• WEDNESDAY, 15 MARCH 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Economic Outlook—Reports

1. ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on New Zealand's external financial position?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Today Statistics New Zealand released the balance of payments and international investment position figures for the December 2016 quarter and the December year. They show that New Zealand's annual current account deficit was down to 2.7 percent of GDP, well down on the 3.4 percent of GDP for the previous year to December. The deficit for the most recent quarter was also the smallest deficit since the March 2014 quarter, and it reflected, in part, increased income earned through New Zealanders investing abroad and also our export sector.

Alastair Scott: What is New Zealand's net international liability position?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Today's release shows that New Zealand's net international liability position, at $156.5 billion, is 59.9 percent of GDP, the lowest it has been since records began in the series, in 2000. In addition, New Zealand's overall net external debt was down to 55 percent of GDP, well down on the nearly 85 percent of GDP this Government inherited—so that is 55 percent today as against 85 percent in 2008. It is very good progress for New Zealand, it is a tribute to our exporters, and it is a tribute to the success of New Zealanders investing overseas.

Alastair Scott: How has the services sector contributed to New Zealand's improvement?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The statistics show that New Zealand's services surplus was $1.2 billion, up $174 million on the September 2016 quarter surplus, and is the highest ever. This is due to an increase in both the number of tourists and the amount they spend, but also the international education sector has contributed strongly, growing from $2.7 billion, 2 years ago, to $3.8 billion now. Other highlights across the export sector include fruit, which is up $1 billion over the last 2 years, to $2.7 billion, and wine, which is up $260 million over 2 years, to now $1.6 billion.

Alastair Scott: How does the services sector figure highlight how New Zealand's trade composition has changed over recent years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The strong growth in the services sector, led by tourism and international education, highlights how the economy's increasing diversification has cushioned the tough time experienced by the dairy industry recently. Despite a nearly $3.5 billion reduction in export returns from dairy as compared with 2 years ago, overall exports have increased from $67.5 billion dollars in 2014 to over $70 billion, with a range of industries contributing to this increase. There are, of course, risks ahead, particularly due to the increased protectionist sentiment around the world, and New Zealand will have to continue to work hard to maintain our progress.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If those figures contain the GDP growth in this country, would he tell us whether those figures contain the GDP per person growth in this country, or has that stagnant figure been left out for convenience?

Mr SPEAKER: There are two questions there. The Hon Steven Joyce can address one or both.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the member is a day ahead of himself, because the GDP figures come out tomorrow, but we will talk about those then, no doubt. Actually, the last time, they were quite good. I think GDP per capita was over 1 percent, from memory, but I think the member should be very proud of these figures for his fellow New Zealanders, because I think that of all the 40 years he has had in politics we have never seen such a strong improvement in our—

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will resume his seat. Point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: We really have to dissuade that member and his colleagues from indulging in vain personal attacks. It is likely to lead to disorder in this House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. The member is better than that. It was hardly a significant attack, in that it was certainly a political question that was asked and a political answer was given.

• Environment, Minister—Statements

2. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by his statement in regard to water that "we need to be sure that any steps we take are fair to all users"?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Yes, in the context of the calls for a moratorium on bottled water exports. These amounts to one millionth of total water use in New Zealand, and it would be unfair to treat them differently to other water users like irrigators, soft drink manufacturers, or breweries.

James Shaw: Is it fair that in places like Ashburton, millions of litres of water can be bottled and sold without paying for the water, whilst the locals who rely on local bore water cannot safely give it to their babies to drink?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is why this Government has advanced a programme of water reforms, including the setting of minimum flows in areas like Canterbury, where there are now significant red zones and where there is a ban on extraction. The difference is that the ban is on extraction for all users, and not simply identifying bottled water exporters, which use one millionth of the amount of water of other users.

James Shaw: Is it fair that the company that bottles water at Otakiri pays only $2,003 a year to access water, from which it stands to make $255 million a year?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note in the figures from Statistics New Zealand that the amount of exported water from New Zealand actually dropped by a million litres a year last year—or 10 percent—so some of the dreamy ideas about super-profits are incorrect. The second thing is the Government is simply saying that you need to treat different water users on the same basis, and whether it is a winery, whether it is dairy farm, or whether it is a factory, you should not have different rules simply based on some prejudice.

