• ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Women, Employment—Gender Pay Gap

1. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Women: When she said that she was "fully equipped to kinda leap in and tackle" the challenge of pay equity, why is she ruling out a law change to shrink the pay gap in the private sector?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Women): Can I start by wishing the member a happy International Women's Day. To be clear, I am not ruling out legislation. In fact, the Government is drafting legislation to implement the principles of the pay equity working group as we speak.

Metiria Turei: When she said that businesses should do gender pay gap audits and publish the results, why will she not make that happen with a simple law change?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Because I do not believe that the Government is the answer to everything, and I believe that businesses that, perhaps, think that they do not have a gender pay gap should look at doing an audit and publish that if that is what they believe. But I think that we can educate. We can show them ways that they can close that gap. We can actually lead the way in the Public Service, which is what we did by publishing our own data last year, by department, and that is what we stand for.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree with the Human Resources Institute's chief executive who said that "gender pay audits are absolutely the right thing for organisations to do"; if so, will she now adopt the Green Party's bill that will make that happen?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: To the first part of the question, yes I do, and I think that that certainly is to say we have done it within the Public Service. I think what it did was really point to areas that needed improvement, and we are now able to put those processes in place. To the second one, well, that would be a decision for caucus. It will go to them in due course.

Metiria Turei: Given that the pay-gender audits in the public sector have helped to close the gap by half a percent this year, why will she not now make this change in the private sector so that all working women will benefit?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I have stated already, because I do not think that, at this stage, legislation is the answer. I think that publishing the data yesterday for the first time in 14 years actually gets the right information out there that has not been—because I think a lot of people think that there is not a gender pay gap and this research proves that there actually is. We have got ways that we can close it that are not legislative, and that is what we are pushing to do.

Metiria Turei: Given the law requires that she is paid the same as her male colleagues, why will she not afford other New Zealand women that same legal protection from bias?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We have the Equal Pay Act, and, as such, as you know, they should not be discriminated against by gender. It is the same for them as it is for us in Parliament, and that is what we expect of our businesses.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance in respect of Speaker's ruling 18/1, which refers to members wearing T-shirts and, in particular, T-shirts with motifs on them in the House, such as Metiria Turei is currently wearing.

Mr SPEAKER: Certainly, I have not had a good look at the attire the member is wearing, but it is a requirement that business attire is worn. I will watch it fairly carefully from now on.

Metiria Turei: When the Minister knows that Māori women are paid 22 percent less and Pasifika women 26 percent less than men for the same work, why will she not act to help these women get fair pay?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We are acting—and that is the joint working group principles that are now being turned into legislation. Through that, though, we made an announcement about a week ago that we would actually be using those principles to work through two other cases that are before us that actually do affect, particularly, Māori and Pasifika women who are in low-paid work. We are committed to seeing equity in that area. We have been working in good faith, and I have confidence, actually, that those negotiations will come to conclusion at some stage.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If, as the Minister says, she is "fully equipped to kinda leap in and tackle", after 9 years, exactly what has she done with the huge 47,000 Public Service disparity under her administration, and when will she stop blaming business and set an example herself?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There are two questions there. [Interruption] Order!

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am actually really pleased to have that question from the member. So what we have done is increased the number of women in senior leadership roles within the Public Service. That is now at 45 percent. So 45 percent of senior leadership roles within the Public Service are now filled by women. We have set up a diversity and senior leadership promotional so they know what the paths are and the career paths and how they can get those promotions. The number of chief executives is higher under this Government—female chief executives—than it has been under any Government ever, and that is something that we are committed to. We have equally transparently put out there, by department, what the Public Service gender pay gap is. We have now done unconscious bias screening—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a specific question. It was a very long answer. The question—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat immediately. It was not a specific question; it was quite a long question and it has been addressed. [Interruption] Order!

METIRIA TUREI: Now that she has said that pay equity is one of her main priorities, does that mean she will finally make an offer in the pay negotiations to the 50,000 women like Kristine Bartlett who are waiting for the Government for fair pay?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually, those negotiations are confidential, and the member would not know whether an offer had been made or not.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave for Jan Logie's Equal Pay Amendment Bill to be set down as members' order of the day No.1 on the next members' day.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.

