POINTS OF ORDER

Estimates—Editing of Questions Submitted by Opposition Members

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to raise an issue with you that I would like you to take away and give some further consideration to. It has come to my attention that a number of select committees have, by majority, voted to edit or amend questions that were submitted by members of the Opposition for the forthcoming Estimates hearings. The committee of course, by majority, can determine which questions it wishes to lodge. However, the only recourse that an Opposition member then has, to get that information, is to lodge a written parliamentary question. Ministers have, in the past, used the written parliamentary question and answer - system to refer members to the Estimates or the annual review question and answer - process. So the thing that I would like you to give some consideration to is where members are blocked from asking a question or asking the totality of the question they wish to ask, by majority, at a select committee and subsequently ask that question as a written parliamentary question. I would like to seek some reassurance from you that there is an obligation on the Minister to fully answer that question and not simply refer the member back to the Estimates or the annual review process.

Mr SPEAKER: I will certainly have a look at the point the member is raising—very seriously, in fact—but my initial reaction to the comments about amendments occurring to questions by a select committee is that it becomes a select committee decision and, therefore, if the majority of a select committee votes in one particular way, that is it. But I would be very worried if the mechanism then became an attempt to subvert the obtaining of the right information by all members of Parliament. So I will look at the matter and come back to the member.

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Housing Affordability and Availability—Commentary

1. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he agree with the Hon Alfred Ngaro that some of the media are manufacturing the housing crisis; or does he agree there is a housing crisis, given Auckland has a shortage of 40,000 homes according to Auckland Council?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): No, and no.

Andrew Little: Does he not see that threatening and intimidating NGOs falls so far below acceptable standards of ministerial conduct that if he fails to take action against the Minister who made those threats, it amounts to tacitly endorsing them?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a bit rich coming from the Labour Party, which invented intimidating and threatening people who do not agree with it. But I will tell you what is below acceptable behaviour. What is below acceptable behaviour is having a policy that says it wants more houses, but opposing actual developments, including voting against the Point England bill in this House yesterday.

Andrew Little: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a question that referred to ministerial standards and, effectively, his position on them. It did not call for a discourse from the Prime Minister on his view about Labour's policies on housing. He has not addressed the question.

Mr SPEAKER: When I reflect on the question, the suggestion of intimidating NGOs—the Prime Minister certainly took the opportunity to refer to that part in his answer. The latter part of his answer, I do accept, was probably not helpful to the order of the House.

Andrew Little: Who does he blame for the shortage of homes in Auckland? Is it the media's fault, the Salvation Army's fault, the council's fault, Aucklanders' fault, or does the buck stop with his Government, which has had 9 years to address the housing crisis and it is only growing worse every year?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: All of those parties have contributed to what is now very significant positive progress building in Auckland. The one party that has not is the Labour Party, which has been opposing the Three Kings development and voting against the Point England enabling bill that will allow for thousands of houses to be built in Tāmaki on conditions appropriate to the local tenants. So if there is anyone most directly to blame for stopping developments, it is the Labour Party.

Andrew Little: Does this Treasury briefing, dated September 2016, to him, show that the rate of Auckland housebuilding has been less than what is needed to keep up with population growth the whole time he has been in power?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are all sorts of official guesses about how many houses Auckland might need. What we know is that there is the largest construction boom ever going on in Auckland, and house prices are flattening out and in some places falling, so, clearly, some demand is being met. But, of course, there needs to be a lot more build. That is why we have the $1 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund, and the Government building programme, which will, over the next few years, continue the very strong growth in building going on in Auckland.

Andrew Little: Do Statistics New Zealand reports show that homeownership has fallen in each of his 9 years in power, while housing costs have risen more than twice as fast as wages?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Statistics New Zealand reports do not cover the fact that the Labour Party's opposition to two of the largest developments in Auckland is driving up costs and rentals. At the same time as in public it is saying it favours more houses, in private it is stopping two large developments.

Andrew Little: Taking that last answer as "Yes", does he expect to see a lift in homeownership this year?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: That will depend on whether the Labour Party starts supporting the Point England development, which will have an impact on thousands of houses in Tāmaki, and whether it withdraws its opposition to the large-scale Three Kings development, which would enable well over a thousand affordable homes to be built for constituents who vote for the Labour Party, as it happens.

