ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Freshwater Management—Water Quality

1. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Ki Te Minita mō Te Taiao: Ka tukua e ngā paerewa e whakaarohia akehia nei mō te pai ake o te wai i roto i te pūhera Wai Mā, te kaha kē atu, te iti kē iho rānei o te uru atu o te tūkinotanga ki roto i ō tātou awa wai, e ngā mea whakakapi? [Do the proposed standards for water quality in the Clean Water package allow more pollution or less to enter our waterways than the ones they will replace?]

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Less. The previous 2014 national policy statement sets a long-term goal of waterways being wadeable and annual median of less than 1,000 E. coli per 100 millilitres and no specific timetable for achieving that. The new proposed standard requires 90 percent of rivers and lakes to be swimmable with an annual median of less than 130, and sets a specific timetable of the year 2040. The Clean Water package will require that 1,000 kilometres of waterways per year be moved to a higher swimming standard each year to 2040. I am advised by regional councils that it will be challenging to achieve this rate of reduction in pollution, but the Government is determined it should be achieved.

Metiria Turei: When will the Minister publish the evidence that supports his claim that the Clean Water package standards will allow less pollution into our waterways?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Clean Water package makes a plan in dropping the wadeability standard that provided for 1,000 E. coli per 100 millilitres to a swimmable standard that requires an annual median of 130 E. coli per 100 millilitres. There has been some further debate about the statistical measures and a further report is being produced by Mr Graham McBride from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA). He has, unfortunately, been unwell and so there has been a delay in some of the further technical analysis around those statistical tests.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very clear: when will he publish the evidence that supports his claim? He made no statement at all as to the timing of that publication.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not agree with the member. The Minister then went on and explained that there was some further work being done and that the publication of it had been delayed because a man was unwell.

Paul Foster-Bell: Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. How do the proposed three categories of swimmable rivers in the Clean Water package compare with the European and the United States categories?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The proposed New Zealand system uses the terms "excellent", "good", and "fair"; the European system "excellent", "good", and "sufficient". The statistical tests on E. coli levels are near identical, but the New Zealand proposed system is more cautious as it requires more samples. It also requires a median of less than 130 E. coli. And also the European system allows up to 15 percent of samples with elevated risk to be discarded. I am also advised that while the American system uses different measures, the risk profile is very similar to those under the grading system proposed for New Zealand.

Metiria Turei: Given the Minister is going to give the scientific community more time to submit on the standards, will he reopen submissions for the public once his evidence has been provided to them?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If the further evidence and report by NIWA materially changes the proposals, then yes, I would be happy to reopen for submissions. In respect of the freshwater quality scientists, they asked for a very specific analysis to be done. As I said, the scientist who had promised to do that work became unwell and so I thought it was only fair that we allowed additional time for those water quality scientists who had specifically sought that information prior to their submissions being made.

Metiria Turei: How will the new standards address the findings of the recent Ministry for the Environment report that shows that an increase in nitrogen leaching from farms is a problem that cannot be fixed unless we reduce the number of animals on those farms?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In three ways: firstly, for the very first time the Government is proposing to nationally regulate the fencing of stock out of waterways from both rivers and from lakes, and that is important. Secondly, for the very first time, we are setting a nationally consistent measure and requiring it to be reported against. And, thirdly, the proposed changes to the national policy statement tighten up the legal requirement on regional councils to reduce and limit the amount of nitrogen getting into our waterways.

Metiria Turei: The Minister does understand, does he not, that fencing will not stop the leaching of nitrogen into the waterways?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The fencing of waterways actually provides multiple benefits. It certainly will reduce the amount of E. coli getting into our waterways. It will also reduce the amount of sediment that carries nutrients like phosphorous, and it is also true that a major source of nitrates for our waterways is from animal urine and animals not directly, effectively, peeing in our rivers and lakes will also help. However, the major constraint on nitrates is the fact that there are now 18 catchments across New Zealand where there are legally binding limits on nitrates; when we came to Government there were none.

Metiria Turei: Given that the Ministry for the Environment says that an increase in dairy farming means an increase in nitrogen, which means more pollution in our waterways, why will he not support a moratorium on new dairy farms to stop that pollution?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In those 18 catchments where councils have put a limit on nitrates, that does mean that there are farmers in parts of Southland, in Taupō, and in the Waikato where there cannot be dairy intensification. Where the Government disagrees with the Greens is in that to blatantly apply a moratorium over all of New Zealand, including in areas where nitrates are not an issue, would in our view be a cost to those regional economies for no environmentally sound reason.

