ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Economy—Government Financial Position

1. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the Government's fiscal position?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): The latest Government accounts have been released today for the 10 months to 30 April and show a surplus of $2.5 billion, helped by higher than expected revenue. It must be noted that around $1 billion of this surplus is due to the annual peak and provisional tax assessments and estimates occurring a month earlier than expected. Treasury and Inland Revenue expect this to be reversed in the May statements, therefore it is important not to take too much from a single month's figures. Nevertheless, the accounts overall do underline the Government's improving fiscal position.

Melissa Lee: How did this month's financial results affect the expected out-turn for the full year?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Treasury's current expectations are that the forecast surplus for the 2016-17 year, of $1.6 billion, is on track. This improving fiscal position, which has now occurred over a number of years, is the result of New Zealand companies making the most of the current economic conditions and getting out and competing successfully on the world stage. The Government's strong economic plan is giving companies the confidence to invest and expand, hire more staff, and increase production.

Melissa Lee: What is the forecast surplus track for the Crown over the next 4 years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Last month's Budget Economic and Fiscal Update shows we have made good progress in restoring the health of the Crown accounts over the last few years. Operating balance before gains and losses (OBEGAL) surpluses are forecast to rise, from an estimated $1.6 billion this year to $7.2 million by 2020-21. However, the residual cash position is different, mainly because of the massive infrastructure investments we are making in new infrastructure for a growing country. Over the next 4 years the net residual cash position is currently expected to be basically zero.

Grant Robertson: Given the fiscal position he has outlined, does he think it is fair that over the next 5 years average real wages are set to grow by 1.3 percent in total, which calculates to a real increase for an average worker of 8c an hour a year?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We will have to see how that estimate plays out. That is Treasury's forecast. My view is that it will grow faster than that, as it has over the last few years where wages have been growing at approximately twice the rate of inflation.

Grant Robertson: Given the fiscal position he has outlined, does it surprise him that unemployment will not drop below 5 percent for the next 2 years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member may not have been updated, but actually it is below 5 percent now, in fact, as a result of the March quarter of the household labour force survey. The good news for the member is that the employment rate is at 76.1 percent, for all people aged 15 to 64, which is a record for New Zealand. This Government has now the second-highest rate of employment in the OECD, and, as a result, more and more people are joining the labour force. I am very pleased with that.

Melissa Lee: How is the Government's strong fiscal position helping to deliver for New Zealanders?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government's strong economic plan means we get to make the sorts of choices we were able to make in the Budget that has just been delivered. The Government is investing $7 billion of money over 4 years in improving public services, as well as $4 billion in new money for additional infrastructure, taking the total investment over the next 4 years to $32.5 billion, and, of course, there is the $2 billion a year Family Incomes Package, which has received reasonably broad support from across the Parliament. It is only with a consistent economic plan that we will continue to have the capacity to make more positive decisions into the future. Minister, Building and Construction—Statements

2. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does he stand by his statement that this is a "golden era" for the building industry; if so, why?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Construction): Yes. The statement was made 3 years ago in 2014, when releasing the Construction Pipeline report, which projected at least a 10 percent per annum growth in construction. This has transpired. Commercial and residential building has increased from $13 billion a year to $20 billion per year. This is significantly higher than previous construction booms in 2003 and 1996, in real terms—i.e., it is a higher level of activity than about 30 percent, the last time there was a boom.

Phil Twyford: Is it a "golden era" when data from Statistics New Zealand out today shows that in the latest quarter there was the biggest drop in construction activity in 6 years?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That was in respect of commercial building activity, which has actually been at incredibly high levels. The total level of building activity over the last year is $20 billion. The last peak in 2004 was over $14 billion.

Phil Twyford: But how many houses? It's just expensive.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would also point out to the member interjecting that we are now building over 30,000 houses a year. That has occurred only twice in the last 50 years.

Denis O'Rourke: If we are still in a "golden era" for housing, how is it that in the last year we have seen decreases in rental stock in Wellington of 65 percent; Otago, 61 percent; Bay of Plenty, 52 percent; Canterbury, 48 percent; and Auckland, 42 percent, resulting in very large rent increases?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member would note that in Christchurch rents have actually declined where we have radically increased land supply. That is why I look forward to the New Zealand First Party's support for being part of the solution rather than being part of the problem, by increasing land supply in other parts of New Zealand where the housing market is under pressure.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That Minister was asked about rental stock, not rentals. He is refusing to answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: No. I do not need assistance from the member, because on this occasion the question was, without doubt, addressed.

