ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Finance, Minister—Reports

1. Hon JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the status of the New Zealand economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): This morning the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released two reports on New Zealand, and the outlook in both is positive. It broadly endorsed our macro-economic and fiscal policy settings. The IMF predicts that the economy will grow over 3 percent in 2017-18. It dips slightly after that, but the IMF expects it to remain strong out to 2022. I would note that Treasury's own Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update near-term growth forecasts are slightly stronger than the IMF's, but, whichever forecast you choose, this is a positive endorsement of this Government's strong economic plan and careful management of the economy since late 2008.

Hon Jo Goodhew: How are ordinary New Zealanders likely to benefit from this growth?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Last week the household labour force survey showed that unemployment had fallen to 4.9 percent. That means there were 29,000 more people in employment than there were in the previous quarter, and, once again, our employment rate was at record highs. This is a very good achievement. I am further pleased to report that the IMF, in its report, expects that the unemployment rate in New Zealand will stay below 5 percent for the next 5 years. This Government has worked hard over the past 8 years to consistently keep the economy growing. That has and will continue to translate into more jobs and higher incomes for New Zealanders.

Hon Jo Goodhew: How resilient is New Zealand's financial system to severe shocks?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The IMF, as part of the Financial Sector Assessment Program, modelled New Zealand's residents to four key vulnerabilities: the housing market, debt levels in the agricultural sector, the banking system's dependence on overseas funding, and our ongoing vulnerability to natural disasters. It found that New Zealand has the capacity to withstand any adverse events brought on by those risks. The Government has learnt a valuable lesson from the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes: unforeseen shocks are far easier to cope with when public debt is low. That is why we intend to reduce Government net debt to between 10 and 15 percent of GDP by 2025.

Hon Jo Goodhew: What further work did the IMF recommend be undertaken to further shore up the financial system?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Firstly, the IMF acknowledged the significant progress that has been made in strengthening the financial regulatory system. It recommended that further work be undertaken in the prudential policy area. The Reserve Bank and other agencies have made good progress on a number of these matters, including the proposed debt-to-income lending ratios, bank capital requirements, the review of the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Act, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's (MBIE's) review of the Financial Advisers Act. Our goal is to ensure that New Zealand has the capacity to absorb shocks, without extra taxes and without slashing entitlements.

Darroch Ball: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister, when addressing the 20 percent increase under the National Government of young people not in employment, education, or training ("neets"), that it is a puzzle and "the challenge is just finding them", or Paul Goldsmith, who said: "They are just having some time off and having some fun."?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I agree with the Prime Minister that it is a puzzle, but it is an interesting puzzle, because if you look at the figures it actually shows—and if the member perhaps would like to look at the figures—that the number of people in the 15 to 24 year age group since those numbers went up is actually the biggest explanation for those numbers increasing. In fact, if you look at the number of young people who are unemployed and not in education as a percentage of the total cohort, it is actually slightly lower than the adult population unemployment rate.

Darroch Ball: How can he agree with the Prime Minister that the challenge is finding these young people, when a 2016 Treasury report clearly states that data specifically targeting all school-leaver "neets" is held by the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and passed on to contracted youth service providers in every single region?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the member did not listen to the answer to the previous supplementary question, in that, actually, the very things that he is talking about—which the Government is doing, and there are many in that area; he has just mentioned one—are actually ensuring that the rate of youth unemployment, as measured by the number of people who are not in education who are unemployed, is actually lower as a percentage of the total cohort than the adult population. So that is a sign that things are working, but, of course, the puzzle we have got is to get it down to zero. Mining in Conservation Areas—Coal Mining

2. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Conservation: Would she like to see more coal mining on conservation land?

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Associate Minister of Conservation): on behalf of the Minister of Conservation: There is no black or white answer to this question. A third of the country is in conservation estate, and on the West Coast it is nearly 85 percent. So of course mining has always been part of the picture. But in a rapidly changing world we need to have a thoughtful, nuanced, and intelligent conversation about this.

James Shaw: Given that Bathurst Resources paid the Department of Conservation (DOC) $22 million to mine the Denniston Plateau for coal, does the Minister still think that it is OK for coal mining companies to pay off DOC to let them dig up the very conservation land that DOC is there to protect?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: No; that did not happen.

James Shaw: Why is her Government forcing the Department of Conservation to rely on pay-offs from coal mining companies to fund core conservation work like pest and predator control?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: We are not.