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not clear to me that the Minister even addressed the question let alone answered it, given that he was talking about the way that water gets allocated. I was asking whether it was fair whether the company at Otakiri pays only such a small amount to access that water.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the point the member is making, but I listened very carefully to the answer. I acknowledge there was quite a lot of interjection coming, but in the latter half of the answer there was no doubt in my mind that the Minister addressed the question that was asked.

James Shaw: Given that water bottling, as he insists, may be such a small percentage of water use in this country compared with irrigation, how is it fair to allow a single irrigator to take a million litres of water a day, leaving Hawke's Bay high and dry?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Irrigation and use by farms is by far the largest user of water, but it is also New Zealand's most successful industry. I note the Minister of Finance noted the huge growth in wine exports, and that is because we have water. We have large amounts of exports income earned by our meat industry—in fact, 70 percent of New Zealand's exports rely on water.

James Shaw: Is it fair that the Te Matatini National Kapa Haka Festival had to buy water for its event from a local bottler because its own water was too risky to drink?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is an absolute issue for our local authorities to do better at managing their water supplies, and that is why on an issue like Havelock North, the member should focus on competent management of engineering services and not simply blame the dairy industry, as the member's party has.

James Shaw: Is it fair for the Minister for the Environment to belittle the concerns of 16,000 signatories to an environmental petition calling for the protection of water, calling them "silly" and saying they merely had a "bee in their bonnet"?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I make no apologies for our Government being a party that is going to base its data and its decisions on good information, rather than the Green Party, which wants to base its policies on things that are so disconnected from an actual world.

James Shaw: Given that the National Government has made such lofty goals as (1) barely affordable housing by 2020, (2) rivers that will not make you sick in 23 years' time, (3) raising the superannuation age in 20 years' time, and (4) being predator-free in 30 years' time, is the Government planning to achieve anything before it is voted out this September?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The difference between our side of the House and his is that we are focused on a long-term future plan for New Zealand, and I would just invite the member to do a simple thing like support the Government's resource management reforms, which will require farmers to fence their streams so that they can be cleaner and houses to be more affordable, rather than some of the stupid ideas like banning bottled water exports, which make such a small difference.

Hon David Parker: How much of New Zealand's water is pristine mineral water—so pure it can be bottled and sold commercially without treatment—and why does he deliberately conflate that precious, scarce resource with the trillions of litres in polluted rivers or Auckland floods?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, there are two questions there. The Hon Dr Nick Smith can address one or the other.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: A little bit of basic hydrology for the member is that when you get a big rainstorm, some of that water goes into the aquifer, and it is filtered through nature and ends up as pristine water. So for the member to sort of pretend that a major wet event like there was in Auckland at the weekend does not contribute to New Zealand's overall water base is ill-informed.

• Prime Minister—Statements

3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that it's "not true" that teachers can't afford to buy a home in Auckland, given many reports of teachers leaving Auckland due to housing costs and of principals struggling to fill vacancies?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Acting Prime Minister): I stand by my full statement, which went on to say that "with the help from the HomeStart loans, and … in my own electorate of Hobsonville Point, [where] we are seeing [some] houses being built there at $460,000 … there are opportunities for teachers like her." For many people it is a struggle to buy a house, and that is exactly why the Government has a comprehensive suite of measures to get more houses built. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The supplementary question, please, Mr Little.

Andrew Little: Given he thinks housing is affordable for teachers in Auckland, what does he say to Auckland teacher Melanie, who wrote to me recently to say: "When I go back to work full-time I'll be lucky to afford rent, let alone to buy a house, and I am top of the pay scale."?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think we accept that it can be a struggle for some families to purchase a home. It always has been, particularly saving for the deposit. That is one of the reasons that we brought in the HomeStart loan, and we have had more than 20,000 people pick that up so far.

Andrew Little: Given he thinks housing is affordable for teachers in Auckland, what does he say to Auckland teacher Carol, who also wrote to me recently, and said: "It's sad to know I have no hope of ever owning a home. I don't know why I bothered to get qualified."?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I said, I do accept that it is a struggle for a lot of families—as it has been over the decades, actually, for some—to get into homeownership and to save a deposit and to then be able to afford that mortgage, but I do not agree that there is no hope. I think that with the supply that is going on, with the building consents that are being done, and with the level of building, we will see it getting better for people like her.