Phil Twyford: Is it a "golden era" when schools in Auckland are looking at building houses themselves on school grounds or sending students home because their teachers cannot find affordable housing?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I remind the member again that the "golden era" comment was made 3 years ago in respect of the growth in the building sector. It projected 10 percent growth per year in construction, and we have actually achieved almost double what was projected 3 years ago.

Phil Twyford: Is it a "golden era" when the number of rentals available in Wellington has plummeted by 65 percent and the average rent in Wellington has gone up by $2,340 per year? Or is that, as the Prime Minister said, a "problem of success"?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is no question that New Zealand is doing exceptionally well—that means that Kiwis are not leaving and our population is growing. As a consequence of that, this Government is growing the investment in the residential area and in the commercial area, and in the Budget there is a very large increase for infrastructure. Indeed, it is a "golden era" in the building and construction industry across New Zealand as we build this great nation.

Phil Twyford: Is it a "golden era" or a "problem of success" when families—like Ashley Portland and her two young children who are living in a tiny cold caravan in Rotorua; they have been there for 4 months because Ashley simply cannot find anywhere affordable to rent—report that kids are regularly getting sick because of the cold and the damp?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The issue for that family and others, and the main solution, is to grow the number of houses that is being built. We have had, for the very first time in New Zealand history—and members opposite will note—5 straight years of growth in building construction, such that we have a record-high level of construction activity. Climate Change—Paris Agreement and United States' Withdrawal

3. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: What, if anything, has he said to United States Secretary of State Rex Tillerson about President Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: The meeting with Mr Tillerson has only just concluded, and, as such, I have not had a chance to talk to the Prime Minister in person yet. I note that the Prime Minister has said he will express New Zealand's disagreement with the decision and reiterate that New Zealand remains committed to the Paris Agreement.

James Shaw: Does the Prime Minister think that simply expressing disappointment is strong enough in response to the US undermining the efforts of nearly every other country on earth to stave off worldwide disaster?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think that he has been very clear that New Zealand does not agree with what the US has done. It is not something that New Zealand is even looking at. We stay strongly committed to the Paris Agreement. I am not sure that there is a different response from New Zealand that would get a different answer from the President of the United States.

James Shaw: Did the Prime Minister inform Secretary Tillerson that the New Zealand Defence Force considers climate change to be a major emerging stability threat in the Pacific region, and, if so, what was Secretary Tillerson's response?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I noted in my earlier answer, that meeting has only just concluded and I do not know what they spoke of.

James Shaw: Did the Prime Minister tell Secretary Tillerson that if the United States wants to continue to play a leadership role in the Pacific it will need to understand that the actions that it has taken directly threaten the continued survival and existence of a number of Pacific Island States?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I stated, I am not sure exactly what those discussions were, as they have only just taken place. The best I can give the member is a Twitter feed from Vernon Small, which said that Tillerson said the US is proud of its record of reducing greenhouse gases. Small quoted Tillerson: " 'I don't think anyone should interpret US has stepped away from these issues.' "

Aupito William Sio: Did the Prime Minister convey with urgency to Secretary Tillerson that climate change is the single biggest issue for Pacific Island nations, which will face displacement as a direct result of climate change, when the USA is still the world's No. 1 polluter in terms of per capita carbon dioxide emissions, with 18 tonnes omitted per person, compared with the Pacific Island countries emitting per capita equivalent emissions of approximately 0.96 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am unsure exactly what the Prime Minister and Mr Tillerson have spoken about, because I have not had a chance to talk to the Prime Minister to see how that conversation went. What I will say is that the US has said that it may be interested in renegotiating, and hopefully that means something meaningful, but the rest of the world is unsure at this stage. We voice our disappointment. We stand with our Pacific cousins in actually making sure that we do lower our own emissions, and we work with the rest of the world in doing so.

James Shaw: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Minister of Foreign Affairs that "in the end, it is the trading relationship … that [is] pretty important to us", and if so, how does he think that the trading relationship will be affected by increasing droughts and floods savaging our export industries, massive movements of people leaving their uninhabitable homelands, and, as the Pentagon itself worries, increasing global instability from climate change?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think there are a number of different facets to the relationship with the US that are important to us. Trade is one, as is our security. We are disappointed to see that it has pulled out of the Paris Agreement, but we hope we can still continue to work in some way to reducing their own emissions in the US.