Andrew Little: Putting aside the Salvation Army, when will he finally apologise to Kiwi families for soaring house prices, skyrocketing rents, and growing homelessness during his 9 years; or is it someone else's fault?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The people who should be apologising are the Labour Party members, for two reasons. (1) is that they gave the Auckland Regional Council the power in the early 2000s to set a rural-urban boundary, and from that time new building in Auckland was strangled. It has taken us a number of years to unwind the damage. The other reason they should apologise is that they are opposing large developments in Auckland. So their KiwiBuild policy is, in reality, a no-build policy. Government Financial Position—Surplus and Treasury Forecasts

2. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Finance: What are Treasury's forecast OBEGAL surpluses for each year to 2021, according to the December Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): According to the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) the Crown's operating balance before gains and losses surpluses rise from $473 million in the current financial year to $3.34 billion in 2017-18, $5.31 billion in 2018-19, $6.7 billion in 2019-20, and $8.5 billion in 2020-21. If the member would like me to read him the rest of HYEFU, I am happy to do so.

David Seymour: Does he agree with Prime Minister Bill English, who said "Lower personal tax rates reward [effort] and give people an increased incentive to up-skill, develop new products and services, and get ahead under their own steam. This has strong benefits for the economy."; and if he does not agree, why not?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That sounds like an eminently sensible quote from the Prime Minister.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister of Finance have any advice for the questioner, who is a member of Parliament earning more than $150,000 who cannot afford to save to buy a house?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there may be minor ministerial responsibility, does the Minister have any advice?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I would say that my suggestion to anybody in that situation would be to, first, probably put some money in the bank. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just waiting so can I get a bit less interjection from my left.

David Seymour: Does he agree with former Prime Minister John Key, who said "the argument will be 'why is the Government, when debt is well and truly on track for its target of GDP to be below 20 per cent, why is the Government building bigger and bigger surpluses?' "; if not, why not?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not recall that particular quote from the former Prime Minister, but I was generally in agreement with most of the things that he said.

David Seymour: Is it the case that the Minister really agrees with former Labour Minister of Finance Sir Michael Cullen, who said "$8.5 billion surplus and still no tax cuts. So? What's the connection between the two? None."? If he does not agree with that quote from Sir Michael Cullen, what exactly has changed in the last 9 years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I find I generally do not agree with the quotes of the former Labour Minister of Finance Sir Michael Cullen, and I do not see any particular reason to change my view on that quote.

David Seymour: If Treasury is indeed forecasting surpluses that add to $24 billion over the next 4 years and he agrees that lower personal tax rates increase growth and productivity, then would he like to visit and use ACT's tax plan to find out how much he could save if he adopted ACT's tax policy.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I thank the member for his advice. I have indeed visited that website, and one thing I found is that, actually, it had a lot more policy than the Labour Party website that I went to. Budget 2017—Support for Vulnerable New Zealanders

3. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Finance: How will Budget 2017 make a difference to New Zealanders most in need?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Improving public services is one of the key priorities of this Government, and in this Budget, to ensure all New Zealanders have the opportunity to lead successful, independent lives. The Prime Minister announced the other day a $321 million social investment package that will form part of the Budget. This is an initiative that tackles our most challenging social issues by intervening early and using evidence and data to design the initiatives. The Government is focused on targeted investments in the areas where we can make the most difference. Too often past Governments have judged success only by what they spend rather than what difference the spending makes to people's lives.

Matt Doocey: What investment has the Government made in the health sector?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As part of Budget 2017, the Government has made two announcements already: investing an extra $60 million over 4 years to enable Pharmac to provide more New Zealanders with access to new medicines. That will take Pharmac's total budget for next year to a record $870 million, which is a $220 million increase in the annual budget since 2008. The Government is also investing an additional $59.2 million to ensure all road ambulance call-outs are double-crewed. This will create 375 new emergency medical and paramedic roles across the country over the next 4 years to ensure patients get the best ambulatory care possible.

Matt Doocey: How will New Zealanders retain access to entitlements during unexpected shocks?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The global financial crisis and the Christchurch earthquakes have taught us all that shocks can come along at any time. That is why it is important to build fiscal resilience to ensure that when shocks do occur the Government can continue to support New Zealanders. The Government has a target to reduce net debt to around 20 percent of GDP by 2020 and will set a new medium-term fiscal target of reducing net debt to between 10 and 15 percent of GDP by 2025 to build that resiliency so we can respond if and when required.

Matt Doocey: What risks does the Minister foresee to the Crown's financial position over the medium term?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The significant investments that I have already talked about and, in fact, Budget 2017 overall rely on a couple of key factors. The first is making sure the Government's books remain in surplus while restraining the State's spending requirements. The second is a growing economy. The Government does need to ensure that its strong economic plan continues to deliver stable growth, and this momentum needs to be maintained to ensure that New Zealand is in the best position to weather future shocks. Budget 2017—Spending Increase

4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Is Colin James correct when he says that a 4 percent increase in spending in Budget 2017 is required just to stand still, given population growth and inflation; if not, what increase is required?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): No, I have seen Mr James' calculations this morning, and I do not agree with his assumptions, because he leaves out the matter of productivity, and the Government is, of course, focused on boosting productivity, including in the public sector. We do not measure success by how much we spend but on whether it meets the Government's needs for results and whether we are getting the results those investments are generating on behalf of taxpayers.

