• TUESDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Prime Minister—Statements

1. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, how?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes; with fear and trepidation that I am about to be mauled by the member.

Ron Mark: How does he stand by the statement on the new "Parliamentary Palace" that "It just makes sense long term for us to own those premises.", when he does not have the same view on the ownership of State houses or, for that matter, State power companies?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I can assure the House that if that member got anywhere near ever being a Minister, he would be the first one around measuring up the carpets and trying to check that it was a big enough office for his ego. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Ron Mark: If he says "the economics support that view", how much rent has the taxpayer paid for Bowen House since it was sold in 1998 by a National Government that included Ministers English, Brownlee, and the current Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is prime ministerial responsibility—the Rt Hon Prime Minister.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the member will appreciate that (a) I do not have that information. The Speaker's office may have that, as he is someone who is responsible for the parliamentary precinct. Secondly, I was not in Government in 1998, nor was I in Parliament, but Winston Peters was.

Ron Mark: If "the economics support that view" in 2016, does that not mean that the sale of Bowen House by the National Government was hardly prudent economic management on behalf of the hard-pressed taxpayer?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No; I think circumstances change. But one thing that we are aware of now, I think, is that under an MMP environment, where there are changing configurations in Parliament—and, actually, with the increase in security risks, as we saw on Budget day in 2016—it makes sense overall to complete the new parliamentary complex. As I said at my post-Cabinet press conference yesterday, it makes economic sense, and I think it actually makes practical sense for Parliament as an operating unit.

Ron Mark: If the 1998 privatisation of Government buildings, which included Bowen House, was meant to build "a broad Kiwi shareholding democracy", why was the company it was sold to subsequently taken over by Australians and de-listed?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, in so far as there may be some prime ministerial responsibility—the Rt Hon Prime Minister.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, (a) I do not have any knowledge of that, and (b) I do not have any parliamentary responsibility for that. But given that the member is in a party called New Zealand First and that he seems to be opposed to everything that migrants and offshore people do, I would have thought that he would like a parliamentary complex owned by the New Zealand taxpayer, not a building owned by a foreigner. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call Ron Mark, I just need a little less interjection from my right-hand side.

Ron Mark: If in 1997 the cost to build the "Parliamentary Palace" then was $94 million, how could the cost in 2016 possibly be $100 million, particularly when it now includes a rebuild of the press gallery—is it not more likely to be in excess of $200 million?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, in so far as there may be prime ministerial responsibility, the Rt Hon Prime Minister.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, the simple answer is that I do not know what they were proposing in 1997, but my guess is that it was a completely different complex. As the Speaker correctly said yesterday—in his capacity in regard to the parliamentary complex—this makes sense for the taxpayer because the ultimate cost of owning the building over a long period of time is actually cheaper than paying rent. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! A little less interjection now from both sides of the House.

Denis O'Rourke: With regard to his many statements about Kaikōura's post-quake transport priorities, does he see the extension of the Kaikōura Airport runway as an urgent priority for Government funding, to enable larger aircraft safe access for passenger and freight services; if not, why not?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The advice I have is that that is something that the council may have discussions with Ngāi Tahu about. I think that from a freight perspective, realistically, the logical use is not necessarily flying things in all of the time. As was announced yesterday, I think, KiwiRail is looking to get into coastal shipping in a more significant way. That will allow a lot of pressure to be taken off the system by freight trucks, and that will then allow some capacity for more to be trucked, actually, into Kaikōura itself.

Denis O'Rourke: What assurance will he give to Kaikōura residents and businesses that the Government will fund essential upgrades, as well as the current remedial work on the inland road, to provide a resilient and higher-capacity alternative road to Christchurch?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member really needs to direct that question to the Minister of Transport, who has responsibility, via the Transport Agency, for the remedial work on the damaged roads. Clearly, the No. 1 priority is, ultimately, ensuring that there is a stable and long-term, suitable road that would form State Highway 1. But, of course, over time there will be work done to the inland road.

Denis O'Rourke: Will the Government provide funding to KiwiRail and to Lyttelton Port Co. to ensure that a new ferry service is provided between Wellington and Lyttelton, at least for freight?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yesterday KiwiRail indicated, I think, that it was interested in and would be pursuing the coastal shipping option. I think that fits in with the fact that many of the freight operators have indicated a desire to undertake firm commitments on coastal shipping while rail access is unavailable, which it will be for a considerable period of time. What is used and how KiwiRail actually secures that vessel is a matter for a commercial operator.

