• ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Economic Programme—Fiscal Strategy

1. ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Finance: What is the Government doing to improve New Zealand's long-term fiscal sustainability?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): This Government is making a number of important policy decisions to best serve New Zealand's long-term interests. For example, we announced yesterday the Government's intention to lift the age of entitlement of New Zealand superannuation from 65 years of age to 67 years of age, starting in 20 years' time, in 2037. This is a fair and responsible thing to do. Although New Zealand has a more affordable superannuation scheme than most developed countries, the increasing costs due to an ageing population would require future trade-offs, either restricting spending increases in areas like health or education or increasing taxes. Making this change over a reasonable time frame gives today's younger New Zealanders the ability to plan with certainty for their retirement in the future.

Alastair Scott: Who will be affected by this change and how will it affect the amount of New Zealand superannuation they receive? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The level of interjection is making it hard for me to hear what the Minister's answer is going to be.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Firstly, let me say that all current superannuitants are not affected at all by these changes. In fact, only those born on or after 1 January 1974 will be impacted by the full 2-year change. Increasing the age allows us to keep pace with increasing life expectancy. A retiree turning 65 today can expect to spend just under one-quarter of their life, on average, receiving New Zealand superannuation. By 2041 a 67-year-old, similarly, will expect to live just under one-quarter of their life on New Zealand superannuation as a result of increased life expectancy.

David Seymour: In light of the Minister's answer to the primary question, is this something the Government is doing, or something it forecasts some future Government will do, long after the Minister himself has retired?

Chris Hipkins: Good question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Then we will hear the answer.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the hint there is in the question, which is about New Zealand's long-term fiscal sustainability, and, actually, Governments do have a responsibility to be thinking and acting in the longer-term interests of New Zealand. It is, of course, the right of any future Government to change any piece of legislation it sees fit, but, actually, if you look at the life expectancy of New Zealanders, which is increasing at about the rate of 1.3 years every decade, it would be irresponsible at this stage of the process, where we have the opportunity looking out 20 years, not to be thinking about these sorts of issues.

Alastair Scott: What other changes are you making? [Interruption] To the—[Interruption]

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

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We have a point of order from Chris Hipkins.

Chris Hipkins: The member asking the question is not a new member and knows that that is not an appropriate way to ask a question.

Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the member Alastair Scott to re-ask the question in full.

Alastair Scott: Other than the answers that you have given so far regarding New Zealand superannuation, what other changes are you making?

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I just require substantially fewer interjections coming from my left. If Chris Hipkins has a point of order, I will hear it.

Chris Hipkins: I think the members on this side of the House would very much like to know what changes you, Mr Speaker, are proposing to make to superannuation, but that is not a question that is in order.

Mr SPEAKER: And that is not a helpful point of order. We will hear the answer—the Hon Steven Joyce.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. All the rules of the House are very clear that questions have to be asked in the third person; otherwise, they are questions to you, as the Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I would be grateful if the member would please familiarise himself with Standing Orders and Speakers' rulings. I refer him particularly to Speaker's ruling 31/3.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government is also proposing to increase the residency requirements for New Zealand superannuation, so that applicants must have lived in New Zealand for 20 years, with 5 of those after the age of 50. That is double the previous requirement of 10 years. Increasing the residency requirements brings New Zealand more into line with other countries and focuses superannuation more on those people who have paid taxes and made a contribution to New Zealand. It should be noted that this change will not affect anyone who is already resident of or a citizen of New Zealand when the legislation is passed.

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

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order, Chris Hipkins—and I hope, before the member starts, that he is not in any way attempting to relitigate a decision I made regarding his earlier point of order.

Chris Hipkins: No, I am not.

Mr SPEAKER: Because if he were to do that, I would deal with it very severely.

Chris Hipkins: Speaker's ruling 31/3(1) refers to debate; it does not refer to questions, and questions are, in fact, covered by different Speakers' rulings.

Mr SPEAKER: I would be grateful if the member would then familiarise himself with Speaker's ruling 31/3(2): "application of this ruling is at the sole discretion of the Speaker".

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I suggest, from a legal point of view, that the application may be at your discretion, but that discretion is as to the application when it is to do with speeches, not questions.

Mr SPEAKER: I have heard the point of order and I have made a ruling, and that will be the end of the matter. But if I am not going to get more cooperation, then I will not hesitate to be asking members to leave the Chamber. It has been very noisy to date; I am prepared to have a reasonable amount of interjection, but the way that question time has been conducted so far will only bring this House into disrepute, and I will not put up with it for much longer.

Marama Fox: In light of the Minister's reference to life expectancy, where inequity exists in regard to life expectancy for groups of people, will the Minister consider flexible arrangements for those affected groups; if not, why not?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government has said that it would legislate for a review of any transition requirements to be considered in 2030, because then we will have more understanding of the nature of people working over the intervening 13 years. That will be for the Parliament then to address. But in terms of ethnicity, for example, the good news for the member is that the life expectancy of different ethnic groups in New Zealand—including, of course, Māori—is steadily improving. The gap with other ethnic groups is getting smaller, and I am certainly hopeful that that gap will have closed up—indeed, that is the projection—substantially by the time this particular policy comes into place.

David Seymour: Given the Minister's answers that adjustments to the age of entitlement to superannuation are good and necessary, and his concession that this Government cannot bind future Governments, why does his Government not start adjusting the age now?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Because—for the member's benefit—actually, it would be unfair to start adjusting the age now at a period of time that would be very close to the day's date. Those people would not have the opportunity to adjust the way they approached their life decisions when they were close to retirement. I think it would be very unreasonable to do as some parties have proposed in the past, and suggest that it happen over less than a 10-year period, because once people get into those age groups where they are not far from retiring, they do not have the opportunity to respond to a long-term decision like this. The member can, of course, make that argument, but I think this approach is much fairer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it the Government's policy on this and other matters to prop up members of Parliament, give them jobs that are way above their quality, ability, and talent, and then put up with impertinent questions whilst they try to demonstrate that they are not National Government doormats?