James Shaw: Given New Zealand's proud history of standing up to the United States over nuclear weapons, is today not the day that our Prime Minister should be standing up to the United States about climate change and condemning Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I do note that there are states within America that are still very committed to reducing emissions, and, in fact, California has an emissions trading scheme that works very well, and you can see its emissions tracking down. Equally, there are some big US businesses that understand that to have a future they need to have more clean energy and they are committed to that. I think condemning the whole US for the stance the current administration has taken would be wrong, in my opinion.

James Shaw: Is not the real reason why the Prime Minister is failing to strongly condemn President Trump's decision because morally he does not have a leg to stand on, because under his Government's watch there has been a massive expansion in deep-sea oil exploration, new coalmines started on Department of Conservation land, and New Zealand's emissions have increased 19 percent since this Government came into office?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No. This part of the House—this Government—is proud of the ambitious targets that we have set for 2030. We want to bend the curve of emissions in this country, and we are doing a whole lot of very sensible things to make sure that we arrive there. Schools—Capacity and Risk of Overcrowding

4. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: How many schools throughout New Zealand has the Ministry of Education identified as being over capacity or at risk of overcrowding?

Mr SPEAKER: In calling the Hon Nikki Kaye, I say that my office has been advised the answer may be longer than normal.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister of Education): I am advised that the ministry has a pretty crude system of identifying and classifying those schools that may have been in the past defined as over capacity or at risk of overcrowding, including using roll return data, which is collected only twice a year. The figures that I have are 2016 figures, which are misleading and out of date. At that time there were 230 schools that it identified that were above capacity. However, this categorisation does not take into account whether the school has board-owned property or is leasing property, or any property solutions that are under way. The label also does not mean that a school is overcrowded or unsafe. I am advised that the ministry is confident that there are no health and safety issues, in part because our property allocation is very generous compared with other countries. So a school can be at 100 percent capacity and not be overcrowded. I am also advised that in this year's Budget, $8 million was announced to enhance the ministry's strategic planning capabilities to enable it to better forecast and plan for growth.

Chris Hipkins: Why does she continue to deny that there is a problem when the Ministry of Education's advice to her states: "Historic property responses have not been able to keep up with demand, resulting in region-wide critical pressures."?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I have never stated that there is no problem, but what I can tell the member is that when you look back at historical figures, I am advised that over successive Governments it has been quite similar in terms of the system we have had and the numbers of schools that have been at capacity or considered at risk. But what I can tell the member is that under our Government we have put in $5 billion previously, and we have got $4.85 billion coming over the next 4 years.

Chris Hipkins: If over 700 schools have been identified by the ministry as overcrowded or at risk of overcrowding, and the Ministry of Education is describing the situation as critical, how much more evidence does she need before she will admit that the Government has failed to keep pace with demand for extra places in schools?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Well, the member has not listened to any of my previous answers, and it is incredibly alarmist to say that 700 schools are overcrowded. That is not correct, and it is totally wrong.

Chris Hipkins: How many schools are using library space, gymnasiums, halls, or even old dental clinics as teaching spaces because they do not have enough classrooms to cope with demand?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I do not have that figure to hand, but what I can say to the member is—as I have explained previously—under both successive National and Labour Governments we have always had a system where schools choose how they use their space. But we have got a generous system of property allocation, and I can confirm to the member that utilisation figures in New Zealand have dropped since that member's Government was in power.

Chris Hipkins: Who is responsible for ensuring that New Zealand schools have their capacity expanded to cope with the fact that the population has grown by nearly half a million in the last 9 years—is it the Government that was in power 9 years ago or the Government that is in power today?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Look, the numbers in terms of population growth—I am advised that even though we have had tens of thousands more in terms of population growth, the overall utilisation figure under our Government has gone down. We have invested more than $5 billion, we have got $4.85 billion coming, and we are futureproofing in areas like Wānaka, at $19 million, so we are hundreds ahead. So the point is that under our Government the situation is better, but we will continue to improve it. Crime—Prevention of Offending in Counties Manukau

5. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of Police: What is the Government doing to prevent offending in Counties Manukau?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Police): The police in Counties Manukau have had a very in-depth work programme going on in crime prevention, around aggravated robberies in particular. That is why, last week, I announced the next step in this prevention work: a fund of $1.8 million, which will assist up to 1,000 small local dairies and superettes that are considered to be at high risk of being targets of aggravated robberies. This is for those who cannot afford these sorts of measures themselves, and the Government is helping them.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: Has the Minister seen any comments from the industry about the new fund?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes. I have had a number of dairy owners tell me themselves that they are grateful for this assistance so that they can get fog cannons, personal alarms, or time safes that are there as well. Retail New Zealand itself said it is "delighted that the Government is taking this issue seriously and making funding available to support security improvements … This is good news, and we hope that it will discourage criminals and anti-social elements from undertaking their criminal acts."