Metiria Turei: How can the public possibly trust him to do a good job of cleaning up our waterways when he has done such a terrible job of dealing with the housing crisis?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am happy to stand by my record that in my time as a Minister of housing, we have more than doubled the number of houses being built in New Zealand, and in respect of fresh water, I would simply make a challenge to the member to find a Government in the history of New Zealand that has made as many steps around improving New Zealand's fresh water. Public Infrastructure—Investment

2. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Finance: How much is the Government committing to spend on infrastructure over the next 4 years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Last week I announced the Government will allocate $11 billion in new capital spending over the next four Budgets, including $4 billion over the period 2017-18. This Government is investing heavily in new schools, hospitals, housing, roads, and railways, as well as additional new investment in the justice and defence sectors. New Zealand is experiencing strong economic growth, but to keep growing we have to continue investing in the infrastructure the country needs. We are able to do this because we have a strong economic plan that is delivering economic growth and ensuring the Government's finances continue to grow, and, of course, we have returned to surplus.

Brett Hudson: How does this amount compare with capital expenditure over previous years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The capital commitment in Budget 2017 that I have talked about will represent the biggest addition to the Government's capital stock in decades. In Budget 2016, for example, last year, we were forecasting around $3.6 billion in new capital spend between Budget 2017 and Budget 2020, compared with the $11 billion that was announced last week. In fact, if you add the Government's budgeted new capital investment together with the investment already being made through baselines and through the National Land Transport Fund, the total is around $23 billion over the next 4 financial years, or an average of nearly $6 billion per year.

Brett Hudson: How will New Zealanders benefit from this additional investment in infrastructure?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Kiwi families will see the benefits in terms of the facilities and services they receive for their kids to go to school, treatment in local hospitals, and, of course, the transport to get to work each day. In some parts of Auckland already you can see a massive amount of activity occurring, and I understand the frustration that comes from an epidemic of road cones, but that is a strong sign of how we are building for further growth. Change is already happening, with the recent opening of the Kapiti Expressway here in Wellington, the imminent opening of the $1.6 billion Waterview Connection, the widening of the southern corridor in Auckland, the airport motorway developments, and, of course, the Mount Roskill motorway and the Northwestern Motorway widenings, as well as the construction of the City Rail Link tunnel. These investments will go towards providing the core infrastructure needed to build homes for our growing population.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the public is to believe anything that this Minister says, can he confirm that after 8 years, not 1 metre of the Pūhoi to Warkworth superhighway has been built; that since he made the promise in the Northland by-election, not 1 metre of the Wellsford to Warkworth highway has been built; and that of his 10 two-lane bridges, nothing has started and seven have gone missing?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: If the member is criticising my word against his I would remind him that it is he who has got the record of 40 years in New Zealand's politics, with not a massive amount of consistency.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the interests of being terse and accurate I kept it very simple. I just want confirmation: yes or no?

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member knows Speakers' rulings better than that—he cannot demand a yes or no answer. Does the Minister want to complete his answer?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I was saying, the member's record of consistency over 40 years leaves something to be desired, but I am happy to help him—I am happy to help him—because this Government is investing in the highway in Pūhoi to Warkworth, and, in fact, has a great plan for Warkworth to Wellsford. It is currently investing—for the member's benefit—in four of the 10 bridges in Northland. It is investing in the State highway linking between Whangarei and the airport. It is investing in a whole bunch of other roads in Northland. If the member would like to go on a fieldtrip to his Northland electorate I suggest we get Mr Bridges to take him for a look around.

Brett Hudson: What funding tools is the Government considering to encourage additional investment in New Zealand's infrastructure?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: One of the key things the Government infrastructure spending can achieve is bringing together central government, local government, and the private sector to enhance infrastructure spending more generally. Not all infrastructure needs to be paid for by taxpayers. To encourage this coming together we are intending to further extend the use of public-private partnerships. We, of course, have the Housing Infrastructure Fund, which will help encourage joint ventures between central and local government. Also, we intend to bring in more private investors. We will have more to say about that in the months ahead.

Marama Fox: How will the Minister respond to Ella Te Kani, Tina Karaitiana, and Nikki Searancke, of Ngati Porou, who run their whānau trust growing forests, who tell me they cannot get the logs out because the public road needed to do so is impassable and there is no plan to fix it, creating a net loss to them of $3 million.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Minister of Transport tells me that there is work planned in that particular area of Ngati Porou's territory. I am going to suggest to the member that she takes that up with the Minister of Transport, who is probably keen to visit Ngati Porou territory as well. Pike River Mine Disaster—Announcements

3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Given his predecessor told the Pike River families, "I'm here to give you absolute reassurance we're committed to getting the boys out, and nothing's going to change that", when, if ever, will he be announcing the re-entry of the drift?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): We have already announced that the Government has asked Solid Energy to explore options for an unmanned entry of the Pike River drift. This announcement was made on 15 February, following a meeting with representatives of the Pike River families. That work is currently under way, and I understand it is progressing well.