Hon Member: I don't think you should describe Winston Peters like that.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: With the greatest respect, I think the member might be describing his own party.

Alastair Scott: What aspects of the New Zealand superannuation scheme will remain the same?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government remains committed to the universal aspect of New Zealand superannuation, with no means testing or asset testing. In addition, we remain committed to New Zealand superannuation being indexed to 66 percent of the average weekly wage. It is worth noting that the weekly payments to superannuitants have increased by 35 percent after tax since 2008, compared with inflation over the same period of 14 percent. Finally, KiwiSaver will continue to be available to savers once they turn 65.

David Seymour: If the Minister believes a sudden adjustment in the age of entitlement to superannuation would be unfair, why does he not start early and adjust it more gradually, rather than proposing to lump the entire cost on millennials long after he himself has reached retirement age?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I thank the member for referring to my youthful nature. It is important to note that what is actually happening here is that life expectancy is increasing by 1.3 years every decade. If we make a change 20 years from now to superannuation, and extend it a further 2 years, people who retire at 67 in 2040 will spend a slightly longer proportion of their lives on superannuation, on average, than somebody who retires today at 65. I think the increased life expectancy is a good thing—I think most people agree with that—but it is important that we ensure we are not increasing the burden, not on this next generation but on the one after, who will end up paying national superannuation.

David Seymour: Is the Minister seriously suggesting that increases in life expectancy do not begin until 2037?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. The member should listen more carefully to the answer, with respect. What I had pointed out is that over that period life expectancy is increasing, and then when we make the change, actually, the percentage of life people will spend on superannuation will be, as I say, slightly more than it is today. The reason we are not changing it in the meantime is that those closer to retirement have far less time to adjust their living expenses and conditions to cope with the change, and that is just being fair.

David Seymour: How does the Minister reconcile that answer with the fact that every country cited in the Government's information sheet on this topic, including Australia, the United Kingdom, Denmark, the Netherlands, Ireland, Germany, Italy, and the United States, are all making that adjustment within the 2020s and will finish making their adjustment 7 years before his proposed adjustment even begins?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Because our cost of superannuation is significantly lower as a percentage of our economy than those other countries, on average. The average cost of superannuation to OECD countries is 9 percent; ours is currently around 4.5 percent, which gives New Zealand time to make the change in a more gradual manner. I think that is a good thing. That is why it is an appropriate, fair, and reasonable response to make this policy change today. I invite the member to consider it further and consider supporting it in due course.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I would like to ask that you give some consideration to a considered ruling on the issue of the form of address that members should use when asking questions. I went back and looked at the Standing Orders Committee's report that is referenced in the Speaker's ruling that you just gave me—

Mr SPEAKER: Bring the point of order to a conclusion.

CHRIS HIPKINS: —and it refers specifically to speeches and debate, not to questions. Just very briefly, I think the reason it is important that the form of address is clear in a question is that it has to be clear whom the question is addressed to. A question that uses the phrase "you" or "your" is actually being addressed to you as the Speaker, not to the Minister who the member may be intending to ask.

Mr SPEAKER: I will give it further consideration.

• Prime Minister—Statements

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that "we have the best opportunity in decades to make positive sustainable choices for our country"; if so, do those choices include not contributing to the Superannuation Fund, increasing the acceptable level of E.coli in swimmable water, writing off young people as "pretty damn hopeless", and treating a housing shortage as a "problem of success"?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, we do have the best opportunities in decades. I disagree with the member's characterisations of my statements. The choices the Government is making, for instance, include: improving our fresh water quality with a national framework, the first time there has ever been one; tightening up the tax rules for multinational companies; rolling out ultra-fast broadband to another 150 towns; and opening brand new roads and schools around New Zealand, which mean New Zealanders know we can do much more of that.

Andrew Little: Why is he refusing to save for New Zealand's superannuation and instead kicking the can down the road for another 20 years?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the member means he wants to raise the age to 67 now, then we are very happy to hear from him about that, but in respect of the Superannuation Fund, the member needs to understand that up until about now, or another year or so, the money that you would put into it would have to be borrowed and, over time, there is no particular gain from doing that, which is why the Government has said that when debt levels are down to a reasonable level—within the next 2 or 3 years—we will start contributing to the Superannuation Fund again.

Andrew Little: Why is he literally increasing the allowable level of crap in the water today while promising cleaner rivers in 20 years' time?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member, of course, has got that wrong. For the first time ever, New Zealand now has a system of measuring its water quality, and for the first time ever, we have some goals that are going to require those who may be polluting the water to act in a way that is going to help improve the quality of our fresh water. I know the Labour Party is a bit disappointed that the Government has set out with this long-term goal to lift the quality of our fresh water, but I can tell you communities all over New Zealand will be buying into it.

Andrew Little: Why is he writing off young people as unemployable drug users when, in fact, 99.8 percent of them pass Work and Income drug tests just fine?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not writing young people off at all, but I am clearly much more in touch with what is happening with young people in New Zealand than that member is. I am so proud of our young people, because more of them are achieving at school than ever, more of them are getting tertiary qualifications than ever, 10,000 of them are apprentices in the construction industry—more than ever—and their prospects of jobs and opportunities in New Zealand are better than ever.

Tim Macindoe: What reports has the Prime Minister seen of alternative approaches to managing the rising long-term costs of New Zealand superannuation?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen one report describing the rising cost of New Zealand superannuation as "terrifying". It went on to say "If there's one thing that scares the bejesus out of me, it's the looming cost of superannuation. That's a significant chunk of the budget." That was just 2 years ago—said by Andrew Little. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Now the interjection from my right-hand side is far too loud and will stop.