• Prime Minister—Statements

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that "if you see house prices rising, you might say the Government needs to do more" and "we take responsibility, we need to do a better job of it"?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): As I said in answer to exactly the same question from the member over 3 months ago, "I stand by my full statement, which went on to say 'But just think of the things we have done over the last 2 years alone.' To say we have done nothing is absolutely not true. We have done a lot. So let me remind the House about the Government's comprehensive housing plan. It includes a new $1 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund, over 210 special housing areas for 70,000 new homes, an expanded HomeStart scheme to first-home buyers, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, Resource Management Act reform, a raft of extra tax measures, the new Auckland Unitary Plan, more tools for the Reserve Bank … By any measure, this is a comprehensive housing plan."

Andrew Little: Is he concerned that the average mortgage for a first-home buyer is now 43 percent higher than just 2 years ago?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I saw the member's selective use of data this morning. What I can say is that of course people will be borrowing more, because house prices have risen, but the good news is that they will be paying half the interest rates they were when Labour last left office.

Andrew Little: What proportion of young Kiwi families have the $100,000 deposit needed now to buy the average first home?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have those details; you would need to direct them to the Minister for Building and Housing. But what I do know is that the Government has introduced the KiwiSaver HomeStart scheme, which enables a great many young families to get support from the Government. Many of them are required to have only a 10 percent deposit because of, effectively, the Welcome Home Loan scheme, and the like. There are, as we know, plenty of first-home buyers coming into the market. For instance, since the Reserve Bank series began in August 2014, the number of first-home buyers per month has increased by over 50 percent, from 1,277 to 1,967.

Andrew Little: Does he still not see that rising house prices are just shutting young people out of buying their first home?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think when the member sees the most recent data that will be released, he will actually see that the raft of changes that have been made by both the Reserve Bank and the Government are seeing more first-home buyers actually coming into the market.

Andrew Little: Does he agree with his finance Minister that interest rates are likely to rise next year; if so, what impact will this have on young families with large mortgages?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am glad the member has raised interest rates, because they were a disgrace under the previous Labour Government. The good news is that under the careful economic management of the finance Minister, interest rates have halved. Yes, they may go up a tiny amount, on the basis that interest rates are so low that deposit rates are lower at the moment, and therefore banks have to borrow a little bit more from offshore. Actually, the offshore market is subject to all sorts of things beyond New Zealand's control, including a more stimulatory policy from the United States President-elect.

Andrew Little: Given that answer, can he confirm that the gap between New Zealand and US interest rates was 2.8 percent across his time in office, and 2.8 percent across Labour's last term in Government; if so, why is he trying to claim responsibility for global interest rates?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, I cannot confirm that gap, but I can confirm that the gap between Labour and National was 22 percent in the last poll.

Andrew Little: Why does he not just adopt Labour's Kiwi Build programme, build some affordable homes, and give young people a fair shot at the Kiwi Dream, instead of crippling them with dangerously large mortgages on overpriced houses?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because the voters know that it is a load of rubbish, and that is why the Labour Party is polling 28 percent.

Marama Davidson: Given that under this Government too many people are unable to afford a home and the planned offload of hundreds of State homes in Invercargill and Horowhenua has failed, why is he now planning to try to transfer thousands of State homes in Christchurch?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Sorry, Mr Speaker—could the member please repeat the question.

Marama Davidson: Given that under this Government too many people are unable to afford a home and the planned offload of hundreds of State homes in Invercargill and Horowhenua has failed, why is he now planning to try to transfer thousands of State homes in Christchurch?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As the member probably knows, the transfer of State houses in Christchurch is all about increasing the number of community housing providers and social housing providers in that market. So the advantage of that, of course, is that it allows the Government to use that capital to build even more State houses, with better configurations, in places that they are required. That is also why the Government changed the previous policy, which locked out social housing providers from getting access to income-related rents. As a result of this policy, which has widely been endorsed right across New Zealand, we are now going to see more community houses, State houses, and social houses provided to families in need.

Marama Davidson: Will he insist on pushing through this failing policy of shrinking the Housing New Zealand stock in the face of opposition like the Press editorial, which said yesterday: "It is hard not to feel dismayed by the dreary lack of ambition … and to wonder whether the Government is simply washing its hands of one of its most important and central roles."?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What that shows you is that that editorial writer does not understand what is happening, and that is because what is happening here is that the number of social houses in New Zealand is dramatically increasing. These are not being sold to a private developer; they are increasing because there are now more social housing providers. That money will be used to build new houses in locations where they are required, like Auckland.

