• TUESDAY, 4 APRIL 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Operation Burnham—Allegations of Civilians Killed by New Zealand Troops, Ministerial Involvement, and Potential Inquiry

1. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Based on the advice he has received from the Defence Force and the Minister of Defence, does he know if any civilians were killed in Operation Burnham; if so, how many?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): As I have said a number of times, it is possible that civilian casualties occurred during Operation Burnham. Allegations of civilian casualties have not, however, been substantiated. This has been on the public record since 2010.

Andrew Little: Did the Prime Minister personally authorise all individual operations in Afghanistan; if not, why did his predecessor need to personally authorise Operation Burnham?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The general procedure would be that the Government, in its capacity of civilian control of the armed forces, would set policy, including objectives of a deployment and rules that apply—for instance, rules of engagement about whether New Zealand troops are inside the wire or outside the wire, like in Taji, for instance—and then it is up to the Defence Force command to make operational decisions. When those are significant, one would expect that the Minister of Defence and/or the Prime Minister would be aware of them.

Andrew Little: Why did his predecessor need to personally authorise Operation Burnham?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We would have to go back and have a look at what the technical aspects of the decisions were, but given that there had been loss of life in Afghanistan—that is, the loss of a New Zealand soldier and the possibility of more—it would unusual if the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence were not aware of the operation.

Andrew Little: Having seen some of the video footage from the operation, can he confirm whether the SAS or coalition forces received incoming fire from enemy combatants during the raid, or was there no return fire?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said yesterday, I do not intend to comment in detail on the video footage, other than to say that it confirms the facts as outlined by the Chief of Defence Force last week, and confirms, importantly, that New Zealand and coalition troops behaved consistent with the rules of engagement.

Andrew Little: Did either the New Zealand SAS or coalition forces cause the deaths of civilians during the raid?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As has been rehearsed many times, because of allegations that there were civilian casualties, an investigation was mounted quite shortly after the operation by the coalition forces. They were unable to substantiate civilian deaths. Further allegations have been made in the recently published book. It turns out that the recently published book talked about a series of events in a place where the New Zealand troops did not go. So that book does not substantiate civilian casualties. If there was substantial evidence of it, then of course we would be interested in what, if any, role New Zealand troops played in those deaths.

Andrew Little: How did 3-year-old Fatima die on the day of the raid?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: If one is to follow the narrative in the book, then the 3-year-old must have been in a different village, because the New Zealand troops did not go to the village talked about in the book.

Andrew Little: Why is he so opposed to an inquiry when Lieutenant General Tim Keating has said that he is open to one?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Having observed the Defence Force's process and having viewed background material—including a small amount of classified material—I have come to the view that an inquiry into war crimes and misconduct is not required because there is no evidence that war crimes were committed, and the evidence is compelling that our troops conducted themselves professionally in accordance with the rules of engagement under legal supervision.

• Economy—Reports

2. TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received about New Zealand's economic outlook?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): During the recess, the credit rating agency Moody's reaffirmed New Zealand's highest possible triple A sovereign credit rating with a stable outlook, highlighting the country's high economic resilience and effective policy making, and a very strong fiscal position. Moody's states that it expects that New Zealand will be one of the fastest-growing triple A rated economies over the next few years. It also notes that New Zealand's strong population growth, including through immigration, helps lift the country's economic potential.

Todd Barclay: What does Moody's say about the Government's fiscal priorities?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Moody's statement is actually a very positive endorsement—almost an embarrassingly positive endorsement—of the Government's and New Zealand's economic performance and policy settings, and underlines the benefits of all the work that New Zealand as a whole has done over the last few years to strengthen our economy and our country's finances. It highlights the Government's targeting and subsequent achievement of a Budget surplus in 2014-15 as evidence of the country's effective policy making. It also notes that the Government's focus on preserving strong public finances provides New Zealand with the room to buffer the economy from any future economic shocks or natural disasters.

Todd Barclay: How will the Government ensure New Zealand retains its strong fiscal position?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government will continue to prudently manage public finances, with one of our key priorities being to reduce net debt to around 20 percent of GDP by 2020-2021 to ensure that we can manage any shocks that may happen in the future. I appreciate that there are other views of that target and I have seen recent reports of organisations seeking to postpone debt targets for 2 or 3 years, apparently in the name of fiscal responsibility. However, it is important to note that New Zealand has recent experience with economic shocks and natural disasters, and it is important to have the capacity to respond to those and to return to those as soon as is reasonably possible and that is why we have the target.