Andrew Little: Why, in the face of overwhelming indications of the rising cost of superannuation and the crisis that some were feeling about it, has this Government, in nearly 9 years, done absolutely nothing to contribute to the future cost of superannuation by resuming contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the Government outlined back in 2009 and 2010, we did not intend to borrow money to put into the superannuation fund. We did borrow significant amounts of money to maintain national superannuation and all family and welfare entitlements through a recession, and we borrowed $17 billion to $18 billion to rebuild Christchurch. Now that the economy is in better shape, now that it is growing, and now that our debt is falling, over the next 2 or 3 years we can see a path to resuming contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. The member needs to understand that there is no free lunch with the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. If you have to put money into it, you either borrow, it or you are taking it from the taxes of the current generation, some of whom are feeling the pressure on their incomes and want to be able to get ahead.

Tim Macindoe: What reports has the Prime Minister seen expressing concern about the rising future cost of New Zealand superannuation?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen a whole range of reports. Here is one: "In 3 years superannuation will cost more than the entire education budget. … It will grow to 20 times the cost of unemployment benefits. We need to ask [if] the universal age of super is set at the right place." That was the new deputy leader of the Labour Party, Jacinda Ardern.

Andrew Little: Moving on from Government flip-flops—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I issued what I thought was a reasonably warning to my right-hand side. It appears to have been ignored so far, so I will not hesitate to identify somebody who continues to loudly interject and ask them to retire for the balance of question time.

Andrew Little: Given his outlandish claim that 40 people desperate to rent a house—which happened to be in Wellington—in the middle of a housing crisis is a problem of success, just what kind of a problem does he call Nick Smith?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: A problem solver.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is right. Nick Smith has dealt with some of the most complex problems of resource law and housing more successfully than any other politician here could have. But he is better at solving problems than the Leader of the Opposition, who often gets his advice from the Dominion Post editorials. I invite him to read today's editorial, which concludes that Labour leader, Andrew Little, is in a "hopeless position".

Andrew Little: Is this not the truth: a Government that wanted a better future would be building it now by saving in the Superannuation Fund, cleaning up our waterways, backing our young people, and building affordable homes for families to buy; and why does he refuse to do any of those?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: This is where we probably agree. The Government is doing all of those things and doing all of them very well, with the exception of actually putting cash in the Superannuation Fund. At the moment we are planning to reduce debt first, because that is prudent management of the Government's balance sheet. As soon as we have got it down to 20 percent of GDP, we will start contributing to the Superannuation Fund.

• Government Policies—Confidence

3. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E māia ana a ia ki ōna kaupapa here katoa?

[Does he have confidence in all his policies?]

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes.

Metiria Turei: Why did the Prime Minister choose Generation X as the generation to bear the full cost of his planned changes to superannuation?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: That, of course, is not what has been decided—or not decided. The question that member needs to answer is why the Greens think no one should do anything about the rising cost of superannuation, so that Generation X and anyone who follows them continue to pay for a superannuation when our lives are getting longer, our working lives are getting longer, our life expectancy is better, and there is every reason to want to spread our resource so we do not focus it all on retirement income but have some left for health and education.

Metiria Turei: Has the Prime Minister seen the evidence that the retirement savings of those born in the 1970s is likely to be $100,000 less than that of the generation born before; if so, why is he targeting that generation with the biggest burden of his planned changes to superannuation?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The younger generation is now, of course, entering KiwiSaver much earlier than the previous generation did, because the scheme was only begun about 10 years ago. Although, of course, it is always a struggle—it feels like a struggle—to get ahead, particularly in your late 30s and early 40s, they have the benefit of economic policy that supports growth in incomes, growth of job opportunities, and an innovative economy with a real sense of direction. I have to say that that is a bit of a better outlook than that of previous generations in New Zealand, who were trying to make their way through very significant economic restructuring. Every generation has its challenges; we understand Generation X have theirs, and we are here to support them through it.

Metiria Turei: When the Prime Minister chose Generation X to bear this burden, did he also understand that this was the generation that also bore the full cost of student loans and interest?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We just need to get the implications of the announcement made yesterday clear, which is to somewhat reduce the burden on generations coming into the workforce, compared with the Greens' proposition, which seems to be that they should bear any burden that will enable the Greens to not have to change national superannuation. I cannot understand the member's logic. Our announcement reduces the burden somewhat on the younger generation; it does not choose a generation to carry the burden—that is what the Greens are doing.

Metiria Turei: Can the Prime Minister please explain how he expects young people—our kids, actually—to plan for their retirement and pay for ours when they are already struggling with high student loans and sky-high property prices?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have said, each generation has its own challenges that it needs to meet. Today's 30- or 35-year-olds, under this Government, face a future with supportive, lower taxes and policy that helps the economy grow and is consistently and moderately lifting their incomes. What would make their planning very difficult would be if the Green Party decided to cross over or scrap the announcement of the policy that was made yesterday, or if it actually got the chance to implement its policies of higher Government spending and higher taxes—a burden that would certainly be carried by today's 35-year-olds.

Metiria Turei: Why is the Prime Minister forcing our kids to work much harder than we did for their birthright: a good education—[Interruption]—much harder than he or I had to do for a good education—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the question now. I will invite the member to start the question again, and it is to be heard without interjection from my right-hand side.

Metiria Turei: Why is the Prime Minister forcing our kids to work much harder than us—he and I—for their birthright: a good education, a decent home, and now just for some security in their retirement?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, I am very admiring, actually, of the work ethic of a whole lot of our younger generation, and I get to see how hard many of them do work. But, as a result of the announcements made yesterday, they will spend about the same period of their life on national superannuation when they turn 67 as someone turning 65 today—

Hon Amy Adams: Actually, more—more.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: —slightly more—and that is around 25 percent of their life. And they will enjoy longer years of better health. Now, they do have some challenges, and as I have said, we are there to support them. What is going to make life hard for them are the policies of Labour and the Greens to put up taxes and to spend a whole lot more taxpayers' money on stuff that does not work. I do not think any 35-year-old now will welcome those policies.