James Shaw: Does the Minister agree with the Department of Conservation that "Climate change poses a significant risk to New Zealand's native species and ecosystems."?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: This Government is absolutely committed to protecting taonga species, but all endemic species as well. That is why we are doing Predator Free 2050 and why we will be launching a threatened species strategy tomorrow.

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I can imagine what the point of order is. I am going to invite the member to repeat that question, for the benefit of the Minister.

James Shaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister agree with the Department of Conservation that "Climate change poses a significant risk to New Zealand's native species and ecosystems."?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: Yes, of course climate change threatens our species, but we also concerned about predators. That is why we are doing Predator Free 2050, and that is why we are also launching a threatened species strategy tomorrow.

James Shaw: Does the Minister agree with the scientific journal Nature that 82 percent of already known coal reserves cannot be burned if the world is to hold global warming to less than 2 degrees?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: Yes, of course we listen very carefully to what is being said by scientists internationally, and, as I said at the very beginning of this discussion, no decisions have been made on coal mining on the coast. What is more, in a rapidly changing world, we need to have a thoughtful, intelligent, and nuanced discussion about it. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Smith. Supplementary question—James Shaw.

James Shaw: Does the Minister agree with the Collins English Dictionary that the definition of "conservation" is the "protection, preservation, and careful management of … the environment"?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: Yes, she does, and I think that is why she enjoys being that Minister.

James Shaw: Well then, can she explain to the House how coal mining in a kiwi habitat supports the Department of Conservation's Kiwi Recovery Plan?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: I will repeat: no decisions have been made, and, in a rapidly changing world, we have to have an intelligent, thoughtful, and nuanced discussion around these issues.

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My supplementary question was asking the Minister to explain how coal mining supports the Department of Conservation's Kiwi Recovery Plan. The Minister did not address that question.

Mr SPEAKER: The question itself was addressed, because the question started with "can the Minister explain". That gives very wide licence to a Minister in trying to explain. The member might not like the explanation, but the question has been addressed. Mental Health Services—Adequacy of Provision

3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his response when asked did he think he was failing New Zealanders in mental health, "No no, I don't think we are failing New Zealanders"; if so, is he saying that mental health services in New Zealand are in an acceptable state?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes. Ensuring New Zealanders get access to the mental health services they need continues to be a priority for this Government, in full recognition of the growing demand and complexity of meeting all mental health needs, but there is always more to do.

Andrew Little: Is he aware that the number of people needing mental health services has risen 60 percent under his Government, while mental health funding has risen less than half as much?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is plenty of measurement now that shows there is much greater awareness and more measured prevalence of mental illness. But, of course, services have expanded. For instance, the number of people treated for alcohol and other drug addictions, including methamphetamine, has almost doubled—almost doubled—to 48,000 since 2008-09.

Andrew Little: What is his reply to Nancy Dally, a mental health nurse with 40 years' experience, who says: "it's worse than I've ever seen it before. Nurses can work up to 15 hours a day, double shifts, on a regular basis because we're so short staffed, and we're short of doctors."?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Overall, there are a great deal more doctors and nurses in the health system, and I would suggest that if staff are under that kind of pressure, they need to be consulting with their employers about the suitability of working those hours. We fully understand that there is pressure on facilities and staff, and that is why the spending on mental health continues to grow, but, bear in mind, it is not just about acute mental health services. There is a great deal that is being done—and more to be done—in prevention and in dealing with the large pool of people who are designated as having some mental illness and who are in the welfare system.

Andrew Little: What is his reply to the person quoted in the People's Mental Health Report as saying they cannot get the help they need unless they are on the verge of suicide, and "I guess the budget doesn't stretch to hope."?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: If they are feeling that kind of distress, of course we would want them to get the help they need. The member probably does realise, though, that in some cases there are differences of view over what help is appropriate and when that help is best available. We have skilled professionals in the mental health area who are always called on to make difficult judgments, and sometimes families and patients do not agree with those judgments. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is a significant level of interjection coming from both front benches. It will cease.

Andrew Little: Does he agree with his Minister of Health that the 500 people who shared their stories with the People's Mental Health Review, including many who have lost family members to suicide, are "left-wing, anti-Government protesters."?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not believe the Minister was referring to those people in that way.

