strong>ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Housing—Minister's Statements

1. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Prime Minister: Did he as Minister of Finance in 2010 tell Major Campbell Roberts of the Salvation Army that Auckland faced a looming housing crisis; if so, why?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: I do not recall exactly what was said in many conversations with Major Campbell Roberts all those 7 years ago. We have always acknowledged that housing is a challenge, and we have been working hard to increase supply. I would note that at the time of that conversation with Major Roberts, around 3,000 houses a year were being built in Auckland. That figure is now 10,000 houses. Since 2010 we have seen the new Auckland Unitary Plan, special housing areas, permanent funding for emergency housing, the Housing Infrastructure Fund, more tools for the Reserve Bank, the Crown building programme in Auckland—all part of a range of measures that the Government is doing to address those.

Phil Twyford: Does he accept that Major Campbell Roberts of the Salvation Army is telling the truth?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I have indicated, I cannot remember the exact conversation from 7 years ago.

Phil Twyford: If he knew there was a housing crisis in 2010 but concealed it, why does he not now accept that we have a housing crisis, given that Auckland house prices have nearly doubled since 2010 and we have now what the Salvation Army calls the worst homelessness in living memory?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Back in 2010, I then, as the Minister of Finance, actually called together a group predominantly from Auckland, including Major Campbell, to predominantly look at social housing and the reforms that needed to happen there and concerns around what was happening with the accommodation supplement, as well as the income-related rents. With State houses being the monopoly of Government, we were actually wanting to see community housing organisations come in. So we have always appreciated Major Roberts' contribution to housing in New Zealand, particularly with the Government in those reforms.

Denis O'Rourke: Does he agree with a high-profile New Zealander who said that the home affordability "crisis" had reached "dangerous levels" and "looks to get worse" and "threatens our economy"?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am not known for agreeing with Winston Peters.

Denis O'Rourke: I seek leave to table the text of a speech given on 21 August 2007 by John Key, which contains the quotes I mentioned.

Mr SPEAKER: I suspect it is relatively publicly available, but I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular speech. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Phil Twyford: Does the Prime Minister agree with Paula Bennett when she said that for those people without a house "it is a crisis, without doubt."?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I do normally agree with Paula Bennett because she is generally right, but not always. What I—

Grant Robertson: This time?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: —yes—would say is that for individuals who do not have housing, it is without a doubt a real challenge for them, and something that this side of the House is absolutely counted on. We are the first Government to actually put money into emergency housing organisations and make sure that they are funded. We are actually committed to 34,500 new homes over the next 10 years, and I note that, actually, with the announcement from Amy Adams, we will see 12,000 new homes in Auckland over the next 3 years. Those homes we have got the land for; we know where they are being built. However, I saw an announcement by Labour on the TV yesterday morning that it was not planning to do 15,000 homes as part of its—

Mr SPEAKER: Bring the answer to a conclusion.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: —building programme throughout the whole country, and so it actually cannot—

Mr SPEAKER: Bring—

Hon PAULA BENNETT: —deliver.

Phil Twyford: If the Prime Minister agrees with Paula Bennett that one person without a house is a crisis for them, does he agree that 41,000 homeless people and hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders living in housing stress and a generation of young Kiwis locked out of the housing market adds up to a housing crisis?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Let us note the differences between the two sides of the House. While you argue about language, we will get on with the action of actually delivering for New Zealanders.

Phil Twyford: Can he reassure the House that the Salvation Army will not, under the Government's Ngaro doctrine, face funding cuts or other pressure to shut down criticism of this Government's failed housing policy?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As a Christian organisation, it will accept an apology, unlike that side of the House.