Metiria Turei: Why is the Prime Minister fuelling the intergenerational struggle between our generation—his and mine—and our children's generation by locking them out of housing and forcing them to pay for their own education, to pay for their kids' education, to pay for their parents' superannuation, and now to have to wait longer for their own?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is still under the burden of a basic misunderstanding. The announcement—the Government's policy—somewhat reduces the burden on the generation who will be paying for superannuation. It is actually the Greens' and Labour's policy that says "Nothing will ever change." that guarantees growth in the burden on our workforce in a way that we believe is not fair or reasonable. So we are lightening the burden. Labour and the Greens want, for short-term political benefit, to keep the burden in place and ensure it gets worse.

• Prime Minister—Statements

4. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement to The Nation, "Well, it's turned out that because so many more people are working as they get through the age 60, 65, that super is more affordable than was expected, say, 15 years ago. I haven't made the same undertaking as John, so we have the opportunity for a bit of a reset there"?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes. The reality is that because of stronger economic growth in New Zealand now, over the last 7 or 8 years, the projections about the cost of national superannuation show that it is a bit more affordable than it was, but it is still increasing quite significantly. The fact is that if the economy had not grown as successfully as it has, probably more drastic decisions would be required. That is why we would take the opportunity for a fair and reasonable transition to a higher age of eligibility.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why should New Zealanders trust National's phase-in from 2037, and does he recall National's 1990 promise to raise the age to 65 over a 20-year period, in annual increases of 3 months in the age of entitlement, which then, having won the election, National switched to just 8 years after the 1990 election?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The member's the only person who was in the Cabinet that day.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is exactly the point I was going to make. The person who would remember all of that is the member, who was both in the Opposition and then in the new Cabinet that made those decisions.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are some people in the National Party—and you would be one of them—who would know that statement is demonstrably false.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Does the member want to add—no. If the member feels there has been a misrepresentation, then he knows what to do about it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why should New Zealanders trust National when it, first, promised to get rid of the surtax and did not, and, second, increased it to 92c in the dollar—a situation that only New Zealand First redeemed?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member would have a better recollection than any of us, as I said. But the question the member needs to answer is: what exactly is wrong with the announcement made yesterday and what is wrong with the policy? It protects all existing superannuitants, it protects those whom he labels as near retirement—and in this case it is everyone aged 45 and over—from any change in their superannuation entitlement, and it changes the residency requirements in a way that I assume the member supports. So then the question is: just what is wrong with the announcement that he seems to be so vehemently opposed to?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister not understand that what is wrong is the trust factor, such as when in 1996 National promised voters to maintain New Zealand superannuation and then, after breaking the coalition agreement, of which that was a central factor, took the figure from 65 percent of the net average weekly wage down to 60 percent—again, a circumstance that the New Zealand First Party had to fix up. It is the trust factor, son.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I respect the member's recollections of those arguments, now over 20 years ago. He was in the National Party when those decisions were made, and I respect the fact that it was one of the reasons that he ended up leaving the National Party but it does not tell us anything about his views on the actual announcement. So I take it from what he said that he has no problem with the announcement itself.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How can the Prime Minister in 2017 have prime ministerial responsibility for the actions of the National Party in 1990? What is next, Dick Seddon?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That was certainly part of the question but it was not the essence of the question. The question was in order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What is wrong is the issue of trust. Why should New Zealanders trust National, when it promised not to change superannuation settings in 2008, then, first, promptly stopped the Government contributions to the Cullen fund and, if that was not bad enough, then started taxing it?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have put out a policy in election year, when there will be plenty of debate and plenty of opportunity for the public to debate it. But I invite the member to consider the policy position that we have outlined, because I believe it is one that he could support. Not completely, maybe, but he could support these aspects: it protects existing superannuitants; it protects everyone over the age of 45 from any change in their entitlement; it allows a very fair and reasonable 20-year transition; and it changes the residency requirement for national superannuation from 10 years to 20 years. I just invite the member to consider those propositions.

Marama Fox: Given the review period in 2030, should that show up a continued discrepancy and inequity in life expectancy will the Minister then consider flexibility in eligibility for superannuation?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The good news is that Māori life expectancy is increasing, and is actually starting to close the gap between Māori and Pākehā; that is good. The second thing is that the review in 2030, of course, will be in circumstances a bit different from the ones we have today. Who quite knows what jobs are going to be there and who is going to be doing them? But the point of it is simply to recognise what the member is referring to, and that is there will be some people for whom 67 looks a bit of a stretch, and well ahead of changing the age we believe the Government of the day should consider what it can do for what will be a small minority of workers.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister not understand that what is wrong is a past record of the National Government not keeping its word on the issue of superannuation, like, for example, promising not to tinker with the SuperGold card entitlements and then fiddling with the travel privileges?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said, I invite the member to consider and comment on the actual policy that has been announced. But, just as importantly, this Government, through a period of recession and very large Government deficits, said that nothing would change about national superannuation entitlements and we stuck to that despite running up one of the largest deficits that a New Zealand Government has run up in a long time. We have stood the test of fiscal pressure. Now that we have been able to rebuild surpluses, that pressure is not there the same way.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why should any soon-to-be or present superannuitant trust National on this matter—or, for that matter, why should New Zealand First trust it—when there is a record already laid out in this House of seven breaches in the past of their trust; or when we sought to raise the issue of overseas acquisition from 10 to 25 years its members said it was racist and bigoted, and the self-appointed Lord Denning of this House claimed it was discriminatory and conflicted with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—he is right down over there.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: The law clerk fired by Russell McVeagh.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: If he had not appointed himself as—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is no way the Attorney-General should be lying in this House. I am asking for an apology.