• Economic Growth—Reports

3. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Finance: What international reports has he received showing New Zealand's economic growth remains robust?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The OECD recently released its 6-month economic outlook forecasting that New Zealand will continue to grow at around 3 percent over the next 2 years. It is moved along by high net immigration, rapid growth in housing construction, and a flourishing tourism sector. It forecasts unemployment will drop to 4.9 percent; that wage growth is strong in construction, finance, and healthcare; and the OECD points out that the Government's books are in reasonable shape.

Sarah Dowie: What does the OECD report say about New Zealand's fiscal position and resilience?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The OECD points to, I think, well-understood risks to the resilience of the New Zealand economy, and those are house prices, household debt, and the economic prospects of our trading partners. However, a number of factors maintain New Zealand's ability to deal with any external or internal economic challenges: relatively low net debt and Government surpluses. The OECD points out that New Zealand has room for further monetary policy stimulus if necessary, and notes that the Reserve Bank has tightened loan-to-value ratios in the housing market.

Sarah Dowie: How does New Zealand's economic and fiscal position compare with other OECD countries?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Pretty good. The OECD counts New Zealand as one of seven countries in the OECD that are on track to a fiscal surplus. Over the next 2 years New Zealand will be in the top third of OECD countries on the following measures: fiscal balance, gross debt, net debt, GDP growth, and fixed capital formation. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The level of interjection now coming from my immediate left has been continual since the start of question time. If I need to ask a member to leave to get some cooperation from my left, I will certainly not hesitate to do so.

Sarah Dowie: What reports has he received on the economic outlook in the United Kingdom, and how does this compare with New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have often compared ourselves with the UK, and last week it released its autumn statement. Growth in the UK has been revised down to 1.4 percent, and is expected to stay below 2 percent through to 2021 while it tries to balance its budget between 2020 and 2025. Where the New Zealand Government's net debt is tracking down to 20 percent of GDP, the UK net debt is now expected to peak at 90 percent of GDP in 2018.

• Health, Ministry—Data Manipulation and District Health Boards

4. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: On what date was the Ministry of Health first made aware of data manipulation of the six-hour Emergency Department target by district health boards?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): People have raised issues around the detail of the health targets, on and off, for 7 years. However, when I was down at the emergency medicine conference in Queenstown last Monday, clinicians told me that they strongly support the 6-hour emergency department (ED) target because it has improved the quality of care right across our hospitals. As shown by recent Auckland University research, the ED target has reduced crowding in emergency departments by 50 percent, and, very importantly, it has literally saved 700 lives per year since its introduction, and that is a very real achievement.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was on notice and it was specific: "On what date was the Ministry of Health first made aware of data manipulation of the six-hour Emergency Department target by district health boards?". The Minister did not answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: I listened very carefully to the answer given, and my interpretation was that the Minister was saying that that information has been coming in on a very regular basis—I think he quoted over 7 years. The way forward is that I will provide the member with an additional supplementary question.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I also listened carefully to the answer. The Minister spoke about health targets in general and people making comments about health targets, not this specific target.

Mr SPEAKER: I have heard the point. I have invited the member to ask an additional supplementary question. That is the way forward.

Hon Annette King: On what date was the Ministry of Health first made aware of data manipulation of the six-hour Emergency Department target by district health boards—on what date?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I reject the central premise of that question, but, as I said in my opening answer, people have been raising issues around the health targets, including the ED target, on and off, for 7 years. The fact is that the ED target has saved 700 lives a year and has reduced crowding in EDs by 50 percent across our hospitals. That is a major achievement.

Hon Annette King: If he has been assured of the integrity of the health targets—that they are sound, as he has claimed publicly—why is he asking officials to investigate?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, whenever Mrs King raises an allegation, I have found that it pays to go and check it. That is why.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not raise this issue; it was raised by research by Dr Peter Jones. So to say that I raised it is completely wrong and not telling the truth.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That now becomes a debating matter, not a point of order. I invite the member to continue with her supplementary question.

Hon Annette King: Does he disagree with Dr Jones' finding that data manipulation occurs mostly in sites that were inadequately resourced to match the pressure put on staff in district health boards (DHBs) to meet his target?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I do not think Dr Jones has said that. I mean, I can quote you here what Dr Jones has said. He said: "The length of time people stay in hospitals across the country has reduced on average by about 7 hours since the target was first introduced." He said: "Emergency department stays for all patients have reduced by over an hour, and for patients needing admission to hospital by about 3 hours." He said: "Where I work at Auckland City Hospital, the average time it takes for patients to get to the ward from the emergency department once the decision to admit them to hospital has been made has been reduced significantly, from eight hours to … one and a half hours.", and then it goes on to say—he says this direct quote: "We found the introduction of the six-hour target was associated with a substantial 50 per cent reduction in the number of patient deaths in emergency departments—that's about 700 fewer deaths than predicted … This result mirrors the 50 per cent reduction in emergency department crowding." And I can tell the member that I was a house surgeon with Peter Jones. I know him well, and he is a big fan of this target—a big supporter of it. He said, when it first came in, that he was initially sceptical, but now he says it is one of the best things the Government has done for EDs.