Grant Robertson: What percentage difference would including productivity make to Mr James' calculation?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government does not just say: "Here's the public sector and we should throw a lot more money at the public sector regardless of the results that investment would achieve." I know that is the Labour Party's approach. The Labour Party likes to say to the unions in particular "How much money do you need for the PSA?", and when they give it the answer, it just hands over the money. That is how it works in a Labour Government but not in a National Government.

Grant Robertson: Can he guarantee that he will fund the health budget for the real cost of inflation and demographic change in this Budget and start the process of restoring the $1.7 billion of underfunding caused by his Government failing to do this for the last 6 years?

Hon Steven Joyce: I completely reject the number that the member uses. It is absolutely wrong. And do you know how you know it is wrong? Because the performance of the health sector has improved under this Government—

Dr David Clark: That's not true.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —improved—at exactly the levels of investment we have made, and I will give the member an example. A recent New Zealand Medical Journal article said thousands of lives have been saved by productivity improvements in hospital emergency departments after targets were introduced in 2009.

Grant Robertson: You're not in the real world, Steven.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is real productivity improvements in the real world, not like Mr Robertson, who would just throw money at whatever sector he saw.

Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table a report that says that there have been no productivity improvements in the health—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need the source of the report.

Dr David Clark: It is a Treasury document.

Mr SPEAKER: And is it publicly available?

Dr David Clark: It is, but the Minister clearly—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would be grateful if the member would not waste my time. It is publicly available. Members can look for it if they want.

Grant Robertson: Will any increased funding for the accommodation supplement in tomorrow's Budget take account of the 10 percent increase in median weekly rents in the last year?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the member is sidling up to asking me to reveal the details of the Budget tomorrow in any number of respects. Could I make a suggestion to him that within 24 hours he will get his wish and hear what is in the Budget?

Grant Robertson: Do schools, parents, and teachers deserve to see a real per-child funding increase in this Budget for schools?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Once again, he will find out in the Budget tomorrow. But, again, in terms of investment, it is not important about the inputs; what are important are the outputs. This Government has shown, over 8 years, that it is about results, and the Labour Party, it appears, is still back in 2008 and is all about pouring the money in and forgetting about the results.

Grant Robertson: Is it not time that he was straight up with New Zealanders about what his Budget numbers mean, given that the head of business for New Zealand Media and Entertainment, Fran O'Sullivan, said this morning: "He's"—Mr Joyce—"already been caught out by Labour's Grant Robertson when it comes to massaging numbers on … infrastructure."? Modestly, I say that.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: And thousands and thousands of New Zealand Herald readers said: "Who?". [Interruption] But the simple fact of the matter is the member is wrong—and, actually, on this occasion, the eminent Ms O'Sullivan is wrong—because, actually, the infrastructure spend has gone up since Budget 2016, and when the member sees the numbers tomorrow, he will find out that if anybody knows who he is, it will be because he mucked up the numbers. Freshwater Management—Allocation

5. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he agree with Environment Canterbury councillor Lan Pham that the way water is allocated does not always prioritise public use over private gain?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): The law gives priority to water use for domestic supplies, for firefighting, and for stock drinking water. These uses have preferential access over commercial users like irrigators, industry, or bottled water companies. Our Government has also strengthened the public good considerations in water allocation with New Zealand's first National Policy Statement for Fresh Water, which requires regional councils to set minimum flows in our rivers for ecological and recreational purposes. We have further work under way on improving New Zealand's freshwater allocation system, with a technical advisory group doing work right now on how we can further improve it.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree with Hurunui resident Colleen Johnson, who has put up with a permanently E.coli-poisoned water supply and says: "New Zealanders, we should have first priority; the high quality water should be coming to us."

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In respect of the quality of water supplies, there is a job for councils to improve their performance in that regard. But I would caution the member against saying that as a consequence of water users taking water for irrigation and for other uses that are so important to the economy—that should not compromise, in any way, New Zealanders' access to good domestic water supplies. I remind the member that total extractive use of water in New Zealand is only 2 percent of the total resource New Zealand has.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister then think it is fair that private companies like water bottlers can access pristine, fresh water, while the public, like Colleen Johnson and her family, have to put up with E.coli contamination and dirty rivers?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Our law provides for any person being able to apply for a consent for New Zealand's water resources. That same law says that if there is ever a choice between domestic water supplies or essential uses like firefighting, they take preference over commercial users, and that is appropriate. I am not satisfied that our councils are doing an adequate job of managing New Zealand's freshwater resources. That is why our Government introduced the very first national policy statement providing clearer direction on the need for New Zealand to lift its game around freshwater management.