Hon Members: Oh!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: He is. I have taken offence to what he said.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member wishes to take it further, then I suggest he looks at Standing Order 359 and proceeds from there.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at what he said, and I am asking him to withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member has been offended, I ask the Hon Chris Finlayson to withdraw that remark.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Certainly, I withdraw.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although the remark may well be withdrawn, the accusation of lying in the House came from the Rt Hon Winston Peters against the Attorney-General. I think that also needs to be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I think on this occasion I have dealt with the matter. The accusation of lying is to be dealt with by reference to Standing Order 359. I was then informed that the member was offended by the remark—I have asked for that to be withdrawn, and it has been withdrawn. That closes the matter. We now have a question that was asked some time ago and I invite the Prime Minister to answer it.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I just disagree with the member's assertions, but I would propose that as he gets around the countryside talking to a lot of older audiences, who will be interested in hearing from him, he gives them the opportunity to make up their own minds by outlining the policy that has been announced—we are happy to brief him on that in detail—and letting them decide whether it is fair and reasonable to superannuitants, to the near-retired, and to younger generations. We are not necessarily going to be taking the member's view as representative of all people who are retired or near-retired.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When laid out in the House today are eight examples of the trail of the National Government's word on this matter in recent times, why would anybody sane in the full capacity of their thoughts ever trust it in the next year, the year after that, or beyond? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course, if the member is mistrusting, then he knows what the National Government's policy is. We have outlined it in detail, prior to an election. What he cannot know is what Labour's policy is because it does not know. How can he predict what its policy would be?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You might have a point there. I wish to table two documents. One is a screenshot of a deleted tweet, not available to the House any more, from Mr Bill English—staunch as he purports to be. Another one—probably not available also, because it has not been read by members—is the Lord Denning statement from the Attorney-General, talking about it being outside the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, of all things.

Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that that information could be of interest to members, I will put the leave and the House will decide. Leave is sought to table those two particular documents. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

• Children, State Care—Addressing Historical Abuse Claims

JACINDA ARDERN (Deputy Leader—Labour): My question is to the Minister for Social Development and asks: is she satisfied with her Government's treatment of those who have been abused by the State?

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Minister, my office has been advised that this answer may be longer than normal.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that the question on the sheet is actually "the Government's treatment" not "her Government's treatment"—in the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I did not hear the way it was asked. I will ask for it be asked again and will pursue from there.

5. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: Is she satisfied with the Government's treatment of those who have been abused by the State?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Could I congratulate the new deputy leader on her elevation and her first question to me in 6 months as a result. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Now we will have the continued, longer answer than normal. [Interruption] Order! It is a good example that some answers do not help the order of the House. I will now ask the Minister to continue.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: In answer to the question, of course I am not satisfied with the Government's treatment of those who have been abused by the State. Any kind of abuse in State care is absolutely abhorrent. That is why this Government extended the previous Labour Government's confidential listening and advice service for 7 years and has focused on settling claims with victims directly and personally wherever possible. We also introduced an optional fast-track process for historical cases of abuse in recognition that the claims process was taking far too long in many cases. Prior to the fast-track historical claims process 2 years ago, there had been around 400 historical claims payments totalling over $8 million since 2004—about 9 years. Following this, the number of settlements has more than doubled to about 900 with total payments of over $17 million, all, of course, accompanied by an apology from the chief executive. As I have said on many occasions, I am also more than willing to add my personal apology to that, as I am sure every member in this House would. Nothing can change what has happened in the past, but we know that these experiences remain with people, and of utmost importance to them is that their experiences are heard and believed and acknowledged in a personal and tangible way.

Jacinda Ardern: Is she satisfied with the outcome of the Whakapakari camp abuse case, where the Crown paid one Queen's Counsel more to fight tooth and nail than any of the people who were abused ever finally received?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As the House is aware, I cannot comment on matters currently before the courts, but what I can say is that for more than a decade the Government has recognised the importance of settling claims, and we try to settle these claims as early and directly with an individual as is possible. I am advised that in line with Cabinet directions the ministry is required to be represented by the Crown Law Office in any litigation before a court, and, in fact, especially where there are significant and complex claims matters that have considered, or will consider, areas of law not previously considered in New Zealand and that involve multiple parties and witnesses and have been subject to subsequent appeals.

Jacinda Ardern: I seek leave to table a response to an Official Information Act (OIA) request released by the Minister, detailing that three-quarters of a million dollars has been paid to one Queen's Counsel to battle just three cases—

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

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

Jacinda Ardern: Why is she willing to spend millions of dollars fighting historical abuse claims but will not act on the call for a State inquiry into abuse to ensure that it never happens again?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I stated in the previous answer, there is a requirement, and the Crown does have a responsibility, to protect the taxpayers' interests where there are significant and complex claims or matters that will have considerable impact on future taxpayers. We do have that responsibility and we are taking that responsibility seriously.

Jacinda Ardern: If all the work that is needed on historical abuse has been done, as she claimed in her first answer, why did Caroline Henwood, the chair of the Confidential Listening and Assistance Service, which she finished the work of, state: "We haven't investigated the department ... we haven't spoken to staff ... there's been no inquiry … so why wouldn't it happen again?"

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have met with Caroline Henwood on a number of occasions, and I met and thanked the members of the Confidential Listening and Assistance Service for the sterling work that they did over the 7 years. All of her recommendations were forwarded into the expert advisory group that I set up to completely review our system of care and protection of children in New Zealand. In fact, Caroline Henwood herself met with that panel, I understand, on at least one occasion—possibly more—to discuss what her findings were and how the new system must ensure that it never happens again. That is why this Government has embarked on a 4- to 5-year programme that completely overhauls the way we deal with our most vulnerable children and young people, which has never been seen before in New Zealand.

Jacinda Ardern: Can she confirm that one of the recommendations that Caroline Henwood made was that an inquiry take place—and she made that recommendation in 2015—and why has the Minister not acted on it?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes, that was the only recommendation from the Confidential Listening and Assistance Service that was not proceeded with. The reason for that, as we have said, is that all the findings of that service have been put into the inquiry that was done into our care and protection system. The question I ask is what would we gain from an inquiry that revictimises the victims for whom we are trying to get some compensation and some settlement. It is appalling that we would put those people through that again—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We know that what happened in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s was the State institutionalisation of 100,000 or more young people. That should never happen again. We are living in a very different environment today. We are overhauling the system. I would welcome the support of the Oppositionparties to do just that.

