ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Budget 2017—Reports, Economy

1. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy, ahead of Thursday's Budget announcement?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Last week the latest ANZ-Roy Morgan Consumer Confidence index came out. It rose 2.2 points to 123.9 in May. It shows that consumers are now more confident in their personal financial positions than at any time since the global financial crisis. This matches the upbeat mood of New Zealand businesses, with a net 38 percent of firms in the ANZ Business Outlook reporting that they expect better times ahead. Both these positive readings are a testament to a strong economic plan, which is delivering confidence and growth.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What factors underpin this rise in consumer sentiment?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There are a number of factors underpinning the positive outlook, including strong job growth and falling unemployment. According to the most recent household labour force survey, the employment rate in New Zealand is at a record high of 67.1 percent while the unemployment rate is at 4.9 percent. At the same time, New Zealand households expect inflation and house prices to remain subdued.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How does the Government plan to ensure economic growth continues?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: One of the Government's main priorities is to maintain its strong economic plan to keep the economy growing. We continue to deliver on this with responsible fiscal and economic management, including a series of microeconomic reforms. Budget 2017 will be a further step in that direction. The Government has already announced significant investments—for example, in tourism infrastructure, R & D grants to encourage business innovation, and, in the creative industries, through the screen grants programme. It is only by having a strong economy that we have the opportunity to invest in other areas.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Since the Minister of Finance places such great store on the Roy Morgan poll, can he confirm that the only seriously trusted politician in that poll in this House is yours truly?

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I think there is very marginal ministerial responsibility, but I will let the Minister have a go.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: With the greatest respect to the member, I suggest that the words "Winston Peters" and "trusted politician" are a contradiction in terms.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How important are international trade links to New Zealand's economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As a small, open country, we must trade our way in the world. Securing trade agreements with other nations is vital to keeping the door open so New Zealand businesses can trade with larger markets. That is why it is very encouraging to see 11 countries, including Japan, remain very committed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. This is a high quality set of rules that will increase market access for our exporters across the Asia-Pacific region, with positive flow-ons for our wider economy. Trade is an important part of the Government's economic plan. Housing Affordability—Government Housing Plan

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Did the Minister for Social Housing consult with him before announcing a housing plan without being able to say how many of the houses will be affordable?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): In answer to the first part of the question, yes, I was consulted over announcing the Crown building project to replace 8,300 houses in Auckland with 34,000 new purpose-built houses over 10 years—a detailed plan that will be executed, unlike the Labour Party's policy of 100,000 houses, for which it has now discovered it has no land.

Andrew Little: Can he confirm that the population of Auckland is growing at over 40,000 a year now and he is promising just 400 affordable houses a year under his plan—one new affordable house for every 100 new Aucklanders?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The key to affordability of housing in Auckland is simply more houses getting built and more houses on the ground. And the other key is the new Auckland Unitary Plan, which now actually does mean the council will be able to consent lower value houses, because under the old plans it simply could not happen.

Andrew Little: Does he now agree that there is a housing crisis or does he agree with his Minister Alfred Ngaro that it is just manufactured by the media?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I know that one of the blockages to getting more houses built in Auckland right now—

Phil Twyford: It's the Salvation Army, isn't it?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, no, it is the Labour Party, because today it is going to vote against the Point England Development Enabling Bill, which would enable thousands more houses to be built, and it continues to oppose the Three Kings development, which would allow—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The level of interjection, from one member particularly on the front bench on my left, is simply too loud.

Andrew Little: Does he think young people could afford houses if they just cut down on smashed avocado and coffee?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think it would be more likely they could afford houses if the Labour Party stopped opposing the actual building of houses in Auckland. [Interruption] Well, the Labour Party has held up the Three Kings development for 3 years, and today will vote against the Point England Development Enabling Bill, which is a key to the Tāmaki development, where up to 8,000 houses will be built.

Andrew Little: Putting aside his realisation, after 9 years of Government, that there is actually a housing crisis and given his answers today, and Minister Adams' bungling last week, is it any wonder John Armstrong says that his Government is lurching from "chaotic" to "shambolic" on housing while Labour has a "clear and coherent package of interlocking policies, …"?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Much as I respect John Armstrong, I disagree with him and the member may not be surprised to know that. But I will tell you what is chaotic and shambolic. It is promising to build 100,000 houses and then realising you do not have the land to build them on, it is promising to build 100,000 houses with no money, and it is promising to build 100,000 houses but opposing the actual building of actual houses in Point England and in the Three Kings development, where the Labour Party is the main obstacle to thousands of houses being built. So everything else it says is inconsistent with its actual behaviour.