Todd Barclay: Has he received any other reports that highlight New Zealand's economic outlook?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes—busy times in the economic outlook division. Today the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research released its Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion, which indicates that it expects economic activity to continue to grow at a moderate pace. While overall confidence eased slightly, likely reflecting wider geopolitical issues, businesses remain upbeat about their prospects, with a net 21 percent of firms reporting stronger activity over the last quarter and a net 25 percent of firms expecting improved activity in the quarter ahead, indicating that growth is expected to continue through this year.

• Tourism, Minister—Statements on Proposed Tourist Levy

3. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Tourism: Does she stand by her statement regarding a tourist levy that "I'm personally not a big fan … because we're really expensive to visit"?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Tourism): Yes, and what I was going to go on to say when I gave that interview but just did not get a chance to get all those words in at once was that I am interested in looking at how much extra tourism infrastructure we actually need so we can evaluate each project on its merits. Some of the projects that are being put forward by councils are not due to increased tourism; they are core infrastructure that should be provided by councils.

James Shaw: Can she confirm that visitor arrivals are forecast to increase from 3.1 million in 2015 to 4.5 million in 2022?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: There are a number of forecasts, and we are ahead of where we thought we would be when we were working towards 2025. So I have seen one that projects that, but that may or may not happen.

James Shaw: What evidence has she seen that an increase to the levy that tourists pay to come to New Zealand to a level still lower than that paid by visitors to the United Kingdom or Australia would deter significant numbers of visitors to New Zealand?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I said, it is not just a matter of us being more expensive. I think there is also the matter of tourism infrastructure being able to stand on its own merits and actually present a business case. I agree with the member completely that our border levies are not necessarily more expensive than other countries' but, for example, our accommodation is. On average, Auckland and Queenstown are more expensive than Melbourne and London, for example.

David Seymour: What is the net fiscal impact to central and local government of the average tourist visiting New Zealand?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The average spend by a tourist to New Zealand—I can give you that off the top of my head—is about $3,200, and they stay for 19 days. Those who come in and spend their time around New Zealand in campervans—fully equipped, with toilets installed—spend $5,200.

James Shaw: Does she agree with the finding in the McKinsey tourism report released late last year that says that the size of the tourism infrastructure deficit in New Zealand is in the region of $150 million per year?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No.

James Shaw: Does she agree with the former tourism Minister John Key, who said late last year that small tourism charges were unlikely to have any great impact on visitor numbers?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes.

James Shaw: Well, then, why is it so unreasonable to ask the people who have come from all over the world to enjoy our natural beauty to help pay to protect it?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is not; they already do. As has been well canvassed many times, they pay GST, they put fuel in their vehicles and they pay taxes via that. We well accept that there are some infrastructure projects that need assistance and the Government is prepared and is already doing work on them. We have funded 14. We have an extra $5.5 million out there at the moment and we have money for out-years. We are also looking through the Budget process as to what else we might do. We do not deny at all that particularly for those with a small rate base and high visitor numbers, there is pressure. We also acknowledge, as I did on Sunday, that there is pressure on the Department of Conservation (DOC) estate. Nearly 50 percent of our international visitors visit DOC, so there are some great initiatives that I am sure the Minister would love an opportunity to talk about through DOC as well.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When the chairman of Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ), Lawrence Yule, National Party candidate in the next election, says that local government is down $1.—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: You're just jealous.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Not of you I'm not, no.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will just have the question quickly, otherwise we will move on.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order. I wish to hear it in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, as you know, questions should be asked in silence. I hardly—[Interruption] I should not have to raise a second point of order about the first point of order not being heard in silence.

Mr SPEAKER: This is a point of order. We will hear it in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Every time one gets to his feet he is being challenged by the front bench of the National Party. Frankly, they should wait at least until the answers from the Minister come, but they are getting in first and they are never stopped. The worst offender is that Minister over there, "Mr Novopay" himself. Now—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Now I have heard quite enough. The member is right that he has every right to ask a supplementary question. It cannot be heard in silence, but we will hear the question, and there does not need to be interjection from my right-hand side. I also do ask the member, in asking a supplementary question, whether we can have the question without the lead-in about a particular chairman happening to be a National Party candidate. That does not add to the question at all. I will now have the supplementary question. [Interruption] Order! We will have the supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the chairman of Local Government New Zealand, Lawrence Yule, on the very day that the Minister offered $5.5 million to support local government infrastructure, says they are down $1.4 billion, why does she not fund it from the central government take?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I have said, this Government is prepared to look at infrastructure needs, particularly for small councils with a high visitor number. But, unlike that member—

Denis O'Rourke: All talk and no do.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Keep listening. This is what is happening with some of those projects that are on LGNZ's list. So, no, we do not think $108 million for Wellington's wastewater—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have asked a direct question about the disparity of a demand and the Government's response, and now I am getting a list of a whole lot of nothings for some time never.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no, that is not the case. It was not a direct question. It was quite a well-rounded question, and I am certainly giving the Minister an opportunity to respond.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: So part of that $1.4 billion that the member raised is for $188 million for Wellington's wastewater network, so, no, I do not think tourists should be paying for all of that. There is $122 million for Wellington's drinking-water network, $40 million for a new Northland airport, which might be a good thing—

Mr SPEAKER: Bring the answer to a conclusion.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: —but, actually, New Zealanders use that as well.

• Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, Ministry—Updates

4. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Children: What updates can she provide on the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children): Last Friday, along with the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Bill English, I welcomed the launch of the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, which became operational on 1 April. This launch signifies the end of Child, Youth and Family and the beginning of a move to a more child-centred care and protection system that is focused on prevention and early intervention and that will work with families and whānau to ensure children and young people get access to the care and support they need. It was fantastic to attend the launch along with a number of young people who have had experience in State care, who have helped to develop the system and will continue to be involved in the transformation to ensure it is truly focused on the needs and safety of children.

Stuart Smith: What support is in place to ensure the new ministry is properly supported and resourced?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I absolutely agree with those who say that the new ministry needs to be properly resourced and that social workers need support in order to deliver the best for these kids. That is why Budget 2016 invested $347 million to fund the transformation process and to address cost pressures within the system. We are implementing changes to the way that services are provided, to ensure children will be able to access specialist services like child psychologists and mental health professionals as and when they are needed.

Stuart Smith: What other changes have been made to the care and protection system?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: In December last year this House passed legislation raising the age of State care to a young person's 18th birthday. We have mandated that children and young people's views are taken into account, both in decisions about their individual circumstances and also in the development of services and policy. We have also supported the establishment of an independent youth advocacy service, VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai. More changes are on the way to allow young people to remain in care until the age of 21 and receive support until they are 25, which will greatly help their transition into adulthood.

• Wage Rates—Wage Gap between Australia and New Zealand

5. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Is it still a "fundamental purpose" of his Government to close the wage gap with Australia; if so, has the gap got smaller or larger since his Government came to office in 2008?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Yes, it is an important measure for this Government to improve the after-tax take-home pay of New Zealand families, including relative to Australia. Since the end of 2008 take-home pay in New Zealand has grown twice as fast as in Australia, thanks to wage increases, lower inflation, and tax reductions. We will continue to ensure hard-working Kiwi families can get ahead and receive the help they need to raise their children or save for a home.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a question on notice; it has two parts to it. The second part asked, very simply, whether the gap had got smaller or larger. Mr Joyce spoke about what happened in New Zealand, but he did not do the comparison that the question asks for.

Mr SPEAKER: I thought the Minister responded by saying that the after-tax take-home pay had increased.

Grant Robertson: In New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the point the member is making. The Minister has addressed what has happened in New Zealand, but the question is how that compares with Australia. I will invite the Minister to complete his answer.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: If I could repeat, I have said to the member that since the end of 2008 take-home pay in New Zealand has grown twice as fast as in Australia, thanks to wage increases, lower inflation, and tax cuts.

Grant Robertson: Can he, then, confirm that the gap in gross average weekly earnings between New Zealand and Australia has grown by $62.64 per week—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How much?

Grant Robertson: —$62.64 per week—from when his Government came into office to the end of December last year?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I cannot do that. If you compare the OECD data between the Australian and New Zealand average wages in 2008 versus 2015, which is the latest data available, it shows we have reduced the after-tax wage gap with Australia by 6 percent in New Zealand dollar terms. The gap is still too large but it is heading in the right direction.

Grant Robertson: I seek leave to table a table provided by the Parliamentary Library comparing New Zealand gross average weekly earnings with Australia between 2008 and 2016, showing a $62.64 increase.

Mr SPEAKER: The paper has been well and truly described. In light of the answer, I will put the leave, for the House to decide. Leave is sought to table that information. Is there any objection? There is none; it can be tabled.

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

Grant Robertson: Does he recall former Prime Minister John Key, in 2010, using exactly the calculation that I have just tabled—gross earnings on a purchasing power parity basis—and is he saying that John Key was wrong to use that measure?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The measure that I have used is an after-tax measure, which most people would consider as the most—

Grant Robertson: Why did John Key use that measure?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, you would have to ask Mr Key, who was in Parliament at that time. But the gap that I have shown to the member is the after-tax gap, which also takes into account the movement in the exchange rates between the two countries. But do not listen to me, Mr Robertson. Listen to the New Zealanders and the Australians who are moving to New Zealand for work, instead of moving to Australia. They are probably the best and smartest people in this regard. In 2008 New Zealand lost a net 35,400 people to Australia. In the year to February this year we gained a net 1,000 people. They are voting with their feet.