Andrew Little: Given he thinks housing is affordable for teachers in Auckland, what does he say to Auckland teacher Leondra, who wrote to me to say she is paying "over a third of my pay per week on rent. How will I ever be able to afford my own home?"

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I said, this Government's comprehensive plan to have more houses built, particularly in Auckland, is making a difference and will make it easier for people like her.

Andrew Little: What does he say to Colin Dale, principal of Murrays Bay Intermediate School, who says: "I would say there definitely is a very serious teacher shortage. It's not just about the numbers but about the affordability of being able to live in an area where it is so expensive to rent even a room."?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have been informed that the latest figures show that there were 127 teacher vacancies in Auckland in December, which is around 1.5 percent of all teacher positions. Ten years ago there were over 300 vacancies, and in the last year just 2 percent of permanent teachers in Auckland left the region to work elsewhere, and the figure for the rest of New Zealand was also 2 percent.

Andrew Little: When teachers have had a 6 percent nominal pay increase since 2013, but Auckland house prices are up 72 percent and rents are up 22 percent, is life getting harder or easier for teachers due to National's housing crisis?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I would simply repeat that, actually, the figures do not stack up with the member's assertion that everyone is leaving Auckland and that teachers are leaving because of house prices there. Actually, we are seeing just 2 percent of permanent teachers in Auckland leave the region to work elsewhere, and people have left Auckland to work in other parts of New Zealand for decades.

Andrew Little: Why are he and his deputy so out of touch that they insist buying a home in Auckland is affordable when teachers and principals are clearly saying that Auckland teachers are unable to afford to live as a result of their housing crisis?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I understand that my truthful answers are not fitting the member's rhetoric that he would like to run today, and that is that we understand that it can be really hard for some families to save for a deposit for a house, and that things in Auckland—we have certainly seen house prices. But it is going to be the policies and the work of this Government that are going to see those opportunities there for teachers.

• Environment, Minister—Statements

4. RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Yes, particularly my statement that a 10 cents a litre charge on water would bankrupt our farmers. They use 6 trillion litres a year in irrigation and stock water, so would be billed $600 billion a year under the 10 cents a litre policy that both he and Mr Nash from the Labour Party have promoted.

Richard Prosser: What documentary evidence does he have to support his statement: "Yes, I did see a proposal from the New Zealand First Party to charge all water users 10c per litre."?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am happy to quote the parliamentary Hansard of the debate on the Prime Minister's statement on 17 February, where the member said: "If, for example, a 10 cents a litre charge were made, that would be a good policy." [Interruption]

Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am about to hear a point of order. I expect to hear it in silence.

Richard Prosser: My point of order is that the question related to the charge applying to all water-users. The Minister did not address that.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I heard that the Minister did. He then quoted from the Hansard. As to whether it fits the answer that the member was expecting and was a satisfactory answer, that is for members to determine. The Minister certainly addressed the question that was asked.

Richard Prosser: What documentary evidence does he have to support his statement in relation to "companies are extracting millions of litres of water for bottling and export", that New Zealand First demanded "a prohibition on export."?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would refer to the member's own speeches, where he has sought both charges on water on some occasions, and to other Opposition MPs, like Stuart Nash, who has promoted a 10 cents a litre charge. My comments are that they are impractical and would bankrupt our most important primary industries.

Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Since the Minister has made reference to speeches that I have made, it is presumably a document on official record that the Minister is quoting from, and I would ask that he table it.

Mr SPEAKER: I am certainly not interested, if it is a Hansard document, in that being tabled, because Hansard is available to all members at any time. Does the Minister want to address what particular official document he may be quoting from?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am quoting the parliamentary Hansard of 17 February 2017, which I—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Then that is not what I would confirm—[Interruption] Order! That is not what I have said is an official document that the member can then ask to be tabled. It is already available if the member wants to go and look it up.