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: Can the Minister update the House on Operation Dukan?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Operation Dukan is currently running across the three Auckland Police districts: Counties Manukau, Auckland City, and Waitematā. It is based on evidence that small changes in the physical environment and awareness can reduce the likelihood of becoming a victim of crime. Police have recently visited over 1,000 small businesses in Auckland to provide reassurance and crime prevention advice. Also, we have got more police on the beat in those hot spot areas.

Ron Mark: Why should the people of Counties Manukau believe this Government's assurances when, despite 9 years of spin that crime has gone down, the Government's own data sets now show quite clearly that youth robberies and burglaries in Counties Manukau have gone up 80 percent, and nationwide are up 40 percent; and how is raising the age of criminal responsibility going to fix that?

Mr SPEAKER: There are two questions there. The Hon Paula Bennett can address one or both.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Certainly the numbers I have seen for Counties Manukau are not that high for the group that the member is actually putting forward. What I would say is that there has been an increase in the number of aggravated robberies, and police have been doing an outstanding job in capturing these criminals. They have made over 100 arrests already, and continue to be very focused on that. Cancer Services—Intraoperative Radiotherapy

6. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Health: Has he seen the TARGIT study of 3,451 women in 11 countries with breast cancer, which found that intraoperative radiotherapy has similar survival and recurrence rates, and significantly fewer mortalities from other complications after 5 years than external beam radiotherapy, and what progress is being made introducing intraoperative radiotherapy into the New Zealand Public Health Service?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes, I am aware of the TARGIT study. An initial assessment examining the clinical safety and effectiveness of intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) was published by the National Health Committee in 2015. Following this, an assessment examining the potential impacts of introducing IORT in New Zealand was published in April this year. Having considered these reports, the Ministry of Health has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to introduce IORT into the New Zealand public health system at this time. I am advised that the key issue is that clinical equivalency between IORT and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) has not yet been established. Further clinical trials are under way internationally, with the results expected to be available after 2020.

David Seymour: Why, then, did the tier 3 report from the Ministry of Health say: "The TARGIT-A trial provided sufficient evidence to carry out work on the National Health Committee's other domains, and there is a reasonably good evidence that the follow-up period is sufficient and that non-inferiority has been demonstrated."?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: This is, essentially, a debate between clinicians and scientists as to the most effective treatment. The best advice is that the evidence around IORT is still emerging—that it is not conclusive. Ministers getting involved in this situation would be a bit like reaching into Pharmac and directing that certain drugs be funded. The fact is that we have to take the best expert advice, and that is what I am going on.

David Seymour: What did the Deloitte report commissioned by the Ministry of Health find in respect of the cost-effectiveness of IORT versus conventional breast cancer treatments?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It may well be cost-effective in certain cases, but I can tell you directly what that report does say, and here it is: "… extant evidence for the efficacy and safety of the IORT compared to EBRT remains equivocal."

David Seymour: Why were the authors of that Deloitte report not provided with the tier 3 report that I mentioned in my earlier supplementary question?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am not aware that they were not.

David Seymour: Is it not the case that new technology in the form of IORT could save enormous inconvenience and pain to a thousand women per year who are diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer but that the Ministry of Health is dragging its heels on its introduction, when comprehensive studies, with 5 years of evidence, have been published internationally, in reputable journals, and those thousand women a year will continue to miss out because the ministry is dragging its heels?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, it is not the case. Actually, the ministry is up to date with the latest evidence, and the best advice is that the evidence is equivocal and there is no clear benefit of IORT versus EBRT.

Marama Fox: Given that of the 120 women who have received this treatment because they have paid for it, only one of them was Māori, surely the disparity in the system needs to be addressed? Can the Minister tell us what he will do to correct the disparity for Māori and Pasifika and the opportunity to receive this treatment?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look, it is very important that people in New Zealand get access to the very best treatments regardless of their ethnic background, and that is absolutely what the Government is committed to doing.