Richard Prosser: Will he support New Zealand First's policy of any potential charge that is applied volumetrically to consented water takes being confined to a royalty only on the export only of water as water only; if not, why not?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have seen New Zealand First proposals for a 10-cents-per-litre charge on all commercial water users. That would cost our dairy industry $600 billion a year, and effectively destroy New Zealand's largest export industry. Those facts just reinforce the fact that in the discussion around allocation and pricing of water, we need to do it with a great deal of care and thought.

Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was: would the Minister support our policy of a charge being confined to a royalty on export only; not to some other policy that he claims to have seen, which he has not because it does not exist.

Mr SPEAKER: That is now very much a debating point. The member asked whether a New Zealand First policy would be supported by the Minister, and the Minister has taken his opportunity in interpreting that policy the way he sees it. It becomes very much a debating point. The general debate follows shortly, and I note that New Zealand First has the first opportunity to lead that debate.

Metiria Turei: If the technical advisory group on water recommends putting a charge on its commercial use, will he commit to supporting that recommendation?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No. The Government will consider the report on its merits. I would commend the editorial that was published in the New Zealand Herald this week, which rightly said that any approach to charging of water does need to be done with care, because for a very large portion of New Zealand's export industries, a blunt approach like that—I have heard from the member's own party—would do very significant damage to the New Zealand economy.

Metiria Turei: Does he, then, think it is right that water bottling company Antipodes pays only $99 a year for the right to bottle water but charges $7.67 per litre to its customers?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member needs to be careful in making comparisons. For instance, Auckland Council, which has a very large consent to take water out of the Waikato River, pays a bare administrative fee for a consent that is more than 10,000 times larger than that. Too often, people are confusing the cost of the pumping, the filtration, and the piping of water to the natural resource. All users currently are paying only for an infrastructure cost, and not a cost for the natural resource.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a clear question as to whether he thinks that is right or not; he did not answer that question.

Mr SPEAKER: No. Can I just take the opportunity of asking members to look at two Speakers' rulings that might help them in formulating their supplementary question. The member asked: does the Minister think that it is fair? If the member now looks at Speaker's ruling 195/6 and 195/7, it acknowledges that we do allow opinion questions, but the chances of getting an answer that is satisfactory to the member are very slight.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister think that it is right that water bottling companies tell their overseas clients that they can supply an infinite quantity of clean water, while the New Zealand communities that they take that water from have to put up with boil notices and dirty rivers?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Anybody who claims that they have got a consent for an infinite amount of water clearly does not, because every permit that is granted has some limit, albeit I would draw the member's attention to the fact that water bottling companies make up such a small fraction of New Zealand's overall water take that if we want to have an intelligent discussion about improving New Zealand's water management, it is those very substantive users like irrigators and industry that should be the focus of our attention. Budget 2017—Support for Department of Conservation

6. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Conservation: What announcements has she made about increased support for the Department of Conservation in Budget 2017?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): I was very pleased to pre-announce so far that in Budget 2017 there will be a $76 million funding injection for new and upgraded visitor facilities and experiences on New Zealand's conservation estate—that is the largest increase the Department of Conservation (DOC) has ever had in its 30-year history. This Budget package will let DOC get on with its job of providing quality experiences on conservation land while still maintaining the conservation work necessary to protect our natural environment and threatened species. We will create a predator-free New Zealand by 2050 and preserve our wonderful landscapes for everyone to see and enjoy. In addition, I have announced a $21 million Battle for our Birds, the largest predator control programme ever undertaken in New Zealand, and, as part of the Threatened Species Strategy I released 2 weeks ago, a $2.8 million injection into the sea lion threat management strategy.

Andrew Bayly: What projects will the new money fund?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The benefits of this funding injection will be felt right across the country. DOC will be upgrading facilities that are under pressure to ensure that the visitor experiences remain top class. We will be building two great walks and putting together a package looking for shorter walks with a new network of great day and great short works. Importantly, this level of investment will deliver more visitors, who will have better experiences, and, therefore, it will deliver more revenue to DOC, which can then be reinvested in biodiversity and species protection.

