ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Ministers—Confidence

1. FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes.

Fletcher Tabuteau: How can Kiwis have confidence in either him or the Minister for Economic Development when he himself admitted to being puzzled as to why 92,700 Kiwis aged from 15 to 24 are not in employment, education, or training?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: In respect of our young people, the Government has spent a great deal of time and money creating a range of pathways for them, from school through training and into work. As the member has pointed out, there are a number of young people who are not on those pathways. Some of them have very good reasons for that, such as the large group of them who are caring for a family member. Some are overseas. Some will not have good reasons for it, and that is why it is important that services like our Youth Service find those young people and work out what we can do to encourage them back on track.

Fletcher Tabuteau: If he admitted that the problem with youth not being in employment, education, or training was just finding them, is that not a big admission that his comments of youth being lazy, drug-addled layabouts were an appallingly demeaning generalisation?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, and the member knows that that is not what I said. The member might also know that today's young people in the age group he is talking about—17 to 25—are by and large much better young people than used to be the case when he was that age.

Fletcher Tabuteau: If he has finally conceded that New Zealand is a soft entry point for migration to Australia, then how can he have confidence in himself and his Minister of Immigration, who have been constantly warned about this problem on numerous occasions by New Zealand First?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Again, the member is wrong. I did not say that; what I said was that Australia has in the past said that. We are very confident in our border and immigration controls. What is important is that in a growing economy, we need people to do the jobs that have to be done in this economy. Unlike the member's party, we do not want to shut down the economy because we do not like some people.

Fletcher Tabuteau: How can he have confidence in his Minister of Energy and Resources, given the Electricity Authority (EA) has cost New Zealand millions of dollars to achieve absolutely nothing in respect of transmission pricing?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I certainly have confidence in the Minister of Energy and Resources. The member may be aware that, actually, the Electricity Authority is completely independent of the Minister, and whatever decisions it makes about electricity pricing, it makes with the statutory protection that this Parliament gave it.

Fletcher Tabuteau: If the Electricity Authority is seeking costs from its advisers for doing such a poor job, can the rest of the electricity industry on behalf of its consumers seek costs from the EA for such a monumental waste of time and money?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: That would be a technical matter for the lawyers. I cannot second-guess whatever legal process is going on there, but it is great to have in New Zealand an electricity market that has led to falling electricity prices, when under previous Governments they were going up at the rate of 8 percent per year. We are very pleased with the way the electricity market operates.

Fletcher Tabuteau: How can he have confidence in his Ministers when, given a $1 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund in last year's Budget, the number of completed houses under that fund came to zero, nil, nothing?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the member understood the fund, he would know that it depends on projects being put forward by councils. It turned out that councils had been saying they were short of money for infrastructure for housing, but they were not quite clear on which projects actually needed it. Now they are taking the fund seriously and they are negotiating. But we cannot give out a dollar until there is a project to give it to. I know that is not how that member's party works, but that is how we work.

Fletcher Tabuteau: How can he have confidence in his Minister of Conservation's continued "policy by press release", when this Government's real commitment to conservation is just $5.31 per hectare on animal pests and just $1.64 per hectare on noxious weeds?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have complete confidence in the Minister of Conservation. In fact, no Government has done such a good job of taking a long-term view about how to be good stewards of our conservation estate, nor has any of them spent more money, nor has any of them had the aspiration or the vision to strive for a predator-free New Zealand.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in his Minister of Immigration in light of news today that a former Minister of Immigration allowed William Yan into the country against officials' advice, and he has today pleaded guilty to laundering $40 million?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The first part of the question is in order—"Does he have confidence in the Minister of Immigration?".

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I do have confidence in the Minister of Immigration, who had nothing to do with that decision.

Fletcher Tabuteau: How can he have confidence in this Government's biosecurity record and its Minister, when between 2008 and April 2016 there have been 148 biosecurity emergencies, with myrtle rust, unfortunately, among the latest?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do have confidence in our biosecurity arrangements, which are much more sophisticated than they used to be because of considerable investment and a lot of smart policy. But, in fact, the number of emergencies the member refers to tell us just how often our system is picking up incursions. In fact, incursions are not something determined by the Government. The myrtle rust, for example, has come, windblown, from Australia. I know the member thinks that his policy might have been able to stop that, but, actually, that is just how the world works. Mental Health Services—Staffing and Funding

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his response to a mental health nurse who said they are so short-staffed they are working double shifts, that "they need to be consulting with their employers about the suitability of working those hours"; if so, does he know who sets the funding for DHBs that employ mental health nurses?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, I do know who sets the funding for district health boards (DHB), and that is the Government of the day. There is also an additional rule, as I understand it, that DHBs cannot spend less than they did last year on mental health, but they are also always free to spend more. Given the amount of extra money that they have had each year—I think, something like half a billion dollars extra last year—I would expect that they have been spending more on mental health, because demand has been growing.