• Freshwater Management—Cost and Requirements

6. SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for the Environment: What is the estimated cost of the 90 percent of rivers and lakes swimmable by 2040 policy, and what specific requirements will it place on councils and farms to achieve this target?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): The estimated cost is $2 billion. For councils, this will mean upgrading water-treatment plants and waste water and stormwater infrastructure; for farms, it means requirements to fence 56,000 kilometres of waterways, and riparian planting. The cost to farmers is $367 million, although I would draw to the House's attention that three-quarters of that cost is for the reticulation of stock water, which is required when animals are appropriately fenced out of our lakes and rivers.

Scott Simpson: What requirements were there from the Government on regional councils back in 2008 to address New Zealand's water quality issues, and what are there now?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In 2008 there were absolutely none. We started in 2009 with the national requirements to meter water takes, and the volume measured is now up from 25 percent to over 90 percent. In 2011 we introduced the first National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management, which puts requirements on councils to set minimum river flows. In 2014 we added requirements to limit nitrogen, phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, algae, and ammonia. These latest proposals focus on improving swimming, but there are also important new requirements in the package for improving the ecological health of our waterways.

Scott Simpson: When was the standard of 540 E. coli per 100 millilitres set as the acceptable level for swimming?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The 540 limit for swimming water quality was set in 2003 by the Labour Government, supported by the Greens. This limit was included in the 2014 national policy statement and remains. The key change is, for the very first time, the setting of specific requirements and targets on improving the times that that standard is met.

• Superannuation Fund—Government Contributions and Returns

7. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Is the New Zealand Super Fund correct that the impact on the fund as a result of the suspension of Government contributions in July 2009 has been a reduction in the projected size of the fund of $20.5 billion?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): I can confirm that had contributions not been put on hold in 2009 the Government would have put about $13 billion more into the fund, which would have required around $13.5 billion of additional borrowings. The exact impact this has had on the overall balance of the Superannuation Fund depends on a variety of factors including sharemarket returns, which fluctuate over time. I note Treasury has completed a comparative analysis to the one run by the fund that the member refers to, which results in a significantly lower estimated fund balance.

Grant Robertson: Does he understand that the fund's average performance has been an 8 percent return and that, in actual fact, it has made $11.2 billion more than the cost of borrowing the Government would have faced?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I appreciate the member's financial advice, but, actually, financial advisers are very clear to say that past performance does not indicate future performance, and I am sure the fund would say that as well. But the key question that the member should be considering is: where would that $13.5 billion come from? The simple fact of the matter is that nobody who has proposed putting that $13.5 billion in has indicated where that might have come from. Would it be increased borrowing, reduced Government expenditure, or higher taxation?

Grant Robertson: Does he realise that the amount of money that his Government was due to put into the Superannuation Fund this year alone will actually be worth more to future superannuitants than the $4 billion he says he is going to save from increasing the age, on the basis of average returns?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, actually, no, the member is incorrect. If he thinks you could put an amount in this year—of the amount that was said was going to go into the fund—and that it would return $4 billion a year thereafter, then he has definitely been smoking something. The simple reality is that that would never happen. But, again, the more fundamental question is: where does the $13.5 billion come from?

Grant Robertson: Can he confirm that he continues to prioritise borrowing for tax cuts ahead of re-starting contributions to the Superannuation Fund that have been consistently earning far more than the cost of borrowing?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. What I can say to the member is that if the Government had taken a decision to continue contributions to the Superannuation Fund it would have had to borrow $13.5 billion more on top of the current net debt of $61 billion, or it would have had to put up taxes by the same, or reduce expenditure by the same. There is no free money, for the member's benefit; he would have to say whether the debt was going to be higher, the taxes were going to be higher, or expenditure was going to be less.

Grant Robertson: I will put it simply for the Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Grant Robertson: Has the Superannuation Fund earned more on average over the last 9 years than the cost of the money the Government would have had to borrow if it had contributed to the fund? A simple question, Steven.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member misunderstands. The Superannuation Fund is not in the Government's net debt calculation, because it is hypothecated to future superannuation needs. So if we had put the money in we would have had to borrow it. I know Grant is struggling with this concept, but we would have had to borrow $13.5 billion to put the money into the fund, and, yes, they might have made a return on it, but we would have still borrowed the $13.5 billion.

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

Mr SPEAKER: I will invite the member to ask his question again.

Grant Robertson: It was not written down so it will be as close as we can to it.

Mr SPEAKER: I can help.

Grant Robertson: Well, would you like to ask it? Has the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, on average, earned more than the cost of borrowing to the Government for the contributions it would have made had the Government not suspended them?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: On average, yes. [Interruption]. But you still have to borrow the money, and the member is basically saying that he would either borrow the money and put up net debt, or he would increase taxation, or he would reduce expenditure. He needs to say which one.

• Freshwater Management—National Standards and Water Quality of Rivers

8. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does the Selwyn - Waikirikiri river at Chamberlains Ford meet the "good for swimming" standard as outlined in the Government's Clean Water plan?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): The new information provided on water quality does not cover flow rates, and needs to be interpreted with common sense. A river in flood or a river in drought is not good for swimming. The water quality at Chamberlains Ford has been measured weekly over the summer compared with the 540 E. coli limit. It is currently eight per 100 millilitres, it has averaged 43 per 100 millilitres, and has never posed any health risk. If the member looks at the website that is provided by the Government, it also states that the site has a problem with algae growth.

Catherine Delahunty: Would the Minister take a refreshing dip in the Ōpihi River at Waipopo Huts, rated as excellent in the new standards, while at the same time there are potentially toxic algae blooms that can kill dogs and make people ill at this site?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We are providing a lot more information for the very first time. E. coli rates over all rivers and lakes across New Zealand, where there are problems with algae bloom, are also flagged on the website. What we are doing is, for the first time, giving New Zealand open, honest information on the state of our rivers. We share a desire with the Greens to improve the standard; we just want it to be practical.