Clayton Mitchell: Why does the Minister not keep it real about the situation and agree that under her leadership, DOC has been on a hiding to nothing, with this proposed increase in spending coming nowhere close to the $336 million—$336 million—National has cut from its coffers since it was in power?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The member is misinformed on this and on many other subjects. Expenditure for DOC—[Interruption]—and if you listen carefully, you will learn something, has increased by 20 percent, and that is from $311 million in 2008-09 to $374 million in 2015-16. That is an increase of $63 million. There is more species protection being done in New Zealand from DOC than at any other time in New Zealand's history. We have a Threatened Species Strategy that points to and focuses on our most at-risk species. We are paying more attention to this than ever before. There has been no reduction in DOC spending and allowances.

Andrew Bayly: What other announcement has she made on increased funding for DOC's biodiversity work?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: I have also announced the $21 million funding increase to launch the Battle for our Birds in 2017. That is in direct response to a beech mast or seeding event. It is a major predator control operation, and what members need to appreciate is that predator control across 800,000 hectares will save a lot of species, protect a lot of habitats, and improve the lot for biodiversity. We will deal with the plague of rats and stoats that threatens our native wildlife, and with this money DOC will be able to carry out real predator control, in conjunction with the wilding predator control that we are doing across wilding pines. There are a whole range of species protections, and our species and our biodiversity are the real winners here. Prime Minister—Statements

7. DENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes.

Denis O'Rourke: If he stands by his statement that the emissions trading system (ETS) "tells us that if you pay the price for carbon, that helps us find the most efficient means of changing the climate", can he cite any example anywhere where a tax has demonstrably helped to reduce the emissions causing climate change?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: In answer to the first question, yes; in answer to the second question, the New Zealand electricity market.

Denis O'Rourke: Is his Government's emissions trading scheme a reverse Robin Hood, given that it has already transferred over $2.3 billion from hard-working families, businesses, and farmers to foreign carbon traders?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. In the past we have welcomed New Zealand First's support for the carbon trading system. As I recall it, the leader of New Zealand First was an advocate for the forestry industry, which is one of the industries that have helped to contribute to the successful operation of the emissions trading system.

Denis O'Rourke: Why is his Government still transferring $1.4 billion every year to enrich foreign traders operating in a failed and immeasurable ETS?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I just do not agree with the member's assertion.

Denis O'Rourke: How can he falsely say that the emissions trading system has "multiparty … support", when New Zealand First would abolish it so that the $1.4 billion could be invested in a range of other actions, including research and development, insulating homes, planting forests, and implementing electrification in transport?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would say it has multiparty support because it has. New Zealand First did support it when it came in, and, in fact, if the member wanted those things to happen, and they were worthwhile, then under the emissions trading system they will happen. In fact, some of them are happening now because of the emissions trading system. Corrections, Minister—Announcement on Drug and Alcohol Testing of Offenders and Defendants

8. TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Corrections: What recent announcement has she made regarding drug and alcohol testing for offenders in the community and defendants on bail?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister of Corrections): Yesterday the Minister of Police and I announced a new initiative in which Police and Corrections will monitor and test offenders and people on bail with conditions not to consume alcohol or drugs. It allows staff to target those with the highest risk of causing alcohol-related harm with more intensive testing and monitoring. The main form of testing will be urine testing, and police will use existing breath-alcohol testing technology throughout the country. Some high-risk offenders and people on bail will be fitted with alcohol-detection anklets as part of this monitoring. These anklets detect alcohol in sweat, and provide evidence if offenders or people on bail have consumed alcohol against their abstinence conditions. The new legislation empowers staff to get evidence about drug and alcohol consumption. Staff can then take action, giving further treatment or sanctions to offenders who have breached their conditions.

Todd Barclay: How will this new initiative help to reduce reoffending?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Harmful alcohol and drug use is a major driver of crime. About half of crime is committed by people under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Providing extra support to offenders who are struggling with addiction is a step towards helping them make a positive change to their lives. Negative tests can provide evidence of sobriety to employers and help offenders get a job, reducing their chances of reoffending. At recent employer breakfasts that I have hosted, I have met employers who are so keen to employ more offenders, which is absolutely great news.

Mahesh Bindra: What assurance can she give that this monitoring system for drug and alcohol use will be just as effective as the supposedly "uncuttable" ankle bracelets, which needed only a pair of scissors?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: One of the clear challenges with the anklets is if an offender has an accident or if they have an illness that creates swelling. We absolutely do not want to be in a position that has occurred in other countries that has meant serious, serious injury because of the anklets. So, yes, there is the ability, in the case of an emergency, to have it removed, which means greater outcomes for the offender.

Mahesh Bindra: Why are taxpayers shelling out their money to pay a company in the United States to monitor Kiwi offenders, and just what does that say about our Government's commitment to employing Kiwis and Kiwi technology companies?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We are serious in Police and Corrections about reducing levels of crime. We want to use technology that has been tested thoroughly overseas and is used by other countries. In this case, this technology is new to New Zealand, and I think it is an exciting opportunity to give offenders a new opportunity to support their compliance. We want to use technology that is tested.