Andrew Little: In the spirit of New Zealand Sign Language Week I will sign: "supplementary question, Mr Speaker."

Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Andrew Little.

Andrew Little: I will continue practising. Does he know that cash-strapped DHBs closed 12 mental health beds in the last year after employees told their employers that they were too understaffed to safely care for their patients; and how is that a good result?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I know the member understands the way that the hospital system and the services are funded, and that is that they have local boards that make decisions about where the money goes. So if a DHB is in a situation where it feels like it does not have sufficient staff, it can spend the money to go and get the staff and increase the service. In fact, over the last 5 years the number of registered nurses in addiction services has gone up 23 percent, in community mental health it has increased 22 percent, and in hospital-based mental health services there are 12 percent more nurses. That tells you that DHBs are spending more on mental health services.

Andrew Little: Why is his Government requiring underfunded and overstretched DHBs to find $200 million of cuts by the end of the financial year?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is not characterising the way it actually works in the DHBs. They get a large amount of extra money each year, by far the largest allocation in any Budget this Government has overseen. They are expected to use their own judgment to make the best use of that cash. There are theoretical calculations about efficiency dividends and so on, but the core of it is that they get more money every year, which has enabled them to employ more doctors and more nurses, and provide more services.

Andrew Little: What does he say to the mental health worker who told the People's Mental Health Report that mental health services are: "stretched, inadequate and waiting for the inevitable to occur, another major incident."?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: If that mental health worker observes some aspect of the service that means that there is a real risk, they ought to take it up with their employer. Their employers and the DHBs have—I mean, some of these organisations have budgets of over $1 billion and they have the opportunity to fill the gaps where they believe there is real stress or real risk. In fact, they are obliged to do that.

Andrew Little: Does he stand by his admission about people with mental health issues being caught up in the justice system that: "in some cases, people have been dealt with inappropriately."; if so, why is the Government not doing more at the primary level before people end up in the justice system?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: There has been a long-running issue about the delivery of mental health services in prisons, and there are statutory reasons why it is complicated. I understand more work is being done because the treatment of mental illness in our prisons was done very poorly under the previous Government, and has improved dramatically ever since.

Andrew Little: Does he regret signing off on consecutive Budgets that have cut funding for mental health services in real terms, resulting in some providers closing their doors and primary mental health care being cut here in Wellington?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because that is not correct, I do not have regrets; nothing like that member's regrets at recruiting Willie Jackson.

Andrew Little: Does he not accept that it is time for some fresh thinking; after 9 years of a deteriorating mental health system, we actually need to fund our mental health services properly and with a focus on helping people before they reach crisis point?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: One of the strengths of this Government is that it is always applying fresh thinking, fresh angles to well-understood or well-known problems. In respect of mental health, there has been more money but, of course, unlike Labour, we do not believe that endlessly more money answers every problem. We have got a much better understanding of which parts of the population are most vulnerable to mental illness, some of whom spend 20 or 30 years in our welfare system because they are under-treated. So our fresh thinking is about applying better ways of applying the money to those needs.

Julie Anne Genter: If short-staffing is not such a problem across the country, why are desperate parents reporting that children have to be suicidal or self-harming just to get help from the mental health system?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first case, staffing issues are managed by the DHBs according to the plans laid out by their local boards, half of whom are elected people. They actually are the people who make the decisions about where the money goes. They can always apply more money to mental health, and they have been, when we can see that over 5 years there has been 20 to 25 percent increase in the staffing of most mental health services. With respect to those individuals, the response times, as I understand, are measured and have been improving, but there will still be families who are in distress because they cannot get the service straight away for their young person.

Julie Anne Genter: Will his Government commit to an independent nationwide inquiry into mental health services to ensure that we can get to the bottom of the structural problems in delivering those services and any need for increased funding, given what he described yesterday as "increasing demand and complexity"?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I do not think an inquiry would tell us anything that is not known already. The issue here is not whether we spend a whole lot of resource on an inquiry; it is better decision making in DHBs, if they are overlooking need that they are meant to be meeting among their population, because they have to prioritise, and finding a better way, particularly, of approaching the issue of prevention in the case of mental health.