Andrew Little: Does he acknowledge that in addition to a lack of funding in mental health, there is also a lack of coordination and access, meaning that people do not know which door to knock on when they need help, and, too often, the police and the justice system end up picking up the pieces?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The issues around the overlap with the police and the justice system are well understood and are being acted on, because, in some cases, people have been dealt with inappropriately. But we are being much more creative about them than saying that—in the case of the member's policy—the best thing you can do for Māori who are caught up in the justice system is to give them their own prison.

Andrew Little: After 9 years, does he really think a 5-year quality improvement initiative, starting in a couple of months, is an acceptable response when we have got doctors like Dr Anne-Marie Cullen saying: "It can't take five years. Things will go wildly wrong."? Can we not have some fresh thinking now, instead of in 5 years' time?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course that is not the only measure, but it is an important step to take—to ensure that you have high-quality services. There is no point in having services that are not effective and do not achieve results for the patient. Alongside that initiative, of course, there is more funding for acute services and for prevention, to try to prevent people getting into the situation where they need acute services. Prime Minister—Statements

4. 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.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he stand by his statement on manned re-entry into Pike River that "You can't have no one responsible"; if so, why is it that after 6 years, no one has been held accountable for the disaster and loss of 29 lives?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: While the company was actually found guilty, it was the perception that no one was held responsible that led to the changes in workplace safety law passed by this Parliament. It is somewhat ironic that that member is the one who now wants us to exempt the Pike River situation from the law we put in place because of the problems at Pike River.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did the Government switch to saying re-entry into the mine is not safe, when the Pike River Coal tunnel reclamation proposal of 2007, pages 6 to 8, outlined two options of reclamation that do not mention any risk of explosion?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is not a matter of whether it is the Government's position. It is the case that the decision not to send men back into that mine at significant risk to their lives was made by the people in charge of the workplace who would be responsible for the entry and who had extensive assessment of the safety risks and came to the view that they could not deal with all those risks. That is the decision that has been made and the Government, as it happens, agrees with the view based on that advice.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who should the people of New Zealand trust: Paula Bennett, who claims that Pike River families were shown key parts of the video footage in 2011, or Mike Clement, Deputy Police Commissioner, who admitted that the families were not shown footage of a mine rescuer in the drift?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The two people are probably talking about different things. The Police advice was that video was shown to the families. They have not made any claims about which bits were seen and which family members were there. The video should all be, and is being, released to the families. I wish it would deal with their concerns, but it probably will not.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When the Police say it does not know who made the decision not to show all the footage to the Pike River families, who did, because it challenges the Government's perverse view that the mine is not safe for re-entry?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: It would be great if the video footage was decisive in some way, either about what happened in the mine or about the safety of re-entry. Certainly, the advice that I have had is that it does not make any difference to those perceptions. However, it is important that the families can see that, and, therefore, that they should see all of the video. In the meantime, we are getting on with a process that will collect more and better video, with a safe unmanned entry to the mine to try to answer some of the families' questions.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the footage to be shown to the families include all the borehole footage?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am advised that all the video that has been taken will be made available to the families, and some already has. If there are further questions about what is in the mine, or evidence about what might have happened, hopefully, more questions will be able to be answered by the next step in the process, which is unmanned entry, with better technology and higher-quality video.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a question that would have to be answered yes, no, or I do not know, which was to do with the specific borehole footage that the families want to see, and the Prime Minister is going everywhere but there. I want to know whether it is yes, no, or he does not know.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! On this occasion I cannot help the member. I ask him to refer to Speaker's rulings 191(3) and (4). What that says, effectively, is if that member wants that sort of detail in his further supplementary questions, then he needs to not ask such a generalised primary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Ah!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been addressed by the Prime Minister, in answering the member's supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did he have a memory fade when he said he was not aware of New Zealand being used as a back-door entry to Australia, given the countless times he was warned by New Zealand First of that, and even by his colleague in March of 2003, in her copycat mode—that is Katherine Rich—when she said it was being used as a back-door entry because—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: 14 years ago.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, that is when it happened, stupid. All right?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has now been asked, and it was not helped by the interjection from the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. Budget 2017—Pharmac Funding Increase

5. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that Budget 2017 will invest an extra $60 million over 4 years to enable Pharmac to provide more New Zealanders with access to new medicines?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes, indeed. Improving access to medicines is a key priority for the Government, and this injection will mean that Pharmac's budget has increased by $220 million, from $650 million in 2008 to $870 million per year in Budget 2017. Over our time in Government, 820,000 New Zealanders have benefited from 414 new and widened-access medicines that this funding has provided, and it is important to note that last year 3.5 million New Zealanders received a funded medicine.

Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm any details of the latest round of treatments that Pharmac is looking to fund thanks to the Government's investment?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes, I am able to. Pharmac has commenced consultation on a new package of medicines, including anti-infective drugs, earlier access to four HIV anti-retrovirals, a medicine to benefit 5,000 children with neurodevelopmental disorders, as well as new medicines for cancer and cardiovascular conditions. All up, over 33,000 New Zealanders will benefit directly from this latest package, and it just proves that the Government and Pharmac are delivering more medicines for more New Zealanders on an ongoing basis.

Dr David Clark: Can he confirm that the cancer drug he has just mentioned, which was funded for lung cancer, was described last year in a Pharmac report as having no clinically meaningful health gains, that Australia has had that same drug for 12 years, and that this week he has announced he is funding it?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: What I can confirm is that I take the expert advice of the scientists and doctors at Pharmac over the doctor of divinity over there.

Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: This point of order will be heard in silence.

Dr David Clark: I did ask quite a specific question, and it was around a specific treatment. The answer was dismissive, and the Minister does tend to do that. When he is out of depth, he goes for the ad hominem answer.

Mr SPEAKER: I listened carefully to the question, and on this occasion, though the answer was not, I think, helpful to the order of the House, it certainly addressed the question, particularly the middle part, about the meaningful clinical trials. So the question was addressed. Tax System—Potential Changes

6. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Why did he say recently, "I wouldn't be characterising anything we do primarily as tax cuts", and would he still agree with former Prime Minister the Rt Hon John Key that a meaningful tax cut package would require "$3 billion, I reckon"?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question: because the statement accurately characterised my thoughts. In regard to the second part of the question, as I said to the member's very similar question on 5 April—and I quote myself for the member—I agree with the former Prime Minister that $3 billion would certainly represent a meaningful tax cut, but so would a $1 billion, $1.5 billion, or $2 billion package, depending on how it was targeted and timed.

Grant Robertson: Is the reason, then, that he would not particularly call what he is doing a "tax cut" that he knows that tax cuts that change the tax brackets for inflation since 2010 would deliver close to $18 a week to him, but only $2.38 a week to someone earning $48,000 a year?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the member is desperately trying to prejudge what is in the Budget, but I bring him good news: he has only 16 days to wait until Budget day.

Grant Robertson: I seek the leave of the House to table a Parliamentary Library document calculating the value of a tax bracket change to a Cabinet Minister of $18 a week, and to a person earning $48,000 of $2.38 a week.

Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that Parliamentary Library information. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is not. It can be tabled. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Grant Robertson: Will the changes that he is planning to make in the Budget, in terms of Working for Families, make up for the $700 million per year, or $2.8 billion over 4 years, lost by families that was the result of his Government's cuts to Working for Families in 2011?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is well ahead of himself. The Budget, of which he is trying to tell me what I have already written in, is apparently not until 25 May, which is 16 days from now. I just invite Mr Robertson to be patient and see what turns up in the Budget.

David Seymour: Can the Minister at least assure New Zealand taxpayers that tax changes in this year's Budget will be more substantial than Michael Cullen's now infamous "chewing gum tax cuts"?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That brings to two the number of members who are well ahead of themselves in terms of the upcoming Budget on 25 May. It is good that they are excited, but I would temper their enthusiasm by saying that the Minister of Finance, who I am acquainted with, has not made any commitment in regard to any elements of the Budget package on 25 May.

Grant Robertson: Did his Government, in 2011, lift the abatement rate on Working for Families and drop the income rate at which the abatement kicked in, thereby cutting out at least $448 million worth of spending on Working for Families?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure that I would agree with the member's characterisation of the effect, but the Government did make some changes through the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes because it inherited a prediction from Treasury, as a result of the previous Government's rather Santa Claus - like settings on a range of things, that we would have a decade of deficits from 2009 onwards. We made significant changes—

Grant Robertson: Absolute rubbish.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: He may say it is absolute rubbish, because he has, after all, dissed Statistics New Zealand before now, and now he can add Treasury.