David Seymour: Can the Minister give any indication to New Zealand women of when he expects this new technology, already used in Australia, Canada, the UK, the US, and even China, to be available in New Zealand's public health system?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: If the member thinks back to the primary answer, I said that further clinical trials are under way internationally, with results expected to be available after 2020.

Marama Fox: Given that women who live rurally have to have ongoing radiotherapy over a period of months, and given the inconvenience to them and their families—the majority of them women; the number one cause of death in this country by cancer for women—will the Minister ensure that those trials are done speedily and this implemented?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I do not actually have any power as Minister of Health to speed up international trials. Budget 2017—Defence

7. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Defence: What announcements have been made as a part of Budget 2017 about the Government's investment in defence?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the Minister, I require substantially less interjection from members of the New Zealand First caucus. The Hon Mark Mitchell.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Defence): Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Darroch Ball, I have a very good mind to ask you to leave the Chamber. You have interjected in every question and answer so far. If it happens again, then I will ask the member to leave. I apologise to the Minister.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: There is a lot of excitement over there, Mr Speaker. Budget 2017 delivers a significant investment in the Defence Force. The Government has committed $406 million over the next 4 years, plus a capital boost of $576 million, to deliver a range of capabilities identified through the 2016 defence white paper. This funding ensures we are investing in our greatest asset—our personnel—and giving them the modern effective tools they need to provide security both at home and abroad.

Todd Muller: How is New Zealand contributing to regional security in the Asia-Pacific?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: New Zealand contributes in a number of ways, including joint exercises, training, and information sharing. At the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore last week, a clear message from our friends and allies was that they greatly value New Zealand's efforts in the region and they rely on our expertise. While away I also signed a joint statement on defence with Indonesia and reaffirmed New Zealand's commitment to the Five Power Defence Arrangement—our oldest, regional, security agreement. As a country we can be proud of our contribution to regional security and the unique role we play advocating for small States and addressing global challenges like violent extremism, territorial disputes, and rogue States.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the New Zealand people take seriously his desire for regional security in the Asia-Pacific, military asset procuration, defence alliances, and global challenges when the No. 1 priority seems to be making Defence smoke-free by 2020?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I am pleased that the New Zealand Defence Force is creating an environment to allow people to make their own choice in terms of whether they want to be smoke-free, but I reaffirm that our focus as a defence force is continued engagement with the security architecture to ensure that the Asia-Pacific region and the wider region remain safe and secure. Boarding Houses—Exploitation of Tenants

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am just seeking clarification on the transfer of this question from the Minister for Social Housing and was just wondering whether the Government is saying that boarding houses are not a form of emergency housing, for which the Minister for Social Housing is responsible.

Mr SPEAKER: I am aware that the question has been transferred. It is, as I have mentioned many times, the right of the Government to transfer a question. It is actually the responsibility of the Government to make sure the question goes to the Minister whom it considers is most responsible for the answer to be given. So the question will proceed to the Minister to whom it has been transferred, unless the member would rather we not ask the question. It is her choice.

8. CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does he agree that due to the housing crisis, some boarding house landlords are exploiting vulnerable New Zealanders?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Construction): Boarding houses have always accommodated more vulnerable tenants and they have featured regularly over the past 20 years in stories of exploitation. This Government has changed the tenancy law and has set up the new Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Team in order to better protect vulnerable tenants in this type of accommodation.

Carmel Sepuloni: Is the reason why he is answering the question and not the Minister for Social Housing that he believes that New Zealanders paying $250 a week to live in slum-like boarding houses is not an issue related to emergency housing or social housing availability?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, because my ministerial responsibilities make me responsible for tenancy law, which deals with the issues of standards, and issues such as boarding houses, and, secondly, I am responsible for the Building Act, and the Building Act deals with sanitary and unsafe buildings.

Carmel Sepuloni: Does he accept that, as the housing crisis intensifies, New Zealanders are becoming more and more desperate and are left with no choice but to live in their cars or slum-like boarding houses?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, because we are now building over 30,000 homes per year, for the first time ever the Government is providing direct financial support for emergency housing, and even last year, the Government actually completed the construction of more homes than any Government has in more than 20 years.