Julie Anne Genter: Does he accept that increasing population and increasing demand for mental health services means that the amounts of increased funding that he has referred to simply have not been sufficient to meet the need out there in the community, and how bad will it have to get before his Government responds?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government and the Minister of Health and the DHBs have been responding to increased need. They are spending more, they are employing more people, and there have been quite dramatic increases in some services. I think there is almost double the number of people now in addiction services as there were 6 or 7 years ago. That is a massive expansion, and probably now you are more likely to get treatment than used to be the case. The Government will continue to respond to the need. Finance, Minister—Reports on Government's Financial Accounts

3. SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the Government's financial accounts?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): The Government accounts for the first 9 months of the current financial year show a surplus of $1.5 billion compared with a forecast surplus of $147 million at the half-year update in December, continuing performance ahead of forecast, as a result of good fiscal discipline and improved quality of spending. The Budget coming up later this month will provide an update on the fiscal situation and forecasts.

Simon O'Connor: What is behind the better than forecast performance of the Government's accounts?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Core Crown tax revenue is $527 million higher than forecast for the 9 months, and $3.7 billion or 7.3 percent higher compared with the same period last year. Corporate tax continues to be the largest driver of that, with revenue being $673 million ahead of forecast. The result illustrates the underlying strength of the New Zealand economy, which grew 3.1 percent last year and added 137,000 new jobs in a 12-month period. It shows that if you have a strong economic plan and you stick to that plan, you can achieve real progress.

Simon O'Connor: How do our financial accounts compare with other countries?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yesterday Australia released its Budget, and that had an underlying cash deficit of A$29.4 billion next year, with a forecast return to surplus by 2021. As a result, Australia's Budget has seen a number of new taxes being added or increased. In New Zealand we have been through a major programme of getting the books in order, and that means that as a country we now have positive choices for our future that we would not otherwise have.

Simon O'Connor: How likely is New Zealand's strong economic performance to continue over the medium term?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Further economic indicators out today suggest further economic growth over the medium term. ASB's investor confidence has increased to the highest level since late 2014, with a net 25 percent positive rating, and ANZ's heavy traffic index is now up 4.6 percent, year on year—a very important indicator. In addition, the IMF reports released this week forecast that our economy will grow over 3 percent in each of this year and next year. New Zealanders can have confidence in a Government that is united around its policy and is delivering results for Kiwi families. Tax System—Potential Changes

4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement on tax policy to the House yesterday, "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"; if so, why did he say on the 28th of April, "We are not planning to do a reduction on rates this year"?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, yes I do stand by my statement; to the second part, because it was an accurate answer to a question.

Grant Robertson: Regardless of what is or is not in the Budget, can he confirm that adjusting the tax brackets for inflation since the last tax changes in 2010, as tabled yesterday in Parliamentary Library figures, would see an $18 a week benefit to him and a $2.38 benefit a week to a person earning $48,000 a year?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have not seen the details of the document the member tabled yesterday, but I can confirm that the Government has plans for its Budget, and on 25 May we will find out what commitments it has made in response to those plans.

Grant Robertson: Has total spending on Working for Families decreased while his Government has been in office?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is a very specific question, and if the member would like to put it down in writing I would be happy to answer it.

Grant Robertson: Is the Child Poverty Action Group correct that it would take $700 million per year, or $2.8 billion over the Budget cycle, to restore the real value of Working for Families cuts made by his Government?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is unlikely to be correct—I have not checked its numbers. But, again, the member needs to understand that the Government took a number of decisions after it came into office to get rid of the decade of deficits that we inherited from the previous Labour Government, as reported independently by the New Zealand Treasury, which the member has added to his list of Government sympathiser organisations that he does not listen to. We did make a number of changes, we stand by those changes, and as a result we see the Government books in surplus today, while, in contrast, our friends in Australia are dealing with a large deficit.

Grant Robertson: Can he confirm that actually what happened was that his Government put in place a tax package where 40 percent of the benefits went to the top 10 percent of income earners, while he cut Working for Families for families earning $35,000?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Just because the member has written some talking points it does not make it true. The reality is that those tax changes were distributionally neutral across the—

Dr David Clark: Just because your laminated cards say it's not true it doesn't make that true either.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the member can go back and have a look at some of the actual documents that were produced at the time that showed the distribution effects of the tax changes, which were broadly neutral across the spectrum.

David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that the top 10 percent of income taxpayers pay 37.7 percent of all income tax?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I cannot confirm the exact number for the member, but that does resonate in terms of the percentages.