Grant Robertson: So is the Minister saying that the only reason he was ever interested in closing the gap between Australian and New Zealand wages was migration, and that he does not actually care that New Zealanders are working harder than ever but not seeing the benefits of it in their wages?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is just wrong. He is just fundamentally, statistically wrong. If he goes and has a look at the OECD data and converts the wages in Australia and New Zealand to New Zealand dollars in 2008 and 2015 he will see that the gap has reduced by 6 percent. On top of that, if he then adds a look at the employment rate between New Zealand and Australia, he will see that in New Zealand nearly 67 percent of adults are employed and in Australia it is only 60.8 percent. So the gap is closing, more people are actually in work in New Zealand than in Australia, and, therefore, more people are coming to live in New Zealand rather than the other way around. But he would be mistaken to think that the last part is the cause; it is the response to the improvement.

Grant Robertson: So in 2010, when John Key stood in this House and proclaimed that the wage gap between Australia and New Zealand was getting smaller, using exactly the same gross average wage data that I am using today, is the Minister saying that he was wrong? And why does he not just admit that the gap has got bigger under his watch by more than 60 bucks a week?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I appreciate the member has probably spent the whole of the last 10 days with this calculator, trying to work this out, but he can stats parse all he likes. I have checked the data, and in after-tax terms, New Zealand—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Stop proving you're an idiot.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —and Australia, in terms of New Zealand dollars—and I am sorry, Mr Mallard, you would have to go and have a look at the data too. The simple reality of it is—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need somewhat less interjection from my left and from my right.

• Biosecurity Management—Warning Over Importation of Animal Excrement

6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister for Primary Industries: Is it a fact that he has received serious warnings to New Zealand's biosecurity over the importation of excrement from horses, cattle, and chickens, and ignored these serious warnings?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Associate Minister for Primary Industries): on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industries: I have referred a number of submissions and correspondence about mushroom substrate to Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) officials, and officials have been taking them all very seriously. I have not ignored any submissions or correspondence. All have been referred to my officials for consideration.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What does it take to be prosecuted by this Government when Mercer Mushrooms was granted a permit on 25 June 2015 to import compost made of oats, hay, urea, gypsum, and mushroom spawn that a tip off later revealed contained incredibly high-risk animal manure?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There were some allegations that were made by a competitor. When they were made aware, MPI undertook a thorough investigation to look at the issue and establish any facts before taking action.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it normal practice for his ministry to take 4 months to action a tip off, then do absolutely nothing about that tip off despite confirming serious breaches of the biosecurity legislation and potential fraud relating to altered and backdated manufacturers' certificates?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There was, as I said, an allegation that was made. MPI made inquiries about the substance and was advised about the content. There was further questioning and the MPI equivalent authority overseas then provided additional information, which has led now to action that MPI has taken.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When this country's biosecurity is critical to its economic future, if MPI sent an email on 6 November 2015 saying "We were not aware of the two pathogens that you identified."—this to local mushroom producers who had flagged serious concerns over imported mushroom spawn—why did it take a further 6 months for the imports to stop?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said before, the overseas body that is the MPI equivalent had stated, when originally asked, that those items that were animal matter were not contained in the mushroom substrate. Under further investigations, it was found that it did, and that has triggered the import health standards process.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he right and DairyNZ wrong when it wrote: "Animal manure can contain the infectious agents for a number of economically important animal diseases, for example foot and mouth disease, as well as weeds, seeds, animal parasites, and micro-organisms. DairyNZ is of the view that animal manure products should not be imported in New Zealand." Is he right and it wrong?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said before, once the matter was identified as animal matter, the imports were stopped immediately, and an import health standard has been triggered. Officials have identified a number of potential diseases that could be contained, and that standard will not be approved unless officials are confident that the risks can be mitigated.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is this Minister saying that the imports were stopped immediately when all the evidence plainly before her is that it took 6 months to stop, and why did the taxpayers foot the bill for his officials to fly to Europe and then create a standard so preposterous that it defies common sense?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, MPI has been working with the overseas competent authority. As soon as it was determined that there were animal products in this substrate, further shipments were suspended. For the shipments that were already on the water, the product was treated. MPI also back-checked previous shipments of the substrate and could not find any issues. Given the complaint that was made by a competitor, it was appropriate that MPI undertook a detailed investigation and established all facts before taking further action.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is this Minister referring to a competitor, when the draft import health standard for what is "crap" failed to address any of the concerns raised by mushroom producers—plural—DairyNZ, and the New Zealand Equine Health Association? Or is importing the excrement of cattle, horses, and chickens really a metaphor for his performance as a Minister?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It is a detailed process for an import health standard to be considered. I am hoping the member is aware that, actually, all the parties that he has referred to are consulted in this process. I hope they have submitted. No decision has been reached because the consideration of the submissions is still open.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: On this question of biosecurity, is the Minister for Primary Industries going to make a statement about myrtle rust being found on Raoul Island, which poses a mortal threat to iconic New Zealand native species like pōhutukawa, mānuka, rātā, and, possibly, kauri, for example? Is the Minister going to make a statement about that?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This Government does take biosecurity very seriously, which is why a complaint like this is acted on—officials take action.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. On this serious matter, what is one to glean from that answer—that the Minister will make a statement or will not make a statement?