Hon Annette King: Who has directed Waikato District Health Board to shuffle resources around to focus on first specialist assessment at the expense of follow-up appointments and elective surgery, leading to fewer elective hip and knee surgeries, with 831 performed in 2015-16 compared with 966 the year before?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look, what I can tell that member is that, actually, Waikato DHB has performed extremely well on elective surgery over time. There has been more and more money going into that particular DHB, and the idea that Waikato is not producing more appointments, more operations, and better access to services for people in the Waikato DHB catchment area is completely incorrect.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act (OIA) response dated 25 November 2016 for Waikato District Health Board showing that it did fewer hip and knee elective discharges in 2015-16 compared with the year before, as I said in my question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last part is unnecessary. Leave is sought to table that particular OIA response. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I seek leave to table the increase in Waikato's elective surgical discharges, also in its hip and knee discharges, progressively over the last 8 years.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I need to put the leave. Does the member—[Interruption] Let me put the leave first. We will tidy that. Leave is sought to table that information of output by Waikato District Health Board. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The document that I am tabling goes back to 2002, right up to 2015-16, so, in fact, when I was given approval to table it, I was already tabling what the Minister wants to table.

Mr SPEAKER: When the member sought leave to table her document, she quite specifically compared 2015-16 with the year previously. That is the information that I put to the House, and it decided to table that information.

Hon Annette King: Is he saying that orthopaedic clinical director Stewart Hardy was not telling the truth when he told management of Waikato District Health Board that "My other concern is that individual surgeons are now being approached to cancel their operating lists to do FSA [First Specialist Assessment] clinics."?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Unlike the member, I do not go around accusing other people of not telling the truth.

• Earthquake Recovery—Support for Businesses

5. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for Economic Development: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding support for earthquake-affected businesses?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Following the 14 November earthquake, the Government announced an initial support package for businesses in and around Kaikōura. Since that time, Ministers have been working closely with other affected communities and industries on the type of further support that may be needed. Yesterday social development Minister, Anne Tolley, and I announced the extension of the Government's business support package to severely affected Wellington businesses. The package will support businesses not covered by their insurance that are unable to operate due to cordons in place in the Wellington CBD and Lower Hutt, and are unable to move and operate elsewhere. The Government will continue to monitor the situation in other parts of the country affected by the earthquakes, and would encourage anybody who is struggling as a result of them to contact the Government helpline.

Chris Bishop: How does the situation in Wellington differ from Kaikōura and surrounding areas?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Wellington overall is functioning very well. A local state of emergency has not been declared, so the main impact has been felt by a relatively small number of businesses stuck behind cordons that have been put up in the days since the earthquake. So, although the level of funding will be the same per business—that is, $500 a week per full-time permanent employee and $300 a week per part-time permanent employee—we have limited it to businesses behind those cordons that are unable to operate or move elsewhere, recognising that, largely, Wellington is open for business. The situation in and around Kaikōura of course is quite different, as it was clear from the first day that it would take a lot of time to restore road access to the town and surrounding towns. So, in that case, most businesses are able to open, in fact, but do not have the customers able to return to Kaikōura.

Paul Foster-Bell: What other support is the Government providing to those affected by the earthquake?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Following consultation with the Kaikōura community, we extended the initial support package to cover larger businesses there as well. Although set for an initial 8-week period, that will be reviewed before Christmas to assess what sort of extension is required. Revenue Minister Michael Woodhouse has announced a range of measures to help those affected by the earthquake, including waiving the use-of-money interest when a person is unable to pay tax on time and the cancellation of late filing and late payment penalties. Primary industries Minister Nathan Guy has announced a primary sector relief package worth at least $5 million to lessen impacts on farmers, fishers, and growers, with a further $2 million for scientific research on the impact of the earthquake on fisheries around Kaikōura. Minister Guy and I are working closely with the wine industry in Marlborough to ensure that roadblocks to its recovery are removed, particularly in relation to storage capacity for the 2017 vintage.

James Shaw: If it transpires that there are businesses in Wellington that are at risk of going to the wall but do not meet the existing criteria, for example, being behind a cordon, how flexible is he willing to be with the criteria in order to ensure that businesses that need that support get it?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As we have said since the beginning of this period post the earthquakes, we are happy to adapt the package as required from time to time. I would encourage anybody in that situation to call the Government helpline—for the member's benefit, it is 0800 779 997—or talk to their local chamber of commerce, the Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce, or the Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce. Obviously, we cannot attempt to protect everybody from the turnover impacts of this particular event. What we can do, though, is provide support for them to be able to retain their full-time employees if they are unable to operate for a period of time, which is completely out of their control.