Todd Barclay: What other interventions is Corrections targeting at offenders with alcohol and drug issues?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As part of an $8.6 million package from the Justice Sector Fund last year, Corrections is also providing extra support to offenders with alcohol and drug needs. These initiatives include a 24/7 alcohol and drug support line for offenders and prisoners, and that line will be staffed by experienced, registered alcohol and drug practitioners. The 'RecoveRing' support line goes live on 24 May. There are also 16 new alcohol and drug aftercare workers employed in prisons across the country since July last year, and, in addition, over and above the existing beds that are used for residential treatments, an additional 13 residential beds in treatment facilities with offenders with significant alcohol and drug needs. Social Housing, Assistant Minister—Statements on Homelessness

9. CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Associate Minister for Social Housing: Does he stand by his statement "The Government takes its responsibility around homelessness seriously"; if so, why did he say some of the media were manufacturing a crisis?

Hon ALFRED NGARO (Associate Minister for Social Housing): Yes, I do stand by my statement that we take our responsibility for homelessness seriously.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is a second part to the question. There are two parts to the question. The Minister has addressed the first part, not the second part.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Yes, I do stand by my statement that we take our responsibility for homelessness seriously. That is why last year we committed $354 million for emergency transitional housing, the first time any Government has invested in the sector. We are on track to have, by the end of June, 1,598 of these transitional housing places available at any one time. This will help around 6,392 families a year. In Auckland we are on track to deliver 621 houses. This will support 2,484 Auckland families a year. Also, I apologise for my statements that I have made.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As with yesterday this was a primary question on notice, and it asked why he said that some of the media were manufacturing a crisis. Whilst he had a long answer, he did not address the second part of the question.

Mr SPEAKER: The question has not been addressed. It is a question on notice. The way forward is that I am going to invite Carmel Sepuloni to start the question again. There are two very definite parts to the question, if there is an affirmative to the first part of the question. With questions to Ministers they have got plenty of time to prepare and they should be able to answer questions. Carmel Sepuloni—to start question No. 9 again.

Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his statement "The Government takes its responsibility around homelessness seriously"; if so, why did he say some of the media were manufacturing a crisis?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Yes, I do stand by my statement that we take our responsibility for homelessness seriously. In regard to the second part, I have apologised for my comments.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The second part of the question asked him why he made the comment. He may regret it and he may have apologised for it, but it does not explain—he did not answer—why he made that comment.

Hon Simon Bridges: Speaking to the point of order, I think that in apologising, clearly the inference is that he was wrong in making it and that is the reason for that second limb. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not accept the final point made by the Hon Simon Bridges. We have now had two attempts. At the end of the time, I am not responsible for the answers that Ministers give. My duty here is to attempt strongly to get an answer that addresses the question. I do not think it has been addressed. We have had two goes at it. The way forward is I will allow Carmel Sepuloni two additional supplementary questions as she proceeds through her supplementary questions.

Carmel Sepuloni: Why did the Associate Minister say that the media were manufacturing a crisis, with regard to the housing crisis we face as a country?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: I regret the comments that I have made, and I have apologised for those comments.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. An apology does not negate a Minister's requirements to answer why he made a comment.

Mr SPEAKER: I am going to invite Carmel Sepuloni to repeat the supplementary question for the benefit of the Minister.

Carmel Sepuloni: Why did he say that the media were manufacturing a crisis, with reference to the housing issues we are facing as a country?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: I regret the comments that I have made. I made them ill-informed, I regret those comments, and I do apologise for them.

Carmel Sepuloni: Just answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: It was answered on that occasion.

Carmel Sepuloni: Has the Minister apologised for his comments about the media manufacturing a crisis because he recognises now that he was wrong, that the media have not manufactured a housing crisis, and that, in fact, his Government is responsible entirely for it?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: I own my own comments. I do apologise for them. They were ill-informed, and I have apologised for those comments that I made.

Carmel Sepuloni: Is he aware that the number of people on the social housing register classified as homeless has doubled in a year; if so, does he apportion the blame for this to (a) John Campbell and the media, (b) Alan Johnson and the Salvation Army, or (c) his Government?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: I refer the member to the announcement made by my colleague Minister Adams earlier this month, which shows that our hard work is coming to fruition. We now have secured 870 places, which will increase emergency housing places by 133 in under 2 months. We have more coming on board all the time. In fact, we are on track to have 1,600 places available by winter. That will help around 17,000 people this winter.