Andrew Little: Can he confirm New Zealand Mines Rescue's statement that people had been working up to 300 metres into the drift in 2011?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: That has been public knowledge since around 2011 or 2012, when the activities related to testing the feasibility of entering the mine, and then later on for putting seals in place to seal off what is probably New Zealand's most dangerous workplace. So it is well known that there were people up to 300 metres in the mine, but certainly none where the media yesterday alleged there were.

Andrew Little: Why has the Government claimed that people going into the drift face the risk of "drowning, explosion, the roof caving in", when people have safely been working hundreds of metres inside the drift and a robot has safely gone 1,500 metres inside the drift?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is not a matter of what the Government says; it is a matter of the assessment of whether or not a safe manned entry can be made up the drift and into the body of the mine. The work that was done with the agreement and cooperation of the families identified, I think, some 600 risks that needed to be mitigated. Those who would be responsible for the workplace and held responsible for any accident that occurred in it—that is, the board of Solid Energy—decided that it was too risky.

Andrew Little: Is he aware that only a few hundred metres beyond where the robot reached there is an electric switching station that likely contains evidence of the cause of the explosions, which could explain those 29 deaths and give justice to the families?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is any amount of speculation about different aspects of the mine and the possibilities of re-entering it, but the member should be careful about making promises to the families. I do not know how those promises could be credible to the Pike River families when he could not keep a promise to Willie Jackson. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Andrew Little: Given that Harold Gibbons, a Mines Rescue member who has been at the drift, says that he and others are willing to go in again, what does the Prime Minister think he knows that the experts on the ground do not?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Neither those experts nor I have the capacity or legal responsibility for making that decision. Workplace safety, as that member should know better than most—because in his role with the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU) after the Pike River disaster he was a strong advocate of precisely the changes to the law that mean that they cannot volunteer to go into the workplace and a politician cannot compel anyone to go into it. I would have thought that that member, who may have represented some of the 29 dead men, would know better than most the risks of that workplace.

Andrew Little: Can he name another workplace disaster that has killed so many people where evidence has not been recovered, where the cause has never been finally established, and where no responsible parties have faced justice—does he want New Zealand to know the truth or not?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. I do not believe there is any other workplace disaster of the nature of the Pike River disaster—as the member has outlined—and that is one reason why it is so difficult for the families, because they are carrying a burden of grief as well as many unanswered questions. But in my discussions with them, I felt that they were people who understood that putting further lives at risk or breaching New Zealand's law to try to do that was probably not the best way to bring those issues to a close. Kaikōura Earthquake—Transport Links

4. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made recently regarding the Government's commitment to reinstate key transport links following the Kaikōura earthquake?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): The Government is committed to restoring the pre-earthquake transport links to Kaikōura and its surrounding communities. To make sure this work continues at pace, last week I announced that Budget 2017 will provide up to $812 million to reinstate State Highway 1 between Picton and Christchurch. The Transport Agency is also considering additional improvements to this stretch of highway, which could see a further investment of up to $240 million from the National Land Transport Fund. Confirmation of funding through Budget 2017 ensures that every effort continues to be made to ensure we have this critical stretch of State highway reopened before the end of the year.

Stuart Smith: What other announcements as part of Budget 2017 has he made regarding the Government's commitment to reinstate key transport links following the Kaikōura earthquake?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Last week I was also pleased to announce as part of Budget 2017 that we would also make funding available for KiwiRail to continue reinstatement work to its line while its insurance claim is finalised. More than $45 million of work has already been completed since last November's earthquake, including clearing slips and obstructions, undertaking geotechnical assessments, and reinstating rail track. The total cost of reinstating the road and rail corridors is now estimated to be between $1.1 and $1.3 billion, which reflects damage and destruction of this scale. The Government continues to stand with those affected by the November earthquake, and funding in Budget 2017 demonstrates our very real commitment to getting these communities moving again.

Marama Fox: When can we expect an announcement from the Minister to reinstate the rail line between Gisborne and Wairoa with KiwiRail?