Andrew Little: If he wants a housing policy that will actually work, why does he not just take Labour's housing plan? He could lose himself in it, and they will not even sue him for copyright.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: For the reason that the policy has no credibility.

Phil Twyford: Unlike building houses on farms.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Promising to build houses and then realising you have no land, a fairly vital component, and no money, another vital component, would not be so bad except that when people are genuinely trying to build thousands of houses in Auckland, in Point England, and the Three Kings, the Labour Party is leading the opposition to those two large-scale developments. Prime Minister—Statements

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

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes; because, unlike the member, I believe what I say because what I say is believable.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is the case, if on 17 May he said that he was not familiar with all the details of the Joanne Harrison case, and that it had been dealt with satisfactorily, which showed the system was able to pick up problems, why, for so long, did the system miss every malpractice, fraud, and warning sign after warning sign in the Joanne Harrison case?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: If any new information comes to light, of course that should be look at by the State Services Commission, but I understand these matters were canvassed in a process—it is nothing to do with the Government—and that is the process of appointing the Auditor-General, where the MPs' committee, on which that member was represented if he was not present, was briefed by the Serious Fraud Office, in full, about all these matters. The member may know more about it than I do, for that reason.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Amongst other things as well.

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, that is OK, but he was being a smart alec when he replied.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I will give him a chance to just stand and ask the supplementary question without that sort of introduction.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What sort of circus was his Government running when the man in question was the head of the Ministry of Transport (MOT) when a now convicted fraudster, guilty of workplace harassment and three honest civil servants losing their jobs, was nevertheless appointed to investigate another department for—of all things—a workplace harassment case? What sort of circus is that?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not know anything about those allegations. What I do know is that part of this process was that a civil servant with a positive reputation was found to be engaging in fraudulent activity. My understanding is that—and the member could correct me on it—in the process of the appointment of the Auditor-General all parties of Parliament were briefed by the Serious Fraud Office about those circumstances.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the front page of an 89-page report entitled "Investigation report for the Department of Conservation concerning workplace harassment complaint" dated March 2016, co-authored by Joanne Harrison, general manager of organisational development and shared services for the Ministry of Transport, and a legal firm partner we have redacted to protect their identity.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular report? 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.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Prime Minister defending Auditor-General Matthews given that in 2014 Mr Matthews was aware that the Victoria Police fraud unit was investigating Joanne Harrison, yet Mr Matthews, despite that serious warning sign, gave her a clearance?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is prime ministerial responsibility, the right honourable Prime Minister.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a fair point, because the Auditor-General is the servant of Parliament, not the Government. That has always been the case because the role of the Auditor-General is to independently scrutinise the activities of the executive. Whatever issues the member has raised have been either raised or dealt with, or should have been, in the process that Parliament followed in appointing the Auditor-General. It would be quite inappropriate for the Government to take a position over that process, because it is a parliamentary process.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How could a parliamentary committee make a decision when it was not given information—for example, as to why when Joanne Harrison was defrauding the taxpayer and dismissing honest Ministry of Transport staff right under Mr Matthews' nose, he showed absolutely no competence whatsoever to know what was going on and, instead, gave her a total acquittal at the time—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no prime ministerial responsibility for that committee.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the Serious Fraud Office was working with Mr Matthews on a plan to discover Joanne Harrison's criminal behaviour—which is what the Government is saying—how, then, does he explain Mr Matthews approving Harrison to conduct an investigation at the Department of Conservation well after it was brought to his attention that she was suspected of serious fraud?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, in so far as there is prime ministerial responsibility, the right honourable Prime Minister.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I think I have already pointed out, the Government has no role in oversight of the parliamentary process of dealing with those matters as part of the appointment of the Auditor-General. That is purely the property of Parliament. It is not accountable to the Government for that, and nor is the Government accountable to the Parliament for what the Parliament does.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Rt Hon Winston Peters' question there was asking the Prime Minister to defend the actions of the gentleman concerned when he was a departmental official and employed another departmental official. It was not a question about his competence as Auditor-General or that appointment.