David Seymour: If the Minister is not prepared to say what is in the Budget, can he confirm that there will be no adjustments to tax rates?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, that will be—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will realise that there is a serious constitutional problem with this question, because the Minister of Finance is prevented by longstanding tradition, even to the extent of someone resigning in the UK way back in the late 1940s on this very matter. The Minister of Finance cannot answer that question, and I think you should, perhaps, bring the young chap up to date and tell him to get in line and get in the zone of what is allowed here.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any more. The question is in order, and the Minister can address it.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: For the benefit of the member, and also to the member opposite and the member opposite over there, it is not long to wait until the Budget on 25 May. In the meantime, I will keep my counsel on what exactly is in it.

Grant Robertson: Can he at least reassure New Zealanders that his families' package will make up for the $2.8 billion that has been cut from Working for Families as a result of the changes his Government made?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: What I can do is reassure New Zealanders that this Government is absolutely and constantly aware that all the money that it receives, with which we get to vote in the Budget, comes from the pockets of hard-working Kiwis, and it is very careful with it. Mr Robertson's road to Damascus conversion of concern for Kiwi taxpayers is very recent, and I think New Zealanders will understand that. KiwiSaver HomeStart—Number of First-Home Buyers

7. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Building and Construction: How many people have purchased a first home with the assistance of the Government's KiwiSaver HomeStart in year one and year two of the scheme?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Construction): Over 11,000 were assisted in the first year, with grants of $56 million. Over 15,000 were assisted in year 2, with $73 million in grants. The scheme is on track to grow to $100 million a year of support for first-home buyers and by 2020 it will have assisted 90,000 New Zealanders into homeownership.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Are the Government's changes to KiwiSaver enabling easier access to funds helping young people into homeownership?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, and dramatically so. The withdrawal of KiwiSaver funds has increased from $201 million in 2015, to $457 million in 2016, to $627 million in the last year. In fact, if you combine the KiwiSaver withdrawals with the HomeStart grants, the scheme is now providing over $700 million a year in supporting first-home buyers and is making up approximately one-third of that used by first-home buyers to pull together a deposit for their home.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Noting the huge growth in new home construction from 13,000 a year to 30,000 a year, is there an increase in first-home buyers using KiwiSaver Homestart for new homes?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, there is. An increasing portion of the KiwiSaver HomeStart support is going on new homes. In the first year it was $9 million or 17 percent; in the second year it was $16 million or 22 percent—i.e. HomeStart is also helping funding the strong growth in new home construction. Housing Infrastructure Fund—Number of Houses Built

8. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Infrastructure: How many houses, if any, have been completed as a result of the Housing Infrastructure Fund since it was announced in July last year?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Infrastructure): The answer is none yet, but I think the member may misunderstand how the fund works. It is a form of bridging finance to help—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Sadly, there was such a lot of noise that I did not hear the answer to that question; could we have it again?

Mr SPEAKER: No, the question has been answered, but the Minister can complete his answer if he wants.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I said, I think the member may misunderstand how the fund works. It is a form of bridging finance to help debt-constrained councils put infrastructure in place so that houses can be built. It does not pay for houses to be built.

Phil Twyford: Is the lack of progress because the fund was rushed through in a matter of weeks to invent something for the Prime Minister's speech after a short brainstorming session with political staff?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. I appreciate the member's latest conspiracy theory, but, actually, councils have been working through a process where they submit proposals for a share of the fund. Those proposals closed on 31 March of this year, they are currently being assessed, and the decisions will be announced and allocated to councils later this year. The good news, though, for the member is that, in the meantime, housing construction is at record levels and the construction workforce is at record levels, and that is good news for Auckland housing and housing around the country.

Phil Twyford: I seek leave to table an email obtained under the Official Information Act from a staffer in the Minister of Finance's office floating the idea for the infrastructure fund just 2 weeks before the Prime Minister announced it.

Mr SPEAKER: The date of the email?

Phil Twyford: The date of the email is 13 June 2016.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular email. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Phil Twyford: Was Treasury correct when it advised—and I quote—"…these are not proposals by officials. These were ideas that were brainstormed and discussed in that light. We have not done sufficient analysis to be able to provide concrete advice" and that the fund "is not likely to result in additional housing"?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member's criticism could be characterised as having two limbs. One is that we work too quickly and, secondly, that Ministers may come up with ideas—guilty on both counts.