Phil Twyford: Is the truth not that he has denied there is a housing crisis and done as little as possible about it because, as former Prime Minister John Key said, he thought that many Aucklanders were feeling wealthier because of rising housing prices?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I will any day, at any moment, put our housing policy—our record of what we have accomplished on this side of the House—up against yours, Mr Twyford. For example, our building programme that was just recently announced had 12,000 houses in Auckland over the next 3 years. These houses are fully funded and plans are already in place—[Interruption]—as opposed to a rushed announcement on the AM show—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is simply no point in continuing answering the question when the people who asked the question are not interested in listening. Freshwater Management—Commentary

2. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he agree with Radio NZ that "fresh water is shaping up to be one of this year's critical election issues"?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Fresh water will be one of many issues at the election. The most critical issue is which party can provide New Zealand with stable government and a strong economy, as well as being able to deal with long-standing issues like water quality.

Catherine Delahunty: Will he support the plan presented this afternoon by NGOs, Tourism Export Council New Zealand, public health practitioners, and freshwater scientists to improve our waterways; if not, why not?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No. I give you one simple example: a complete prohibition on any water augmentation schemes would not actually deliver on the blue-green vision we have of improving water quality, as well as being able to grow the regional economy. There are many schemes around New Zealand, such as the Waimea proposal in my constituency, which water quality scientists have said is essential if we are to reduce algae blooms, increase minimum flows, and have a better quality of fresh water.

Catherine Delahunty: Does he agree with Dr Michael Baker of Otago University that water quality standards need to be tougher because: "I don't think it's [OK] … in 2017 that contact with recreational water can kill you."?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I agree we need tighter standards around fresh water. When we came to Government there were no national policy statements, there were no environmental standards, and that is why I am so proud of our Government's record in making real progress on these important issues.

Todd Barclay: What progress has this Government made in improving fresh water management?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly, we have lifted the proportion of water takes that are metred from 20 percent to 94 percent. Our national requirement to set limits on water takes has resulted in not 20 percent of our catchments having limits on water takes but 80 percent. When we came to Government there was not a single catchment that had limits on nutrients; that is now over 20 percent. In respect of funding, we have lifted the funding for fresh water clean-ups tenfold, to $450 million, and we have set out a detailed plan to ensure that 90 percent of waters, lakes, and rivers are swimmable by 2040.

Catherine Delahunty: Given that the Canterbury District Health Board has said "there is a direct link between irrigation and increased adverse effects on water bodies", will he advocate for his Government to stop subsidising large-scale irrigation schemes that are killing rivers and aquifers?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The example in Canterbury perfectly illustrates the difference between the Government and the member's party, because the Central Plains scheme will enable those large volumes of alpine water to be used for irrigation and to reduce pressure on lowland rivers and streams that are of concern to the district health board. That is where this Government's approach, based on good science and common sense, delivers the sort of water quality improvements that Canterbury deserves.

Catherine Delahunty: Does he agree with his own ministry's report that nitrogen leaching into soil has increased 29 percent, mainly due to dairy cattle numbers; will he therefore support a moratorium on new dairy conversions and a decrease in cow numbers?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do agree that nitrogen leaching is one of our most challenging issues in respect of water quality. When we came to Government there was not a single area of New Zealand where there was any limit on nitrogen leaching. We now have over 18 catchments where limits have been put in place—for instance, in Lake Taupō and others. What I do not agree with the Green Party on is simplistic reductions in cow numbers or any ban on any further expansion of our agricultural industries, because that will do harm to economies in regional New Zealand, some of which do not have those problems.

Catherine Delahunty: Will he address the performance of regional councils by requiring them to report on their work quarterly to ensure regulations are enforced?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes. I have improved the accountability of regional councils. Where they have not performed, this Government has appointed commissioners, as in Canterbury—something that member and party opposed. We are also requiring, as part of the review of the national policy statement, for councils to report on progress on the implementation of the new policy around swimmability, which specifically sets up reporting requirements on councils to achieve 90 percent swimmability by 2040.