Matt Doocey: What is the downside of setting water quality limits at higher levels, like not exceeding 540 E. coli per 100 millimetres more than 1 percent of the time?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The downside is an impractical standard that discourages people from swimming when the risks are negligible. A 1 percent limit would classify both major swimming spots in my home community of Nelson as unswimmable, where myself and my family have swum hundreds of times. The Sunday Hole and the Lee River picnic area were monitored weekly over summer. The two sites both posed no health risks, except during floods, when the far greater risk is from drowning. We want a water quality standard that drives improvements, but it needs to be practical. Labelling hundreds of rivers like the Lee and Maitai unswimmable would discourage New Zealanders from enjoying a river swim when the risk is negligible if they apply a bit of common sense and do not swim in a river when it is in flood.

Catherine Delahunty: Given that Graham McBride from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), who advised on the plan, has already said that these standards are less precautionary, independent scientists have attacked them, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment called them very confusing, and Forest and Bird has withdrawn from the Land and Water Forum because of them, why should we trust them?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I think the reason Forest and Bird has left the Land and Water Forum is because its former-Green leader thinks it is an extension of the Opposition. In respect of the work, I would note that respected NIWA scientist Graham McBride is actually one of the architects of the new standards, as are other scientists. As for Mike Joy, I note that he has said his objective is for New Zealand to have no farm animals by 2050 in New Zealand, and that is not the Government's policy.

Catherine Delahunty: Let us focus on the questions. Is his clean water package coherent and understandable to people who just want to go for a swim and do not want to look up a complicated and unreliable website before doing so?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The problem is that no Government, not even a Green one, will be able to prevent floods, where E. coli levels go through the roof. So it is only practical to provide good information. My plea would be: when is the Green Party going to get a science-qualified MP so it might have some common sense?

• Social Housing—Accommodation Supplement

9. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Social Housing: How many social housing places are receiving an income-related rent subsidy now; and by how much has this changed since the Prime Minister's 2015 State of the Nation speech?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Social Housing): At the end of the most recent quarter, there were 61,777 social housing places receiving an income-related rent subsidy (IRRS), which is an increase of 860 places since January 2015. This, however, is not the same thing as the total number of social housing places, which sits at around 66,000. Nor is it the same thing as what the then Prime Minister was referring to, which was the number of IRRS places the Budget appropriation provides for, which is currently 64,000.

Phil Twyford: Why will she not admit that the number of tenants getting an income-related rent subsidy, the number of social housing places, is only 61,000, despite 2 years ago the Prime Minister promising to lift that number from 62,000 to 65,000?

Hon AMY ADAMS: I am not sure which part of the answer the member did not hear, but I made a number of comments. First of all, the number is currently 61,777. Second of all, the commitment was to raise the Budget appropriation to provide for up to 65,000, which was to be by the end of June 2018, and we are currently at 64,000. Thirdly, the total number of social housing places available for those in need of social housing under the eligibility criteria and on the register is currently sitting at around 66,000. For the member's benefit, we have actually indicated an intention to take it out to around 72,000.

Phil Twyford: Empty houses that are boarded up.

Hon AMY ADAMS: Not at all.

Phil Twyford: Does she agree with Treasury when it says that her Government's promise of 65,000 social housing places was made up to announce in a speech, that it was not based on any official advice, that there is no robust plan to achieve it, and that the likelihood of achieving it is low?

Hon AMY ADAMS: What I do agree with is that the Government has made a commitment that we want to head towards 65,000 budgeted IRRS. We are on track for that. But even more than that, we have gone further, actually—we have gone further—because last year in December we put out our purchasing intentions, which have replaced that first statement, and said that actually, by 2020 we want to have 72,000 social housing places.

Phil Twyford: You promised 65,000.

Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, we are now adding for 72,000. The point is, Mr Twyford, that our goal is to have social housing places for those who need it, and we are well on track to do that.

Phil Twyford: Is it not true that the promise of 65,000 social housing places was just a sweetener for a deeply unpopular State house sell-off policy, that there is no chance of achieving the Prime Minister's promise, and that there was never any intention of achieving it?

Hon AMY ADAMS: No, none of that is true. What I would say is that there are more people today receiving income-related rent subsidies than there were in 2008 when we took over, even though the waiting list was considerably bigger under a Labour Government than it is now.

• Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, Ministry—Establishment

10. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent reports has she received on the establishment of the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I have seen reports that show the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, is ready to come into effect on 1 April this year. It is a fundamental shift from the crisis management approach of Child, Youth and Family to a focus on ensuring better long-term life outcomes for our most vulnerable children and young people. The new ministry will focus on five core services: prevention, intensive intervention, care support, youth justice, and transition support. I have seen reports from some people labelling it as simply a rebrand of Child, Youth and Family; instead, what this Government is pursuing is a fundamental change in the way that we deal with care and protection in New Zealand.

Joanne Hayes: How will the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, differ from the current care and protection system?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: While Child, Youth and Family had a focus on crisis management, the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, will take a child-centred approach with a much greater focus on prevention and early intervention to keep families together. This is not a quick fix. This is a long work programme of reforms over 4 to 5 years to be fully implemented and bedded in. We have already seen some of these reforms taking shape, with the establishment and naming of the new independent connection and advocacy service, VOYCE — Whakarongo Mai, which will ensure young people in care will be heard and their voices kept at the centre of decisions made about them. They run it.

Joanne Hayes: What other changes are being made as part of the overhaul of Child, Youth and Family?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There will be intensive, targeted support for caregivers, including some increased financial assistance and better access to support services. National care standards will be introduced so there is a clear expectation for the standard and quality of care in placement homes. We have already passed legislation to raise the age of State care to a child's 18th birthday. I have to say it is disappointing to see members who have launched and presented petitions calling on me to implement these exact changes then voting against the legislation, including Labour's children's spokesperson and new deputy leader Jacinda Ardern.