Mr SPEAKER: The question was very difficult to understand. The Minister then has addressed the question. If the member is not happy with it, he proceeds with further supplementaries—if he had any left. On this particular occasion, he has not got any more today.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is my very point. We have a limited number of supplementary questions. To be fair, to put out the prospect of further questions when the Minister has evaded an answer, is hardly, from the point of view of the public disclosure of important information, fair itself.

Mr SPEAKER: I have, on many occasions, advised the member that if he can tighten his questions, then—[Interruption] Order!—I could assist him. But when there are questions like the member has asked, it is difficult for me to assist him.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I avail myself of your literary understanding now? Could you possibly tell me how I could have tightened that question any closer?

Mr SPEAKER: I am very happy to give the member a tutorial on—[Interruption] Order! If the member would like it, I am happy to give him my services, free of charge, over a cup of coffee.

• Primary Industries, Minister—Statements on FishServe

7. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he stand by his statement that FishServe has "no conflict of interest" in its role monitoring the fishing industry, despite being a wholly-owned subsidiary of Seafood New Zealand?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Associate Minister for Primary Industries) on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industries: Yes, because FishServe provides administrative services; it has no regulatory or monitoring function. It is like a mailbox for collecting data. It has been publicly operating for over 20 years with no issue, and with a range of checks and balances on the data collected. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) is the regulatory body, not FishServe.

Eugenie Sage: Can the Minister confirm that in 2013 he gave FishServe the power to determine when bans on commercial fishing should take effect in overfished areas; if so, how is this not an example of the industry regulating itself?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There were some minor changes made to FishServe's contract in 2013 that were of an administrative nature. I confirm my comment earlier that the regulatory body, and the one that monitors, is the Ministry for Primary Industries.

Eugenie Sage: Has the Minister read Part 3, clause 14, of the Order in Council he signed in 2013 that gave FishServe the powers to monitor overfishing thresholds and determine when conditions to prohibit the taking of fish would take effect?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, there are a number of checks and balances in place to ensure that the data received by FishServe is valid and accurate. These include observers, vessel inspections, and an annual audit. In addition, MPI reconciles fishers' monthly harvest returns and catch effort data with data that is provided from the licenced fish receivers. When this data does not align, fisheries officers are alerted to follow up. Those follow-ups often lead to prosecution.

Eugenie Sage: Can the Minister confirm that in 2013 he also gave FishServe the power to exempt commercial fishers from bans preventing overfishing; if so, how is that not an example of the industry regulating itself?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I have said, the regulator of the fishing industry is MPI; it regulates and it monitors. FishServe has been operating for 20 years and its function is the collection of data, which is then analysed and monitored by independent regulators.

Eugenie Sage: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have asked two very specific questions about provisions in the Order in Council and the Minister has not answered either of them.

Mr SPEAKER: I agree entirely with the member. She did not raise it after the earlier supplementary question. I will invite the member to repeat the last supplementary question, and I will allow an additional supplementary question as well.

Eugenie Sage: Thank you. Can the Minister confirm that in 2013, in an Order in Council, he gave FishServe the power to exempt commercial fishers from bans preventing overfishing; if so, how is that not an example of the industry regulating itself?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I have said, MPI is the regulator, and this is not an instance where FishServe is dictating what occurs. There are a number of decisions that this Government is making. If the member wants details on that specific item, I would just suggest she put it down in writing.

Eugenie Sage: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister does not appear to know what is in the Order in Council—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, where the member is now in trouble is she has asked two supplementary questions in that one question. The first part has not been addressed, but the Minister has taken the opportunity, very clearly, of addressing the second supplementary question. The member, again, needs to read the rules and ask a single supplementary question.

Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister accept that it is possible that FishServe could be influenced by the fishing industry, given that Seafood New Zealand CEO Tim Pankhurst sits on its board and FishServe shares its offices with three other industry organisations?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: FishServe is a group that is set up as part of the industry body—it is not uncommon in many other industries—where it serves functions that provide support to its members. There is not a conflict of interest here as the member suggests, because MPI is the regulator.