• Government Financial Position—Surplus

2. MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making on keeping the Crown accounts in surplus?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): The Government's operating balance before gains and losses results announced yesterday for the 7 months to January 2017 showed the Crown accounts $1.1 billion in surplus year to date compared with Treasury's Budget forecast of $517 million for those 7 months. Although these year-to-date figures can move around and Budget 2016 forecast only a small surplus for the full financial year, it does show the benefits of the Government's continued discipline and focus on balancing the books, and the strength of the New Zealand economy.

Maureen Pugh: What is driving this better-than-expected result in the Crown accounts for this financial year?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Stronger tax revenues, as a result of a healthier economy, are flying through to the Government's financial performance. Tax revenues year to date are just under 4 percent more than they were predicted to be in Budget 2016. Company tax, in particular, is higher than expected, and that reflects the good performance of New Zealand companies in what is still an uncertain world. It is important to note, however, that the full impact of the Kaikōura earthquake remains the largest unknown variable in this year's accounts, but these stronger accounts mean we can afford to step in and help those communities and support them when they are most in need.

Maureen Pugh: If those drivers of stronger tax revenues persist, what would be the Government's best use of an additional $1 billion?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Let us not count our chickens. The Government has four key areas in mind when considering its Budget priorities for this year: firstly, providing better public services for a growing country, which needs to be met through a combination of additional funding and productivity improvements; secondly, of course, building the infrastructure we need to support a growing modern economy; thirdly, paying down debt so it is around 20 percent of GDP by 2020, which will allow us to manage any further shocks that come along in the future; and, finally, it is very important to consider the tax burden on Kiwi families, particularly on lower- and middle-income families that face quite high marginal tax rates.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, can the Minister confirm tax cuts are a higher priority for him than restarting contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government has said that it will look to resume contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund when net debt is down below 20 percent of GDP, but, actually, yes, we are very focused on supporting New Zealanders. The member might want to go out and say that he would rather put money into the Superannuation Fund than consider the tax situation for families in New Zealand. I invite him to continue doing that.

Maureen Pugh: What other uses for additional spending has the Government considered?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We have considered a range of things. In fact, I have seen proposals from other groups this week that the Government should pay more money into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, even during the global financial crisis, in fact, when we were borrowing heavily to support New Zealand families. However, even if the Government had borrowed an extra $13.5 billion, as was advocated by some, to continue contributions through the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquake recovery, the Superannuation Fund would still be contributing only an additional $1.4 billion in 2041. That would leave the proponents of this idea short $2.6 billion in 2041 alone. Unfortunately, this idea does not stack up for a number of reasons, including financial.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If borrowing to make contributions to the Cullen, or Superannuation, Fund is bad economics, why was borrowing to give tax cuts to his mates good economics?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: With the greatest respect to the member, his short-term memory must not be as good as his long-term memory, because we did not.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not intend to put up with insults like that. My question was direct. I did not impute anything to him, and he gets up and starts with a very wanton, nasty comment, which you and I know will surely lead to disorder.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member makes a reasonable point on this occasion. Such a start to an answer will lead to disorder, as has been demonstrated. Would the Minister now please address the question that was asked.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Mr Speaker, happily. The member is obviously mistaken in this instance because, actually, the tax changes we made in 2010 involved making changes where the GST was increased and personal taxes were reduced. There was not a case where we were borrowing money for tax cuts.

• Prime Minister—Statements

3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that the shortage of rental housing in Wellington is "a problem of success"?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, I stand by my full statement, which went on to say that the demand for Wellington rental housing was "certainly concerning for people who are looking for accommodation." I also stand by the statements made by the Mayor of Wellington, "It's encouraging to see the building of new homes is beginning to kick into gear.", and, secondly: "For the last 2 years, growth in new consents has lagged behind our targets, but this year we are in a very strong position and tracking very well." He said that by working with central Government to make it easier to build new homes, we are helping to address the lack of supply. That was the Mayor of Wellington.

Andrew Little: Putting aside the fine achievements of the Mayor of Wellington, when Andrew German, a student, has been looking for a flat since November without success, is the Prime Minister seriously telling him that not having a place to live when he studies is a problem of success?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said, the pressure on rental housing is certainly concerning for people who are looking for accommodation, but I could only repeat the positive statements of the Mayor of Wellington: "It's encouraging to see the building of new homes is beginning to kick into another gear." By working with central government—and that's through mechanisms like the special housing areas, the changes to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development—the Mayor says we are making it easier to build new homes, we are helping to address the lack of supply.