Phil Twyford: Why did the Auditor-General advise that the debt from the fund should be recorded on the council's balance sheet—thus making redundant the very reason for the policy—when he gloated in the House only a few weeks ago that it would not, or is the Auditor-General wrong?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I would have to check back in the Hansard. I did not gloat at all about where the debt would be held. The simple fact of the matter is that if you have a debt, it appears on your balance sheet.

Phil Twyford: Is the lack of progress from his infrastructure fund because he has spent the last 11 months scrambling around with Auckland Council officials trying to salvage a policy that would have loaded more debt on to a council that is already up against its debt ceiling?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In answer to the first part of the member's question, I think the member misheard me, because, actually, we have been making good progress. But in terms of Auckland's debt, Auckland Council does have a challenge in debt at the moment. As I have said to the member previously, its income has grown substantially over the last couple of years—from $3.5 billion in revenue 2 years ago to $4 billion in revenue today—except, unfortunately, because its expenditure has gone up so much over the same period, it does not have debt-ceiling room to do the sorts of things it needs to do, and should be doing, as a fast-growing council. So we have stepped in to help, and in this way we have offered, as with a number of fast-growth councils, interest-free debt on behalf of the taxpayers of New Zealand, which I think is actually a pretty fair and reasonable deal to help it build its infrastructure.

Phil Twyford: Was the call for final proposals correct in that councils will still be working on business cases for the fund this December; if so, how does he expect that a fund that takes a year and a half to even fund anything, let alone build anything, is going to help the housing crisis?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In relation to the fund, Governments have this weird thing: we do not just give away money to people; we actually require some sort of arrangement to be agreed between the council and the Government. I appreciate that the Labour Party never adopted that approach, but that is our approach. But in relation to the so-called housing crisis, I think Mr Twyford needs to update his talking points. We have record construction, we have record numbers working in the construction workforce, we have record numbers of apartments being built in Auckland, and we have prices in Auckland now buttoning off and steady. The member needs to update his view of the world. Education, Minister—Announcements on Additional Learning Support Funding

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): My question is to the Minister of Education and—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If I hear a further interjection from the Hon Nick Smith today, I am going to be asking him to leave the Chamber.

9. PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made about funding for services for children who require additional learning support?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister of Education): I am pleased to advise the House that as part of Budget 2017 the Government has committed an additional $34.7 million over the next 4 years to provide additional behaviour services to children with behaviour difficulties. I am also pleased to advise that this Government has also committed $6 million to provide targeted and specialist support to 3- and 4-year-olds with oral language needs who are at risk of literacy difficulties.

Paul Foster-Bell: How many extra children will have access to these services?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I am pleased to confirm that the behaviour services initiative will provide behaviour support for an additional thousand children aged up to 8 years who behave in ways that negatively affect themselves or others. This is on top of the 5,000 children who already receive specialist behaviour support each year. We expect that, overall, up to 50,000 children will have access to enhanced language support. Around 7,600 of these children, with the highest needs, will receive more targeted support, including support from speech language therapists for around 1,900 children.

Paul Foster-Bell: What difference will these services make to children?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Every child in New Zealand deserves a fair chance in life, and this is about providing more support for some of our most vulnerable children. By providing more support earlier for those children with behavioural or language challenges, we are reducing disruption in the classroom and helping more young children into a positive path in learning. This is a Government investing significantly in improving our education system and supporting more of our most vulnerable children. Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Minister—Response to Property Investors' Tactics

10. MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What action, if any, has she taken since learning that Ron Hoy Fong and the Auckland Property Investors Association are actively promoting practices such as the use of fake bids and false names by property investors to take advantage of vulnerable homeowners?

Hon JACQUI DEAN (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): When made aware of the allegations, I publicly stated my concern and said I would take advice from officials and ensure that the Commerce Commission was aware of the issue. The Commerce Commission has now said it is seeking more information and considering the issues further before making a decision on whether to launch an investigation.

Michael Wood: Will the Minister join with Labour in condemning the Auckland Property Investors' Association for promoting these unethical practices in its member's packs for over 1 year; and if she will not condemn them, why not?

Hon JACQUI DEAN: I note to the member that the Commerce Commission is now considering whether or not it is going to take any action on the issue the member raises. I would also note that I cannot direct the Commerce Commission. Sections 105 and 133 of the Crown Entities Act prevent me from doing that, and as there is, potentially, an investigation under way, I am unable to comment directly.

