Thursday, 7 July 2016
Volume 715
Sitting date: 7 July 2016
THURSDAY, 7 JULY 2016
THURSDAY, 7 JULY 2016
Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia.
Visitors
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—Secretary-General
Mr SPEAKER: I am sure that members would wish to welcome Mr Akbar Khan, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and accord him a seat to the left of the Chair.
Speaker’s Observations
Retirement—Chamber and Gallery Staff
Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members will also be aware that tomorrow a number of our Chamber and gallery staff will be retiring. This is our last day to acknowledge this fact. Collectively, their loyal service totals around 180 years. I ask that members take this opportunity to acknowledge their contribution to us, to thank them, and to wish them well for their future.
[Applause]
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday, 9 August the Government will look to complete the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2016/17 Estimates) Bill and the third reading of the Appropriation (2016/17 Estimates) Bill. Wednesday will be a members’ day.
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I wonder whether the Leader of the House can advise the House when the Government intends to progress the very urgent Education Legislation Bill, which it insisted on reporting back prior to the parliamentary adjournment.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): As soon as it is possible, and if the member would like to offer some assistance in the bill’s expeditious progress through the House, then we would be only too willing to accept that. In fact, I seek leave for the bill to pass through all stages forthwith on a single voice vote. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need to put the leave. I think I know the answer. Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is. [Interruption] Order! The first point of order is to the Rt Hon Winston Peters.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the Leader of the House can advise us as to when he proposes to expedite resource management law reform, which, apparently, is holding up the whole building and construction situation in this country and causing a massive gridlock.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will get the Hon Gerry Brownlee to respond to that.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Once again, the hand of friendship is extended across the House. We accept the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ willingness to vote for that, and that commitment made in the House just now could see the expedition of that bill fairly quickly.
Committees
Business of Select Committees
Reporting Dates
Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health): I seek leave in relation to Government Notice of Motion No. 1, in my name, for the date by which the Health Committee is required to report back to the House under Standing Order 322(2) to be extended to 26 August 2016.
Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
District Health Boards—Funding
1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Did each district health board get a funding increase in Budget 2016 sufficient for them to meet all health demographics, wages, and inflationary cost pressures; if not, which ones did not?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Just before I answer, I would just like to congratulate the Labour Party on its 100 years, and in particular Mrs King, who seems to have been here for much of it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The first part, I think the House—[Interruption] Order! On the first part, I think the House should note it with congratulations; and on the second part, I think the House should take the opportunity of acknowledging the huge contribution the Hon Annette King has made to this House. And now, if we could have the answer to the question.
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Generally speaking, yes, although you never know the actual pressures, such as inflation, until the year is ended. Certainly, the extra $468 million going to district health board (DHB) services this year will ensure that the $150 million underfunding of DHBs delivered in Labour’s last Budget is never repeated.
Hon Annette King: So what are the total estimated DHB pressures in dollar terms for 2017-18 provided to him by the Ministry of Health?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have not got that figure with me but it is publicly available.
Hon Annette King: What is the total amount in dollar terms of efficiency savings that he requires from DHBs in 2016-17 on top of the close to $900 million that DHBs have had to find since 2011-12?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, look, it would not be too far off the automatic 0.5 percent dividend that Labour required in terms of efficiencies—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, that is not the question.
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have not got the full figure with me.
Mr SPEAKER: The question has now been addressed.
Hon Annette King: Why did the following DHBs, according to updated figures from the Ministry of Health, not receive sufficient funding to cover all their health pressures in 2016: Auckland, Canterbury, Capital and Coast, Counties Manukau, Hawke’s Bay, Hutt Valley, Nelson-Marlborough, South Canterbury, Taranaki, Wairarapa, Waitematā, and West Coast—12 in total?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That is completely incorrect. That $468 million will pretty much cover all pressures, but, of course, we will not know the inflation figure until the end of the year. What I can say is that over the last 8 years the money that the Government has put into health has fully funded all pressures, including inflation, and the facts bear that out.
Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table information sourced from the Parliamentary Library using Vote Health Estimates questions from 2016, showing the 12 DHBs that were not funded to their full extent.
Mr SPEAKER: On the basis of the answer that was given, I will put the leave for that to be tabled. Leave is sought to table that particular information prepared by the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I seek leave to table figures showing that this year the allocation to DHBs covered all pressures.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need to know the source of the papers the Minister is seeking to table.