Andrew Little: Putting aside the fact that there is no special housing area at the top of Willis Street in Wellington, when couple Nicola Kellerman and Tim Hunter say "The house prices are just so phenomenal. It's just crazy.", is he seriously telling them that not being able to buy a place to raise their daughter is a problem of success?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can only repeat the comments that I have already made, and that is that pressure for that family is of course concerning, but the Government is working with the council, as the Mayor has outlined, and, as he says himself, we are helping to address the lack of supply. There is a whole range of mechanisms in place by which the Government is working with councils to address the need for more supply.

Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Brownlee.

Andrew Little: When an 84-year-old gentleman has been paying $120 a week to sleep in an old shed in Henderson, is the Prime Minister seriously telling him that spending his twilight years in such conditions is a problem of success?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: If there is any individual in housing that is obviously of very poor quality and unsuitable for them, they have the opportunity, for instance, to approach the Ministry of Social Development and be placed in the new Luke Street—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The level of interjection means that it is impossible for the rest of the House to hear the answer now. Some members may not be interested in the answer, but show respect for the others who do want to listen to the answer.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: It may be suitable for him to be placed in a new Luke Street house, a group of several dozen new houses built just since October when the site first became available, into which three or four families have already moved—a small part of the $300 million programme across New Zealand that will supply over 8,000 places for people in emergency housing need, and that has never been done before in New Zealand.

Andrew Little: When he says that success is students who cannot find a flat, young couples who cannot buy a home, and our elderly being forced to sleep in sheds, does not that just show how out of touch he is?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. As I have just pointed out, the Government has $300 million expenditure on emergency housing, which is now beginning to roll out and will supply places for 8,000 people. I might say that when that party was in Government in the early 2000s when there were house price increases, it did not do anything to deal with the pressures of emergency housing, which is why this Government had to create a whole new system for it. But I must say it is pleasing to see that Wellington, after a period of relatively low growth, is now an attractive place to live, and I think we should be proud and the city should be proud of the demand for housing going on in the city.

Andrew Little: Which of Nick Smith's so-called successes is he most proud of: building fewer houses than we did 12 years ago, falling building consents, selling off State houses during a housing crisis, the lowest homeownership in 66 years, the fourth most unaffordable city in the world, or foreign speculators buying more of our houses than ever before?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Dr Smith, along with the rest of the Government, is very pleased to see a consistently growing economy that is lifting incomes and has reversed the major outflow of New Zealanders to Australia, which is the single biggest thing that has changed in our housing market. Five years ago 40,000 New Zealanders per year were leaving this country; last year it was a net inflow of 2,000. That is the single biggest change in the housing market and Dr Smith, along with the Government, has introduced a whole range of measures from special housing areas, HomeStart grants, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, Resource Management Act reforms, most recently the $1 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund—

Mr SPEAKER: Bring the answer to a conclusion.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: —into which Wellington City Council has every right to bid if it wants help with its supply of housing.

Andrew Little: Is this not the truth—that with plunging homeownership, skyrocketing rents, and homelessness at unprecedented levels, what he calls a problem of success is actually a failure of leadership?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, because those assertions are wrong. The focus of activity right now is that councils—because, remember, councils govern all the supply of housing. If they want to bring forward housing supply they can bid into the $1 billion infrastructure fund, and currently intensive negotiations are going on between central government and councils testing their capacity and willingness to bring forward housing supply as they have said they want to.

• Justice System—Investment Announcements

4. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has she made about justice sector investment?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): Today I announced that the justice sector has allocated $257 million of savings since 2012 into justice sector initiatives. The Justice Sector Fund enables underspends across all justice sector agencies to be retained and reused to fund projects that support the reduction of crime, and allows agencies to trial new initiatives that deliver better results for New Zealanders. Since 2012, 60 initiatives across the five justice sector agencies have been funded. Once the initiatives have shown that they are effective, they are then able to seek long-term funding through the annual Budget process.

Sarah Dowie: What are some of the key initiatives that have been funded by the Justice Sector Fund?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The initiatives funded by the Justice Sector Fund since 2012 include a suite of family violence initiatives totalling $15.4 million, including over $2 million for the roll-out of the Integrated Safety Response pilots in Christchurch and Waikato; $8.4 million into restorative justice programmes to reduce reoffending; $14.2 million into mental health services across the justice sector, and an additional $1.2 million for the alcohol and drug treatment courts; $2.3 million for community and iwi panels that respond to low-level offending and address factors related to offending; and the Department of Corrections' Out of Gate programme to support the reintegration of prisoners on their release. These initiatives, alongside many others and the work that the five justice sector agencies do, make significant differences in how we protect New Zealanders.