Mr SPEAKER: That is a fair way from the original question with regard to the Kaikōura earthquake. I do not think I can allow that. Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki—Short-term Care

5. JACINDA ARDERN (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Children: When was she first notified that the Ministry for Vulnerable Children Oranga Tamariki, or its predecessor, CYF, were placing children and younger persons in a hotel or motel for short-term care without a supervisor, and what was her first action, if any?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children): To the best of my knowledge it was on 21 April this year. My first action was to seek assurances that this decision is made with the best interests and the well-being of the young person as the paramount concern, and that measures were put in place to ensure their safety and the safety of others. But the practice of using motel-type accommodation for short-term care has occurred for many years. I refer the member to the answer to written question No. 13281 in 2006, in which the then Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon Ruth Dyson, told me: "… I can advise that hostel and motel accommodation is used only in exceptional circumstances." In addition, sometimes in exceptional situations the decision is made that it is not appropriate to have someone accompany the young person at all times.

Jacinda Ardern: Has she asked for regular reporting on children in hotels, motels, and police cells, as past Ministers, like those quoted, did; if not, why not?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not need to ask; I get regular reports.

Jacinda Ardern: In that case, how many times has she been notified by Oranga Tamariki, and previously Child, Youth and Family (CYF), that children and young people have been placed in a hotel or motel because of a lack of alternatives, and in some cases without supervision, in the last 12 months?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: First of all, if I unpick that question the member is making an assumption that children or young persons are placed in a motel or hotel or hostel because there is a lack of availability of beds. That is not the case.

Aupito William Sio: That's not an assumption. That's what's happening.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: That is an assumption, because, as I said in my answer to the primary question, the first action I took was to ensure that the well-being and best interests of the young person were the primary concern. That always has to be the primary concern.

Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will ask the member to repeat the question for the benefit of the Minister.

Jacinda Ardern: How many times has she been notified by Oranga Tamariki, and previously CYF, that children and young people have been placed in a hotel or motel, in some cases without supervision, in the last 12 months?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I have advised that member already, the use of temporary accommodation is managed by a person's allocated social worker and their supervisor, based on the best interests and well-being of the young person, and the information is held on individual records. So it is not centrally collated, so I do not have an exact number of how many times they have been used for short-term accommodation. This, again, is not new, and I can refer the member back to answers to written questions from the Hon Ruth Dyson in 2006 and in 2007, saying exactly the same as I have answered to that member.

Jacinda Ardern: I seek leave to table answers to written questions from the Hon Ruth Dyson proving that she gave—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume her seat. That information is already available to all members if they want it.

Jacinda Ardern: How can she claim that children and young people are being left in hotel rooms under "exceptional circumstances" and that it is "a temporary measure", when she cannot tell the House how often it has happened, despite claiming she receives reports on it?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am not going to comment in the House on individual cases, but I can assure the member that when decisions are made about where to place a young person, their safety and their best interests are the top priority. There may be situations where the social worker makes the decision that direct supervision is not in the best interests of a young person, and neither I as the Minister nor that member are in a position to criticise the actions and decisions of social workers, who are aware of all the facts and the complex needs of young people.

Jacinda Ardern: Has she included in her bill currently before Parliament a new provision allowing children and young people to be held in prison cells, over and above emergency situations, because she has failed to address shortages in the system that have been raised with her time and time again, despite her complete lack of transparency to this House?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There is no provision in the new bill for the proposal that the member puts, but I repeat again—well, I say—we have opened another 10 beds already in youth residences, and the new ministry is focused on developing community-based responses for these young people. But there will still be times when it is in the best interests of a young person to be placed somewhere different from what that member thinks they should—the attention that they should all have. Care and Support Workers—Wages

6. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that 55,000 care and support workers will share in the $2 billion pay equity settlement announced on 18 April 2017?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes, indeed. This agreement is the result of complex and detailed negotiations over nearly 2 years. From 1 July this dedicated and predominately female workforce, most of who are on or around the minimum wage, will receive a pay rise of between around 15 and 50 percent, depending on their qualifications and/or experience. For the 20,000 workers currently on the minimum wage, it means they will move to at least $19 per hour—a 21 percent pay rise. For a full-time worker, this means they will be taking home around an extra $106 a week, which is $5,500 a year in the hand. This will make a massive difference to some of the hardest-working, deserving, and lowest-paid people in the country and their families.