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Ministry of Health.
Mr SPEAKER: Are they publicly available?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No.
Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that information. [Interruption] Order! The House will decide. Leave is sought to table that information. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon Annette King: Is he satisfied that the impact on Canterbury DHB of not receiving sufficient funding to meet all its pressures means that it is now looking at “the financial sustainability” of services, leading to cuts and reconfigurations, for example—an example that they have given—in older people’s health.
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, that is completely incorrect. Look, the Canterbury DHB is receiving an extra $44 million this year, and this Government has supported Canterbury health right throughout the difficult last 5 years. An extra $106 million has gone in there—$20 million specifically for mental health services, on top of the $86 million that has been put in there to make good on the deficit position.
Hon Annette King: What changes to the care of older people living at home will be required to enable Capital and Coast DHB and Hutt Valley DHB to save $7.6 million as part of his enforced saving review?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I do not know that there are going to be any changes there, but what I can tell you is that deficits across DHBs are about $50 million and dropping—quite different from 8 years ago when they were $150 million and increasing.
Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the Capital and Coast DHB board papers, dated 2 February 2016, headed “Procurement of Homecare Support Services”.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those particular board papers. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon Annette King: Why does he not just fess up to the Government’s underfunding the health budget—by a whopping $1.72 billion now, according to independent figures—instead of blaming DHBs and sending in expensive consultants to review them, only to be forced to cough up extra money later on?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Those are not independent figures; that is the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions’ figure and it is incorrect. The fact is that the health budget had increased by $4 billion. But, look, we are about services; Mrs King and Labour are just about quibbling over money. So there are more operations, more appointments, more doctors—no one is going to Australia for cancer services. And I tell you what—the Labour Party cannot name one single service that has not improved in the last 8 years. That is a fact.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Transport Policy
2. JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Transport: Mā te whakapau, e iwa tekau mā rua ōrau, o te katoa o te pūtea tahua waka i te mea, kua kitea ko te waka rori, tētahi kaipana matua, whakapiki tukunga waro, mai anō i te tau, kotahi mano, iwa rau, iwa tekau, ka taea e tērā te whakaheke i te whakakinotanga o te āhua rangi?
[Will spending 92 percent of the total transport budget on roads reduce climate pollution, given road transport has been a key driver of the increase in carbon emissions since 1990?]
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Climate Change Issues) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: Until new roads and improvements to existing roads are completed, it is difficult to assess how much climate pollution may be reduced by better vehicle performance on better roads.
Julie Anne Genter: Can she confirm that reducing climate-damaging pollution is not even an objective of the 30-year Auckland transport strategy, the Auckland Transport Alignment Project, led by her Government?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually, until it has decided which projects it is going to go ahead with, it has not done the climate change and the greenhouse gas emissions analysis, but there is an environmental analysis that will be done once those projects are chosen.
Julie Anne Genter: Would it not make more sense to do the greenhouse gas emissions analysis before choosing the project, so that we could actually have an integrated transport system that decreases pollution?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, actually, we do need roads in this country, and even something for electric vehicles to be able to drive on. So although we do have a focus, certainly, on reducing fossil fuels—and it is a key focus—what we are looking at is the environmental impacts once we have decided which projects we will go ahead with.
Julie Anne Genter: Why does she think that these isolated environmental assessments of transport projects will work when that is what has been happening for the last few decades and emissions from transport have continued to grow for the last few decades—in fact, it is a key driver of all of our climate pollution over the last three decades?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: This is a Government that has invested more in public transport and rail than any others in a very long time. So what the member’s question proposes is that we are choosing between the two. I think that we can have both. That is why we look at the environmental impacts. We do support public transport, and we certainly support cycleways—all of which are part of reducing emissions—but we need roads in this country too, and we proudly stand by that.
Julie Anne Genter: Is she denying that 92 percent of Vote Transport is on roads, and does that seem like a balanced approach that will enable more New Zealanders to take public transport?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, I am not, but that is because it is 92 percent of a much bigger budget, so a lot more money is being spent on both public transport and on roads and on rail.
Julie Anne Genter: How will it make it easier for ordinary New Zealanders to get to work, get to school, and get where they need to go on public transport when your Government is spending four times as much on expanding a few highways?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, we need roads for some of that public transport to actually travel on, and I accept that the member does not support new roads or improving existing roads in New Zealand, but this side of the House does. We believe that we are investing—and we know we are investing—far more in public transport, but we equally stand by our actual commitment to roading projects in this country.