Eugenie Sage: Does this mean that the Minister agrees with his ministry, which insisted yesterday that there is nothing wrong with the fishing industry being allowed to monitor itself?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I am hoping the member is aware that there is a significant body of work that is being undertaken by this Government about the future of fisheries, which is traversing a number of issues that I am sure the member is interested in. Whether it is rolling out cameras, whether it is GPS tracking, or whether it is electronic reporting, this will provide the greatest level of transparency ever and actually is world leading, and I hope that member is supporting it.

Eugenie Sage: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very simple question about whether the Minister—

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

Eugenie Sage: Thank you. Does this mean he agrees with his ministry, which insisted yesterday that there is nothing wrong with the fishing industry being allowed to monitor itself?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I have said before, FishServe collects the data and provides it to MPI, which has the regulatory function.

Eugenie Sage: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a question about whether the Minister agreed with statements by the ministry. The Minister has not answered that question.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I think on this occasion—the second time—I think probably the answer is yes. I think the member is looking for a yes or no answer. The Speakers' rulings are quite clear that you cannot demand a yes or no answer to a question. The question on this occasion has been addressed, but the member still has a further supplementary question, I think, if she wants one.

Eugenie Sage: Why is the Minister not concerned that FishServe, which is overseeing decisions about fishing bans meant to prevent overfishing, is literally being run by the fishing industry?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I have said before, the industry does not regulate itself. FishServe purely provides administrative services; it does not have a regulatory function and it does not have a monitoring function.

Question No. 6 to Minister

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I seek leave to table five documents. The first is the Ministry for Primary Industry's Official Information Act (OIA) request correspondence of 23 February, the second is Dairy New Zealand's submission on the proposed importation of mushroom-growing medium, the third is the submission of the New Zealand Equine Health Association on a similar matter, the fourth is a 2005 technical paper from the University of Minnesota about a similar matter, and the fifth is a 2010 journal paper from the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research entitled "Degradation of foot-and-mouth disease virus [etc., etc.]".

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those five documents: an OIA response, Dairy New Zealand's submission, an equine submission, something from the University of Minnesota, and a Canadian scientific paper. The—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, not as a package—one by one.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I am putting the leave for all five to be tabled. Is there any objection to those items being tabled? There is objection.

• Building and Construction, Minister—Statements on First Home Owners

8. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does he stand by his statement, "Whenever people make that first decision to get into a first home, it is always going to be a stretch and difficult. I think there is an element that people need to be realistic and that is that your first home is not going to be one in the leafy suburbs of Remuera close to the central city"?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Construction): Yes, and I note through the HomeStart grants, at the time of that quote 2 years ago, we have helped over 27,000 first-home buyers into their first home, with grants topping $120 million, the most generous help a Government has given to first home owners in generations.

Phil Twyford: Did he say that of the 90,000 first-home buyers that he promised a first home under his HomeStart package, only 26,000 are actually living in their first homes 2 years later, and was it deliberate that that package was announced on 1 April?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The HomeStart scheme, which the Government started on 1 April, 2015, is growing in success—

Phil Twyford: You promised 90,000, Nick.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Ninety thousand over 5 years, Phil, and 27,000 people have been provided with a grant. I draw the member's attention to the fact that through those changes, $500 million—a doubling in the amount of money—has been accessed from KiwiSaver accounts to help people into their first home. I thought the member would have welcomed that.

Phil Twyford: Does he still agree with the former Prime Minister John Key, who advised young first-home buyers that there were "quite a few" affordable homes in Auckland on TradeMe, or does he now agree with the current Prime Minister that first-home buyers should just be patient to get a home of their own?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would draw to the member's attention that house prices in Auckland, where the market is most difficult for first-home buyers, have actually dropped by 8 percent in the last 6 months and that supply continues to grow. We have got the highest level of building consents in Auckland for more than 10 years, at over 10,000 per year. There is a construction boom going on, but each individual homebuyer will make their own choice regarding their circumstances.

Phil Twyford: Has he seen reports that his claimed the Auckland house-building boom resulted in about 8,000 houses being built last year when the city needs 13,000 a year just to keep up with population, adding to the 40,000-home deficit built under his watch; if so, does he still think that his time as Minister has been successful?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: When I became Minister, we were building 4,000 houses a year in Auckland; we are now building 10,000 a year. That is phenomenal growth, and there is actually no 4-year period in which there has been stronger and more consistent growth in building in Auckland than over the last 4 years.