• Family Violence Legislation—Announcements

5. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has she made to improve New Zealand's family violence legislation?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): Today I introduced new legislation, the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill, to overhaul the Domestic Violence Act. One of the most worrying and most difficult social issues facing New Zealand is our high rate of family violence. Part of this is the ingrained and insidious nature of the problem, but it is also in the fact that there is no easy or quick fix. The omnibus Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill is an important part of building a new way of dealing with family violence. It implements our Safer Sooner reforms, announced in September last year, which are aimed at breaking the pattern of family violence and reducing the harm and cost inflicted on those who suffer violence and on wider New Zealand society. I look forward to the support of this House to progress the bill and help to change our horrific record on family violence.

Sarah Dowie: How will these changes support a more integrated family violence system?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The bill underpins our move to an integrated system through specific changes to promote proactive and coordinated responses—including creating pathways to help families at risk of escalating violence before they end up at court; implementing new information-sharing provisions that allow people in the sector to see all relevant information when assessing risk; allowing codes of practice to be issued to help ensure services are coordinated and consistent; more effectively changing perpetrator behaviour by increasing access to risk- and needs-assessment, and referrals to appropriate services; and enhancing decision making by more accurately recording family violence offending in the criminal justice system, to enable decision makers to easily determine whether a perpetrator has a history of violence—and will provide better information about family violence volumes and trends.

• Superannuation Fund—Government Contributions, Tax Cuts, and Commentary

6. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with yesterday's Dominion Post editorial, "it would be absurd for National to hand out tax cuts while refusing to restore contributions to the Cullen Fund"?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): As it happens, no. Every Government has to make decisions about balancing the needs of investing in people today, versus tomorrow. For this Government, our focus is on hard-working Kiwi families today, as well as on what happens in the future. Therefore, our Budget, which is coming up, has four key priorities: delivering better public services for a growing country; building the infrastructure we all need to keep growing the economy; paying down debt as a percentage of GDP; and working towards reducing the tax burden on lower and middle income earners, to help them with raising their kids or saving for a home.

Grant Robertson: Why is he prioritising absurd tax cuts ahead of actually housing the 41,000 homeless New Zealanders living in cars and garages?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I invite the member to go out and tell every New Zealander, every hard-working Kiwi family, that giving them back a little more of their own money is absurd. I invite him to do that—to go and tell hard-working Kiwis who are trying to bring up their families and are saving for a home that they do not rate aboard the Labour Party. He should do that all day—in fact, I recommend he gets on with it in the next question.

Grant Robertson: Why is he prioritising absurd tax cuts rather than helping the 530,000 hard-working Kiwis who said that they could not afford to go to the doctor last year?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have some doubt about the member's numbers, but nevertheless, again, it is important for a Government to focus on delivering public services, and we are doing that with big increases in investment in the health sector and the under-13s policy, which is allowing young Kiwis to go and see the doctor. We do all of those things, and we focus on doing that in a more effective way, with things like the Better Public Services programme. And then, when we get the room, we also trust Kiwis to have the opportunity to spend a little of their own money to bring up their own kids and to actually do the saving for the things that they want. That is what is really important to them.

Andrew Little: What are you doing about lifting incomes?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We are doing that too.

Grant Robertson: Why is he prioritising absurd tax cuts when there are 90,000, 15- to 24-year-olds not in education, not in employment, and not in training?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again, we are investing huge amounts in that area. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago I was in Kaikohe—I am not sure whether the member has ever been there—where there was a graduation ceremony for the kids who have been "neets" for a long period of time. There is a Government investment to get those young people into work. Some of those kids have very challenging social issues. We have Project 1000 in Hawke's Bay, we have the new Project Tamariki programme in Northland, and we have the Youth Guarantee—fees-free.

Hon Member : Why is it getting worse, then? Twenty thousand over the last year. Get it right.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Actually, it is not getting worse. It is getting better—considerably better. We are also looking at ways of supporting Kiwi families in other ways. But, again, I invite the member to keep rubbishing Kiwi families.