Catherine Delahunty: Does he agree with Marnie Prickett of Choose Clean Water that cleaning up and protecting our waterways needs political leadership, and will he show some by adopting the freshwater rescue plan?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, there are two supplementary questions there.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This is the very first Government that set clear targets around improving the swimmability of waterways. What we will not do is adopt a simplistic plan that says, for instance, that we will just simply cut cow numbers or ban any growth in agriculture, which is a blunt and unsophisticated approach that will not serve New Zealand well.

Hon David Parker: Given his answer to an earlier question where he asserted that he relies upon good science, does he accept the written submission from the New Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society, criticising his misrepresentation in his clean water 2017 proposals for E. coli levels for swimmability, when they said about those statements: "Such statements about the proposed guidelines are misleading and should be removed.", and is this not a further blow to his credibility?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No. I said to this Parliament that the swimmability standard that we have set was based on sound science. That has subsequently been backed up by a comprehensive report by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), who I do have great confidence in as an institution. I also note that that report says that the grading system that this Government has proposed for our lakes and rivers is tougher than that applied to the European Union, which is the only other jurisdiction that actually grades water quality for swimmability.

Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table the submission from the fresh water scientists that says that the new standards are lower than the USA standards, and that the Minister has—

Mr SPEAKER: I just need to know—has that submission been presented publicly or to a select committee?

Hon David Parker: It has not been presented to a select committee. It has been presented to the Government. It may be available on the web. I am not sure.

Mr SPEAKER: No. Order! I have said to members before if they are going to be seeking leave they need to ascertain—because I will be asking the question—as to whether it is available publicly. The member should have taken the time to check that first. Infrastructure—Spending

3. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Finance: How much is the Government planning to spend on infrastructure over the next four years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): This Government has a very strong track record as New Zealand's infrastructure Government. Following increases in infrastructure spending over the last few years, Budget 2017 is a large step-up for infrastructure investment in this country, to cater for our growing economy and population. We are committing a total of $32.5 billion in new capital investment over the next 4 years, through new spending and projects under way from Government and key infrastructure agencies. That is a 40 percent increase on the last 4 years, which was, in turn, a big increase on the 4 years before that.

Matt Doocey: How will employers and exporters benefit from the additional capacity this new infrastructure will bring?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government is catering for New Zealand's current and future economic growth in helping employers expand their businesses and hire more staff. We are helping exporters get their goods to market through just under $12 billion worth of improvements to our rail and road networks over the next 4 years, including 540 new lane-kilometres of State highway. We are facilitating digital innovation through the successful ultra-fast broadband and rural broadband programmes, and supporting the growth of tourism with additional tourism infrastructure, such as that announced just earlier today by my colleague, the Hon Paula Bennett.

Matt Doocey: How is the private sector assisting with the new infrastructure New Zealand needs?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government has a number of partnerships utilising private contributions for new infrastructure. For example, Nikki Kaye, our education Minister, recently approved the third public-private partnership for new schools—a $220 million contract to deliver three new primary schools and two relocated secondary schools by 2019. We are using public-private partnerships for two very large roading projects, including the Transmission Gully project and Pūhoi to Warkworth. In addition, our strong economic plan gives private providers the confidence to make significant investments. Just today Auckland Airport has announced a $1.8 billion investment over 5 years to upgrade New Zealand's main international gateway.

Matt Doocey: How will public services benefit from this Government's large infrastructure investments?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Total school capacity across New Zealand will increase significantly, thanks to a $4.85 billion total investment in new and expanded schools over the next 4 years. This includes provision for many new schools, two school expansions, and around 305 new classrooms nationwide, just out of this year's additional money alone. In addition, we are spending $2.4 billion on new health facilities around the country. In fact, there is currently construction or construction planned under way to upgrade most of the major hospitals in the South Island. This is a Government that manages the economy well and delivers infrastructure for a growing economy and for all New Zealanders. Finance, Minister—Statements

4. DENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that "When the quake happened, the Government immediately moved to provide support to the affected towns, with the earthquake job subsidy, primary sector and tourism support packages, extra housing assistance through MSD, additional health sector support, and grants to help with the restoration of important local infrastructure, including the Kaikōura Harbour"; if so, why then are Kaikōura residents and businesses unhappy with the level of Government support?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Yes, I stand by my statement and I thank the member for reading it out. The Government is providing substantial support to quake-affected residents, businesses, and local councils, and it continues to do so. The initial $17 million grant scheme has helped support many businesses in the area. Since then, some businesses, particularly those in construction, have been doing well and do not need further help. With fewer businesses accessing the support, we have moved on to the next stage, and my colleague Minister Bridges announced in April the $1 million business recovery grants programme, and it is available to eligible businesses in Kaikōura, Hurunui, and Marlborough.

Denis O'Rourke: How many of the businesses that have applied under the $1 million business recovery grant programme have been given a grant, and how many refused?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, it would be wise, perhaps, to put that down to the responsible Minister. He would be more than happy to answer it for you. Minister Bridges is supervising that package in consultation with the local chamber of commerce, which is working with the Government on allocating the funding.

Denis O'Rourke: If he agrees with the Kaikōura business operators, whose livelihoods are threatened by the continued closure of State Highway 1, that the criteria for the grants are so restrictive that it does not actually help them, will he do anything about it?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, perhaps I can help the member in terms of the criteria. The criteria is that the businesses are located along the highway in the affected areas; have suffered a significant income drop caused by the earthquakes; were viable before the earthquakes and have the potential to successfully recover; do not have insurance available at this time; have a significant source of income for the owner of the business; pay staff at least the minimum wage; and are not a charity, a property developer, or an investor. Those seem very reasonable criteria, but my colleague advises that they are also being flexible on it. They are very keen to see businesses supported and to achieve. The biggest point—and I think the member almost made this point—is the restoration of the roading corridor and the rail corridor. Good progress is being made there, and he may recall that $812 million was voted in this Budget to assist with the restoration of the State Highway 1 corridor.

Denis O'Rourke: Will his Government provide a more realistic grant programme than the obviously inadequate $1 million scheme; if so, what and when?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I just disagree with the member's proposition in terms of the scheme. If it did not prove to be adequate, if there was more demand on it, the Minister and the Government are in the position where we would provide more support. It is just a case of going through the process and assisting those businesses. It is a very tough time for those businesses. We stand behind them, as we have done since the earthquakes. Regional Economic Development—Tourism and Infrastructure

5. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Tourism: What announcements has she made about further tourism infrastructure support for the regions?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Tourism): Today I announced $5.2 million for 28 new tourism infrastructure projects across New Zealand. Sixteen councils, from the Mackenzie country in the South to Whangarei in the North, will receive funding for new tourism infrastructure projects that include toilets, showers, parking, and rubbish compactors. This funding will help smaller councils with high visitor numbers and low ratepayer bases to manage the strong, fantastic tourism growth that we are seeing in New Zealand. It is the second round of the mid-sized facilities fund, which will be replaced by the much larger $100 million tourism infrastructure fund, which is coming your way shortly.

Ian McKelvie: How will these projects help the people of the mighty Rangitīkei?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: What an outstanding question from the member—and have I got an offer for him. In the Manawatū-Whanganui region they will receive a total of $1.27 million in Government funding for six new tourism infrastructure projects, including, and, of course, not limited to, $620,000 going to Ōhākune for parking and toilet facilities; $120,000 for toilets in Mangaweka village, in Taihape, and in Hunterville; and $140,000 for toilets in Tangiwai. Visitor spending in Manawatū and Whanganui is up 6 percent to almost $1 billion. It is fantastic for Mr McKelvie's region. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Maureen Pugh: How will these projects help support businesses on the West Coast?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, might I say that when I was visiting with the member down the West Coast and had more than 16 meetings in the community down there—I would not say that I was caught short, but I did hear their call for more toilet facilities. So to the member: I am absolutely delighted to say that the West Coast is getting $1.3 million in co-funding for seven infrastructure projects, including in Fox River; North Beach; Franz Josef—they are receiving $460,000 in Franz Josef; it is a community that struggles with that small rate base and a very high visitor number because of how absolutely spectacular it is—Dilman's Dam; Ōkārito, which is an amazing little community that I visited, with just 25 residents; Bruce Bay, and Fox Glacier. Boarding Houses—Ministry of Social Development Recommendations

6. CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Social Housing: Is she concerned that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) recommends boarding houses as a form of temporary accommodation, given recent reports on the slum-like conditions people are living in?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Social Housing): I am advised by MSD that it does not.