• Building and Housing, Minister—Statements

6. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Ka tū a ia i runga i te mana o tana kōrero, "The proportion of New Zealanders living in rental homes is not changing dramatically and owner-occupiers will remain the dominant living arrangement for most Kiwi families into the future" i te mea, ā, e ai ki ngā tatauranga hou, nō mai anō i te tau Kotahi mano, iwa rau, rima tekau mā tahi, i taka ai te hunga whiwhi i tōna ake whare, ki raro rā nō?

[Does he stand by his statement that "The proportion of New Zealanders living in rental homes is not changing dramatically and owner-occupiers will remain the dominant living arrangement for most Kiwi families into the future" given that home ownership is at its lowest level since 1951, according to the latest census?]

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): Yes. The latest census data has homeownership at 65 percent, which is more than double the 31 percent who are renting. The 65 percent compares with 68 percent in 2001. A decline of 3 percent since 2001 is not dramatic, and I am confident it will be reversed by the wide-ranging housing programme the Government has under way, of which the most important part is freeing up land supply and reform of the Resource Management Act—which the Greens have consistently opposed.

Metiria Turei: Is the Minister aware that more than half of all Aucklanders live in rental homes, according to Statistics New Zealand?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is no question that the issues in Auckland are connected to the flawed policies of a metropolitan urban limit that has seen house prices more than treble. It is ironic that the Green members, who have actually championed those tight urban constraints, now complain about its consequences. The important thing is that the Government has broken through that through the use of both the special housing areas and now Auckland's new unitary plan.

Metiria Turei: Why is the Minister trying to deflect blame when under this Government's watch Auckland is now the most expensive city in the world to buy a home in, relative to income?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, I dispute that. I was in Sydney last week meeting with the housing Minister of New South Wales, and, actually, house prices in Sydney have been similar to those in Auckland. Interestingly, last Friday they embarked on a reform programme very similar to the new unitary plan and the new policy statements around urban development that will free up land supply and make homes more affordable for people like those in the city of Auckland.

Simon O'Connor: How has the affordability of homes changed since 2000, and what measures does the Government have in place to improve affordability?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Home affordability was hammered during the period 2000-2008 when average national house prices doubled and interest rates went from 6 percent to 11 percent. Since 2008, interest rates have more than halved to the lowest level in 60 years. Owning a home is actually now 30 percent more affordable, on average, across New Zealand than when we became the Government. The exception is Auckland, where poor planning policies have artificially driven up land prices, but the combination of new supply and the unitary plan is now seeing the house prices there cool.

Metiria Turei: In response to the Minister's admission that Auckland housing is in a crisis, will he consider implementing the Green Party's progressive ownership rent-to-buy programme, which would help Kiwi families, especially those in Auckland, into their first home and save them more than $100 a week compared with a commercial mortgage?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have seen the Green Party's housing policies, and they rely on voodoo economics. That is that somehow the Government—

Hon Bill English: Just like Labour.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Just like Labour; the Minister of Finance does make the correct analogy—that Labour and the Greens' promise to build 100,000 homes with less than 1 percent of the money that is required is nothing more than a joke.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister expect that homeownership rates will continue to fall, given that people who are earning decent incomes, who would traditionally have been able to buy their homes, are now shackled with student debt, and for many years after they graduate?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am confident that Kiwi families will improve their homeownership with the Government's policies. For instance, through the new unitary plan there has been a trebling in the amount of Government support through HomeStart for first-home buyers. There has also been an increase to half a billion dollars a year of support through the KiwiSaver schemes, and it is the maturing of those initiatives that will reverse a trend that has been 25 years long.

Metiria Turei: Is the Minister denying the evidence that came out today that first-home buyers are now having to borrow something like $400,000 in order to afford their own home; and what does it say about the Government's economic mismanagement that university graduates, who used to be able to afford to buy their own home, now cannot do so because the prices are too high.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that if those figures are translated—and it is actually not $400,000—$340,000 is the average first home mortgage, and with interest rates at the lowest level that they have been in 60 years, a person would be paying less on average than they would by renting. But the greatest irony I find in the Green Party's policy, which it announced just this week, is that it is going to provide the maximum support for university graduates, who actually have the highest rates of homeownership. That is where the Government's HomeStart scheme is far more equitable.