Grant Robertson: Has he considered entitling his Budget speech "Taking credit for half-solving the problems that we created: the Steven Joyce story", given the infrastructure and social deficits that have grown on his watch, or will he just go for the simpler "Steven Joyce: the real Slim Shady"?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sure the National Government would at least go with the statement that we are actually committed to our party's policies, which is more than can be said for the Opposition this week, which seems to have a, shall we say, variegated view of what policies it has to adopt and does not have to adopt. This Government stands absolutely behind the decisions we have made, which have brought this country back into a fiscal surplus ahead of most other developed countries in the OECD. Mr Robertson, if he wants to today, can raise the issue of whether we should be in surplus, but I think you just have to look across the Tasman to know that those decisions were the right decisions. Māori Development, Minister—Announcements on Funding for Marae and Housing

5. MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister for Māori Development: He aha ngā karere o nā noa nei kua puta mai e pā ana ki te pūtea whakapauhia ki runga marae, ki runga whare? [What recent announcements has he made about funding for marae and housing?]

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Ā, tēnā koe i tērā pātai, ka mihi ki a koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. [Thank you in regard to that question, and so salutations to you, Mr Speaker of the House.] I was pleased to announce recently new funding of $27 million that will support marae and help more whānau live in safe, secure, and healthy homes. The $27 million package is made up of three parts: $10 million that will support Marae Ora, the restoration of whare, repair facilities, insulate wharenui and provide for Reo and tikanga wānanga; an extra $8 million will be allocated to Kāinga Ora, the Māori Housing Network; and a further $9 million will support Te Ara Mauwhare, or the Pathways to Home-Ownership initiative, which will trial innovative new approaches to helping whānau achieve housing independence.

Marama Fox: What differences in the lives of whānau will this funding make?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: It is a very fine question. Since it was launched in October 2015, the Māori Housing Network has supported hundreds of whānau throughout the country to live in safer, drier, warmer, healthier homes. There has been $36 million invested in more than 140 projects around the motu, which is just one part of the Government's Māori strategy, He Whare Āhuru He Ōranga Tāngata. This new funding means that from 1 July we will have more than $25 million per year to support more whānau to access safe and quality housing, more marae to be warm, safe, and secure, and to be able to carry out the tikanga of their cultural and community roles, and trial innovative ways to help whānau into homeownership. We want to see more Māori secure in their own homes, and this new funding, we are hoping, will help them down that path.

Marama Fox: How has Kāinga Ora and the Māori Housing Network supported whānau?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Kāinga Ora has supported and continues to support whānau housing aspirations. There have been 140 housing projects, support for 380 high-needs whānau so that they can live in those safe, warm, and dry homes. There is support for housing infrastructure for 176 new homes for whānau and support for the building of 63 new affordable homes, 36 papakāinga feasibility projects, and 60-plus workshops to help whānau achieve their housing aspirations. I recently announced a new papakāinga development at Wairarapa, for example, which includes a rebuild of their marae and six new homes. This development will allow whānau to live on their whenua tuku iho in affordable and healthy homes and support their marae. Finally, in March this year, five homes were opened in Waimārama, in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, as part of the first stage of papakāinga development; three-bedroom affordable rental homes and two homes for ownership is a pretty good outcome. Education, Minister—Reports on Partnership Schools

6. NUK KORAKO (National) to the Minister of Education: What recent reports has she received regarding partnership schools?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister of Education): I have received the second MartinJenkins evaluation report on partnership schools. I am pleased overall with the report. It demonstrated that for a relatively new model of schooling, partnership schools are delivering good progress on achievement, engagement, and attendance for students who are Māori, Pasifika, and from low socio-economic backgrounds. The report also highlighted that the flexible way in which schools were delivering for students enabled them to target support to where it is needed, provide individualised learning support, and engage with the community to raise expectations.

Nuk Korako: What advice has she seen on the differences between special character schools and partnership schools?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I am advised that special character schools do not have the same flexibility that partnership schools have to deliver innovation for their students. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the Minister. If I have to deal with very loud interjections coming from my left during question time, I might have to ask somebody to leave the Chamber.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: There are large differences between the two models. In particular, special character schools' funding is clearly allocated for property, staffing, and operational funding. Anyone implying that it would be a simple transition from a special character school to a partnership school does not understand our school system. Additionally, anyone implying that they would close those schools needs to be upfront with the cost to the New Zealand taxpayer and to those parents.

Nuk Korako: What information has she seen on Māori achievement under this Government, particularly for students from partnership schools?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: In 2008, when this Government came into office, one in two Māori students was leaving school with a minimum qualification of NCEA level 2. In 2016, 74 percent of Māori students received NCEA level 2. This has been achieved through a variety of initiatives targeted at Māori, including partnership schools. I am advised that 93 percent of students at partnership schools are priority learners, and this includes a significant proportion of young Māori. This achievement information shows significant progress for these students.