• Women, Minister—Statements

5. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Women: Does she stand by her statement that closing the gender gap is "one of my top priorities"?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Women): Yes.

Jacinda Ardern: If closing the gender pay gap is a top priority, why was dumping the plan of action for pay equity audits one of the very first things her Government did when it came into office?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: You will be pleased to know that it is my top priority as Minister for Women, and I have been in the job for 2½ months and have already made a lot of progress there. So now we have 45 percent of senior leaders in the Public Service, and I reckon that is going to make a big difference, seeing women in those roles. Twelve of the 29 chief executives are actually women, as well. We have now published the information for the Public Service, which is making a big—

Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was quite specific. I was interested in the rationale that her Government had for dumping the action plan around pay equity audits.

Mr SPEAKER: And as Minister she is certainly responsible for actions that have been taken by the Government throughout its term, so I invite the member to ask the question again.

Jacinda Ardern: If closing the gender pay gap is a top priority, why was dumping the plan of action for pay equity audits one of the first things her Government did when it came into office?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Because we had other priorities right then, working into the global financial crisis. What I will say is that right now we are working on legislation around the Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles. We are working through, in good faith, negotiations on TerraNova Homes and Care and the work there with aged carers. We have also got two other claims that are in, where we are, as I say, working through the principles as the legislation is happening as well, and we are committed to making a difference in that area.

Jacinda Ardern: If closing the gender pay gap is a priority, has she reprimanded the Minister of State Services for the fact that the gender pay gap there is 22 percent and has gotten worse, not better, in the 3 years since she has been Minister?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The Public Service gender pay gap is actually 13.5 percent. That is where it is. This is the lowest it has been since the measurement began in 2000, and so that is what we are focused on. The gender pay gap is actually decreasing slowly, overall. As I have also said, we have got an absolute commitment. We have now got 45 percent women in senior leadership roles within the Public Service. It is the first time we have actually published the gender pay gap by department within the Public Service, and we are committed to reducing it.

Jacinda Ardern: If closing the gender pay gap is a top priority, then what specifically has her Government done in 9 years as an employer and contractor to actually lift the wages of home-care workers and support workers?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, as I have said numerous times, we have actually increased the minimum wage every year since we have been in Government, and that has made a difference. And we are currently in good-faith negotiations on TerraNova Homes and Care, which will affect over 50,000 women—predominantly—in that area.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What is being done in the public sector to promote women to leadership positions and to close the gender pay gap?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: There are some fantastic things that are actually happening within the public sector, and I think it can set an example, do better, and publish those results. For example, as I have already stated, 45 percent of all leadership roles in the public sector are now held by women, and we are well on track to get that to 50 percent. We now publish the gender pay gap by department so that we can see progress being made, and we are doing that transparently. The Police, for example, has a target of 50 percent of new recruits being women, and it also runs unconscious bias training, which is making a difference. Defence has also noticed that it may have been getting more women in at the lower end but they were not actually progressing up into senior roles, and so it has made a change to its processes and is taking proactive action there to make sure that it can get them in.

Jacinda Ardern: If closing the gender pay gap really is a top priority, can the public sector truly play a leadership role when the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, which is meant to model this to the private sector, has a gender pay gap of 20 percent—higher than the national average?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: But that is exactly why we published it, that is exactly why we are going to make a difference, and that is why we are going to close that gap. My point is, and the point that we have been making—no one has been going out there and saying it is perfect. No one is going out there and saying that this is where it is at. What we are saying is that there will be significant improvements, and we will stand up and be counted for it.

Mr SPEAKER: Question—[Interruption] Order! Question No.—[Interruption] Order! If the members wish to carry on their discussion, they are welcome to do it outside the House.

• Small Businesses—Announcements

6. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Small Business: What recent announcements has she made regarding support for small businesses in regional New Zealand?