Mr SPEAKER: I listened very carefully to the question and I listened very carefully to the answer, and the question, on this occasion, has been addressed by the Prime Minister.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it being said here by him that the Minister of Transport and no other Minister owed any obligation to Parliament in the sense that they were never informed that the MOT had document after document showing appalling lackadaisical financial controls and processes at the MOT when you were the Minister, when Mr Matthews was in charge alongside you. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will have the answer.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would expect that as part of the process of initiating a Serious Fraud Office investigation, which is a pretty serious matter for any Government department—I cannot recall actually off the top of my head other occasions when it has happened—that the Minister of the time would have been fully informed. As for any new or different issues that have not been raised before, then the State Services Commissioner, particularly in defending fairness for public servants, ought to look into those matters if they are new.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister saying that his Government takes no responsibility whatsoever for an appalling chapter of maladministration under the head of the Ministry of Transport, which even saw him not acting when there was a complaint of inferior materials being put into seven railway bridges? Does he take no responsibility at all for anything?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not sure about the last allegation the member has made there, but of course the Government is responsible for the proper operation of government, the Government machine, and the Public Service, and this Government has set a lot of store by paying a great deal of attention to it. When people behave in a criminal manner it is entirely appropriate that those matters are dealt with by the appropriate authorities and that is, in this case, the Serious Fraud Office, and there was a successful prosecution for what was criminal activity.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In addition, I seek to table three photographs of inferior products going into railway bridges built under this Government's administration, which may well be a great danger to the New Zealand public travelling by rail.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those three photographs, which may be of interest to members. Is there any objection to them being tabled? Yes, there is objection. Prime Minister—Statements

4. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that "each generation bears its own burdens"?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, I do, and I quite like the ring of that statement. But I stand by my full statement, which was in reference to raising the superannuation age: "Each generation bears its own burdens. Any number of 60-year-olds can tell you how devastating it was to have 18 percent inflation when they were trying to save a dollar back in the early 80s." People can argue for a shorter or longer transition. I am sure that discussion will go on.

James Shaw: Can he confirm that between 2021 and 2030 New Zealanders will be faced with a $14.2 billion liability to pay other countries to reduce their climate pollution so that we do not have to?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Firstly, no, I cannot confirm that, and I do not think anyone can. There is a range of estimates for the cost of changing the climate. Bear in mind that whatever that estimate says, that is what it represents—a cost of changing the climate. As the member will well know, because his party helped initiate it, the emissions trading system is a mechanism by which we find the least costly way of changing the climate, so we are likely to see some purchase of carbon credits—perhaps offshore—as well as mitigation occurring in New Zealand, as is happening now because people pay the carbon price right now.

James Shaw: Well, why then did the National Government allow climate pollution to rise 19 percent under its watch, during which period of time the emissions trading scheme has been in place, when it knew that it would cost future generations billions of dollars to offset that pollution?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: First, I do not accept the member's assertions, but, secondly, he seems to forget the history of his own party when it was kind of partially in Government in the early 2000s. When faced with the choices—the policy choices—the Green Party was a strong advocate of the emissions trading system, and rightly so. It is the best mechanism for ensuring that we face the cost of climate change and that those costs occur in the most efficient manner across our community.

James Shaw: Does he accept that plans to open new coalmines on the West Coast and drill for more deep-sea oil and gas will increase climate pollution and, therefore, the financial liability faced by future generations to offset that pollution?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. The point of the emissions trading system is that if the oil or gas pays the price and the consumer has to pay more for it, then that will encourage and incentivise the development of non-fossil fuels. But if those technologies do not exist yet or they are still too expensive, then the use of the fossil fuels is still the right outcome for now, and I thought the member would understand that, because his party was a strong advocate of the emissions trading system, which is based on price, not rules.

James Shaw: Well, does he agree with his Government's officials that paying other countries billions of dollars to offset New Zealand's pollution represents "a significant transfer of wealth overseas"?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I do not necessarily agree with officials about that, because they need to keep sight of the purpose of the emissions trading system—which has enjoyed multiparty parliamentary support now for well over 10 years—which tells us that if you pay the price for carbon, that helps us find the most efficient means of changing the climate. If buying credits from others is the most efficient way of doing it, then that is what people will do.

James Shaw: Does he think that it is better to pay other countries $14 billion to stop polluting so that we do not have to, or to invest $14 billion to create a low-emission, high-value economy right here in New Zealand?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the member is now simply misusing the number. I mean, it is an estimate, for a start. Secondly, it is not about whatever billion dollars being paid overseas; it is actually the economic cost of changing the climate, and the Greens need to accept there is an economic cost—it does not come free. If it turns out to be $14 billion, that is quite a bit, and let us hope that it is shared fairly and efficiently across the economy. But it is simply wrong to use that number as a description of the amount of money that would be paid overseas for credits. Tourism Infrastructure—Support

5. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Tourism: What announcements has she made about increased support for tourism infrastructure?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Tourism): As part of Budget 2017, the Minister of Conservation and I have announced a $178 million tourism infrastructure package. It is a lot. The package includes a new $100 million tourism infrastructure fund that will help councils with low ratepayer bases and high numbers of tourists to cope with and benefit from increasing numbers of tourists.