Melissa Lee: What are the next major steps to be taken in order to deliver this huge increase in payments to these 55,000 workers?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: This afternoon I am meeting with the unions and relevant parties in my office to sign the settlement agreement. The next priority is to ensure that the 55,000 workers are getting the money in their pay packets from 1 July. Implementation of the settlement is complex, as there are approximately 1,000 providers and 4,000 contracts that will need to be amended. I will also be introducing legislation to Parliament shortly, and I look forward to broad support for this historic settlement. Auckland—Commentary

7. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Dominion Post editorial that his Government has "singularly failed to answer the pressures of Auckland"; if not, why does he think they would write this?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): No, I do not agree with the Dominion Post's take on the Government's pre-Budget announcement. I would also disagree with its take on the Government's commitment to infrastructure over the last 9 years. The former Minister of Finance and current Prime Minister invested heavily in infrastructure over that period. I also note that the editorial writer was having a bad day, because they confused net debt with gross debt in their criticism of the Government's debt targets and had to change the editorial after they had finished. As to the motives for why they would write these things, I can only assume that perhaps they did not have enough cups of coffee before they started writing.

Grant Robertson: Can he now answer the question posed in the editorial as to why the Government stalled for years over a critical rail line—the City Rail Link (CRL)?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Actually, the Government did not stall for years; the Government has made billions—

Grant Robertson: Oh—delayed.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, actually, it brought it forward. When we came into Government, that CRL was going to happen much later than it is happening even now. So that is weird. Also, we were probably busy electrifying the whole commuter rail network in Auckland at the time. We were possibly busy organising a whole bunch of new electric trains. We completely modernised the fleet by funding Auckland Council to do so. And we were probably busy finishing off the double tracking of the Western Line in Auckland, which the previous Government left undone when it left office.

Grant Robertson: When the editorial points out that his Government "failed to act on the … smouldering housing crisis", what responsibility does he take for there being a shortage of 40,000 houses in Auckland, which has grown year on year on his Government's watch?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I have got to say that there is something slightly strange about a Wellingtonian reading a Wellington newspaper to describe to an Aucklander what is actually going on in Auckland. I suspect that Mr Robertson should get up to Auckland and go and have a look at all the construction that is going on in the roading network, in the rail network, and in the housing area—with record levels of construction—and then get some new talking points and come back to the House.

Grant Robertson: Does he think his answers today go to prove the editorial's comment that Mr Joyce is "full of bluster" about the country's economic strength and the further points that productivity and wealth are still mired far below those of other countries that were once our peers; and could it be that because we have got the fourth-lowest productivity in the world, GDP per capita has hovered around 1 percent for years and he is still in denial about that?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: So said the "Chief Blusterer of the Opposition". Mr Robertson is known for his bluster; the rest of us are known for getting the work done. This Government is overseeing one of the fastest economic growth rates of the OECD right now. We were the fifth - fastest-growing economy in the OECD last year. I would just say to the member that before he starts treating the Dominion Post editorial as gospel, he should go back and look at the printed version, and look at the errors they made about comparing net debt and gross debt, and then go and find another source for his knowledge of Auckland.

Grant Robertson: Can he understand why editorial writers might write this kind of piece, because he is trying to take credit for solving a problem that he has created by re-announcing infrastructure funding to address his own infrastructure deficit?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is simply wrong. In terms of infrastructure spend, what was announced last week is the largest addition to the New Zealand Government's capital stock, possibly ever—certainly for a long time. When the member's party was last in Government, which I know was a long time ago, it would spend a few hundred million on new capital each year. This Government has committed to $11 billion over the next four Budgets. The New Zealand public knows that this is the infrastructure Government. Building and Construction Industry—Reports

8. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister for Building and Construction: How do the latest reports on the level of building activity in Auckland and nationwide for the month, quarter, and year compare with 2016?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Construction): Building activity is booming, with the latest March figures showing new records in both residential and commercial activity in Auckland, as well as nationwide. In March 2017, 20 percent more homes were consented than in March 2016, both in Auckland and nationally. The quarterly and annual figures also showed strong growth. There were 30,626 new homes consented in the last year, which is the highest in 12 years. That is up 2,837 on the previous year, that year was up 2,700 on the previous year, and that year was up 2,600 on the year before that. This is the sixth straight year of strong growth in home construction—the longest and strongest ever.

Andrew Bayly: What do the latest reports have to say about the level of investment in building activity?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The level of investment in March, at $2 billion, was the first time ever that $2 billion had been scored in any month since records began, and that includes in both real and inflation-adjusted terms. The level of investment for the year had a record of $19.5 billion, made up of $12.7 billion in residential work and $6.8 billion in commercial and infrastructure work. Never has New Zealand had the combination of record investment in residential, commercial, and infrastructure work all at the same time.