Grant Robertson: Can the Minister of Finance please save New Zealanders and himself from the indignity of more cartoons like this one in the Dominion Post today, stop the slow striptease on tax cuts, and actually prioritise investing in housing, health, and education?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Can I just say to the member, as much as he is hanging on to his copy of the cartoon, it is not a particularly good likeness.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Minister admit that his Government's decision not to contribute to the Cullen fund has cost $22 billion already, or as Adrian Orr said yesterday: "So the fund at the moment is $34 billion kiwi. We estimate if the capital contributions had continued, and the investments had been as they had performed, the fund would be around $56 billion."?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sure that Mr Orr would be the first to tell the member that, actually, past performance is not necessarily a guarantee of future performance in any investment. But, more importantly, I think the question the member would need to answer—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order. Mr Speaker, I specifically referred to the period that Mr Orr was referring to, which is yesterday, not the future, and I am asking the Minister of Finance: are we down $22 billion as a consequence?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! No, the question was a very long-winded question, and when the member continues to ask long-winded questions like that, he invites a very generalised answer from the Minister. If the member wants more specific answers to his questions, he has got to tighten them up in line with Standing Order 380.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am referring to a quote from a well-performing fund run by Mr Orr, and I think I am entitled to quote what he said. It is all in two sentences.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I gave the member the chance to use the quote. There is no reason why I should not allow that to happen, but in using such a long quote, and a substantial part to the question before the quote, it is a very long question, which gives far more license to the Minister when he answers. Does the Minister wish to complete his answer?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I would like to. I think the point that is raised is that the question has to be asked: where would that $13.5 billion come from? We did not put that money into the Superannuation Fund because we had to pay for the Christchurch earthquake recovery and we had to support New Zealanders through the global financial crisis. So what the member needs to answer if he wants to ask that question is: would that be $13.5 billion in extra debt, or would he spend $13.5 billion less on New Zealanders, or would he tax New Zealanders $13.5 billion more? Those are his three choices; he cannot magic it up.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: So when Adrian Orr says "So we've added around $16.5 billion over and above the cost of debt.", is he wrong and the Minister right?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I cannot speak to Mr Orr's particular quote, because I think it might have been mangled a little bit, but my point is, in that context, that it does not count against our net debt, Mr Peters. It is actually hypothecated to superannuation, so it is not part of our debt. If we borrow to put more money into the fund, that goes against our net debt. So I come back to my question: does the member recommend us borrowing $13.5 billion more—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! We are getting to the stage now where the Minister is asking the member questions. It is question time for Ministers to answer questions.

• Regional Tourism Infrastructure—Funding Announcements

7. NUK KORAKO (National) to the Minister of Tourism: What announcements has she made about the Government providing more support for regional tourism infrastructure?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Tourism): Today we have announced that applications are now open for $5.5 million in extra funding for infrastructure projects, to help regional communities cope with tourism growth. Regions are reaping the benefits of our booming tourism industry, with all 16 regions seeing growth in tourism spending in the last year. But that has brought pressure on infrastructure, so that is why we set up the Regional Mid-sized Tourism Facilities Grant Fund last year. We received many worthy applications in round one, and, as such, we have opened new funding and a new round with this $5.5 million.

Nuk Korako: What kind of projects will be funded?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: In round one we received 40 applications, of which 26 were eligible, and we funded 14. They included things like new toilets at Lake Tekapō, parking at Taranaki's Rotokare Scenic Reserve, toilets and rubbish collection in the Coromandel, and freedom camping facilities in Whakatāne. We will be looking at similar projects this time around.

Nuk Korako: Why is the Government stepping in to fund infrastructure projects?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Tourism is now a $14.5 billion export industry that employs over 188,000 people, and is incredibly important for our cities and our regions. Local facilities like this are normally funded by local government, but because of that boom the Government is prepared to step in and help fund some of these projects.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a Local Government New Zealand report from Lawrence Yule, a National Party candidate, saying that local government is down $1.4 billion in deficit spending.

Mr SPEAKER: I just want to be clear. It is an official document prepared by whom?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Local Government New Zealand, and Lawrence Yule, a much-beloved National Party candidate.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is it publicly available? I suspect it is. Yes, it is—the member nods his head—so I will not be putting the leave.

• Immigration, Minister—Statements

8. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by his statement, "we've got immigration policy settings that make sure the right people come in and the wrong people don't … I think we've got the policy settings just about bang on"?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): Yes.

Ron Mark: If our policy settings are "just about bang on", why has his Government approved over 90,000 work visas for unskilled foreign workers, which is an increase of 71 percent since 2011?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: At the risk of playing a game of "my statistics are better than his statistics", the labour-market tested work visas that are of most importance to me are the ones described as essential skills work visas. In 2006-07, the last full year the Labour Government was supported by that member's party, there were 14,612 first essential skills visas granted. Last year there were 8,329. The total number of visas granted that year under the essential skills policy in 2006-07 was 45,213. Last year it was 33,545. I think you will agree that that is a significant drop in the labour-market tested work visas.