CARMEL SEPULONI: Why then are there boarding houses on the housing supplier list available to Work and Income case managers in Auckland for housing those in need of emergency accommodation; and due to that, how is it appropriate, given the slum-like conditions we have seen through the media in recent weeks?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Because MSD keeps records of available options in the area.

Carmel Sepuloni: How can this Government say that it has put in place laws to "better protect vulnerable tenants in this type of accommodation", when 2 months after being ordered to fix up the property at 43 Church Street because it was a health hazard, nothing had been done and tenants with nowhere else to go were still being charged $250 per week to live there?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, I would suggest that the member put that question down to the Minister for Building and Construction who is responsible for the residential tenancies law.

Carmel Sepuloni: After 9 years of this Government, why is there still no social housing available 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 is it because the Government has 2,500 fewer State houses because of its State house sell-off?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There are two supplementary questions. The Minister can address one supplementary question.

Hon AMY ADAMS: In answer to the second part of the question, no.

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 she content to see New Zealanders continue to live in slums?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, we have two supplementary questions there; the Minister can address one.

Hon AMY ADAMS: As I mentioned earlier, the responsibility for residential tenancies law and its adequacy is one for the Minister for Building and Construction, and he will be expressing the Government view. Drugs, Illegal—Cannabis

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on this issue. My question was lodged to the Minister of Health. It has been transferred to the Associate Minister of Health, but the Associate Minister of Health has informed me that his comments that are referenced in my question were not made in his ministerial capacity. So I seek your guidance on how a Minister can transfer a question to an Associate Minister who apparently does not have ministerial responsibility for the comments in the original question.

Mr SPEAKER: Can the member repeat—is she saying that she has had a conversation with the Minister, who is now saying that he did not make these comments in his ministerial capacity?

JULIE ANNE GENTER: The original question was to the Minister of Health—

Mr SPEAKER: I know that; maybe I could seek assistance from the Hon Peter Dunne.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health): The comments that the member referred to were made in a blog, but I am certainly happy to answer the question that she has posed, if she wishes to proceed with it.

Mr SPEAKER: On that basis, it has been transferred, and, as I have pointed out on many occasions, the Government actually has a responsibility to transfer it to the Minister who can best answer for the Government's intention. The question stands, and it is to the Minister, as on the paper. Otherwise, we are happy to move on.

7. JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does he stand by his reported statements that the current drug law does not really work that well, and that cannabis should be regulated under the Psychoactive Substances Act; if not, why not?

Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health): In short, yes. The Misuse of Drugs Act was passed in 1975, and as I noted a couple of years ago in the foreword to the Government's National Drug Policy: "We also have to be prepared to challenge traditional approaches and ways of thinking about these issues. Innovation is essential in a world where new drugs are detected every week and the black market has gone digital." I would point out to the member that one of the actions being taken this year as part of the National Drug Policy is a review of the offence and penalty provisions for personal possession, as set out in the Misuse of Drugs Act. With regard to the psychoactive substances aspect of the question, that is a re-statement of a United Future position from as long ago as 2013. I accept it may not necessarily be the Government's position.

Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that regulating cannabis under the Psychoactive Substances Act would be in line with the recommendations from the Law Commission on drug law reform?

Hon PETER DUNNE: From memory, the Law Commission's recommendations were made prior to the passage of the Psychoactive Substances Act, but, in general, my understanding of its recommendations would see those align with the proposal I have advanced of regulating such substances under that Act.

Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that the evidence from overseas and in New Zealand suggests that regulating and treating drug use as a health issue is a far more effective way of minimising the harms associated with it than treating it as a criminal issue?

Hon PETER DUNNE: Yes, I can confirm that. Indeed, that has been the statement that the New Zealand Government has made to the United Nations every year for about the last decade. It is certainly consistent with the National Drug Policy, and it is the position that a majority of States around the world adopt these days.

Julie Anne Genter: Does the Associate Minister of Health believe that we have not been able to make progress on implementing the recommendations of the Law Commission—regulating cannabis as a health issue rather than treating it as a criminal issue—because the National Party is unwilling—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no responsibility at all from the Minister for the National Party. That question is not in order.

Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table this chart from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the University of California, San Francisco, which shows that cannabis is far less harmful and has less addiction potential than a number of legal substances—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave—[Interruption] Order! It has been well described; I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular chart. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is objection. Antarctica—Announcements

8. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What announcements has he recently make regarding New Zealand's continued presence in Antarctica?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Budget 2017 includes $9.6 million of new funding, which will cement New Zealand's commitments to Antarctica.

Hon Simon Bridges: Fantastic.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes. This includes $2.1 million in operating funding over the next 2 years and $4 million in capital funding. Funding will allow for the development—[Interruption] Well, no one wants to listen, but everyone wants to go there. If I had just a hundred dollars for every ticket that people want to buy to get to the Antarctic, we would not need this money, and most of it would come from this House. So, knowing how much the members of this House love the Antarctic and want to get there, I think that this is a marvellous initiative, and it is just the start of a redevelopment of Scott Base, which is the pre-eminent scientific base for New Zealand's Antarctic involvement, alongside partner nations the United States, Korea, and Italy.

Mr SPEAKER: I hope the Minister keeps me in mind in the future.

Andrew Bayly: What else is allocated for Antarctica New Zealand in Budget 2017?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There is also $3.5 million provided for operating funding over the next 4 years so that office and operational accommodation at the Antarctic programme based in Christchurch can be maintained. It is an important base, and it is important that Christchurch remains the centre of Antarctic activities. We are encouraging our partners in scientific activity in the Antarctic—the United States, Italy, and Korea—to lead their programmes alongside us in Christchurch. This investment will assist with that. Mental Health and Addiction Services—Initiatives and Budget 2017

9. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Health: Did he take a specific package of new initiatives for mental health and addiction services for Budget 2017 to a Cabinet committee before 31 March this year?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): No, it was actually in early April.

Dr David Clark: What were the initiatives proposed in the package for mental health services, particularly those that were not in the Budget day announcements?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The Government announced on Budget day that we would be spending $224 million over the next 4 years in mental health. Part of that was $100 million, detailed in a paper taken to the Cabinet social policy committee on 12 April entitled Supporting innovation in mental health. That was a joint paper taken with Amy Adams, the Minister Responsible for Social Investment. I can quote further: "The result of the Budget 2017 process was the establishment of a cross-Government mental health contingency, described in the publicly released Budget material as: this contingency will be used to trial early mental health interventions that are proven to significantly benefit people's lives. The contingency creates the flexibility to fund initiatives that currently require more development or other initiatives identified across the social and justice sectors. A criteria for access to the contingency is being considered by Ministers." So it is part of this new approach to mental health issues, which acknowledges that it is beyond just the boundaries of the health portfolio—part of the social investment, cross-Government approach.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was quoting from an official document—a Cabinet committee paper. I believe I requested he table that.

Mr SPEAKER: That is easily solved. Was the Minister using an official paper as he gave the answer?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No. These are mine.

Dr David Clark: What initiatives did he take that were not accepted by the Cabinet committee?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Oh, I am sure the member would like to know all sorts of things about the mechanics of the Budget process, but he should go and read the Budget and understand it fully—especially the difference between core Crown funding and Vote Health.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question. It is in the Minister's power to say that he does not believe it is in the public interest to answer it, rather than giving a smart-arse answer.