Chris Hipkins: How much of the $5.2 million spent by the Government on the failed 40-student Whangaruru charter school has been recovered following her predecessor's decision to close the school last year? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not sure where the interruption is coming from now, but the same message I gave to my left applies to the whole House. If this particular question is going to cause a lot of interjection, then members will leave the Chamber. I cannot be more clear than that, so do not complain when it happens.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: There is a legal process occurring, so we cannot confirm—it would be inappropriate to comment further—but what I can say is one of the strengths of the partnership school model is that we can close them when they are not performing.

Chris Hipkins: Does the debacle at Whangaruru not highlight the flaw in the charter school model, given that the Minister of Education Hekia Parata opened it against official advice; it used its set-up grant to buy a farm, which continues to be owned by it despite the closure; it did not employ qualified teachers; it was beset by drug use, absenteeism, and bullying; and even after the decision was made to close it, it got another $400,000 of taxpayer cash?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Well, it does not represent a flaw in the model. That is why we have clearly made a review of those contracts and we have changed the way that we manage a number of these contracts. But I just quote Peeni Henare: "The bottom line is, why would you stop something that's working."

David Seymour: Does the Minister agree with the following statement from the MartinJenkins report: "Sponsors have applied to deliver a [partnership school kura hourua] because they believe they have something valuable to offer and have a deep belief in the value of their approach."?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Yes, I do.

David Seymour: Does she agree with Willie Jackson, at No. 21 on the Labour Party list, who said that "I think just about all the schools are doing well," and that "there would be no reason, from my observation, to close any [partnership] schools [kura hourua]."?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Yes, I do agree with Willie Jackson. I just wish Andrew Little would. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Before I call the member for his further supplementary question, can I just remind him of Speaker's ruling 174/3: "It is not reasonable to use questions from the governing party or its support parties to attack other members of the House." [Interruption] Order!

David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that the partnership school kura hourua policy has been endorsed as official policy of the Iwi Leaders Forum?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Yes, I can, and I can also confirm that I have seen statements along the lines of "The bottom line is, why would you stop something that is working." But I have also seen statements from a similar organisation, which said: "Let me be … clear, under Labour, Charter Schools will be a thing of the past." [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will settle. Mining in Conservation Areas—Coalmining

7. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Conservation: How will a coal mine on conservation land support today's Threatened Species Strategy announcement?

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Associate Minister of Conservation): on behalf of the Minister of Conservation: The Government recognises the importance of protecting important conservation values while allowing regional economic development. Conservation and mining are not mutually exclusive. No decisions have been made in respect of any proposed coalmine, and today we are highlighting our commitment to protecting native species through Minister Barry's launch of the draft Threatened Species Strategy for New Zealand. This is a groundbreaking strategy. It aims to safeguard all our vulnerable threatened species and to set them on the path to recovery.

James Shaw: Given the high profile of the kiwi in the Threatened Species Strategy, how can the Minister possibly consider opening a coalmine in a kiwi habitat?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: The New Zealand Threatened Species Strategy—that is, the draft in consultation, and I do invite the member to be involved in that process—prioritises 150 species that we have selected to manage and to increase their population. Obviously, the kiwi is part of that, and the areas that it is found in will be looked after. It is the clear, measurable goals for the future that come from this strategy that will safeguard all our species.

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My supplementary question was in relation to coalmining, and she did not reference coalmining once in her answer.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member needs to go back and have a look at his question. He talked about the Threatened Species Strategy announcement in the lead up to his question. If he had asked the second part of his question alone, I might have been able to help him.

James Shaw: Does she stand by the answer given in her name in question time yesterday that the $22 million pay-off from Bathurst Resources coalmining company to the Department of Conservation (DOC) "did not happen."?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: Yes, I do stand by my statement yesterday. What you said—an assertion that DOC was being paid off—is absolutely ridiculous. There is a longstanding practice that mining companies contribute financial resources to address environmental impacts of their mine. Moreover, these arrangements resulted in some fantastic conservation gains. For example, we have had long-term funding for kākā pest control, a 35-year biodiversity enhancement project for the Heaphy catchment, willow control in Lake Brunner, predator control for the blue duck protection, and the funding of weed-buster programmes.

James Shaw: So, to be clear, has DOC already received, or is it going to receive in the future, any part, or all, of the $22 million package from the Bathurst Resources mining company that is listed on DOC's website?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: In the case of the escarpment mine at Bathurst, it has agreed to fund $22 million for pest and weed control. The payment schedule for that is tagged to the development of the mine. They have already made some payments, but it is only in its early stages.

James Shaw: What other areas of conservation land is she considering opening up for coalmining?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: The process, which the member may not be aware of, of any coalmining access applications is that they need to go to the Environment Court. It is not a decision that the Minister makes.