Carmel Sepuloni: When he met with Alan Johnson from the Salvation Army, was his intention to discuss and seek advice on the significant homelessness issue, or was it to soften him up to prevent him from speaking out on the Government's inaction in respect of an increasing number of homeless New Zealanders?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: I have met with a number of community groups, community housing providers, along with the Salvation Army, and the work that has been ongoing, in my role and responsibility as the Minister, is to continue to engage with the likes of the Salvation Army. Our conversations were about the work that we are progressing in partnership, together, with each other.

Carmel Sepuloni: When he met with Alan Johnson from the Salvation Army, was he trying to prevent its policy unit from "running riot and saying all sorts of things", such as "the number of houses proposed does not appear to be sufficient to meet existing and projected demands.", when talking about the Government's embarrassing housing announcement?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: We have continued to have a strong working relationship with the Salvation Army. There is representation from a number of groups—the external focus group is one—and we are working with a number of senior executives and getting their input into the partnership strategies that we have collectively, together.

Carmel Sepuloni: Was the 110 percent increase in the last year in the number of homeless New Zealanders on the social housing register his motivation for the Government to "push back against some of the media"; if not, what was his motivation for that attack?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: I am proud of the work that this Government has been doing. We have also been piloting a Housing First initiative in order to address the issues around homelessness. We have been working in partnership with a number of community groups in Auckland. This is an internationally recognised model that helps rough sleepers by putting them into safe, secure, and stable accommodation, and then providing wraparound services to address these issues.

Carmel Sepuloni: When he said that the controversy last year over people having to live in cars and on park benches was from "an Opposition that chooses to use their constituents for political fodder", was he implying that constituents like the Fa'avale family living under a tarpaulin, or Tracey Penny, a tetraplegic mother living with her family in a modified van, should have just waited patiently for Government support that was never coming?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: I am proud that the Government, since last July, has introduced the emergency housing special needs grant, which pays for accommodation for those who have nowhere else to go. Over the first 6 months it was available, we have helped over 4,500 households, and, again, we are the first Government to step up and offer this kind of help to those who are most in need.

Carmel Sepuloni: I seek leave to table an unpublished report from the Parliamentary Library showing a 110 percent increase in the last year in the number of homeless New Zealanders on the social housing register.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular information prepared by the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is objection. Refrigerant and Air Conditioning Industry—Environmental Impacts of Synthetic Gases

10. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister for the Environment: What steps is the Government proposing to address the environmental impacts of synthetic gases used by the refrigerant and air conditioning industry?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Last week we announced a plan to reduce by 80 percent the importation of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) gases over 20 years. These gases have a global warming effect up to 15,000 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. The plan will reduce New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions by over 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. The environmental benefit of this initiative is equivalent to shutting down the Huntly coal-fired power station or replacing half a million cars with electric vehicles. It is part of our plan for achieving the minus 30 by 2030 Paris target.

Joanne Hayes: What portion of the global warming problem is attributable to the synthetic gases used by the refrigerating industry, and what agreements have been reached globally to address the problem?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is estimated that these gases make up about 14 percent of the global greenhouse gas emission issue, so they are about one-seventh of the problem internationally. Left unabated, the use of these gases alone would raise global temperatures by about 0.5 degree Celsius. New Zealand played a very active role in securing the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase out these gases. The plan we have announced will have New Zealand exceed those obligations and be one of the first countries in the world to ratify the agreement.

Joanne Hayes: Does the Minister have confidence that the industry will be able to reduce the use of HFCs so that these ambitious 80 percent reductions can be achieved?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I do. The industry has shown that it is up to the environmental challenge over the past 20 years, in the way that it has responded to the problem of ozone-depleting chemicals and phased out their use. We have met our Montreal Protocol obligations, and this treaty's success is seeing the ozone hole reduce. It is estimated that 2 million cases of skin cancer per year have been saved as a consequence of that agreement. It now makes good sense that, internationally and domestically, we are now employing those same tools that have been successful in addressing the ozone issue to now assist in addressing the problem of climate change. Health Services—Capacity Issues in Waikato and Auckland

11. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Health: Has he received reports that Waikato Hospital is advising against sick people visiting their hospital; and is advising people not to attend hospital now an acceptable strategy under his Government for reducing the gap between service demand and service delivery in the health system?

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Acting Minister of Health): No, but I have seen reports of non-urgent people being asked to check with their GPs first. It is a well-established fact that hospitals across the world can reach capacity with seasonal influxes from time to time. The Waikato Hospital has a plan to deal with such incidents of seasonal pressure, and tells me that it is already largely back to normal. Managing seasonal demand is not new. In fact, I have a quote from Dr Mills from the Waikato Hospital, saying: "From our perspective, this is just an ordinary winter." That was dated 20 July 2006—under the Labour Government.