Ron Mark: If his Government is "working for all New Zealanders", why has his Government approved over 90,000 work visas for unskilled migrants, as opposed to helping over 90,000 youth not employed or in education or in training, who are unskilled?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I certainly reject the characterisation of those 90,000 work visas as unskilled. I should also note that last year a significant number of those—69,000 of them—were working holiday visas, subject to bilateral agreements we have with other countries. The key to that is that they are both working and holiday visas. They do two very important things: they spend the money they earn, and they provide a valuable source of labour in very high-demand areas like Queenstown and Wānaka. I think that that member should go down there and tell that community what he intends to do with working holiday visas, and see what the reaction is. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will just have the supplementary question.

Ron Mark: Thank you, Mr Speaker—so tempted. If it is a priority of his Government to "make sure that Kiwis are being trained and getting the jobs that are available", then why has he turned his back on almost 140,000 Kiwis who are unemployed, in favour of 90,000 unskilled migrants?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I refer back to that labour-market test of work visa data, which shows that the number of visas granted under this Government has dropped significantly. I would also say that no Government has done as much as this to make sure that Kiwis are at the front of the queue and in removing the barriers to work for many of those young people. We are continuing to work with employers to make sure that that is the case.

Ron Mark: Could I seek the leave of the House to table—and I do not think they have been released yet—PQ00761, which gives all the statistics, just in order to help the Minister understand his own immigration figures? Nothing has been published yet.

Mr SPEAKER: I just want an assurance that they have recently been received and that they have not been published.

Ron Mark: I do not believe they have been published yet.

Mr SPEAKER: The member should have found that out. What is the date of the answers being received?

Ron Mark: No, I cannot give that. I am told they will not be published until tomorrow.

Mr SPEAKER: On that basis, then, I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table those particular answers, on the basis that they have not been published and that they will not be published until tomorrow. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. They can be tabled.

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

• Housing Infrastructure Fund—Council Debt

9. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Infrastructure: Why does his Housing Infrastructure Fund offer more debt to councils when the biggest high-growth local authority, Auckland Council, is already close to its debt ceiling?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Infrastructure): The Government has put a billion dollars on the table through the Housing Infrastructure Fund to help fast-growing councils fund their water and transport infrastructure. Can I point out to the member that the transport part of that funding does not increase council debt, because it is a change in the funding assistance rate. The water infrastructure element does increase council debt. Although Auckland Council has indicated some concern around its debt constraints, its income each year is nearly $4 billion, which is up about half a billion dollars in just the last 2 years—in the last 2 years, a half-billion-dollar increase. That would normally provide the council quite a bit of headroom to provide its share of the infrastructure needed for growth. However, we are working with the council on further options that may mean some of its debt is not held on its balance sheet.

Phil Twyford: How can he claim his $1 billion line of credit is a credible policy when only one-third of it is earmarked for Auckland, which alone needs $20 billion to fund the infrastructure for essential housing developments?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I am not sure where the member gets his one-third earmarked for Auckland from, because it is based around the applications that are received from the fast-growth councils, and, actually, they will be assessed irrespective of which council they come from. Again, I think—and I speak as an Auckland ratepayer—it is important to point out that, actually, Auckland's income has grown a lot in the last couple of years. It is $4 billion worth of turnover this year. Two years ago, it was around $3.5 billion. If the council had have held its cost structure—and I appreciate it is not Mr Goff's lookout, because he has only just come into the job—to what it was 2 years ago, then it would be generating half a billion dollars' worth of money that it could use against its debt today, based on 2 years ago.

Phil Twyford: Is he aware that only 10,000 new homes were consented in Auckland in the last year, adding to his growing deficit of 40,000 new homes needed, and will he now accept that Labour's plan for infrastructure bonds, paid back by a targeted rate, will make infrastructure financing fairer, cheaper, and, most importantly, will open up the flow of finance that new housing developments desperately need?