Sarah Dowie: What kinds of projects will be funded?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Last year, through our $3 million mid-size facilities fund, we were able to fund 14 projects around the country. This new $100 million fund will mean, of course, that we can do a lot more—funding upwards of over 40 projects per year. We will be looking to co-fund infrastructure with local councils such as toilets, car parks, and camping facilities, but we are also prepared to consider projects like visitor information centres and feasibility studies for infrastructure projects on a case by case basis.

Sarah Dowie: Why is it so important to support the tourism industry?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: When there are nearly 300,000 jobs that benefit from tourism, and when international visitors spent more than $10 billion in New Zealand just last year alone—and recent forecasts show that we are on track for more visitors coming, creating more jobs not just in our main centres but also in our regions—we think it is vital that we have the infrastructure to support this growth.

Kris Faafoi: Does she agree with Tourism Export Council New Zealand chief executive Lesley Immink, who called the Government's announcement "underwhelming" and said that the Government talks "about having a commitment but I'm not sure I'm seeing any evidence of it"; if so, will she take a tip from the Labour Party and introduce a levy on international visitors to better support the tourism industry?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I was surprised that Lesley Immink was still there, because she had resigned to be a candidate for a parliamentary—blah-blah; what was it? For a political party. She had actually left to go and meet with a political party, so I am not surprised that she was not keen on my announcement. But we are really, really focused on supporting tourism infrastructure. It is going to make a huge difference in the vicinities that we need, and that is it. Prime Minister—Statements

6. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that the Government doesn't do that good a job with people who have really serious needs, and needs to address New Zealand's "long-running social problems"; if so, can he confirm that his Government has been in power for nearly 9 years and will shortly put forward its ninth Budget?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Yes, I stand by the Prime Minister's statement that Government agencies struggle with people with really complex needs. They have done so for decades, and that is because these are very difficult and complex needs. However, the good news for the member is that we are making good progress on a huge number of social issues. For example, the proportion of the population relying on a main benefit is now down to 9.6 percent, which is the lowest it has been in a March quarter since 1997. It is great. I think it is a tribute to Minister Tolley. However, there are some people with really serious needs. That is why we are developing the social investment approach, which is tackling those needs in a new way, and $321 million has been allocated in this Budget to help those people with those issues. To the second part of the member's question, I do congratulate Mr Robertson. It is indeed the ninth Budget—well done—and, indeed, National's ninth year in Government. His arithmetic is improving.

Grant Robertson: After 9 years, and with the lowest homeownership level in 60 years, what credibility does he think his Government has on housing, when the best this Budget will do is create 2,000 more affordable homes in Auckland when tens of thousands are needed?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am glad the member raises that, because the former Government, which was under the Labour Party, was responsible [Interruption]—no, listen, because you'll learn something—for a long-term decline in the building of new houses in Auckland that started in 2003 and went all the way through to 2010. Since that time it has been growing strongly under this Government. So if the member wants to worry about housing—and I think he should—he should look squarely in the mirror.

Grant Robertson: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker—coming back to this decade.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Supplementary question—Grant Robertson.

Grant Robertson: After 9 years, will he and his Government take some responsibility for the more than 40,000 children admitted to hospital every year with preventable diseases caused by the cold damp housing that they live in, which his Government has done nothing to fix?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: One of the difficulties Mr Robertson has with getting any cut-through is that his lines bear no relationship to facts. This Government has invested so strongly—so strongly—in insulation for houses. This Government has passed a new law requiring rental houses to be insulated, and this Government has had a public service target that has reduced the number of children being hospitalised for these exact diseases. That is the trouble with Mr Robertson's lines, and why he gets no cut-through—he makes them up with no relevance to reality. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need less interjection across the House.

Grant Robertson: After 9 years in Government, will this Budget finally give schools the operational funding they need, or will it be a continuation of the per-pupil cuts that have seen parents asked for more and more money from their pockets to fund the basics in schools?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This Government has invested more and more in education. It has developed a whole new programme to support our best teachers to be teaching instead of administrating, as they used to under the former Government. This Government is investing more every year in education. When the Budget happens on Thursday the member will find out exactly what we plan to do in education for the next year and, with the will of the people, for the following 3 years after that.