David Seymour: Can the Minister also confirm that when he became Minister, Auckland and, indeed, New Zealand, was at a 40-year low?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, the actual lowest number of building consents issued in any month in the last 25 years was in November 2008 after 9 years of a Labour Government, in which house prices had doubled and the economy had collapsed. That just reinforces the challenge that myself and colleagues on this side of the House had to pick up on from 2009.

Phil Twyford: How much longer should first-home buyers be patient given that under National the average Auckland house price has doubled and homeownership for people under 40 has dropped to 25 percent?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly, I would remind the member that in Labour's 9 years house prices more than doubled nationally, significantly more than they have under our administration. Secondly, our measures are showing real progress. If you take the Massey Affordability Index, it actually shows improvements in housing affordability over the last 12 months. I would also draw the member's attention to the Reserve Bank data last week that showed that lending for investors has dropped and lending for first-home buyers and other owner-occupiers has increased substantially over the last 12 months.

David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that on an annual basis, when he came into being Minister, New Zealand was at a 40-year low in home building consents?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: When I became Minister, nationally we were building 13,000 homes per year. The latest data is that we are building 30,000 houses per year, and I would challenge that member or any other in the House to show a period of 4 years when there has been as strong a growth in building construction.

• Trade—Reports

9. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Trade: What reports has he received on trade issues?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Trade): On 24 March the Prime Minister launched Trade Agenda 2030—Securing our place in the world. The agenda sets an ambitious path for New Zealand's trade strategy over the next 10-15 years and aims to get the best possible export outcomes for our country. Our exports of goods and services have risen from $29 billion in 1995 to $70 billion in 2016, and Trade Agenda 2030 charts a course to dramatically increase these gains.

Jami-Lee Ross: How will Trade Agenda 2030 achieve success for exporters?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Trade Agenda 2030 sets an ambitious target of 90 percent of our goods trade being covered by free trade agreements (FTAs) by 2030, up from 53 percent currently. It sees $91 million of new funding, our biggest ever investment in trade policy, and it provides more resources for the Government to tackle non-tariff barriers that our exporters face. It increases our focus on services and investment and digital trade, and it will do more to help exporters succeed by providing them with practical assistance.

Jami-Lee Ross: What progress has been made on a FTA upgrade with China?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Last week the Prime Minister announced during the visit of Premier Li that our two countries will begin FTA upgrade talks on 25 April. This is an important step in modernising our trade relationship, which has evolved over the past 8 years. Since the FTA came into force in 2008, two-way goods and services trade has nearly tripled to $23 billion and created jobs and opportunities for New Zealanders.

Jami-Lee Ross: How will Trade Agenda 2030 help the Government to engage New Zealanders on the benefits of trade?

Hon TODD McCLAY: There has been significant engagement with New Zealanders on trade over the last year. In a demonstration of our commitment to engagement, I have recently established a ministerial advisory group on trade, which includes representatives from NGOs, iwi, unions, industry stakeholders, and exporters. We will continue to meet stakeholders to ensure all New Zealanders can share in the benefits that trade agreements present.

Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a 2008 document from the National Party promising to increase exports from 26 to 30 percent of GDP.

Mr SPEAKER: And what is the second document?

Hon David Parker: The second is a report from the Parliamentary Library last week showing that exports have dropped to 26 percent of GDP.

Mr SPEAKER: The first one is freely available to members to get. I will put the leave for the second one, which is a research paper from the Parliamentary Library showing a drop in exports. Is there any objection to that particular paper being tabled? There is not; it can be tabled.

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

• Earthquake Commission—Remedial Claims Settlement

10. Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Is he confident that the Earthquake Commission will meet their commitment of settling all remedial claims by 30 June 2017?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): The Earthquake Commission (EQC) remains committed to remedial repairs being resolved in a timely fashion. However, since all repairs undertaken through the Canterbury Home Repair Programme are subject to provisions in the Building Act, depending on the type of repair that is carried out, it may carry up to a 10-year liability. Given this warranty period, it would be inappropriate for EQC to provide a date for when all remedial repairs would be completed, because some may not yet be materialised. It may be the member's desire to limit remedial claims; it is not mine.

Dr Megan Woods: How many second-time repair claims are not settled in Canterbury as of today?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I do not have that number in front of me, but what I can say is that where there are claims dealt with by EQC, they will be dealt with in a fair and reasonable manner within the constraints of the Act and the cover that is provided by that insurance. What is important here is that homeowners who have had their houses repaired by EQC through the Canterbury Home Repair Programme have a place to go if they are dissatisfied. That is the purpose for setting it up in the first place, and it is working.

Dr Megan Woods: Is the Minister saying that the chair of the Earthquake Commission was wrong to give a commitment that all remedial claims lodged by 30 June 2016 would be settled by 2017?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No, I am sure that was the intention. Remember that when a person lodges a claim, there is then an assessment. If there is an obligation that comes from that assessment—and that is not always the case—there is, first, a cash settlement available or a repair.