Julie Anne Genter: Is she happy that her legacy for young Aucklanders will be a city without decent public transport, where they cannot afford to buy a house, in a world where they will be the first to feel the effects of damaging climate change—something her Government is actually doing nothing about?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may like to consider how that question was addressed. The question on the sheet is to the Minister of Transport. As far as I know, the Minister of Transport should not be addressed as “she”, nor should any of those other matters be addressed to the Minister of Transport.
Mr SPEAKER: Yes, I think the question had quite a lot in there that I could have ruled out of order, particularly a reference to housing costs, etc., which has got nothing to do with transport. But in the spirit—[Interruption] Order! In the spirit of it being the last day before a substantial adjournment, I was very generously allowing the question to stand, and now I hope the Minister will address it.
Hon PAULA BENNETT: I will stand proudly for those young Aucklanders and their future, because what we are giving them is a range of options for them to get around this country, including the support for the City Rail Link, including the support that we have given in actually electrifying trains out to west Auckland, where his great colleague the Minister for Climate Change Issues lives. Actually, the investment that we are giving in roads is so that those buses can actually travel and get around this country. Does the member not ever ride her bike on a road?
Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to acknowledge a point of order.
Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table a forecast that shows pollution from transport increasing over the next 15 years under this Government’s policies.
Mr SPEAKER: I just need to know the source of the document.
Julie Anne Genter: The source of the document is the Parliamentary Library, and it has assembled this from documents that have been produced by the Government ministries.
Mr SPEAKER: I am not going to put the leave, and I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 165/1: “The document tabled must be an authentic source. It is not acceptable [to use it] to table members’ own views … or documents [that are attempting] to substantiate those views …”, and, in my opinion, the charts are doing that.
Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Is this another matter that is being raised, not any attempt—
Julie Anne Genter: I would like to raise a question with you about your ruling.
Mr SPEAKER: No, I have made a ruling. It is not debatable in the House.
Julie Anne Genter: Sorry, to clarify your ruling—could I ask a question to clarify your ruling?
Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion, because of the generosity that I expressed earlier, I will hear from the member.
Julie Anne Genter: Do I understand, based on your ruling, that you do not consider the Parliamentary Library to be an objective source of information?
Mr SPEAKER: I know that I have got an agnostic view on that, but I know that some members certainly have a very strong view about that, as to the authenticity of the Parliamentary Library. But, no, the reason I said that I would not put the leave is that I think the member is, basically, using it to reinforce the point that she has made from a political perspective and the questions she has raised. The purpose of tabling documents is to further inform members, and if members are as interested in the topic as the member clearly is, then they can certainly go to the library and get very similar information prepared.
Economy—Growth, Resilience, and Brexit
3. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received showing construction, tourism, and services are driving New Zealand’s economic growth?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Treasury reports economic data over the last month point to a slightly stronger economy than was expected. Real GDP growth in the March quarter was slightly above Budget forecasts, driven by higher tourism numbers in spending, and growth in 10 out of 11 service industries. The construction sector has been a major driver of growth, with activity at record levels. Construction in Auckland has doubled in the last 3 years, and between 2014 and 2017, 85,000 dwellings are expected to be delivered. That is the equivalent number of new houses of twice the size of Dunedin City.
Andrew Bayly: How does he expect the recent rebound in business confidence to support economic growth in New Zealand?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Some of that lift in business confidence is because of the extensive construction pipeline out ahead of us and the production of 85,000 new dwellings by the end of 2017. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research’s business outlook survey shows confidence lifting. It has lifted across construction, manufacturing, and services, as well as across the regions. Hiring intentions and business investment intentions are also positive. Overall, this points to business seeing a positive economic outlook.
Grant Robertson: In reference to that last answer, how many of the houses that the Minister mentioned would be considered affordable houses?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: If you look at the cost of servicing debt, then, on average—and I would stress “on average”—those houses cost households around the same proportion of weekly income to service the debt, as they used to. But, of course, in parts of the country, some of those houses are not going to be affordable, particularly for middle and low income families, and I hope that the Opposition will support the Government’s measures to increase land supply, settle down the housing market, and, therefore, make houses more affordable.