Mr SPEAKER: There are, again, two supplementary questions. The Minister can address one or both.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In terms of the construction rate in Auckland, I know the member does not want to know this, but, actually, we are in the middle of a massive building boom in Auckland. In the suburb where I live, for example, there are literally a couple of thousand apartments being built around now, and, actually, the consent figures for the last year were around 10,000, and also there was a similar number the year before. By any standards, more houses are being built in Auckland now than at any time since about 2004. The member might want to ignore that, but, actually, most Aucklanders who know and see the subbies and the contractors around know that it is actually happening.

Phil Twyford: Why would he not pass on to homeowners the Government's ability to borrow on the international bond market more cheaply than anyone else and spread that cost over the lifetime of the asset, instead of loading it all on to the price tag of a new home, which is what currently happens?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I am sorry, but the member is simply incorrect. That is not what currently happens. In fact, councils borrow money and push it out over 20 or 30 years precisely for the reasons that the member identifies so that it does not all fall on today's homeowners. So he is just completely wrong. The other issue he has got with his bond model is that it depends very much on how it is structured in terms of whether the debt still ends up on the councils. There is a thing called international accounting standards, which means that if you have a debt, it ends up on your balance sheet. It ends upon your balance sheet. So we are actually working with Auckland Council and other councils on some opportunities around special purpose vehicles, but the member is wrong if he thinks that just allowing the council to borrow the Government's money and pay it back would actually solve the issue.

Phil Twyford: Does he stand by Nick Smith's dismissal of Labour's infrastructure bonds plan as "creative accounting", given that the idea is supported by the Productivity Commission, the Property Council, and Infrastructure New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member's proposal around infrastructure bonds, as I said before, depends completely on who holds the debt. Somebody has to hold the debt, and the council has to dedicate a stream of income against that debt, and that is what we are working on—

Hon David Parker: No, it's a targeted rate.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, actually, it is still a stream of income. You can call it a targeted rate, but it is still some of the rates income of the council dedicated against that debt. We are looking at something called special purpose vehicles, which might help in this regard, but you cannot just pretend the debt goes on the council.

Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 10—

Hon Member: Come on, keep going.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, we are not keeping going.

• Prime Minister—Statements

10. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Acting Prime Minister): Yes.

Jan Logie: How can he stand by his statement that our 40-year-old abortion law has "stood the test of time" when it undermines women's right to choose, often requires people to lie about the reasons they need an abortion, and was written before the invention of medical abortions?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It has not been altered in 40 years and, as such, the Prime Minister stands by his statement.

Jan Logie: Is he comfortable that 90 percent of women who choose to seek an abortion are ineligible for medical abortions because of all the hoops they have to jump through?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I stand by the law as it currently is, and we have no plans to bring in legislation otherwise.

Jan Logie: Has he asked the Minister for Women about whether she thinks it is time we trusted women and their doctors to make the right decisions for them?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have spoken with the Minister for Women on issues around this. One thing that she has spoken about is how pleased she is about both the reduction in teen births to teenagers and, actually, abortions as well. For example, in 2007 there were 18,382 abortions and in 2015 there were 13,155. The other great news though, more importantly, I think, is that we have got 57 percent fewer teen mums on welfare, and I think that they and their children will be doing much better.

• State Highway 2—Announcements

11. SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Transport: What is the Government doing to improve safety and travel times on State Highway 2 between Tauranga and Waihī?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Yesterday I welcomed news from the New Zealand Transport Agency that a bypass of the Katikati town centre will be included in the upgrade of State Highway 2 between Tauranga and Waihī. Recently there has been strong growth in traffic volumes through the town and growing concerns in the local community about the safety of the road. I am pleased that the views of the Katikati community have been taken on board. The new bypass will not only return the town to the local community but also improve road safety and increase economic growth in the region.

Scott Simpson: What other work is the Government doing to improve safety and travel times on State Highway 2 in the Coromandel electorate between Tauranga and Waihī?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The stretch of highway between Tauranga and Waihī is overrepresented in fatalities and serious injuries. That is why the Government is delivering a $520 million roading package in an ongoing effort to improve safety and travel time and to support economic growth in the region. There will be $85 million spent on a wide range of safety improvements along the road, which will reduce death and serious injury crashes. The package also includes the long-awaited, over $300 million Tauranga Northern Link, which will connect Tauranga with Ōmokoroa. All up, these projects are but a part of the Government's multibillion-dollar investment in regional New Zealand.