Mr SPEAKER: I heard the interjection, but I do not think it was in the answer. I am going to invite the member to ask that question again.

Dr David Clark: What were the initiatives in the package that were not accepted by the Cabinet committee?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look, when we make the Budget package and pull it together, there is a wide range of ideas and initiatives that we discuss, but in the end the publicly available information is published on Budget day, and that is the Government's agenda.

Dr David Clark: Why did he cut primary mental health funding for Capital and Coast District Health Board by 8 percent in the current year?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Let us be quite clear: the funding for mental health has gone up by $224 million—

Grant Robertson: It was a very specific question, Jonathan.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN:—and there has been very specific funding allocated to Capital and Coast District Health Board in the Budget. It has had an extra $229 million over the last 7 years and there is the ability for that district health board (DHB) to allocate money to services as the board and the senior executives see fit. So, look, this fiction about cuts in the health budget—

Grant Robertson: It's not a fiction, Jonathan.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is a total fiction. I can tell you, we have increased the health budget by $5 billion. Labour's wish list is, I think, $7.3 billion. It is an argument over the size of the increase, but you cannot describe an increase in Vote Health as a cut because, frankly, it is just not true.

Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question about the cut to Capital—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, no, no. I listened to the question and on this occasion—

Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table a document that shows a cut of 8 percent in Capital—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! All I need is the source of the document and the date.

Dr David Clark: The document is received under the Official Information Act from Capital and Coast, dated 28 February 2017.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that letter from Capital and Coast District Health Board. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is objection.

Dr David Clark: Why did he cut primary mental health funding for Hutt Valley District Health Board by 20 percent in the current year?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look, once again, that is completely incorrect. There has not been a cut in the money given to Hutt Valley District Health Board. Hutt Valley's money has gone up overall. It is going to be receiving across the vote—across the district health boards—$224 million extra for mental health—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN:—in this Budget. I can tell you that Hutt Valley has received an extra $102 million over the course of this Government and it is free to allocate money as it sees fit, but the mental health budget at Hutt Valley has not been cut.

Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table a document that details—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! All I need is the—

Dr David Clark:—a 20 percent cut in mental health funding—

Mr SPEAKER: Date.

Dr David Clark:—in the Hutt Valley DHB, dated 22 February 2017.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular letter from the Hutt Valley DHB. Is there any objection? There is objection. Benefits—Announcements

10. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made regarding funding to help people move off benefits and into work?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): As part of Budget 2017 I announced that this Government is investing an extra $64.4 million to help people into sustainable employment. We are investing $19.5 million over 3 years to expand the intensive support for up to 1,500 clients aged 25 to 39 who first received a benefit before the age of 20. The evidence tells us that this group is at a much higher risk of long-term welfare dependency, so we are investing more time and resources, through intensive work-focused case management that is aligned to their individual needs. This is part of the Government's social investment approach to spending, by ensuring that those who are most in need get the help and support to lead independent and successful lives.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What does Budget 2017 provide for clients with mental health conditions to find and maintain employment?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: A great deal. Budget 2017 sees $4.1 million to trial support to 1,000 clients with mental health conditions in Waitematā and Christchurch, to improve their mental health and find and maintain employment. We know that many people with mild to moderate mental health conditions, such as depression and anxiety, would like the opportunity to work and be independent. They just might need a little bit of extra help. Employment services will be provided within mental health or primary-care settings, which means that these people do not have to try to navigate multiple systems. Police Resourcing—Numbers and Funding

11. STUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of Police: Why did the Government provide 285 fewer sworn police and $167 million less funding than Police themselves said they needed to "change the trajectory of rising crime"?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children) on behalf of the Minister of Police: Over the course of several months, Police developed three proposals for funding: a high-end best case, a middle value one, and a low-end proposal. After careful consideration of all options, the Minister decided, in January, to recommend to Cabinet the proposal that would see 1,125 new staff for the Police, at a cost of $503 million.