Grant Robertson: After 9 years does he not realise that it is his Government that is not doing a good job and not dealing with social problems, and why does he not just get out of the way and let a Labour team take over and start sorting out the job of the shortfalls, deficits, and half-baked schemes that he has come up with?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I tried to make an obtuse reference to empty rhetoric before, but there we have empty rhetoric demonstrated for the House. This is a member who not only refuses to offer any questions that are in relation to the facts but he also has absolutely no policy to stand on in this House. Here we are, less than 4 months from an election, and on all these social issues the Labour Party has nothing new to say—so 9 years in; absolutely nothing to say.

Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table Labour's detailed policy in the areas of housing, health, education, police, jobs—[Interruption]. Well, he wanted them.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That information is available to members if they want to see it. Social Housing, Auckland—Residential Land Holdings

7. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister for Social Housing: How is the Government utilising its residential land holdings in Auckland to support its social housing needs?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Social Housing): Last week I announced the Government's extensive Crown building project, which will see the less than 5 percent of Auckland's available residential land that is owned by the Government redeveloped to remove 8,300 run-down, old social houses and replace them with 34,000 new homes over the next 10 years. The project will see 13,500 new warm, dry, fit-for-purpose social houses and 20,600 market houses delivered across the city, at least 20 percent and up to 50 percent of which will be affordable in terms of the KiwiSaver HomeStart cap. This project is the equivalent of building 3½ new houses on every single street in Auckland. The vast majority of these new homes will be delivered through Housing New Zealand's Auckland housing project.

Andrew Bayly: What are the costs of the Auckland housing programme, and how will this be funded?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Our housing programme is fully costed, and we know that the first phase of the Auckland housing programme will cost $2.23 billion over 4 years before becoming self-funding through the sale of affordable and market houses. Of course, we already have the land for our programmes. Housing New Zealand will retain dividends and proceeds from State house transfers to help fund the programme, as well as taking on a $1.1 billion private debt facility. The project has been 2 years in development to ensure that our plans are realistic, in terms of both the efficient maximisation—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The level of interjection from some relatively senior members in the Labour Party is unacceptable. The Minister has been asked a question; the House deserves to be able to hear the answer.

Hon AMY ADAMS: The project has been 2 years in development to ensure our plans are realistic in terms of the efficient maximisation of the capacity of the land that the Government owns, construction sector capacity, good urban design, and the real cost of building.

Andrew Bayly: What will the impact be of the Crown building project for social housing tenants?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Our first priority will be ensuring that we have suitable housing for our existing tenants whose properties are being redeveloped to move into. Our whole housing stock across Auckland is old and tired. The average age of the Housing New Zealand Auckland portfolio is 40 years old, and these redevelopments will provide warm, dry, modern housing for 13,500 families who are in need of social housing.

Phil Twyford: Does the list of landholdings that the Government is boasting will solve the housing crisis, which it created, include any substations, roundabouts, or cemeteries, as it did two Budgets ago when that Minister promised 500 hectares of Crown land and 10,000 houses, none of which have been built in the last 2 years? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I now want the answer.

Phil Twyford: Let Nick answer. Go on.

Hon AMY ADAMS: Ask Nick, then. The benefit of the Government's programme is that we have done the work to identify the land, to ensure we have costed the land, to ensure we know the cost of building the houses, and to make sure that the programme is effective across the construction sector. And, unlike the Labour Party, we know where the houses are going. We know the cost of building the houses. We have not dreamt up a number. We know the sites they are on, we own the sites they are on, and this is a Government that has the ability to deliver them. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That is to all members, including the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Teachers—Supply

8. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: How many additional teachers will be trained each year, as part of her announcement last week that $5.2 million would be spent on addressing shortages of staff in hard-to-staff core subjects?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister of Education): The $5.2 million I announced last week was focused on 90 teachers, 45 per year, in either subjects or locations where it is hard to staff. That will vary each year. I also announced a mentoring programme that covers 700 provisionally registered teachers, of which a number will be focused on hard-to-staff areas. Additionally, we announced the lifting of the moratorium in terms of initial teacher provider training. I am confident that these measures combined, plus some measures introduced last year, will result in hundreds more quality certified teachers.

Chris Hipkins: Does she seriously think that 45 additional teachers a year will address the fact that over 45 percent of secondary teachers are over the age of 50, and that the Secondary Teacher Supply Working Group estimates that an additional 2,200 secondary teachers are required each year?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: He should have listened to my last answer. It is not about just Teach First NZ. It is also about the mentoring scheme that we announced, which is $2 million and 700 teachers, of which there will be teachers in hard-to-staff core subjects—plus, we have announced the lifting of the moratorium. It is not just about Teach First NZ. With regard to the 2,200 figure, the member has been in the portfolio a long time. He does not understand the numbers. He keeps repeating incorrect figures.