Hon JACQUI DEAN (Minister for Small Business): Today I announced that the Government is extending the small business roadshows, going to another 10 regional centres in 2017. These roadshows are for small businesses, to help them navigate the support and information available to them. Last year's roadshows were very well attended, and reinforced how important it is to continuously engage with small businesses and how critical it is to increase the visibility of support that they can access. This is why I am committed to extending the small business roadshow programme.

Stuart Smith: How is she supporting earthquake-affected areas such as Kaikōura through the 2017 roadshows?

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Today I announced the first roadshow for 2017 will be held in Kaikōura. Kaikōura and the surrounding areas have a particular set of circumstances to navigate. This roadshow will support small businesses in the area, with a particular focus on earthquake recovery - related matters. I have also announced that the next roadshow will be held in Blenheim. Blenheim had a roadshow that was scheduled last year, but was postponed due to the earthquake.

Nuk Korako: How is she supporting Māori business and enterprise through the 2017 roadshows?

Hon JACQUI DEAN: This year there will be two roadshows specifically designed for Māori business. These will be held in Kaitāia and Whakatane. Māori businesses are a growing part of the economy, and it is important we support them. I am also talking to my ministerial colleagues and Government partners about further opportunities to support Māori business and enterprise.

• Prime Minister—Statements

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

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, in the context in which they were made. That is why we have taken the step of outlining a fair and reasonable process for increasing the age of New Zealand superannuation to 67, starting in 20 years' time. We believe that it is an issue that is best dealt with well ahead of time, rather than pretending nothing should change and making harsh decisions when it is too late.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If a proposal 2 years ago to require migrants settling in New Zealand to have been here for 25 years was racist, bigoted, and against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, as the National Government then claimed, how come a requirement for 20 years' residency cannot be all of those three things?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not familiar with the assertions the member is making, but I do welcome his and the public's support for the policy that the Government announced this week, that the residency requirement will be moved from 10 years to 20 years.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will he disown comments of his Cabinet colleagues such as "I think that a very generously targeted superannuation regime is where this country will eventually find itself.", which is code for means testing superannuation?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: If that is what the member thinks it is code for, then we would certainly disagree with that comment. The Government has no plans for means testing national superannuation.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Government so opposed to abolishing section 70 of the Social Security Act 1964, which is so unfair to migrants in New Zealand who have an overseas pension arrangement?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the measure that the member is referring to is just a longstanding measure that New Zealand has had in place through successive Governments, because we believe that is what is fair and reasonable to both migrants and New Zealand taxpayers.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What is irredeemable about a long-term arrangement if it is wrong, and rather than Kiwi taxpayers being ripped off by these reciprocal pension agreements, why do we not ditch them, adopt a 25-year residency requirement, and allow migrants to bring their overseas pensions here, intact?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We think the current arrangements involving reciprocal agreements with other countries work best, both with the citizens of other countries coming here and with New Zealanders going to other countries. The member is free to put up his own proposals about changing that if he so wishes, but I am pleased to see that he is not actually criticising the policy announced this week by the Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why on earth does he expect New Zealanders to trust him on superannuation certainty when his record is to campaign for a 20-year phase-in, renege on that—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Look at the member's record.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: My record? Unbelievable, actually. It is fantastic; wonderful. Thanks for asking the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not want interjections from my right-hand side interrupting the member's question so he gets diverted into responding to the interjections. Can we have the question again, please.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your indulgence.

Chris Bishop: Tell us about when you sold Contact.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That is a lie, as well.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Chris Bishop, if there is another interjection from you during question time, you will be leaving for the balance of the day. I have just given a warning. [Interruption] Order! I do not like having to give warnings twice so quickly.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why does he expect New Zealanders to trust him on superannuation certainty and stability when his record is to campaign for a 20-year phase-in, renege on that promise, renege twice on the issue of the surtax, renege on superannuation's relativity to the net average weekly wage, renege twice on the Cullen fund, and after campaigning to leave superannuation at 65 renege on that as well?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Look, we have put a proposition out there in front of the public, and they get the opportunity in election year to debate it, and so far, the indications show pretty good public support for it. But I know how difficult it must be for the member to maintain his manufactured outrage, because he cannot find anything he disagrees with in the policy that we have announced.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Apart from being delusional, how is it fair to propose a policy demanding New Zealanders work 47 to 49 years for their superannuation and yet give someone from overseas superannuation with only 20 years, whether they have contributed to it or not?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I expect there could be some debate between the 20-year threshold we have proposed and the 25-year threshold that member has proposed. I am pleased to see that if that is the one difference of opinion, then perhaps our policy has more support than even the member is aware of.