Maureen Pugh: What changes has the Government made to improve rental conditions for boarding house tenants?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government has made five changes in toughening up the standards required of boarding houses. Firstly, from 1 July last year they were required to have smoke alarms. Secondly, there is a specific requirement for them to declare the level of insulation and for all such residences to be insulated by 1 July 2019. Thirdly, we have tightened the electrical safety requirements. Fourthly, we have introduced the new enforcement regime with a Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Team, and, fifthly, we have strengthened the retaliatory provisions to ensure that tenants have the confidence to actually be able to hold landlords to account for meeting the housing regulations.

Carmel Sepuloni: After 9 years of his Government, why is there still no housing for boarding house tenants like Glen Sharman, who said "Personally, I wouldn't live where I'm living now. Why am I? Because I've got nowhere else to go." and could this be because the number of State houses has reduced by 2,500 under his Government's watch?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do find the Opposition's figures around the number of State houses very dodgy, because they exclude the number of houses that are transferred to the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company. The real question should be the number of social houses, and members representing electorates all over New Zealand would know the degree to which the number of social houses being provided not just by Housing New Zealand but other agencies is expanding rapidly.

Carmel Sepuloni: Will the Minister support the petition currently before the Social Services Committee to implement the recommendations from the 2014 inquiry into boarding houses; if not, why is he content to see New Zealanders living in slums?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Quite the opposite. I have outlined the five different measures that this Government has taken to improve the regulation around boarding hostels. And I have to tell you that in every Parliament in the last two decades there have been issues with boarding houses. The only difference with this Government is we have actually done something about it. Climate Change—Sea-level Rise and Guidance for Local Government

9. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Will she release updated guidance before this year's general election on the extent of sea-level rise which local authorities should plan for?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Climate Change Issues): The Ministry for the Environment is still in the process of finalising its updated coastal hazards guidance for councils. It is important that it goes through a thorough process so that councils can make sound planning decisions, and, as such, I cannot yet give a date as to when it will be ready for release.

Eugenie Sage: Is it appropriate for councils to continue using 9-year-old Government guidance to respond to sea-level rise, given that this guidance massively underestimates how high sea levels are likely to rise?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The member is making assumptions as to whether or not it is out of date. It is currently in date, and we will be working on that when it is ready.

Eugenie Sage: How does she respond to Thames-Coromandel district mayor Sandra Goudie's question: "What do you want us to do and where is the money to do it?"

Hon PAULA BENNETT: A good, feisty, intelligent woman who is putting her voice forward and sticking up for her community wants to make a difference, and she just needs a bit of help as to where to put that, I suppose.

Eugenie Sage: Is the real reason she has not released updated guidance to councils on sea-level rise this year that National does not want to tackle the hard issues in an election year and does not want to talk about the real impacts that climate change is having in New Zealand right now?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No. Health, Minister—Statements

10. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that the wish-list figure for district health boards to meet their total cost pressures is "round the amount of the allocation plus about 1 percent of the baseline", and what is the total cost pressure including wage, demographic, and inflation for all district health boards in dollars for 2017/18?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes. The total theoretical pressure is the allocation of $439 million plus around 1 percent of the total district health board (DHB) budget, so around $530 million. But just remember that this will always be only an estimate, as the final figure for the year is dependent on a number of changing factors such as inflation, wage settlements, and other costs. However, I know the member will be excited to hear, and probably for the first time, that health has received its biggest increase in 11 years—$880 million.

Dr David Clark: Does the Ministry of Health use the measure of demographic cost pressures when it advises him of what the total cost pressures are in Vote Health for his Budget meetings with the finance Minister?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am not sure that makes sense, that question, to be honest, but yes, it factors in all pressures—demographic, population, and, of course, inflation.

Dr David Clark: Why does he not use the same measure?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am pretty sure I do.

Dr David Clark: What does he say to Dannevirke Community Hospital manager Sharon Wards, who pleaded last week for MidCentral DHB not to make further cuts, saying: "Cancer has not stopped has it? We have been asked to live within our means. … don't chip away at those means."?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, what I would say is that in this Budget MidCentral's budget went up by $19 million. It has gone up by $158 million over the last nine Budgets—

Dr David Clark: Why are services being cut?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member is completely incorrect, and, in fact, misleading, to say that services and budgets have been cut, because they have not. They have been increased.

Dr David Clark: Why have services been cut at that DHB?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Services have not been cut at that DHB.