• Environment, Minister—Confidence

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): My question is to the former deputy leader of the National Party and—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will now stand and deliver his question the correct way.

11. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he believe that he has control of his environment portfolio, given the Kermadec sanctuary legislation he is responsible for is becalmed, and his proposed standard for swimmable rivers has been condemned by fresh water scientists and environmentalists, as well as the recreational users of the rivers and lakes that have been deteriorating under his watch?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I am happy to be judged on results. I have successfully concluded 10 marine reserves under this Government and three previously. All the key stakeholders on fresh water acknowledge that this Government is doing more than any Government has in advancing reforms to deliver better water quality. The controversy is that some extreme Greens want impractical policies that simply will not work.

Hon David Parker: Does he agree with Forest and Bird that his swimmable standard excludes a large number of local rivers that Kiwis actually swim in, or with fresh water scientist Mike Joy, who has said his Government has "shifted the goal posts" and "tried to pull a 'swifty' on the people of New Zealand"?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In respect of Kevin Hague's comments at the weekend, I would love to take members of this House to some of the streams that he said should be monitored for swimming in Wellington, because they are actually underground pipes, and I am not sure you can swim in those. Secondly, the swimmable standard that our Government has set applies to lakes that are more than 40 centimetres deep and lakes, but, hello, hello—90 percent of the smaller waterways actually flow into those and will have to have improved water quality for the policy to be delivered. Thirdly, regional councils are able to identify smaller water bodies, set standards for them, and improve them.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is just a matter of courtesy I seek to raise, but I am watching the Minister there, and he is so carried away that he is being absolutely rude in the extreme to his colleague sitting next to him. There are photographs coming in to me to show how rude he is. He should show some manners and give her the space that she deserves.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Well, that is not a point of order that is relevant at all.

Hon David Parker: Does he accept that his swimmable—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at the allegation that has been made by Mr Peters, and I think he should be asked to withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member, therefore, to—and the member is not meant to be using his cellphone to take photographs in this House, either. The member stands, withdraws, and apologises.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: And apologise—[Interruption] Order! And apologise.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Like Mr Finlayson did?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When I raised an objection and said I was offended by Mr Finlayson's comment, you did not require him to withdraw and apologise—and he did not.

Mr SPEAKER: I did not; that is absolutely right, and it is not a point of order. I judge it on the occasion and based on the interjection that is made or the accusation that is made, and that is my prerogative. The member will resume his seat.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Pardon?

Mr SPEAKER: The member will sit down when I am on my feet. I thank the member. I make those judgments based on the level of order or disorder in the House and I make them on a case-by-case basis, and that is at the discretion of the Speaker.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Point of order. Is it a fresh point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, it is a very fresh point of order—fresh as the morning dew. I seek leave to table two photographs relating to—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not even prepared to consider it any longer. The member will resume his seat immediately. He is very lucky to be staying here.

Hon David Parker: Does he accept his swimmable standard has no rule for slime or nutrients and that his underlying wadeable standard allows pollution to cause more slime and algal blooms in rivers that he is now calling swimmable?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would note that when we came to Government there were no rules about nutrients or about algae, and the new national policy statement specifically put rules and new requirements on both.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not sure whether it has been addressed. I will give the member the benefit of the doubt, but I do not want interjections—loudly—from Dr David Clark throughout the question or the answer.

Hon David Parker: Does he accept his swimmable standard has no rule for slime or nutrients and that his underlying wadeable standard allows pollution to cause more slime growth and algal blooms in the rivers that he is now calling swimmable?

Mr SPEAKER: There are two questions there.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, the 90 percent clean rivers and lakes by 2040 policy specifically refers to algae concentrations. Furthermore, the new website specifically provides information in that regard, and I remind the member that when we came to Government there were absolutely no limits on algae or nutrients at a national level, and we put them in place.

Hon David Parker: Does he agree that his credibility hit rock bottom when his fake swimmable standard was exposed as a scam that would make Bernie Madoff blush?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If it was a scam, it was a scam by the previous Labour Government, because the 540 E. coli limit for swimmability was set by Marian Hobbs in 2003.

Andrew Bayly: Could the Minister please outline which marine protected areas he has successfully concluded?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Akaroa, Antipodes Island, the Bounty Islands, Campbell Island, Hautai in South Westland, Hikurangi in Kaikōura, Kahurangi, Pōhatu, Punakaiki, Te Angiangi in Hawke's Bay, Te Tapuwae in the East Coast, Waiau Glacier in the Haast, and I have also been supporting the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the creation of the Ross Sea Marine Reserve—the largest marine protected area that our Government has ever created.

• Small Businesses—Growth and International Economies

12. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister for Small Business: What reports has she received on how New Zealand's small business growth expectations compare to other economies?

Hon JACQUI DEAN (Minister for Small Business): I have received the latest CPA Australia Asia-Pacific Small Business Survey, which shows that 71 percent of small businesses in New Zealand expect to grow over the next 12 months and that 61.5 percent expect their local economy to grow over the same time. This is significantly higher than in Australia and in line with the Asian average. The report highlights that business confidence is up strongly in New Zealand and this shows the impact a strong economy, a stable Government, and resilient small business can have on business confidence.

Brett Hudson: How are Government programmes such as the ultra-fast broadband (UFB) roll-out supporting New Zealand small businesses' confidence?

Hon JACQUI DEAN: The CPA Australia report highlights that New Zealand is second in the Asia-Pacific region with internet connection speeds. Fifty-five percent of small businesses believe their internet speeds are fast enough, well ahead of the average of 46 percent. The Business Operations Survey of 2014 reinforces this, showing that businesses are increasingly seeing the benefits of ICT. One of the aims of the Government's $2 billion investment in UFB and rural broadband initiatives is to enable businesses to grow and become more productive. There is still more work to be done however, which is why the Government has announced a $300 million extension, which will see another 151 towns covered by the ultra-fast broadband programme.

© Scoop Media