• Finance, Minister—Previous Minister's Statements

8. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the former Minister of Finance Bill English's statement, in regard to the New Zealand Super Fund, "when surpluses return we will resume contributions"?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): I agree with the former finance Minister and current Prime Minister on the subject. The Government has outlined its position many, many times over recent years—that we will resume contributions to the Superannuation Fund when core Crown net debt falls below 20 percent of GDP. This is currently expected to occur in 2020-2021. I seek leave to table question No. 7 of 18 October 2016 and question No. 3 of 30 November—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need any more assistance. If it has been asked in the House, then members can—

Hon Member: He asked the same question.

Mr SPEAKER: Members are allowed to ask similar questions at any time.

Grant Robertson: In light of his predecessor's various statements that the Government would restart Superannuation Fund contributions when the Government reached surplus, that it would restart them in 2017, then that it would restart them in 2019, and now that it will restart them in 2021, is it not the truth that he never intends to restart them?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I feel obliged now to raise those questions from last year that were answered in exactly the same manner as this particular line of questioning today. Question No. 3 on 30 November and question No. 7 on 18 October were both answered in the affirmative—that the Crown intends to resume contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund when core Crown net debt falls below 20 percent of GDP. I have not, in the time available, had time to go back further, but given Mr Robertson's repetitiveness I am sure I could find more questions.

Grant Robertson: Has he had any advice on the impact of the Government's failure to restart contributions to the Superannuation Fund on whether the fund will be able to begin paying out in 2032, as planned?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member may not be aware that, actually, the paying out of the Superannuation Fund is set by a legislated formula, which was set up by the previous Labour Government, that actually has the fund not making contributions to people's superannuation until the middle decades of this century. That will be in the order of a maximum of 10 to 15 percent, and the current schedule on that formula means there will not be meaningful repayments from the Superannuation Fund until the mid-2060s.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will recall the question asked about advice that the Minister had received on that matter. He waffled on about some other things—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I heard the question very carefully and listened to the answer, and I think that by the end of the answer it was addressed—clearly not to the member's satisfaction, but to mine.

Grant Robertson: Why does he continue to prioritise tax cuts over restarting contributions to the Superannuation Fund, or is he really not that serious about doing actions today that could address the rising cost of superannuation?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member seems to be under the illusion that the only worthwhile public expenditure item is putting money into the Superannuation Fund. But, actually, I know many New Zealanders who might disagree with that approach, including families who are struggling and families who are saving to buy a home and who might want more income of their own, rather than actually giving it to the likes of Parliament to provide for them. That is a legitimate public debate, and I am sure there are many families up and down this country right now who are saying in their minds to Mr Robertson: "We wouldn't mind a little bit more so we can save a bit more for a house, and we wouldn't mind a little bit more so we can provide a bit more for our children.", and those are the sorts of questions that we will be answering and asking as the year proceeds.

Grant Robertson: When he said earlier this week that in politics sometimes you had to do the right thing, why is it not the right thing to actually put some effort now into dealing with the cost of superannuation, or would he rather just dump that on to future generations?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: With the greatest respect, the member's maths is wrong. The simple fact of the matter is that, in terms of the Superannuation Fund, it does not start to pay out anything meaningful until the middle decades of this century. Under the law—

Grant Robertson: It's 2032—you know that.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: 2060s. And there are other legitimate concerns that people have. The member is lining up and saying that he is not interested ever in easing the tax burden on Kiwi families, and it is fine for him to say that. Others are entitled to disagree. I personally am very focused on the current needs of New Zealand families.

• Tax System—Multinational Enterprises

9. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Revenue: What is the Government doing to ensure all companies operating in New Zealand pay their fair share of tax?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Revenue): Last week the Minister of Finance and I released three consultation papers proposing new measures to strengthen New Zealand's rules for taxing large multinationals. A broad-based, low-rate tax system works very well for New Zealand overall, but it is important to keep it evolving. New Zealand salary and wage earners do not get to structure their arrangements to avoid paying tax and nor should big multinational companies. This is about making sure all companies operating in New Zealand pay their fair share.