Michael Wood: If video evidence of Ron Hoy Fong telling people to put forward fake bids and use fake names and boasting about homeowners being set up is not enough for her as the Minister to take a stand on behalf of consumers, then what would it take for her to make a stand, beyond telling people to make a complaint?

Hon JACQUI DEAN: I am always concerned when matters arise where, potentially, consumers have been misled or deceived. However, I cannot direct the Commerce Commission. The Crown Entities Act provides that I should not do that, and as there is a complaint under investigation, I am not able to comment further.

Michael Wood: Is it true that while she knows that the highlighted practices are utterly unethical, she feels hamstrung by her party's close association with property speculators, and that she is just too afraid to speak up for consumers who are being deceived?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no ministerial responsibility for a political party's associations.

Michael Wood: Has the Minister asked officials to undertake any work to assess the scope of exploitation by property speculators, given that Mr Fong's activities have been going on for at least 3 years; if not, why not?

Hon JACQUI DEAN: I do not think we should reactively change laws based on individual cases. The beauty of the Fair Trading Act is that it encompasses all misleading and deceiving behaviour. However, I will be watching this situation, as I do with all consumer issues, and I would note that as there is an investigation currently being considered by the Commerce Commission, I am not prepared to make any further comment.

Michael Wood: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Labour has used all its supplementary questions today. Customs, Minister—Reports on eGate Expansion Project

11. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Customs: What reports has he received regarding the eGate expansion project?

Hon TIM MACINDOE (Minister of Customs): I have been advised that 15 new e-gates have been installed and are now fully operational at Auckland Airport's arrivals area. This brings—[Interruption]. I am delighted to know that the House is as enthusiastic about this as I am. This brings the total e-gates installed nationwide to 50. This very welcome development—[Interruption]. But wait—there is more. This very welcome development for passengers has been made possible due to this Government's $6.6 million investment, to more than double the e-gate capacity. The nationwide upgrade and expansion is due to be completed in June. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Stuart Smith: How do the new e-gates facilitate travel at the border?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Our e-gates, or smart gates, as many people using them more commonly know them, make the customs—

Grant Robertson: Thank you, thank you.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —I am delighted that Mr Robertson is enthusiastic—process faster and more intuitive, delivering a better visitor experience. The smart gates allow—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Get on with it.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: The smart gates allow legitimate passengers to complete customs checks easily, therefore enabling customs officers to focus on high-risk travellers. The next generation smart gates are faster and use a single-step process, taking around 25 seconds per passenger. They are also more accurate, using 3-D technology to enhance facial recognition, eliminating the need for the passenger to stand completely still. I am delighted to tell the House that since e-gates were introduced—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Most of us are renowned for our tolerance; but this is insufferable. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I can recall very similar questions put to a very eager Treasurer in about 1996-1997. [Interruption] It is part of the process, I am afraid. Foreign Affairs, Minister—Statements on Middle East

12. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he stand by his reported comments that "the solution to conflict in the Middle East would be achieved by the people who live there", and that "New Zealand should not pronounce how either party involved in Middle Eastern policy should behave"?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Yes. New Zealand has always said that peaceful resolution to the conflict in the Middle East will require engagement by both Israel and the Palestinians. A sustainable solution to conflict in the Middle East needs to be achieved, ultimately, via the parties.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister's comment that Security Council Resolution 2334 of 23 December was "expressing longstanding Government policy, in fact, a longstanding commonly held international view."?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Yes.

Dr Kennedy Graham: In light of the Prime Minister's comments that "I think it's just reflective of someone brand new on the job … being fairly new into the foreign affairs area—you get to learn the Government's positions and the language that goes with that.", is he now of the view that describing the resolution as "premature" was incorrect?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I agree with the Prime Minister.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Does the Minister agree with Israel's Prime Minister that co-sponsoring the resolution was "an act of war by New Zealand against Israel" or with the British Ambassador to the United Nations that supporting the resolution was an act of friendship with Israel?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, of course I agree with our Prime Minister that this is simply a re-statement of longstanding New Zealand policy. But can I be very clear: we are committed to moving our relationship with Israel forward. I think there is a number of exciting opportunities for us in innovation, agriculture, and the like, and that is something that we intend doing.

ENDS

© Scoop Media