the communities and families that they come from. Many women come to prison struggling to deal with past trauma and what has occurred in their families. By providing better access to professional counsellors and support to cope better with their complex lives, we can reduce the harm that can be done to themselves and others.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What initiatives does the department have planned to address the mental health needs of community-based offenders?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The department will receive an extra $2 million over 2 years for supported accommodation for a small number of offenders with significant mental health concerns or intellectual disability. The department will also receive $920,000 for wraparound, post-release support services for prisoners and their families with multiple mental health needs. This will also be used to support families from the start of an offender’s term of imprisonment, providing opportunities to remain engaged with critical services such as education, health, and other social agencies.

Mahesh Bindra: Will she confirm that funding has been cut for chaplaincy services, given that this service is an important factor of mental health and rehabilitation for all offenders; if so, by how much?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That is a long way wide of the initial question, and I cannot confirm that.

10. Social Housing—Reforms

10. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Social Housing: Are the Government’s social housing changes providing a “fairer and more efficient” assessment of people’s housing needs when Sister Anne Hurley of the Sisters of Mercy says that “state houses in Wiri were now changing hands every few months as successive tenants were evicted”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing): The member is confusing the assessment of people’s needs by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and the tenancy management policies of Housing New Zealand. However, we have made a number of changes that I believe have provided fairer and more efficient outcomes, such as prioritising families at risk of rheumatic fever, requiring tenants to nominate three areas that they want to live in, and increasing the range of housing support products available.

Jan Logie: Does she accept, as reported in the New Zealand Herald, that miscommunication between Work and Income and her housing needs assessment unit, which she put into MSD to ensure a fairer and more efficient process, has instead resulted in wrongful eviction orders being given to already struggling families?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, I am not aware of details around particular cases that the media have been putting out there, but what I do know is that Housing New Zealand informs me that it evicts people very much as a last resort. When someone is behind in their rent, every effort is made to make contact with the tenant so that they can work out a repayment schedule and work with MSD. As a last resort, Housing New Zealand goes to the Tenancy Tribunal where, again, they have mediation and try to work out a repayment schedule. If there is miscommunication between MSD and Housing New Zealand on individuals, then I expect that to be sorted out and not to be the case.

Jan Logie: When Housing New Zealand is evicting families does the Minister know whether they are going to cars, garages, the streets, or to her “ghost” emergency beds?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: What I know is that it is an absolute last resort for Housing New Zealand to be looking at evicting people, and if they are, in general there a number of reasons, but the bulk of them are actually for quite serious antisocial behaviour and illegal activity. The other reason that Housing New Zealand is looking at moving people within a 90-day period is to shift them, which is through no fault of their own, and it looks at moving them on to another place. That might be around health and safety, or the house is deemed to be unsafe. It is a last resort to evict people out of their houses, but there should be mutual obligations to treat them with respect.

Jan Logie: Will the Minister guarantee that no more families will be evicted or threatened with eviction because Work and Income and her housing needs assessment unit are not talking to each other?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I certainly expect MSD and Housing New Zealand to be working together on individual people and ensuring that they are sharing that information, but, equally, we need people to engage with Housing New Zealand when there are problems. By the time we get to the point of giving 90-day notices, particularly on the issue of their rent arrears, it is because people have not been engaging with them and have been ignoring requests.

Phil Twyford: Is it fair for her staff to leak private information about a police investigation, doing what she always does: character assassination to divert attention from her failed housing policy? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will allow the Minister, if she wants, to answer.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: That is an utterly ridiculous question and just simply not true.