Barbara Kuriger: How will the proposals address base erosion and profit shifting?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Base erosion and profit shifting, or BEPS, are tactics used by some large multinationals to minimise their exposure to tax and move profits out of a country. The proposals released last week are in line with recommendations from the OECD's BEPS project, which has developed best practice measures for the global response to BEPS. We have taken a strong but measured approach, which prioritises the specific problems that the Inland Revenue Department has actually observed in its investigations of multinationals. The proposals are aimed at: tackling concerns about multinationals shifting profits from their New Zealand sales offshore, even though these sales are driven by New Zealand - based staff; preventing multinationals using interest payments to shift profits offshore; and implementing New Zealand's entrance into an international convention for aligning our double tax agreements with OECD recommendations.

• Freshwater Management—Commentary

10. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he agree with Forest and Bird president Mark Hanger, who said, "in putting the Forum's recommendations to one side, the Government has undermined the good faith and trust that we put in the Forum to help address the freshwater crisis facing all New Zealanders"?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): No, and that view is not shared by the 65 forum organisations nor the majority of the environmental groups that are on it. The forum's recommendations have been at the core of the national overhaul of freshwater management. We have put some recommendations to one side, such as the forum's recommendations that the Government put Government appointees on all regional councils. Given the member's vehement opposition to us doing this in Canterbury, I am not sure the member would want us to do that to every regional council.

Eugenie Sage: What is the point of collaborative processes such as the Land and Water Forum, when he cherry-picks its recommendations, forcing major environmental organisations like Forest & Bird and Fish and Game New Zealand to withdraw?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would note that important environmental groups like the Federated Mountain Clubs, Whitewater NZ, Ecologic, the Environmental Defence Society, and Landcare Trust do not share those views. I think it is fair to say that with Kevin Hague leading Forest & Bird, it has mistaken its role and is now an extension of the Opposition.

Tim Macindoe: What has been the response of the Land and Water Forum to the Government's latest steps to improve water quality, including the goal of 90 percent of lakes and rivers being swimmable by 2040?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The forum said in its press release last week: "The proposals represent another important step forward in improving New Zealand's [approach to] freshwater management." It said that it particularly welcomed that the Government had adopted the stock exclusion proposals that were hugely important to improving freshwater and on which regional councils had made very little progress over the last 25 years. It also included areas that required further work over the detail, particularly around the issues of ecological health and nutrients and how regional councils should respond when those indicators show that things are not making progress.

Eugenie Sage: How can he say that the Government has made progress with the Land and Water Forum's recommendations, when its own secretariat in its assessment shows that over half of the recommendations have not been implemented?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, it is true that we have not implemented recommendations like establishing a new land and water commission or recommendations like the Government putting appointees on every regional council. But if you look at the core of what it recommended, and that was a national policy statement that this country never had until this Government—

Hon David Parker: That's because you spiked the last one. You spiked the Sheppard one.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —regulations for stock exclusion, regulations—well, Mr Parker, you had 9 years and you did nothing, and we have made far more progress in 8 years and we are proud of it.

Eugenie Sage: Was lobbying from irrigators in the dairy sector the reason he largely ignored the forum's recommendations on swimmability and ecological health, and came up with something very different?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No. The key issue about swimmability is standards that are practical. The reality is that New Zealand rivers regularly flood. During those periods, E. coli limits peak. And with the swimmability standards that are being proposed by members of the Opposition, you would end up labelling most of the rivers in New Zealand as unswimmable simply because they flood and that is illogical and we are the party of practical environmentalists.

• Accelerated Regional Roading Package—Update

11. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Transport: What updates can he provide on the Government's Accelerated Regional Roading Package?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): The Government continues to make strong progress on delivering its package of accelerated regional roading projects across New Zealand. It was my pleasure to recently open a new section of State Highway 3, north of Normanby, in Taranaki. We have invested $18 million to realign and improve the capacity and safety on this important stretch of road. The local community has, as I know the member knows well, campaigned passionately for much-needed safety upgrades to the road, which has a history of serious and, indeed, fatal crashes. That is why I am proud that the Government has been able to step in and deliver a new road that will reduce the risk of crashes and significantly cut travel times for road users.

Jonathan Young: What other projects is the Government delivering through the Accelerated Regional Roading Package to improve safety and support economic growth in Taranaki?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Supporting the growth of Taranaki through the transport network is a real priority for the Government. That is why we are stepping in and investing $135 million on the Mount Messenger to Awakino tunnel bypass projects, as well as a range of safety improvements along State Highway 3. The bypasses and other planned safety improvements will ensure that this important stretch of road is safer and much, much more reliable to travel on. All up, this and other projects demonstrate the Government's strong, ongoing commitment to investing in Taranaki and its transport development and economic growth.