David Seymour: Are not the real facts that the recent 8-year rise in output came off the back of a 40-year low in home consenting, that the rate of home building per capita has halved since the 1970s, and that high prices are not a sign of greater productivity?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member is absolutely right that the end of the 2008 and the first month of 2009 was the lowest level of new home construction since records began, and that shows the mess that was left at the time Labour left Government. In terms of the scale of build, the level of investment right now is the highest ever in real terms, and I would caution the member against the last peak in 2004, which was only residential activity—very little activity in commercial and infrastructure work. Furthermore, I would remind the member that if the comparison is 2004, that was the worst year of leaky home construction, and this Government is determined to get quality as well as quantity.

David Seymour: Would the Minister's answer have been different if the point of comparison was not 2004 but actually 1974?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would urge the member to look at the history in 1974, when the Government of the day resulted in a huge economic dislocation that actually contributed to great hardship in New Zealand in the late 1970s and 1980s. This Government does not want a repeat of the economic circumstances of the mid-1970s, which were a disaster for this country.

Andrew Bayly: What do the latest reports say about where this building activity is occurring?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The latest reports show that strong building activity is not just across residential, commercial, and infrastructure, but is also incredibly spread across New Zealand. So if we take commercial building activity in Auckland over the last year, it is up 20 percent, in Gisborne it is up 35 percent, in the West Coast it is up 100 percent, in Otago it is up 60 percent, and in my home community of Nelson it is up 200 percent. This just reinforces that commercial building activity across New Zealand reflects the high level of confidence that there is in the New Zealand economy. Prime Minister—Statements

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

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, I do stand by my statements; and as vigorously as is required to win an argument, particularly with that member, but it is getting easier and easier.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he stand by his statement that re-entering the Pike River mine was "not about politics; it's about safety."?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, because that statement accords with the legislation passed by this Parliament. For a politician to make a decision to instruct or force someone to enter that mine would be contrary to the law.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware that New Zealand Mines Rescue conducted a thorough risk assessment on re-entry into the Pike River mine, which considered that the risks from all hazards could be controlled to a tolerable and acceptable level, including the risks of explosion and fire?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am aware it has done some kind of an assessment, but really, the only assessment that matters is the assessment of the decision maker—that is, the people who, under the law, are personally responsible for the workplace and responsible for the safety of anyone who goes in there. The assessment of that group of people, who would make the decision and take responsibility for any consequences, including pretty severe liability and punishment under the law, is that those risks are too difficult to mitigate.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware that the Queensland Mines Rescue Service also concluded a thorough risk assessment on re-entry into the Pike River mine—in this document—which also concluded that the residual risks from hazards in Pike River could be controlled to acceptable levels of risk, which also included explosion and fire?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have read a whole lot of material, and I cannot comment on that in particular. But I just ask the member to consider this. It turned out to be a very dangerous workplace before it had exploded and the risks were fully understood; just imagine how dangerous a workplace it is now, after multiple explosions, geological fracturing, and uncertainty about how those risks can be managed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If New Zealand Mines Rescue and the Queensland Mines Rescue Service have both conducted thorough risk assessments on Pike River, why is he in this House talking bulldust?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said, the assessment that has been the most thorough has been the one done, subsequent to agreement with the families, by Solid Energy. If the member can cast his mind back, the Government agreed to the transfer of the mine to Solid Energy, at the wishes of the families, so that this assessment could be done. It was done by people who would have to make the decision, and they came to the conclusion that it was unsafe for manned entry. So the Government has focused—with the families, having met them in January—on unmanned entry, to meet at least some of their requirements to gather more evidence in order to better understand the cause, knowing full well that such an exercise will not meet all of the families' requirements. They have suffered the grief of loss of their loved ones and unanswered questions, and this next project goes some way to meeting their requirements.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact, Prime Minister, that these reports, paid for, and as expensive as they were, utterly and totally contradict his position that it is not safe to re-enter Pike River mine, which begs the question: why he is in this House talking bulldust again?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said, it is not fundamentally a matter of my position or even the member's position; it is a matter of the position of those under the law who are responsible for their workplace and for the safety of anyone who goes in it. The member may not be aware but every day New Zealanders who are painting houses, who are putting boxes on shelves, and who are operating machinery on factory floors deal with our health and safety legislation, and they would all understand the responsibilities much better than the member does.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why has it taken over 6 years for the Pike River families, the royal commission of inquiry, a parliamentary select committee, and the public to view the footage from March 2011, when he said yesterday: "There's no reason why the families couldn't see it."?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member will, I think, now be aware, it has not been 6 years; in fact, as early as 2011 there were discussions between the police and the families about the content of the videos. The videos were all turned over to the royal commission, which did whatever it did with them, but we understand they were taken into account and they were also viewed by those who did the safety assessment. But of course it would be much better if the families had the opportunity—having had it back in 2011 and 2012, having had their legal representative at the commission of inquiry the whole time with the opportunity to view all the video—to view it all again. The police are preparing to release all of the videos again to the families by the end of the week, and I think the sooner they see the whole lot, the better.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he reject the claim that this is a cover-up, when the Pike River families, the Pike River royal commission of inquiry, and a parliamentary select committee never viewed the video footage that he is talking about now—also confirmed by the families' QC; what do you call a person who makes a statement that they have seen it when all these people say they have never been shown it?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may want to take up the issue with the police, but it is quite clear from police statements that families saw the videos. In fact, I understand there was a discussion precisely about the smoking robot. It does not mean that all of the families saw them and it does not mean that whoever saw them remembers seeing them—because it is 5 or 6 years ago. That is why that is a fairly pointless argument. The fact is that they have been available: anyone who was required to make a decision, including a royal commission, has had the videos available. They will be available again by the end of the week; there is no cover-up.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member has used his full allocation.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, then, point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a New Zealand Mines Rescue Service report in respect of Pike River, and also the Queensland Mines Rescue Service risk assessment template as well—all of which rebut what the Prime Minister is saying.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last part is completely unnecessary. I will assume in the member seeking leave that they are not available publicly—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Not available.