Chris Hipkins: If she does not think that the Secondary Teacher Supply Working Group is recommending an extra 2,200 teachers per year, how many does she think are going to be required?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: The latest advice that I have had, for instance—and if we look at what we are actually talking about, which is STEM, Te Reo, and geographical areas where there are shortages—when you look at the total 8,000 vacancies, take 2,700, approximately, which are in STEM. I am advised that potentially less than 10 percent are actually new teachers required.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister disputed a particular number that I have used. I asked her what her number was, and she has not given a number in her answer.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will invite the member to repeat his question.

Chris Hipkins: If the Minister does not think that the Secondary Teacher Supply Working Group estimated that an additional 2,200 extra secondary teachers are required each year, how many does she think are required?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I just did give a number—I did give a number—in terms of the overall vacancies. I talked about the fact that when we look at the overall vacancies and we actually look at the additional teachers that are required, it is less than 10 percent.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That could be 10 percent of anything. The Minister has disputed the number—

Mr SPEAKER: We have had the question twice; I am not responsible for the answer. I will allow the member an additional supplementary question to move forward.

Chris Hipkins: Is she concerned that the proportion of secondary teachers over 60 years of age has increased from 10 percent in 2005 to 21 percent in 2015, which is more than double the proportion of teachers under the age of 30; if so, why does her Government not have an answer to that burgeoning crisis in teacher supply?

Mr SPEAKER: There are two supplementary questions; the Minister can address either one or both.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Yes, we are concerned, in terms of the ageing workforce, but we do have an answer. We have several answers, and that is what we are doing. We have announced several measures in terms of teacher supply: lifting the moratorium to enable greater innovation in terms of initial teacher providers, and announcing a new mentoring scheme to enable more teachers to go from provisional to full registration. The other point I would make to the member is that under this Government—and he might want to look at the figures—the number of registered practising teachers has increased from 90,000 to 100,000.

David Seymour: Does the Minister agree with Northland College principal Jim Luders, who says that "Every single Teach First candidate we've had has just been outstanding, they are so thorough, so hard-working and so resilient, it's unbelievable. Our kids get major benefit from them … This is the best thing for kids in low decile [schools] and this system works."?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Yes, I do, and as someone who has visited Northland College and had to fix the $14 million build for that school, I can tell you that I am very proud of this Government having invested $5 billion in fixing leaky, cold schools left by that Government.

Chris Hipkins: Why has the Government announced an additional $5.2 million for the Teach First NZ programme, given that the programme's founding partner, Auckland University, has withdrawn from the programme; that the Dean of the Auckland University School of Education has concerns about expanding it, and has said that that was one of the reasons why they pulled out; and that there is no guarantee that the new provider is going to be approved before this programme is supposed to be delivered?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Well, there are several reasons why we have announced funding for this. The first is that there has been a range of evaluations that have shown how successful this programme is. The second thing is—

Chris Hipkins: And they pulled out.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: No, the second thing is that those evaluations show we are getting teachers in those hard-to-staff areas. This is not a question of the overall number of teachers; this is about science and technology and Te Reo teachers in hard-to-staff areas like Northland—getting teachers where they need it—and this programme is delivering. With regard to the provider, it is a serious issue and we are working through a process. I understand there is someone who has come forward, and we will work through that process. I am very confident that we will enable 90 new teachers in areas that are hard to staff to go through the Teach First NZ programme, and that will be great.

Chris Hipkins: Does she think that it is appropriate for a Minister of Education to, effectively, instruct that these students are going to go through this programme, which has not yet been approved?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: That is not what I have said.

Chris Hipkins: That's what she just said.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: No, it is not what I have said. I have said that there are issues in terms of the current provider. There is a process that is under way. There are a range of parts to that process that have to be considered. What I am saying is that I am very confident. I think that we will—whether it is that provider or another provider—enable Teach First NZ to continue, but there is a process, and it is not a question that I am instructing that process; I am just saying that the money has been put aside and I am confident we will get through that.