Dr David Clark: What action will he take in response to reports that yesterday GPs were being asked not to refer patients to Waikato Hospital until the current crisis is over?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: As I have already reported, the district health board (DHB) says that it is back to normal already. But there is a well-established practice for how you should access your emergency departments. They are called "emergency departments" for a reason. The first thing to do if you are sick is to maybe talk to a pharmacy, or talk to a telehealth; the second thing is to go to your GP, or after-hours services. If you are too sick for that, you can go to the district health board and the emergency department will look after you, just as it has done forever.

Dr David Clark: What does he intend to do about the fact that all three Auckland DHBs are now under pressure and have all reported an increase in full-bed days over recent years?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: I know the member is new to health, but he should understand that there has always been seasonal pressures on DHBs, and that they have a plan to deal with them and are doing that effectively and well.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order from Chris Hipkins.

Chris Hipkins: The Minister began her answer with an insult, which meant that many other members would not have heard the substantive answer, which, in fact, did not address the question that was asked.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I listened very carefully to the answer—it was not easy. The reason it was not easy is the clamour of interjection coming from my left. I do accept the original start of the answer was not that helpful to the order of the House, but I do point out that throughout the answers that have been given by the Minister, the member that is asking the questions has not stopped to listen to the answers because he has been interjecting too hard himself. Further supplementary questions? [Interruption] Order! I do not need assistance from the front bench to my right.

Dr David Clark: So does he now think it is acceptable for this 79-year-old cancer patient, whose picture I hold, to wait at an Auckland hospital just yesterday until nearly 6 hours after his accident for his wound to be cleaned, and made to wait 10 hours for food before an assessment for surgery could be made?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: I am afraid I cannot give you the full details of this case, but I have been assured that the clinical care was appropriate and that the gentleman was looked after well.

Dr David Clark: How much more does he expect to announce in the health budget, beyond the additional $1 billion needed for district health boards (DHBs) to fund the aged care settlement and to maintain existing service levels for a growing population, and when will he begin to pay back the $1.7 billion beyond that that he stripped out of the sector over the previous 6 years?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: I am sorry, I did not hear the beginning of that question, but what I can tell you is that every year since National has been in Government we have increased Vote Health. Right now the official advice tells me that the spend per person has gone up from $2,000 per person to $2,500. That is not a funding cut; it is an about 21 percent increase since we have been in Government—ahead of inflation, which is 15 percent. So the Government has increased Vote Health by over $4 billion, and official advice, again, tells us that the DHBs have been funded not only for increases but for their population and inflation. I would just like to make one point—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the question has been answered. We do not need it to be any longer.

Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Dr David Clark: I seek your guidance. Earlier you stopped me from tabling a document that would have corrected the things that the Minister said, in terms of—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I did not stop you—[Interruption] Order! I do not stop you tabling anything. What is the point?

Dr David Clark: The Minister is repeating those facts, which are clearly not true, by basis of—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member is now getting into a matter of debate, but if he feels there has been a deliberate case of misrepresentation, then what he needs to do is haul out his Standing Orders and read Standing Order 359, and then he will know the course of action. It is not a matter of raising it as a point of order in this House. Community and Voluntary Sector, Minister—Statements

12. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that "it is not the way this Government works", in relation to his comments threatening funding cuts for organisations that spoke against the Government?

Hon ALFRED NGARO (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Yes, I do.

James Shaw: Then will the Minister ensure that any NGOs that publicly critique Government policies and action are protected from the threat of having their funding cut?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: All agencies are able to advocate to give advice and support to any of the strategies that Government has.

James Shaw: Given that answer, Victoria University research found that 15 percent of Government funding agreements "stated explicitly that they must not make public comment on government policies and action …", will he now advocate for the removal of such clauses in those contracts?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: I have not seen that report, so I cannot give any advice.

James Shaw: Will the Minister consider altering clauses in the contract negotiations being concluded this June and July to ensure that NGOs, such as those working with the homeless, are able to critique Government policy?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: I have no ministerial responsibility for the contracting of those particular services that the member is talking about.

James Shaw: If he heard that senior officials had contacted NGOs to imply a threat to their funding following public statements critiquing the Government, would he say that that was unacceptable behaviour and not how this Government works?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: I have not heard of any of those reports that the member has relayed. I know and trust that in the front line of all our workers, they do the best job possible.

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was whether he would say that that kind of behaviour was acceptable, not whether he had heard of it or not.

Mr SPEAKER: Can I ask the member to refer to Speaker's ruling 180/3. Members can ask hypothetical questions but it is not required that the Minister responds to such a hypothesis—a very learned ruling given by Jonathan Hunt some years ago.

ENDS

© Scoop Media