James Shaw: Can she explain to the House how coalmining on conservation land is in any way consistent with the Department of Conservation's view that "Climate change poses a significant risk to New Zealand's native species and ecosystems."?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: Climate change is only one of many threats to our endangered species. These include predation, biosecurity incursions, pollution, and other pressures on their habitat. The draft strategy, which is designed to be a living document, is designed for solutions to all these programmes, and you will find that climate change will be considered along with all the other things. If the member believes that climate change is not being given enough emphasis, I suggest he submit to the consultation process.

James Shaw: Given that the strategy says that the survival of our threatened birds is the responsibility of everyone, will she now ask Steven Joyce not to take any more helicopter joyrides with coalmining companies over conservation land?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: I would like to focus on the threatened species strategy, because that is what we are going to be doing to protect our native species. It prioritises 150 species, and these have been selected to be managed to increase their populations. It will have clear, measurable goals for the future to safeguard all our vulnerable species and it will inform decision making on priorities and ensure that resources are allocated effectively. All New Zealanders can be, and should be, involved with this strategy. Kia ora. Science and Innovation, Minister—Announcements on Research and Development Support

8. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Science and Innovation: What announcements has he made to support New Zealand businesses invest in research and development?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Science and Innovation): I was very pleased to announce an additional $74.6 million in funding for R & D growth grants through Budget 2017, to meet the growing demand for high-value, innovative Kiwi companies. Encouraging business R & D helps high-tech, innovative new Kiwi companies bring products and ideas to market sooner, which has significant benefit for export revenues. Worldwide, R & D is recognised as a key factor that underpins a businesses' ability to innovate and keep up with the technological change by creating and using new knowledge. R & D growth grants is an on-demand, non-discretionary scheme that enables qualifying companies to claim back 20 percent of their eligible R & D expenditure. Growth grant funding is now at $140 million and is set to increase to $172 million by 2021.

Brett Hudson: What is the current state of New Zealand's technology and innovative sectors?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The tech sector is New Zealand's third-largest exporting sector, contributing $16 billion to GDP, and it is growing fast. It presents multiple opportunities for New Zealand and international investors. R & D has driven much of that growth. We have seen a significant increase in the amount that Kiwi companies are spending on R & D. A survey earlier this year showed that business R & D expenditure has increased 29 percent from 2014 to $1.6 billion in 2016. The Technology Investment Network, The Investors' Guide to the New Zealand Technology Sector, which I launched yesterday with my colleague Simon Bridges, showcases the breadth and variety of technological companies in New Zealand. Our economy is strong and diverse. And the strengthening tech sector is an important part of that diversity.

Brett Hudson: What is the Government doing to meet the skill demands of this sector?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Government is focused on ensuring that our education system is providing a generation of entrepreneurs and skilled workers who are able to adapt and meet the demands of innovative growth in a rapidly changing world. We have developed pathways for young New Zealanders to enter the tech sector, such as the Futureintech initiative. Yesterday I visited Lab in a Box, outside Te Papa. This is a project funded through the A Nation of Curious Minds: He Whenua Hihiri i te Mahara initiative, which this year funded 41 projects to inspire the next generation of scientists. Alongside this, the Digital Skills Forum brings together industry associations with Government agencies to identify opportunities to develop skills that the sector will need in order to continue its rapid growth. This is the sign of a sector that is in good health and is planning to meet its future demands. Tax System—Negative Gearing

9. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Revenue: Does she agree with the IMF that removing "negative gearing" tax breaks for property investors would help redirect saving incentives to other, potentially more productive investments?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Revenue): No. The member has got it wrong. The IMF does not describe the rules as a tax break. The rules applying to property are in line with the laws applying to other forms of investment.

Phil Twyford: What benefit is there to New Zealand from giving property speculators tax advantages—

Hon Steven Joyce: Especially if they have Chinese-sounding names, eh, Phil?

Phil Twyford: —wait, Steven—when negative gearing is primarily used by offshore speculators, with 35 percent of them not paying any tax at all?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: This Government does not intend to tax people on income they do not earn.

Phil Twyford: Why should we allow speculation in our housing market to lock out first-home buyers given that sales to property speculators with five or more houses in Auckland now make up more than one in seven of all sales?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: For a start, just because someone owns more than one house does not make them a speculator. That member should just ask some of his own colleagues in the Labour Party about that. [Interruption]

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

Phil Twyford: Why should we subsidise speculation on property for the wealthiest people given that 40 percent of the tax avoided through negative gearing goes to the top 10 percent of income earners?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Obviously, we do not. We just do not expect people to pay tax on income they have not earned.