Metiria Turei: Why does the Minister not just admit that his Government's housing and economic policies have failed when even highly educated, well-paid university graduates cannot afford to buy their own home in this country?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Quite the contrary; I would draw the member's attention to the latest OECD report, which shows that the New Zealand economy is performing better than pretty much any other economy in the OECD. Secondly, in respect of housing, the boom in the level of housing that is being built across New Zealand, now up to nearly 30,000 homes per year, shows that the Government's measures to increase supply are working.

• Earthquake Recovery—Support for Primary Industries

7. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcements has he made regarding support for earthquake-affected primary sectors?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): I have seen first-hand the major impact that the earthquakes have had on farmers, fishers, and the wine industry. For the land-based primary sector, the Government has announced funding of least $5 million, including a $4 million mayoral disaster relief fund to help with damage to non-insurable items such as tracks on farm bridges and water infrastructure. That will open on 1 December—this week. There is extra funding to create rural recovery coordinators, support the rural support trust, and mobilise skilled workers for farm recovery work, and also there are rural assistance payments available through Work and Income. For the fisheries, the Government has announced a temporary closure of shellfish harvesting along the earthquake-affected area, and a $2 million package to investigate the impact of the earthquakes on these fisheries.

Stuart Smith: How will these measures help those affected primary sectors get back on their feet?

Hon NATHAN GUY: They will assist farmers and growers with critical access to isolated parts of their farms, and they will help with issues like damaged water supply for their livestock. For the fisheries, the temporary closures and research will help assess the extent of the losses of the affected stocks, and help inform any future management decisions that need to be made. Can I take this opportunity to thank the local member for his hard work and dedication in supporting his community.

• Treasury Forecasts—Prime Minister's Statements

8. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister's statement that Treasury forecasts are "a load of nonsense, because they can't get predictions in 44 days right, let alone 44 years"?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I always agree with the Prime Minister, although, I would state my views about Treasury forecasts somewhat more generously. It has a reasonable track record, but that does not mean it is always right—for instance, when Treasury issued its Challenges and Choices: New Zealand's Long-term Fiscal Statement in 2009 it suggested that net Government debt would reach 223 percent by 2050. Last week when it updated that statement, the estimate is now around half of that—124 percent of GDP. So you can believe either that the forecasts were wrong or that the Government is doing a good job of getting on top of long-term fiscal pressures.

Grant Robertson: Why does he think the Prime Minister has changed his tune on the reliability of Treasury forecasts between Saturday and Monday, given that he is now spending Treasury's forecast surpluses before he has earned them?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can assure the member that the Prime Minister is not spending the surpluses before they have been earned. In fact, the Prime Minister is very reserved in his expectations of being able to throw money around, partly because, actually, he is just a very accomplished political leader and does not have to try to buy votes the way the Labour Party does.

Grant Robertson: Does he regard tax cuts as a greater priority than restarting contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: These things, of course, in the first place, are not mutually exclusive and, secondly, the Government has had a consistent policy about restarting contributions to the Superannuation Fund, which is that when net debt reaches 20 percent of GDP, it will restart contributions. But the member should read the long-term fiscal statement, because what it will show is that because the Government has taken a measured approach with Government spending, the long-term cost problem is not as large as it used to be.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, why did he backtrack on his commitment to restart contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund when the Government reached surplus, especially in light of the projections of superannuation costs in the Treasury long-term fiscal statement?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The point about the Treasury forecast—the long-term forecast—is simply this: the participation rate, that is, the proportion of working-age population in the workforce, is much greater than was expected 15 years ago, and over time it means that the economy is bigger and that means it has got more ability to carry the costs of national superannuation. I thought the member would be pleased about that rather than unhappy.

Grant Robertson: Why did he backtrack on his commitment to restart contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund when the Government reached surplus?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not sure what the member is referring to—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, the Government position as articulated in the last Budget was that when debt gets to 20 percent of GDP we will restart contributions to the Superannuation Fund. We have had the odd challenge along the way—like the Kaikōura earthquake, which is probably going to cost quite a bit; that makes it a little bit harder—but the Government can still manage.

David Seymour: Should the New Zealand public have confidence in the usefulness of Treasury's statements on the long-term fiscal position; and if not, will the Government consider amending the Public Finance Act so it no longer has to produce such "nonsense"?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The requirement is in the Public Finance Act as a result of bipartisan support across Parliament. The usefulness of the long-term forecasts every 4 years is to demonstrate to politicians and to the public that there are long-term consequences of what look like short-term decisions. The good news about this most recent forecast is that if you compare this long-term statement with previous ones, Treasury, despite itself, has to report something that is a little bit less gloomy. It prefers to report that things are going to go really badly, but, actually, they are not going to go as badly as Treasury thought.