• School Buildings—Spending

12. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Associate Minister of Education: Does she believe the Government has succeeded in her 2014 aim to "get ahead of demand" for new classrooms before serious capacity issues arise; if so, why did the Government fail to spend $54 million allocated for new schools and roll growth last year?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Associate Minister of Education): Yes, I do believe the Government is succeeding in getting ahead of demand. In Auckland, for example, we have signed off and funded 17,000 student places since 2014, which means that we are running thousands ahead of high-growth projections in the Auckland Plan. Secondly, the member does not understand the Budget process. The $54 million transfer was in the context of a $500 million appropriation over 3 years of Budgets. It is not unusual to have a 10 percent difference when you are managing a major capital programme. There are a range of reasons, some of which can be very positive in the timing of the draw-down. Sometimes it can be because of procurement savings, which is a good thing. Sometimes it can be because schools are asking for additional scope, which we give them at a later stage. It would be incorrect for the member to infer that the overall delivery date for these projects is delayed and that we are not investing in growth.

Chris Hipkins: Why is Balmoral School still waiting for its upgrade work, given she visited the school in 2015 to announce a $24 million upgrade, only to announce this week that it will now get $30 million because constant delays to the project have seen costs blow out by over $5 million?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: There are a range of reasons why Balmoral School has taken longer. It has chosen, at one level, to do additional things in terms of its design. The second issue has been growth—and there has been additional growth; that is why we have signed off the additional $5 million. The third issue is that there are weathertightness issues. But, as my letter this week said, we have given it an additional $5 million.

Chris Hipkins: Is it acceptable that while Balmoral School continues to wait for its major upgrade, it also continues to wait to use the temporary relocatable classrooms already sitting on its school field in the meantime, particularly given that the building consent for the relocatable classrooms was issued by the Auckland Council on 3 February and lapsed because nobody from the Ministry of Education bothered to pick it up?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I would have to look specifically at that issue of consent. I am aware that there was a public meeting the other night. There were a range of things raised, some of which—in fact, the member Jacinda Ardern attended—I think were incorrect that were said publicly. What I would say is that that school is getting $30 million, and part of the reason for the delay has been due to design and the community's wish to take longer in terms of design.

Chris Hipkins: What are the significant changes to the design that Balmoral School has put forward, and how does it vary from the one it put forward in 2012, upon which the original funding of $24 million was appropriated?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, there are two supplementary questions. The Minister can address one or the other.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: My understanding is that a large part has to do with the additional growth. If you look at what the roll has gone to, it has gone over 900 students, so the conversation that has been going on—

Chris Hipkins: No change to the design.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: In fact, I can give him the detail. I do not always memorise 2,500 schools' property programmes, but what I can tell the member is that we signed off 32 new classrooms and have now signed off several additional refurbished classrooms, and that is because of growth.

Chris Hipkins: How many of the schools that have been allocated funding for upgrades, in a recent flurry of announcements, will be waiting several years for the work to even start, as Balmoral School has been waiting—or does she think that getting photo ops and press releases is more important than actually getting the work done?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: In regard to the second question, in terms of photo ops, yes, there are a lot of photo ops happening. That is because we have spent a third more—$1.5 billion more—fixing the last Labour Government's legacy of rotting schools and not investing in growth.

Chris Hipkins: Do the figures on the Ministry of Education's Education Counts website—the ones that Hekia Parata says are the only reliable figures—show that the Government has spent $3.549 billion in the last six years, compared with $3.467 billion in the six years prior to that; if so, how on earth does she justify her claim that it is spending so much more money?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: If you had listened to all the statements that I have made, they are over an 8-year period. We have spent $1.5 billion more than the last Government over that period.

Chris Hipkins: Was Christchurch Boys' High School principal Nic Hill wrong when he said: "The everyday reality is most schools don't have enough property. It's not just the rebuild, it's resourcing."?, and was North Shore Principals Association chair Craig Holt also wrong when he said: "It seems to be we chase our tail in terms of planning for roll growth."?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Obviously, I do not agree with those statements generally, because overall property funding has increased by a third. But can I just mention Christchurch Boys' High School, because the facts are that it is getting $33 million. The facts are, as well, that 50 percent of its students are out of zone.

© Scoop Media