Chris Hipkins: Did the Secondary Teacher Supply Working Group find that of the 2,200 additional secondary teachers that would be required, 1,400 of those were likely to be, or would necessarily be, new teachers to the profession; if so, why should parents have confidence that the Government will be able to deliver that number required when the number of domestic graduates from secondary education programmes has declined from over a thousand in 2012 to just 760 in 2015—roughly half the number required?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I would have to check his figures from that report, but what I can tell the member is why we have confidence in terms of the overall numbers. As I said before, in the last 8½ years we have gone from 90,000 to 100,000 teachers who are registered with practising certificates. The overall numbers are reasonably good; the issue that we have—and there is an issue, in terms of a slight decrease each year, but the overall numbers are reasonably good for a large workforce of this size—is in certain areas we have shortages. That is why we made the announcements this week, and that is why they are going to be very good for New Zealand. Question No. 6 to Minister

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance):: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You ruled earlier, in response to a previous point of order, that Mr Robertson could not table Labour Party policy because it was widely and freely available. Since that time, I have been searching for it on the internet and on the Labour Party website, and unfortunately it does not appear to be available. I am wondering whether you could give him the opportunity to table it again.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, but Mr Robertson—[Interruption]—no, no. I will allow Mr Robertson to speak to it.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I will speak very slowly: . You will find it there.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I need no further help. It just goes to prove that my original ruling was indeed the correct one. Roading, Taranaki—Projects

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): My question is to the Minister of Transport and asks: what roading projects is the—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the member. I am going to ask her to start the question again.

9. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Transport: What roading projects is the Government delivering in Taranaki to support the region's growth?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): It was my pleasure last week to start the construction of the $135 million Awakino Gorge to Mount Messenger programme of State highway projects. State Highway 3 between Mount Messenger and the Awakino Gorge in Taranaki is a key freight link with the Waikato and, indeed, the wider upper North Island, but it has become increasingly unsafe and prone to unpredictable travel times and periodic closures. That is why the Government is investing so much to build a bypass of Mount Messenger and another bypass of the Awakino Gorge tunnel, as well as a series of safety improvements along this very important stretch of highway.

Jonathan Young: How will the improvements being made to State Highway 3 in Taranaki benefit the region and support its economic growth?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Supporting Taranaki's growth is a top priority for the Government. That is why we are investing in the two bypasses and a series of safety improvements on Taranaki's State Highway 3 to better connect the region with the Waikato and the whole upper North Island. When completed, there will be travel-time savings for motorists and freight companies, and the new road will see fewer deaths and serious injuries from crashes. Following the recent replacement of the Normanby Overbridge, these most recent projects are further evidence of how this Government is delivering quality roading infrastructure in Taranaki to support the region's growth. Community and Voluntary Sector, Minister—Statements

10. POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector Did he have any particular organisations in mind when he stated, "Do not play politics with us. If you get up on the hustings and start bagging us, then all the things you are doing are off the table. They will not happen."; if so, which organisations was he thinking of?

Hon ALFRED NGARO (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): My comments were wrong. It is not the way this Government works, and I have apologised for them.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a primary question on notice. While the Minister may regret his comments, he is still accountable for them and still needs to answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I agree with that. The—[Interruption] Order! No, I do not think the question has been addressed. It is very easily addressed. I think the question needs addressing. It is one the Minister has had for the last 2½ or 3 hours.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: I have apologised to the organisations that I named in my comments. They were wrong. It is not the way this Government works and I have apologised for them.

Poto Williams: Does he agree with the finding of the recent ComVoices state of the sector report: "This is a difficult time for the entire social sector … Partly this is due to social service providers not wanting to 'rock the boat' and jeopardise their chances of securing future finding."; if not, in what ways does he disagree with that finding?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: I have not read those comments, but what I can say is that as the Minister I have been working and engaging with a number of the community groups, having free and frank conversations, wanting to know that we can make a difference to New Zealanders in our communities every day.

Poto Williams: When he stated: "On the one hand, we are working together and on the other hand too. If people are criticising, we just need to be mindful of that type of relationship.", what in particular did he believe that people needed to be mindful of?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Part of working in the community means that others will have different points of view and we may disagree, and that is appropriate. However, we are all working towards the same goal of helping people in our communities.

Poto Williams: Why did he say what he said?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: My comments were wrong. They are not the way this Government is working, and I apologise for them.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister may, as I have indicated earlier, regret what he said but he did say them and he, therefore, should be able to answer questions on them. The question was why he said it.

Mr SPEAKER: I agreed with that in the first case, when it was a primary question put down on notice. As for the supplementary question, on this occasion, when I consider what was asked in the question and the Minister's attempt to address it, I think he has addressed that question.