Phil Twyford: Why will National not crack down on property speculators when they are driving up house prices and denying young Kiwi families a chance of ever owning their own home?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I do not know where that member has been, but in the last 7 years this Government has introduced a number of changes that have tightened the tax rules on property. In 2010, we removed the depreciation on buildings. Since then, the amount of positive rental income received by landlords has increased by 53 percent, and net losses have fallen by 14 percent. We have increased the taxation on short-term speculative property investment through the brightline rule. This taxes gains from property bought and sold within 2 years and imposes a withholding tax of 33 percent on property sales for non-residents. In a number of Budgets—

Andrew Little: Tell us about homeownership. What's happened to those rates?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —and I note that that member has never voted for one of them—we have taken steps to make sure that the Inland Revenue Department has extra funding to make sure it can enforce the tax rules in the property sector.

Phil Twyford: I seek leave to table data provided by CoreLogic that shows that one in seven property transactions in Auckland is going to property investors with more than five properties.

Mr SPEAKER: Is that information publicly available?

Phil Twyford: I do not believe it is.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is expected to know, because that question will be put.

Phil Twyford: It is not publicly available to the best of my knowledge.

Mr SPEAKER: On that basis, I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that information done by CoreLogic. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is objection. Social Housing, Associate Minister—Announcements on Results of Relocation from Auckland Assistance Scheme

10. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Associate Minister for Social Housing: What announcements has he made about the results of the Relocation from Auckland Assistance scheme?

Hon ALFRED NGARO (Associate Minister for Social Housing): Yesterday I was pleased to announce a number of successful results from the Relocation from Auckland Assistance scheme. Since June of last year 313 families have, with assistance from the Government, taken the opportunity to relocate from Auckland. The scheme has allowed these often struggling Kiwi families to find better and cheaper accommodation options, and the potential to become increasingly independent. In fact, almost half of the families who received the relocation assistance have moved from Auckland social housing into private housing. The Government is well on track to meet its target of successfully relocating 400 families by the end of June 2017.

Joanne Hayes: What do these results mean for the taxpayer?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: For most, these results mean that the families who are struggling have the opportunity to succeed in communities that are able to provide better housing and employment outcomes for them. But the benefits are wider than that. On average, the Government saves the taxpayer $170 per week in subsidised housing costs for every family who moves out of Auckland under the scheme. In just 3 years' time the Government will have saved well over $6 million in taxpayers' money, simply by offering these families a fresh start. This is a true example of a win-win policy. Health, Minister—Statements on Authors of People's Mental Health Report

11. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement about the authors of the People's Mental Health Report, "they're very left-wing, anti-Government protesters"; if not, when will he apologise to the 500 people who wrote their own stories about experiences with the mental health system as part of the report?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes, and my statement distinguished between the genuinely motivated story submitters and those ActionStation organisers with some political agenda. My quote was: "When you look at the people behind it, [you know] they're very left-wing, anti-Government protesters." As I say, ActionStation is back on Thursday with another, separate, anti-Government protest within the health area, and it could be back week after week with different topics. And just for the record, the ActionStation campaign coordinator is Mr Rick Zwaan, the Green Party's Wellington election campaign coordinator, who used to work as Kennedy Graham's researcher. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Supplementary question, Dr David Clark. [Interruption] Order! I have asked for less interjection from everybody so that Dr David Clark can ask his supplementary questions.

Dr David Clark: Has he read the report; if so, does he accept that its aim, as recorded in the executive summary, is to give space to the stories of what is really going on and going wrong in our mental health services?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes, I have read the report, and especially the executive summary, the first line of which is a totally false premise. It talks about $140 million being cut from health funding. Well, actually, health funding has gone up by $300 million, which kind of proves the point that this is a political document.

Dr David Clark: Does he think the contribution of Robbie, who described support services as expensive and inadequate, and which, he says, "almost drove him to take his own life", should be dismissed as the experience of a left-wing, anti-Government campaign?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have already answered that. Look, I think Robbie's experience is worth listening to, but that does not change the fact that this report is produced by a group of people who are permanent anti-Government protesters. If the member does not believe me, go and look at their website. They will be back here, week after week, on subject after subject after subject, because they do not like the Government.

Dr David Clark: Does he think the contribution of Mike King, who "describes despair and hopelessness in the face of inadequate access to mental health services", should be dismissed as the experience of a left-wing, anti-Government campaigner?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look, I think the member needs to speak to Mrs King about how you think on your feet. I have answered that question already. The organisers are from ActionStation, and it is the permanent anti-Government, left-wing protester. Mr King is a very good man—Mike King, as opposed to Mrs Annette King—who is genuinely motivated, and I do not detract from his efforts. But, as I say, when you have people like Mr Rick Zwaan, who used to work for Kennedy Graham, and his friends from the Green Party, I think it is pretty obvious that this is political.