11. Student Achievement—Impact on Homeownership Rates

11. JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East) to the Minister of Education: Does she take any responsibility for the poor education that Hon Dr Nick Smith says is partly to blame for falling rates of Māori and Pasifika home ownership?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I consider it helpful to the House to quote the Hon Dr Smith’s full comment, which was: “The fact that our Māori and Pacific people have lower rates of home ownership is just a broader reflection of the fact that they tend to have lower educational achievement, that they have lower incomes, and that translates itself into housing.” It is not an excuse; it is simply saying that good education—reinforcing the importance of that for Māori and Pacific communities, helping them be able to achieve higher incomes—as well as direct assistance around housing is all part of the solution to turn these long-term declines around. I do take responsibility, along with all my colleagues on this side of the House, for raising educational achievement for all young people. We know that gains in educational achievement means gains in economic success. Under this Government, the provisional number of 18-year-olds with National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 has increased for all young people, and the data shows that the largest gains have been made by Māori and Pasifika students, up 62 percent and 54 percent respectively since we took Government. I would put this Government’s record up against that previous Government’s record any day of the week.

Jenny Salesa: Does she think it is acceptable for a Minister to respond to a story about falling homeownership by blaming lower educational achievement, when educational achievement for both Māori and Pasifika has been rising for the past 25 years?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Actually, under that previous Government—we now have 26 to 33-year-olds who are struggling, and they were educated under that Government. However, the point of accurately quoting my colleague was to fully explain that there was no blame attribution; it was simply factual. Lower educational qualifications lead to lower incomes, which leads to lower possibility of participating. That is why, under this Government, we have been focused on raising it, not wringing our hands and shouting abuse.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been answered.

Jenny Salesa: Does she think that when Nick Smith was making that statement he was referring to her performance in delivering 11,500 more young Pasifika not in employment, education, or training?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: No, she does not think that, and if the Opposition wants to ask questions about other members’ quotes, why do they not direct them to them, instead of this silly game here. I am proud of our Government’s record—[Interruption] It is silly; selectively choosing parts of a quote is just silly. I will say again: I would put our Government’s record in terms of education in general, and Māori and Pasifika in particular, against that—including that last night in Auckland, McAuley High School, with a high Pasifika girl population, was selected as the winner of the Prime Minister’s Supreme Award.

Jenny Salesa: Does she believe that Nick Smith was just endorsing Bill English’s statement that a lot of young Kiwis are “pretty damned hopeless”; if so, why?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: No, she does not believe that. I am sorry that member holds such inaccurate beliefs herself.

Jenny Salesa: Has she discussed the Minister’s comments with him; if so, did she advise him to stop blaming Māori and Pasifika and to instead just start building houses?

Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I did discuss it with my colleague, and I totally agree with him that in order to raise economic participation we have to raise educational achievement. That is why this Government has focused on doing exactly that. That is why we have seen the 62 percent and 54 percent gains. They are higher than anything ever produced under that previous Government.

12. Education—Teaching and Leadership

12. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made to celebrate the very best in teaching and leadership?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Last night, the Prime Minister and I were delighted to announce the winners of the annual Prime Minister’s Education Excellence Awards. The awards celebrate the very best in teaching and leadership, and recognise the importance of community and parental engagement. McAuley High School in Ōtāhuhu won the supreme award by creating an environment for educational achievement based on high expectations and strong parental and community connections. The other category winners were: for excellence in leading, Rotorua Boys’ High School; for excellence in teaching and learning, Te Puna Reo o Puhi Kaiti, Gisborne; for excellence in governing, Rangitoto College, Auckland; and the 2016 Education Focus Prize: Health and Well-being went to Karanga Mai Young Parents’ College and Early Learning Centre, Kaiapoi. I want to congratulate all our winners and acknowledge the more than 200 awards’ entrants.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What other initiatives are in place to strengthen and raise the status of the teaching profession?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The Teacher-led Innovation Fund supports teachers to develop innovative practices. The first round of the fund has been completed with 40 research proposals receiving funding. I recently announced its extension for a further 2 years, taking the total amount invested to support innovative teaching practices to $18 million over 5 years. We have also established the independent Education Council to strengthen and raise the status of the profession. We have re-focused teacher professional learning and development on maths, science, reading, and writing as priority areas. We have created new career pathways for teachers in the 117 Communities of Learning. We have also trialled post-graduate teaching programmes like Teach First NZ. Great teachers, great early learning, and great schools transform lives. We want to raise the status of the teaching profession so that more of our kids grow up wanting to become great teachers themselves.

© Scoop Media