Mr SPEAKER: So the member is seeking leave to table those two mine rescue reports. Is there any objection to them being tabled? There is not. Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House. Roading, Auckland—Western Ring Route

10. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Transport: Why has the completion of the $2.4 billion western ring route been delayed, and when can Aucklanders expect the new motorway to be open?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): The $2.4 billion western ring route completion has not been delayed and remains on track for full completion by the end of 2019. I assume, though, the member is talking specifically about the Waterview tunnels, which are nearing completion. Important pre-opening testing identified some minor faults with some of the tunnels' equipment, and now these have substantially been fixed and are being tested. The Transport Agency is on track to open the tunnels within the next 2 months, which is a minor delay in the context of what is a several-year, multibillion dollar project.

Phil Twyford: Is it true that traffic lights are being put on the motorway because the tunnels the Government has built have inadequate ventilation for the number of cars expected to use them?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, those lights are about managing traffic, and I can tell the member, and he will see it in the very near future, that there will be so many people wanting to go in and see that tunnel that the streamlined use of those lights, the judicious use of them, will be the right thing. So I will repeat that: the member's claim, an old wives' tale, is absolutely wrong.

Phil Twyford: Does he think it is OK that a $2.4 billion project, one of his roads of national significance, now needs traffic lights on the motorway, which will lead to queues of traffic and even longer journey times for Aucklanders?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think the member is being silly, and if he is angling for an invite to the opening, he is going about it the wrong way. This is a $2.4 billion project that will be a game-changer for Auckland. People will get to see and use the tunnels very shortly, and I think they will be impressed by what this means—what has been the biggest infrastructural project to date that this country has seen.

Phil Twyford: Can he confirm that transport officials are increasingly worried about the likely traffic volumes when the tunnel is open and the risk that they will actually make the gridlock worse?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, they are not at all worried. What is true, though, is that they will be popular in the initial days, because literally millions of New Zealanders will want to use it. It is, though, going to be over time a game-changer for the Auckland Regional Transport Network. We know this is an important issue for it, and that is why we have invested and we have worked hard to do projects such as this in our biggest city.

Phil Twyford: Why did his Government not include a grade separated rapid transit busway beside the Northwestern Motorway, as part of the western ring route project, given that Auckland Transport says that it needs to be built within a decade, meaning that much of the new motorway that has just been built will have to be dug up within a few years?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: What the member is saying is absolutely wrong. I think he will find the tunnel will take buses and there will be buses in it. But what is also true, when the member tries to paint this Government as anti - public transport, is that we have invested more than any Government in Auckland, in its transportation, in the electrification of rail, and in multiple public transport projects around Auckland, and there is more to come. Forestry—Logging, West Coast

11. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: Is it Government policy to increase the logging of native forests on West Coast conservation land?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): No.

Eugenie Sage: Has the Minister been asked by Sustainable Forest Products or any other company to change the law to allow further logging of wind-blown trees or of standing trees on conservation land?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: No.

Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister agree with the proposal in the Government's Tai Poutini West Coast Growth Study opportunities report to expand native forests logging on public conservation land by allowing logging after any major weather event or at the Minister's discretion?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: It is in the plan, and more will be revealed when the development plan is released in a few months' time. But there are no plans at this time to exercise either of those options.