Andrew Bayly: What reports from international institutions has he seen that recognise the strength and resilience of the New Zealand economy?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Last week the Moody’s rating agency confirmed New Zealand’s triple A rating, based on the country’s “high economic strength, high institutional and Government financial strength, and low susceptibility to event risk.”—that is, New Zealand’s ability to withstand or be resilient to shocks in the global economy. They point to the following factors supporting their assessment—that public debt levels are lower than most other triple As, the strong fiscal framework and political consensus on targeting balanced budgets and low debt, and a strong banking system.
Andrew Bayly: What is Treasury’s assessment of how the vote by Britain to exit the European Union will affect New Zealand?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: It will not have much greater insight than the much-studied impact of Brexit. But it does consider that the effects on New Zealand are likely to be limited. Many forecasters expect a recession in the UK in the second half of 2016, and growth in the European Union—the world’s third-biggest economy—is also expected to be negatively affected. The UK accounts for 3.3 percent of goods exports from New Zealand and 7.3 percent of service exports. Our largest exports are lamb, wine, and tourism. Treasury believes the effects will be limited.
Inequality, Economic and Social—Measurement and Homeownership Rates
4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “there is no evidence that inequality in New Zealand is increasing”; if so, what is the statement from Statistics New Zealand last week “individual net worth is more concentrated” evidence of?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, I do stand by my statement. I am advised that the method used was to average three different surveys to establish the first data point, and then compare that with a further different one-off survey to establish the second data point. Statistics New Zealand provides a caveat, which says that “Methodological differences … mean the three surveys are not directly comparable. …We advise caution in any comparison customers make between the surveys.” I am advised that the statement made by Statistics New Zealand may not be statistically valid.
Grant Robertson: Is the Minister of Finance telling the House that Statistics New Zealand is producing statistically invalid reports?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am advising the House that the statement made by Statistics New Zealand, that “individual net worth is more concentrated”, cannot be said to be a statistically validated conclusion.
Grant Robertson: Is the growing gap between the wealth of the top 10 percent and the bottom 40 percent in New Zealand actually evidence of the disparity caused by the stark drop in homeownership by those on low and middle incomes in New Zealand?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is simply wrong. I know it is commonly believed, and he would love it to be the case, but the evidence presented by this report and extensive reporting by the Ministry of Social Development, set up by the previous Government, does not show growing inequality in incomes or wealth.
Grant Robertson: Has the rate of homeownership declined on his watch disproportionately for Māori, Pasifika, middle-income earners, and younger New Zealanders?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is not clear. There is some evidence—[Interruption] Well, now that the member has to accept the fact that the statistics do not show growing inequality, we now have to debate the meaning of some statistics around homeownership. There has been a long-term trend to greater rentals, but it is not that clear what has happened in the last 5 or 6 years.
Grant Robertson: What was he referring to in his interview on Morning Report last week about the Statistics New Zealand publication when he used the term “confiscating people’s assets” in relation to addressing inequality?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may recall some aggressive questioning from the journalist who, as I said then, sounded tired when we started telling him what was actually happening about New Zealanders on the lowest incomes. I was simply suggesting that even if you thought there was a greater wealth differential—and, actually, there is no evidence for that—then what would you do about it? Confiscate people’s assets?
Grant Robertson: So is the Minister telling the House and New Zealand that, actually, a progressive tax system, and one where people actually pay a fair share, means confiscating people’s assets for him—and is that how out of touch he has got?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. There is no connection between those things and anything that I have said. We do have a progressive tax system. About 15 percent or 20 percent of income tax payers pay way over half of all income tax. Sixty percent of households pay no net income tax at all—zero. They get more into their household than they pay out in tax. So we have a redistributive system; it is basically working. The one area where we need a lot of work to be done is on our planning regime where—
Grant Robertson: Oh, we are back to that again.
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, when the planning rules constrain the supply of land, the most wealthy benefit the most because their house prices go up the most. I look forward to the Opposition’s support for measures to ensure that house price increases do not drive inequality.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the top 10 percent in this country have 60 percent of the wealth, and the bottom 40 percent have 3 percent of the wealth, why is he standing here defying gravity and making a prize fool of himself?
Mr SPEAKER: I will give a lot of liberty to the Minister in answering that question.
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member needs to understand what is being compared here.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I understand, all right.