Stuart Nash: Can she confirm that Police stated in that second case, in its 21 December briefing, that given fewer than 1,000 cops over 4 years there would be "limited additional crime prevention capacity"; if so, what message does she think her Police package sends to dairy owners getting robbed and assaulted?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I just missed the end of that question.

Mr SPEAKER: I will invite the member to repeat the question again.

Stuart Nash: Can she confirm that Police stated in that second base case, in its 21 December briefing, that given fewer than 1,000 police over 4 years there would be "limited additional crime prevention capacity"; if so, what message does she think her Police package sends to dairy owners getting robbed and assaulted?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, there are two questions there. The Minister can address one supplementary question.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am unable to confirm the first question that the member asked. But what I can say to the House is that those papers have all been public since 10 April, so it is good that the member has actually read them through.

Stuart Nash: What impact will Police receiving less than 75 percent of funding for their one Budget bid for Budget 2017 have on Police capacity and resourcing?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: In my reply to the primary question, I stated that the Police actually put several scenarios, and that is quite normal. In fact, most agencies always ask for more money than they actually end up getting in the Budget. However, what I can say to the member is that the Police and the Minister worked very carefully together to decide where the need was and what was required to meet that need, and that was all in the eventual package that Cabinet passed and was in this Budget. That is a significant investment in policing in New Zealand.

Stuart Nash: Is the Minister aware that in the original business case put forward by the then police Minister, Judith Collins, there was actually only one proposal, and that was for 1,165 police and $555 million over 4 years?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I say, throughout a Budget process, I can assure that member, figures and needs and wants change quite dramatically as all those are weighed up against the requests from other agencies. In the end, we have ended up with a significant investment in policing, at a cost of half a billion dollars, which is a significant investment in keeping New Zealanders safe.

Stuart Nash: Does she stand by her statements at select committee on Tuesday that part of the problem with dairy robberies is that there is not enough being done in the court system; if so, has she discussed this with Amy Adams?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, there are two supplementary questions. The Minister can address one.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am absolutely certain that she stands by the statements she made in the select committee.

Stuart Nash: When robberies are up by 24 percent in the Auckland districts over the past 12 months, is paying $1.8 million to dairy owners to help fund security systems an admission that police can no longer keep dairy owners safe?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No.

Stuart Nash: Supplementary.

Mr SPEAKER: No. Sorry, on this occasion the Labour caucus has used all of its questions today. Police, Minister—Statements

12. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by all her statements regarding Police resourcing; if so, why?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children) on behalf of the Minister of Police: Yes.

Ron Mark: If the Police has all the resources it requires allocated to it now, can she explain why it has had to go, cap in hand, to the Justice Sector Fund for money to pay wages, especially considering that in the three Auckland districts there is regularly only dog handler on duty?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Justice Sector Fund is not something that the Police would approach cap in hand. It would be putting a business case to that fund. Secondly, it does not pay wages.

Ron Mark: If Police is properly resourced, why did it seek funding from the Justice Sector Fund for such things as expanding electronic monitoring, paying wages and meeting cost pressures, and establishing a gang intelligence centre, which is a key part of its plan to clamp down on organised crime and P?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Justice Sector Fund is a fund that is derived from savings that are made by the justice sector agencies, and is then made available to those agencies to trial and pilot and try some different things to help keep New Zealanders safe.

Darroch Ball: What? Paying wages?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: But it does not pay wages.

Ron Mark: If the balance of the justice sector slush fund, which is an accumulation of underspending in the justice sector, is at the end of March 2017 over $40 million, why is it that 12 bids from the Police to that fund have been declined by her and her colleagues?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not know about any Government that that member was part of, but this Government does not have slush funds.

Ron Mark: I seek leave to table a letter received under the Official Information Act from the Ministry of Justice that details facts about the justice—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Date of the letter?

Ron Mark: It is dated 2 May 2017.

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

ENDS

© Scoop Media