Eugenie Sage: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister a straight yes/no question—whether she agreed with the proposal.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, but the member cannot ask for a straight yes or no answer. The member cannot insist on that at all. The member can carry on with further supplementary questions.

Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister accept that logging wind-blown trees robs a forest of nutrients that the trees need to grow, and removes habitat for everything from fungi to insects?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: No, I do not agree with that. I believe that Cyclone Ita, which was a once-in-a-generation storm that felled 20,000 hectares of trees, and a further 200,000 hectares were damaged—at that time, when the legislation was proposed and went through under my predecessor, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, it was entirely appropriate, to, rather than let everything rot and waste, allow some logging to be conducted. That is why we passed that legislation, which will come to an end in 2019. Housing, Christchurch—Schedule

12. Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration: Does she agree that the first homes in the East Frame will be completed 5 months ahead of schedule?

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Associate Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration) on behalf of the Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration: Yes, and I have been assured by both the chief executive of Ōtākaro and the chief executive of Fletcher Living that the first 20 homes in the East Frame will be completed ahead of schedule.

Dr Megan Woods: How can the first stage be 5 months ahead of schedule when, according to the original cost-sharing agreement, the first stage should have been completed in 2015, and even the time line in John Key's announcement of the delayed project should see residents moving in this month and not waiting on a construction deadline a year from now?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: I think the member is confusing the proposed construction dates with those finalised in the contract. The development agreement with Fletcher's was signed in December 2015, and the completion date for the first homes was October 2018. They will now be completed in May 2018.

Dr Megan Woods: Is it correct that not only is the first stage a year behind schedule but her predecessor admitted last week that the two other lots are expected to be delayed by 4 months and 12 months—and, 6 years after the earthquakes, is it not time for her Government to do better?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: Yes, I have been advised that the number of homes in the plans of the next two super-lots have increased, which means the construction of those lots will take slightly longer. But we still expect that those 200 homes from these lots will be constructed by the middle of 2019.

Dr Megan Woods: How many of the 13 Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority-led (CERA-led) anchor projects have been delivered to the date set out in the original cost-sharing agreement?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: We are working through the anchor projects. The time lines are publicly announced, and we will deliver those.

Dr Megan Woods: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very straight question—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just—[Interruption] Order! Can I just invite the member to ask the question again.

Dr Megan Woods: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How many of the 13 CERA-led anchor projects have been delivered to the date set out in the original cost-sharing agreement?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: What I can tell you is three of the projects—the oval, the parts of the Avon/Ōtākaro River, and also the bus exchange—are complete and operating well, and if you would like to put that question in writing, I will give you the full details.

QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS Petition of Dame Fiona Kidman—Submissions

1. CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Chairperson of the Commerce Committee: Does she intend to call for further submissions on the petition of Dame Fiona Kidman before it is reported back to the House, in light of the recently released footage shot inside the drift of the Pike River mine?

MELISSA LEE (Chairperson of the Commerce Committee): It is my view that there is nothing in the video footage that changes the risk assessment that a manned re-entry deep into the drift is too risky. Having said that, the ultimate decision on whether the committee seeks a further submission is a matter for the committee, and the member can actually raise that in committee.

Clare Curran: Does the existence of footage showing that people can enter the mine drift safely not fundamentally change the case for re-entry, meaning submitters should be allowed the opportunity to provide further submissions and the committee time to consider additional evidence?

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is not a matter of select committee business. It is far wide of the field of what she should be asking as a question to another member.

Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order, this is exactly what questions to presiding officers should be allowed to do. It holds presiding officers accountable for the decisions they make, and the supplementary question related directly to the answer the presiding officer of that committee gave to the question. If she had wanted to narrow the scope for supplementary questions, she could have given a narrower answer to the original question as lodged. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think, on balance, the points made by the Hon Simon Bridges are right. It was a very convoluted question, and certainly not a straightforward one. I am going to invite the member to repeat the question, but before she starts, she wants to be fully conversant with Speaker's ruling 178/1. If I then, after hearing the question again, decide that it is beyond the responsibility of the chairperson of the committee, I will not hesitate to rule the question out. We will give it one more go.

Clare Curran: Given the answer that the chair of the select committee just gave to the House on her opinion of the footage, does the existence of such footage not fundamentally change the case for a re-entry, meaning submitters should be allowed to submit to a parliamentary select committee and further submissions by the committee be heard?

Mr SPEAKER: No. I have listened very carefully again, and that question now certainly goes beyond the responsibility of the chairperson as the chairperson of the committee to answer that question.

ENDS

© Scoop Media