• Building and Housing, Auckland—Announcements and Reports

9. ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister for Building and Housing: What additional Auckland housing projects did he announce during last week's recess, and what are the latest reports on the growth in construction across Auckland showing?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): Last week I announced two additions to the Crown-land programme. The first is a 120-apartment complex at Great North Road, on former New Zealand Transport Agency and Housing New Zealand Corporation land, all of which will be for social housing, with the first house to be completed late next year and the development to be completed in 2019. I also announced a second development, with local MP Alfred Ngaro, on Te Atatū Peninsula, where we have secured a site for an additional 60 apartments. These projects are part of the record residential building activity in Auckland that has seen growth of 32 percent over the past year, on top of 4 years of 25 percent compound growth. I am doubtful of any alternative policy that claims you can grow a complex sector like building any faster than this.

Alfred Ngaro: What independent measures are there to support the Government figures for the construction boom in Auckland?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There are numerous measures, such as GDP, employment, and consenting activity, which all show Auckland is at record levels of construction. A very practical measure is the Crane Index from international firm Rider Levett Bucknall, which tracks crane activity in different cities across the world. The Auckland Crane Index is at an all-time record of 64, up from 33 a year ago. This number compares with 28 in New York, 40 in LA, and 24 in San Francisco, reinforcing that Auckland's construction boom is globally significant.

Phil Twyford: Can he confirm that his own officials say that new housing supply in Auckland is currently running 8,000 dwellings per year behind demand and that the shortfall of housing in Auckland is now expected to persist beyond 2030?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No. Over the last 4 years, we have had 25 percent compound growth. That is 25 percent more every year in a row for 4 years, and in the last year, it has grown by 32 percent. I would simply say to the member opposite that growing a sector that is as large and complex as building, at those sorts of rates, is actually phenomenal and shows that there is more residential building activity in Auckland right now than ever in the city's history.

• Earthquake Commission—Confidence

10. Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Is he confident EQC will be employing the necessary resource to process and settle claims, from both the Canterbury earthquake sequence and the earthquake sequence of a fortnight ago, after 16 December; if so, why?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): Yes; the Earthquake Commission (EQC) is actively engaging with the private insurers and the Insurance Council of New Zealand to come up with a more innovative way of dealing with things. These are matters for EQC and its management, but I believe them to be on the right track.

Dr Megan Woods: Is EQC currently pursuing a memorandum of understanding with private insurance companies to undertake the inspection and management of claims; if so, does he intend to sign off that memorandum?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, for the question in the first part, I can say that those discussions are, I believe, taking place. The second part of the question asked me to put the cart before the horse; I am not going to do that.

Dr Megan Woods: How does he expect homeowners to get a fair deal on their earthquake claims when a private insurer has the power to determine whether a claim is under cap or over cap; is that not a blatant conflict of interest?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, I am now really quite confused. The member has spent the last however many years she has been in this House criticising everything EQC does, and now when we look to something that is slightly more innovative, that is wrong too. We care about those people. We want them to get a good deal, and that will be what they are delivered through EQC and any arrangements they have.

Dr Megan Woods: What specific protections will be put in place to protect claimants from the clear conflict of interest of private insurance companies self-determining whether they have any liability beyond the EQC cap?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Mr Speaker, this answer may take a little longer than would normally be the case. I need to take that time, because, clearly, the member asking the question does not understand the link between—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will just have the answer.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —EQC and the private insurer. So here is the first bit. In 1992 or thereabouts, the private insurance market decided that it was no longer going to cover earthquake damage in New Zealand. As a consequence of that, the Government went into negotiations with insurers at the time. The position that was reached was that the Government, through EQC, would supply cover for the first $100,000 worth of damage on a property, plus GST. In addition, it would take the first $20,000 worth of contents damage, plus GST, where the damage was caused by an earthquake. For that, a premium was struck—and is regularly struck—by the board of EQC, and charged through the private insurer. No one has a direct relationship, in an account sense, with EQC; they do with their private insurer, but the obligation through the private insurer to its client is through EQC. Anyone should be able to see that they are intricately linked, and to suggest that there is some advantage to one over the other is an utter nonsense because it would be easy for EQC to discharge all of its responsibilities by simply either paying cheques or turning them over to the private sector. And, as the member knows, for the last 6 years in Christchurch, getting to a point where people do get the right result has not been easy. Those allegations she makes today—

Mr SPEAKER: Bring the answer to a conclusion.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —are irresponsible, reckless, and show a total ignorance of how the market works.