Poto Williams: Why did the Minister say sorry to the Prime Minister but not apologise to the community and voluntary sector?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: I have made apologies to those whom I spoke about. I have also spoken to a number inside the community as well. What I have to say to the member is that I have been humbled by the spirit of generosity that has been given to me, because most people have said that this has been out of character. I have worked very hard over a number of years with those communities as well. Transport—Investment

Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 11—Julie Anne Genter. [Interruption] Order! I have asked the member to cooperate, I think, two or three times now. If the member is going to refuse to cooperate, unfortunately I will have to ask her to leave the Chamber.

11. JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Transport: Is he confident that all transport investment decisions by his Government are best value for money, reliability, and reducing climate pollution?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Yes, in the context that they were made. Investment decisions need to balance many factors such as value for money, reliability, the environment, and resilience. I am confident that the transport investment decisions made by this Government represent an appropriate balance of those factors.

Julie Anne Genter: Will he order an immediate independent review of KiwiRail's decision to purchase new diesel trains in light of a leaked report stating that refurbishing the existing electric trains would be $230 million cheaper and that diesels purchased, to date, have been extremely poor performance and have had a high failure rate?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: As much as the member says there, that is simply incorrect. No, I will not be ordering a review.

Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table an independent review by WorleyParsons provided to KiwiRail, which has not been made publicly available and which raises serious concerns about the cost and reliability of diesel train replacements.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular review paper. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is objection.

Julie Anne Genter: Is the Minister seriously not concerned that an independent review concluded that KiwiRail's advice to its board was "biased" towards the diesel train option?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, because the report she is talking about is now out of date. It has been superseded by much better information inputs. I think what that shows, actually, is that KiwiRail took a very long time to come to this difficult decision. They have balanced the factors, as I have said, and I am not revisiting their decision.

Julie Anne Genter: If that report has indeed been superseded by better information, why did he and his Cabinet colleagues receive a Treasury briefing the day before this decision was made public that said: "Treasury officials were not confident that the actual cost of the decision is clear in the material provided."?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Because we often receive briefings.

Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was pretty specific, and it was—

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion, I will invite the member to go back and look at the question. When she looks at the question, she will see that it has been addressed by the Minister. Sharpen up the supplementary questions. [Interruption] Order! I have dealt with that matter. If the member has a further supplementary question, we will hear it; otherwise, we are moving on.

Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table a Treasury briefing to Ministers, obtained under the Official Information Act, showing that Treasury raised concerns a day before the decision was made public, that the cost of the decision—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not need anything further. Leave is sought to table that particular Treasury briefing. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is objection.

Julie Anne Genter: If the Minister is so confident, can he provide any evidence to counter the conclusions of these independent and internal reports showing that new diesel trains will cost more and are less reliable than electric ones?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Yes, I can. Ultimately, there have been many reports, but they all culminated, across about 2 years, in a business case. In short, the business case made it quite clear that the status quo was more cost effective—actually, much more cost effective—that the change would have been hugely disruptive to the KiwiRail business and its customers, resulting in loss of customers quite probably, and that, actually, the status quo, in terms of not seeing that freight go on to the roads, has resulted in fewer emissions than would have been the case. Teachers—Supply

12. Dr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made to address teacher supply?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister of Education): As I referred to in my previous answer, last week I announced that Budget 2017 will commit $5.2 million of funding over the next 4 years to expand the innovative teacher training programme Teach First NZ. There will, of course, be a process to work through, however, Teach First NZ graduates have proved hugely influential on the students they teach during their training, making a real difference to young people. It was great to personally receive feedback from Onehunga High School. The funding will provide two further cohorts of 45 participants each, starting in 2018. The emphasis continues to be on science, technology, and maths, and graduates will be trained to teach in schools with a high proportion of Māori and Pasifika students and students from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

Dr Jian Yang: What other measures is the Government taking to address teacher supply and quality?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: As I said in my previous answer, the number of registered teachers with practising certificates has gone from 90,000 to 100,000, but this Government is doing more. This Government is also committing $2 million to the Education Council to create an induction and mentoring programme for eligible provisionally certified teachers, to convert up to 700 teachers to gain full registration. There will, of course, be a focus on hard-to-staff areas, including core subjects and geographical locations. The new mentoring programme follows recommendations made by the joint working group on secondary teacher supply in its 2016 report. Having listened to principals, the Education Council, and those on the front line of recruitment, we are working hard to support more teachers to stay in the profession, as well as encourage more high calibre graduates. This is a Government that is investing heavily in education. We have gone from $8 billion to $11 billion. We are investing more.

ENDS

© Scoop Media