• Education, Minister—Statements

12. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement in June 2014 with regard to the Investing in Educational Success initiative, "parents will be very pleased we're making such good progress on something that will make a real difference in our schools and classrooms"?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Yes, and I would like to congratulate the member. This is the first full and accurate quote he has attributed to me.

Chris Hipkins: How is having 93 percent of the $359 million in funding that was appropriated back in 2014 remaining unspent in the Crown account making a real difference to schools and classrooms?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes, I am very impatient about that figure, because it reflects the 1-year delay caused by the NZEI's negotiations, and so a programme that was supposed to begin in 2014-15 did not get under way until 2015-16, and despite that year's delay, which has the practical effect of hundreds of teachers being denied access to these new roles, we are, nevertheless, at a case of having 180 Communities of Learning formed, accounting for 15,003 schools and kura, and nearly half a million students in New Zealand.

Chris Hipkins: Does she think the delay could perhaps have been avoided if she had designed the policy better in the first place given that after it was announced a survey of school principals found that 54 percent were opposed outright to the plan and 27 percent had serious concerns about the policy, while only 4 percent thought it was a good idea?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: No, I do not agree with the member given that the working group involved representatives from the peak bodies and from the unions prior to it being announced. We worked, nevertheless, at the pace that the unions wanted to work at, and we are now in the situation where, as I have said, over half of all schools are involved in this really exciting initiative. But the travesty here is that the delay has caused hundreds of teachers to not have access to these new roles.

Chris Hipkins: Why will parents be pleased that over $330 million remains sitting unspent in the Crown accounts given that since she became Minister in 2011 parental contributions to their kids' education have increased by over 23 percent—almost 5 times the rate of inflation?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Parents should be very concerned about that member's ability to actually read Government accounts, or even survey information, because the figure that he persists with includes fees for private schools, whereas the facts based on the financial returns of schools are that parental donations have remained consistent, at about 1.8 percent. And they are donations—therefore they are voluntary, therefore parents are making them.

Chris Hipkins: Why have 32 percent of the allowances paid to teachers under the Investing in Educational Success initiative been paid to teachers working in the highest-decile schools while only 2 percent has been paid to teachers working in decile 1 schools?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: We are just heading past the 2-year mark of this programme. When it first began, higher-decile schools were the earlier adopters. But as of the end of last year, I am happy to relieve the member's anxiety by telling him that we have 150 decile 1 schools, whereas we have 141 decile 10 schools. We have 156 decile 3 schools and 156 decile 8 schools. In fact, the distribution across all types of schools is pretty even. So the member will therefore have his anxiety relieved.

Chris Hipkins: Why does she continue to claim that school funding is at record levels when the analysis released today through Infometrics shows that, on a per child basis, school funding has increased by just 2.3 percent in real terms under her Government compared with an increase of 22 percent in real terms between 2002 and 2008 under the last Labour Government?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I have not seen the Infometrics report yet, but there is only one set of facts, and they are in the Government's Budget accounts. The member is invited to go to my website, where they are there in very simple terms to understand: that we have gone from just over $8 billion to $11.04 billion. In the period 2010 to 2016, inflation, I think, cumulatively went up by 10.9 percent while operations grants went up by 16.8 percent, and the number of kids—

Chris Hipkins: And the number of kids went up.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: —thank you, Mr Hipkins—went up by 3.6 percent.

Chris Hipkins: How has decreasing funding for school capital by 13.9 percent in real terms over the past 8 years, resulting in kids languishing in cold, damp, leaky, and overcrowded classrooms, made a real difference in our schools and classrooms?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is just hard to take this seriously. My Associate Minister, Hon Nikki Kaye, has done something that no other Minister has done, which is to commission and to have a condition assessment of every school building across New Zealand. That now gives us a basis against which to invest taxpayers' funds and prioritise where we do redevelopment, refurbishment, address leaky building issues, earthquake strengthening, and so forth. What I can tell the member again is that, factually, we have spent a third more in the 8 years that we have been in Government than occurred in the 8 years under that previous administration, all of which is in the Government accounts, publicly available to those who can read them.

© Scoop Media