Dr Megan Woods: Given that he has now conceded the debacle that Canterbury has been, will he offer a guarantee to every homeowner lodging a new claim that they will get a fair deal and be dealt with in a timely manner, or is he going to give them the run-around like he has Cantabrians?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Had that member taken a slightly—just slightly—more positive attitude to the circumstances people find themselves in in Canterbury, she may have got a better rating in the Trans Tasman MP stakes. All I will say is this: the guarantee to people in Kaikōura is that they will get what their policies entitle them to.

• Epsom Community Policing Centre—Closure

11. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Police: What reassurance can she give to Epsom residents concerned that their Community Policing Centre will cease to operate after 24 years?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): I can advise the member that I have asked the same question of Police, because I very much understand the value of a community police presence. I have sought assurance that Epsom residents will have continued access to our excellent New Zealand Police service. Police has assured me that police staff will remain very much visible and working in Epsom. Police staff will continue to hold weekly community clinics in Epsom, as well as maintaining the presence of a community constable and continuing with foot patrols, school visits, and community policing as usual.

David Seymour: Will the Minister consider setting policy for Police such that the rent paid for premises for community policing centres might keep up with rising property values across the Auckland region?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am sure that that would be actually quite outside ministerial control under the Policing Act 2008.

David Seymour: In light of a reduction in hours of attendance by police at the policing centre, does the Minister anticipate that police numbers will increase to reduce pressure on that duty, as well as others faced by the police across the Auckland region?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am sure that that member has heard both the Prime Minister and me state that there will, in fact, need to be an increase in resourcing in to the future, and I expect that he will want to wait for that announcement.

David Seymour: Does the Minister see the value in a monthly newsletter circulated by volunteers at the centre, including tips for fighting crime for residents and crime statistics provided to them by local police?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes.

Stuart Nash: Are there any plans to permanently close any more community policing centres, other than those in Ellerslie, Panmure, and Epsom, which were confirmed over the weekend?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That decision would be made by the Police—it is an operational decision—and, as far as I am aware, no.

Stuart Nash: Are there any plans to reopen the Mount Roskill station to the public, as it was for many years before it was recently closed?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am sure that member is fully aware that the matter is simply being addressed around the health and safety issues of volunteers in that particular kiosk. I would also say to him that I am, however, very soon, about to open a new police station in the city of Napier. I am sure that the local member would want to congratulate the Police on what an excellent station it is going to be.

David Seymour: In light of the Minister's quite proper inability to intervene in operational matters of the Police, what are residents concerned about a lack of funding for community policing centre premises able to do to have their concerns heard?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Obviously, the local member has raised the issue quite properly, and it is a matter that I am sure the Police are listening to. In relation to resourcing of police, New Zealand Police is currently at an incredibly high level of public satisfaction—I think it is now 84 percent, which is a long way from the 28 percent of some other parties.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I believe that the people of Epsom will see some very good progress in the future.

• Wine Industry—Exports

12. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What announcements has he made recently that support the continued growth of the New Zealand wine export market?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I was pleased to see the near-unanimous support from this House for the successful passage of the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill. The bill will enable New Zealand wine and spirits makers to register the geographical origins of their products. Registration of geographical indications (GIs) will facilitate the development and protection of regional reputations for wine and spirits products within New Zealand and overseas. We have an industry that has been phenomenally successful these past few years. It was in 1998 that the industry cracked $100 million in exports. Today that figure is $1.6 billion, and rising fast. We know that the country's wines already attract a premium in foreign markets. The geographical indications bill provides another tool to help the industry to preserve and build on that premium.

Ian McKelvie: What will the geographical indications bill do when it comes into force?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: That is a very good question. Once the Act enters into force, New Zealand wine producers will be able to apply to register their geographical indications in New Zealand. A geographical indication is a name—usually a regional name—that is used to identify the origins of goods where a certain quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the goods is related, in an essential way, to the geographical origin. Having the New Zealand GI will also make it possible for New Zealand producers to apply to register in certain key markets. If a New Zealand GI is registered in another country, New Zealand wine producers will be able to take action against producers misusing it. This will help the producers to protect the premium position of New Zealand wines in overseas markets.

Ian McKelvie: What has the response been from stakeholders? [Interruption]

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I know it is sometimes painful to hear good news, but New Zealand Winegrowers, an organisation that has approximately 850 grower members and 700 winery members, has welcomed the world-class registration system established by this Act, noting that it will provide a solid platform for New Zealand wine producers to promote our wines and regions—and in international markets. This is just another step that we can take as a country to grow our export markets and to deliver jobs and opportunities for all New Zealanders.

© Scoop Media