Dr David Clark: Does he think the contribution of "the many parents who submitted in regard of their children's experience of huge waiting lists and lack of funding" should be dismissed as the experience of a left-wing, anti-Government campaign?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I point out to the member that he does not have to take all his supplementary questions, and if he cannot think of new material in response to the answers, he should just stop. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will deal with them one at a time.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. For two answers in a row, the Minister began by insulting the questioner rather than addressing the question. But the main substantive point is that despite the abuse in that last answer, he did not even address the question that was asked.

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion—[Interruption] Order! I have been increasingly worried about the interchange between these two members and some of the answers that have been given on occasion by the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman, but, on this occasion, when I consider the three questions that were asked, they were, effectively, the same question each time. Therefore, I can understand the frustration of the Minister in having answered the question the first time—he, effectively, gets the same question for the next two occasions.

Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That question, in my view, was not addressed, because he had talked about ActionStation, which is the compiler of the report. I am asking a specific question about the comments from the parents within the report. That is a very specific and non - politically loaded question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would like to assist the member, but when I consider the answer that was given to, I think, the second supplementary question, that, effectively, was an answer that was then quite suitable for the rest of the questions the member asked, which were, effectively, just drawing on the experience of someone else within the book. The Minister was quite clear in saying he is not in any way critical of the experiences that were detailed in the report; he was certainly critical of the authors who put the report together.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, is the problem with that not that the Minister is trying to write this off as being a left-wing conspiracy—that is the essence of his answer? I think it is quite proper for members of the Opposition to put instance after instance after instance that paint a different picture. I think the Minister should have to address each of those instances, rather than just cast aside a political insult telling him he should learn how to ask different questions.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not agree that it was a political insult. The question was answered. There was no attack on the various contributions that were made within that report by the Minister. There was certainly a feeling that the authors were not of the same political persuasion as the Minister. That is acceptable.

Dr David Clark: To clarify—

Mr SPEAKER: No. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! Would the member please resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! Would the member please resume his seat. I have ruled on that matter. The member is now starting to challenge the Chair and debate with the Chair. That in itself will lead to gross disorder in this House. Question No. 12—Melissa Lee—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] If I hear a further interjection from Carmel Sepuloni while I am in the Chair today, she will be leaving the Chamber. She has been consistently interjecting throughout question time in a very—[Interruption] Order! If the member wants to go now, I can make that arrangement very easily. I expect cooperation, particularly from whips, and the level of interjection that has been coming from Carmel Sepuloni throughout question time is unacceptable. When I rise to my feet, for those interjections still to continue is just not acceptable to this House. Businesses, Small—Uptake of Digital Technology

12. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Small Business: What updates can she provide on how the Government is supporting small businesses' uptake of digital technology?

Hon JACQUI DEAN (Minister for Small Business): As part of Techweek 2017, Digital Journey and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) have launched a Digital Journey assessment tool to support small businesses in the uptake of digital technology. This support includes a personalised action plan to help small-business owners save time and effort, and open up new opportunities to grow their business. Digital Journey is also an important part of our small-business roadshows, making sure that digital technology uptake is an important component of the success of our small businesses.

Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is New Zealand Sign Language Week, and sign language is an official language. I would like the Minister of Health to interpret his sign language that he was just giving to the House, Mr Speaker, which you did not see and which he was repeatedly directing at my colleague. It was, essentially, very rude. I think he should be asked, in New Zealand Sign Language Week, to explain what his sign meant.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order, but if there was a gesture across the House that I learn about by subsequently watching TV, I will certainly be taking further action on it.

Melissa Lee: What else is the Government doing to support small business uptake of digital technology?

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Through Government programmes such as the ultra-fast broadband roll-out, we are ensuring that New Zealand businesses can access faster internet to allow greater use of digital technologies. MBIE is progressing the business uptake of ICT, as outlined in the Building a Digital Nation report, which is part of our Business Growth Agenda. We are also ensuring that businesses can better connect with the Government using digital technologies. These include activities such as the Inland Revenue Department transformation project, ACC, and Business.govt.nz.

Melissa Lee: What is the benefit of increased use of digital technologies for small businesses?

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Digital technologies can improve market access, better target consumers, reduce time interacting with the Government and with compliance, and reduce time on day-to-day operations, such as inventory, staffing, transport, and invoicing. Research by Sapere Research Group in 2014 suggests that if firms currently making low use of internet services became more like high-using firms, it could be worth an additional $34 billion in productivity impact to the New Zealand economy. The National Party believes this is important to New Zealand's economy.

ENDS

© Scoop Media