Dr Megan Woods: Does he think that it is unreasonable that people have had a gutsful after 6 years, and they just want their homes fixed properly and the job finally done?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I look at what might have happened had we not had this programme in place, and conclude that if it had been the laissez-faire approach that some wanted—including the Opposition—then we would have had complete chaos out there, runaway inflation, and a whole lot of people getting seriously ripped off by the cowboy brigade. What we are seeing here is people being able to recognise that something is not right with a repair, and then having a place to go, with the understanding that they will get dealt with fairly. That is happening. It is a good thing.

• Health and Safety, Workplace—Updates

11. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What update can he give on workplace health and safety?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Today marks the first anniversary of the Health and Safety at Work Act coming into force. The Act was the first major reform of workplace health and safety legislation in New Zealand in more than 20 years. It struck the right balance—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am quite keen to hear the answer.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It struck the right balance between ensuring workplaces are made safer, without imposing unnecessary red tape on business. I am pleased to see the responsible and measured way New Zealand businesses and workers have responded to the change, and although the reforms are still being bedded in, we are on track to meet the Government's target of a 25 percent reduction in harm by 2020. We have made good progress in the last year and as a country we are better off. Kids are still climbing trees, voluntary organisations continue to perform their vital functions, and our workplaces are safer.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What changes has the Minister seen in workplaces so far?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Results of the 2016 Business Operations Survey showed a material increase in time spent on workplace health and safety since 2012. For the higher risk agricultural, forestry, and fishing sectors the increase was even larger, with 90 percent of those companies spending time and resources on health and safety. Although those targets are important and a strong legislative framework is a good grounding, what are most important are changes in behaviours and attitudes, because those are the things that will make sure all workers go home safely at the end of the day.

• Education, Associate Minister—Statements

12. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Associate Minister of Education: Does she stand by the Minister of Education's statement regarding teacher shortages that "this isn't a crisis, it's a shortage, but for the schools experiencing the shortage they can feel like it's a crisis"?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Associate Minister of Education): While that is not a statement I made, I do agree with Minister Parata's statement that there is no crisis and that there are shortages of teachers in some subjects and locations. Overall, teacher vacancies have actually declined from close to 12,000 in 2009 to just over 8,000 now. Nationwide we have more than 80,000 registered teachers in the schooling sector. It is also important to remember that vacancies occur for anyone who moves inside the sector—for example, getting promoted or going on parental leave, but their job is held. It is not necessarily a proxy for people leaving the profession.

Chris Hipkins: When the Minister of Education stated "There isn't literally a shortage, but there are gaps in some subjects and in some of the skill levels.", which subjects and skill levels was she referring to?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I think she has previously mentioned that we have got issues around science technology teachers, and also Te Reo.

Chris Hipkins: How does the Minister of Education define the difference between a shortage and a crisis?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I think there are several points to make on this. Previously, under the last Labour Government, where we saw the need to intervene was to add a formal process that required teaching to be put on the essential skills and demand list. We are not at that point. Under the last Labour Government we did have to do that. So from our perspective, when we have got a situation where we do not have overall numbers of fewer teachers, then we do not consider it a crisis. I think the member would be interested to know that, actually, we have seen lower attrition in the last couple of years, down at 4,800.

Chris Hipkins: When the Minister of Education made that claim, had she been briefed on the fact that the number of teaching graduates from initial teacher education programmes has consistently declined from a peak of 5,630 in 2012 to just 4,045 in 2015?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Again, while I cannot speak for the Minister of Education. What I can say is—

Chris Hipkins: Yes, you can; you have to.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: —but I am happy to answer the question. We do take into account the overall graduate numbers. As I said previously in my other answer, looking at the overall attrition we have seen a drop in attrition. It is not a one-to-one scenario. We have a range of sources for new teachers. They are not just graduates. We have teachers returning from overseas. We also have overseas teachers recruited, and we are investing heavily in that area.

Dr Jian Yang: What is the Government doing to improve not only the supply but the quality of teaching?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Last year we announced a $9 million package that funds 100 more scholarships for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduates, a recruitment drive to bring home New Zealanders and other teachers from overseas for the first time ever, promoting teaching as a career to tertiary STEM students, and support for individual schools that are having trouble recruiting. We are also committed to lifting the quality of teaching in New Zealand, including by introducing communities of learning, kāhui ako, to help teachers actually focus on teaching and sharing their experience. In 2015 we set up the Education Council and we have set up a new employment-based teacher education pilot through Teach First NZ.

© Scoop Media