Dr David Clark: Why, in contrast to the advice he has received from his officials, does he insist upon tweeting about population growth rather than demographic growth in reference to the inadequate funding for Vote Health, and does he not just mean "covfefe"?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, the funding is not inadequate. It has gone up by $888 million—$5 billion over the course of this Government. So it has gone well ahead, and we fully funded population growth and inflation. Ministers—Confidence

11. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he still have confidence in all his Ministers; if so, why?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes; because they are competent and hard-working, especially my deputy.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he agree with the Cabinet Manual that Ministers should "not inappropriately influence officials, or involve themselves in matters that are not their responsibility."; if so, what would he do if a Minister did just that?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, I do agree with the Cabinet Manual.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the new standard of Government includes being more transparent and accountable, does that include Ministers not intervening in organisational and administrative decisions that are not their responsibility?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is a close relationship between Ministers and their departments. I would expect that a chief executive runs their department and Ministers are providing vision and giving the policy direction. But as it is a very close relationship, there are times when I am sure it gets close.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If a State-owned enterprise's legal team has advised a Minister that they would "struggle to justify non-release of information", does she think it is appropriate for a Minister to email a general manager opposing the organisation's decision to release information?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I would have to see the details of that to make any judgment.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a summary of emails from the Minister of Transport's office challenging KiwiRail's decision to release information.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that series of emails. Is there any objection to it being tabled? [Interruption] Is there any objection? There is not. It can be tabled. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What on earth was his transport Minister trying to achieve when his office emailed the general manager of KiwiRail trying to influence him to step in and prevent the official correspondence unit from releasing information?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I would have to see details, but it sounds to me like the Minister is doing his job, and you have got some email from an official that might be doing something else that we will have to have a look at to see whether there is anything in it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the first answer to the first question was that there was respect for the Cabinet Manual, and if he has said that Alfred Ngaro's comments were "naive", and Steven Joyce claims "it's not the way we operate", then what on earth does he have to say about Simon Bridges' office deliberately trying to influence officials behind closed doors, covertly and secretly, not to release information that is owed to the public of this country?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I really would have to see the details. The member has been around for a long time and has made a lot of allegations over a lot of years, and most of them have not actually stacked up, so I would be surprised if this one does.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am asking the Minister for a reply, given the Cabinet Manual provisions that she says she understands—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, no. I have listened to the question. It was a very long question. I have listened to the answer, and the question has been addressed. Question—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you clarify what you actually meant when you said that.

Mr SPEAKER: I said the question has been addressed. Question—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raised the point of order on the basis of some clarity around the Cabinet Manual, and the answer she gave was a veritable attack upon me but not the Cabinet Manual.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, no. Go back and look at the question. The question was hardly in order, when I look at Standing Order 380. I was very generous to the member in letting it stand, and I have said now on two occasions—and I do not intend to have to continue to repeat it—that the question has been addressed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: If it is a fresh point of order, I will hear it. If not—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is a fresh point of order. New Zealand First does not expect any special conditions with respect to questions. If the question was not in order, why did you not say so?

Mr SPEAKER: Because I would be ruling out just about every supplementary question the member ever asked.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order, and it will be heard in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What degree of order do you expect to maintain in the House when you of all people, given your background, make a statement like that? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Over time the breadth of questions and the amount of additional wording that is put into questions has expanded. It is over to me as to whether I allow it to happen, and I have been relatively generous, not only to the member but to all members, accepting that this is a debating chamber where politics will play its part. The essence of the member's point of order is whether his question was satisfactorily addressed. The member obviously does not think it was; I am not surprised by that, but it is my decision that it was. Budget 2017—Disability Support Services

12. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister for Disability Issues: What recent Budget announcements has the Government made regarding investment into disability support services?

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister for Disability Issues): Budget 2017 will invest an extra $205.4 million over 4 years to maintain and improve disability support services, taking the total funding to $1.2 billion for the year 2017-18. This covers community-based home support, personal care, caregiver support and residential care, as well as equipment services. Around 32,000 New Zealanders and their families will benefit from these services every year.

Dr Shane Reti: How does Budget 2017 progress the expansion of Enabling Good Lives?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: Budget 2017 invests $27.1 million over 3 years for the expansion of Enabling Good Lives in the mid-central region. Enabling Good Lives is based on the principles of giving disabled people more choice and more control over their lives. The trial demonstrations have already benefited hundreds of disabled people and families in Waikato and Christchurch. The Government is working closely with the disabilities sector to co-design the Enabling Good Lives model, to transform disability support services and give disabled people greater independence and flexibility.

ENDS

© Scoop Media