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, this just might matter. Those statistics compare a 23-year-old with no savings who is renting a flat, with a double-income household with no children aged 55 who can save $100,000 a year. There is always going to be some inequality in wealth—it is called the life cycle; it is called saving; it is called getting better jobs; it is called owning your own house.
Housing Market—Immigration
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): This question is to the Minister of Finance—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. The House will give the member the opportunity to ask his question.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Speaker, I apologise. I wrote that last set of economic facts out on the back of it. But that is why I—
Mr SPEAKER: I am trying to give the member an opportunity—
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I thought some people over there needed a lesson in economics.
Mr SPEAKER: —to ask his question. I suggest he take it.
5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister for Building and Housing: What policies does the Government have to comprehensively deal with the demand side of New Zealand’s housing “challenge”?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): My responsibilities are primarily around growing housing supply, but the Government has taken a number of measures on the demand side. Tax changes in Budget 2010 removed the right for building investors to deduct depreciation on buildings. This measure increased their tax liability by $700 million per year. Other tax changes include the brightline test introduced last year, the requirement for IRD numbers on all property transactions, $33 million extra for Inland Revenue Department (IRD) enforcement, and the withholding tax on housing investments, which took effect this week. Other demand measures include the loan-to-value ratio limits introduced by the Reserve Bank in October 2013, and the further limits on lending policies targeted at investment housing in 2015.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Where in the comprehensive plan is the most critical thing that economists and now others are calling for, and that is a policy to seriously curb immigration demand, which is inflating house prices and demand in Auckland now and elsewhere?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My ministry has commissioned research quite specifically on the linkages between migration and house pricing.
David Shearer: Only now.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Actually, it is some months ago, and I would be happy to share the results of the research, which actually make a very interesting read.
David Seymour: Is the Minister at all concerned that his comprehensive plan might be so effective as to trigger an abrupt correction in house prices?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is certainly clear that New Zealand house building investment is at the highest level ever. It is 30 percent higher than the last peak, and so on the supply side we are making great progress. On the demand side, actually, the thing that is making the greatest difference is the fact that Kiwis are not leaving, and, as a consequence, we have record high population growth.
David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was a very simple one: was he concerned that the strategy might be overly effective? He made no attempt to address that whatsoever. He simply described some of the measures that were being undertaken.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: He called for an opinion and he got it. Essentially, the Minister was trying to make a simple question more intelligible for the population.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That part does not help. I think on this occasion the question has been addressed, but clearly not to the satisfaction of the member.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: What comprehensive plan can the Government possible have if it does not first include massively curbing immigration demand for housing in Auckland and elsewhere?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The big change that has occurred around migration is that 35,000 Kiwis are not going each year to Australia. Unless the member is proposing to block Kiwi citizens coming back to this country, because this Government has been successful in making it such an attractive country, then it actually will not make much difference.
David Bennett: What research has the Government undertaken on the influence of migration on housing, and what does it conclude?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Research was specifically commissioned by the National Institute of Demographic and Economic Analysis at Waikato University. It noted in its report that in Auckland the bulk of the population was due to natural increase. To give the actual numbers, Auckland’s population increased by 87,700 over the study period of which 87 percent was the difference between births and deaths, and 13 percent was due to net migration. The report also noted that the most dramatic change was the shift in New Zealanders not leaving—i.e., New Zealand’s natural population increase has historically been shielded by the net loss of 35,000 Kiwis leaving. This has stopped, this has meant a stronger natural increase, and this means there is more demand for housing.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Minister refusing to call it what it is, when Kim Campbell, chief executive of the Employers and Manufacturers Association—
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Xenophobic rant from that member.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: —he a xenophobe, is he; OK—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just complete the question quickly.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: —and Michael Reddell, former Reserve Bank economist, are urging him to join the dots linking the housing crisis to record immigration?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This Government makes its policies on the basis of facts and evidence, not prejudice. I would draw the member’s attention to the research report from Waikato University that dispels the claims that the member is making.
David Bennett: What was the conclusion of the study on migration and house prices?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Can I directly quote the report’s conclusion. “The literature and the available data on population change suggests that visa-controlled immigration into New Zealand and, specifically, into Auckland in the recent past has had a relatively small impact on house prices compared to demand factors such as the immigration changes of New Zealanders, low interest rates, investor demand, and capital gains expectations. Consequently, changes in immigration policy, which can only impact on visa-controlled immigration, are unlikely to have much impact on the housing market.”
Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the Government, when in Opposition, was accusing another party of fuelling the house prices and demand by mass immigration—I am talking circa 2004—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just complete the question.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: —why, when the record level now is 125,000 gross and 69,000 net, is he trying to defy gravity and say something else?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is absolutely true that net migration is having an impact on the housing market. What the member needs to understand is that what has changed is that 35,000 New Zealanders are voting confidence with their feet, saying that New Zealand is a great country to live in, and coming here and adding to the housing pressures. I actually think that it is great thing that New Zealanders are choosing to build their futures in this beautiful country.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that under his watch the housing crisis in Auckland in particular, and around the country now, has dramatically worsened, why does he not do the decent thing and resign for another time?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that when that member was Deputy Prime Minister house prices doubled, and that Government did absolutely zip—absolutely zero. What I am proud of is that housebuilding in New Zealand is at an all-time record high, because, ultimately, supply is the answer.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The statement just made by Nick Smith was about another era, another time, and it was not correct. I am saying that what he told the House about, when I was Deputy Prime Minister, is utterly false, and he knows it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member himself referred to when the current Government was in Opposition in the previous supplementary question.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Rt Hon Winston Peters is quite right about that. He was foreign affairs Minister at the time, never in the country, and could not have been responsible.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Neither of those points of order were much help to keeping order in this House.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave of the House to table the report dated 13 April 2016 by the National Institute of Demographic and Economic Analysis from the University of Waikato on the impact of immigration on house prices.
Mr SPEAKER: Is the report available publicly on a website?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, it is not.
Mr SPEAKER: It is not. I will therefore put the leave to table that particular report from the University of Waikato. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Housing Supply—Government Construction
6. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Where is the Government directly contracting to build homes as part of its Comprehensive Housing Plan?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): There are over 80 sites across New Zealand where houses are being built on public land through Government agencies. Major sites include Hobsonville, Tāmaki, McLennan, Waimahia, Ronaki Road, Waterview in Auckland, Awatea, Welles Street, Colombo Street, and Vanguard Drive in Christchurch—to just name the top 10, which will deliver over 10,000 homes. The Government is building more houses today on public land than at any time in the last quarter-century.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It appears that the Government has tried to pretend that that primary question was in order by capitalising the word “Comprehensive”. It is an assertion that ought not to be, particularly in a primary question. They have been trying to use the word “comprehensive” around their plans all week, but it does not properly sit—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! No, the member might think it is an assertion, but it actually has been identified and authenticated as a fact, and that was required before we could accept the question. The Government has a video publication in which it refers to its, National’s, comprehensive housing plan—[Interruption] Order! I expect some respect—[Interruption] Order! If I have to ask a member to leave for interjecting when I am on my feet, I will not hesitate to do so. I anticipated this would be raised. I went and sought the evidence. Once the publication was made available, whether members agree with the fact or not, it is authentication enough for the question to be accepted.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would further point out, too, that in primary question No. 5 the Rt Hon Winston Peters, effectively, acknowledges the comprehensive plan by referring to the Government’s ability to “comprehensively deal” with this current challenge.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That was not at all helpful.
Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just seek some reassurance that the video clip that you are referring to was, in fact, a Government video clip and not a National Party video clip, because if it was a National Party one, you would be indicating that, in fact, any material produced by the National Party is something that we could question Ministers on.
Mr SPEAKER: I am unable to—[Interruption] Order! I am not sure of whether it was a National Party clip or a Government piece. I am sorry, I cannot answer that.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is the very day when the Chilcot Report comes out in the United Kingdom criticising things like loaded terms like “Operation Enduring Freedom” and “Coalition”—
Mr SPEAKER: Can I just have the point of order, please.
Hon David Parker: Well, actually, what this is is, effectively, an attempt to dress up loaded terms that are assertions, in a way that ought not to be acceptable as meeting the rules—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the question had been put forward and it had referred to a “comprehensive housing plan” with a small “c”, that in my opinion would have been an opinion of this Government. If I ask this House whether there is a “comprehensive”—small “c”—“comprehensive building plan”, I suspect most on my right would say there is, and most on my left would say there is not, in which case I would not have accepted it because it would have been a breach of Standing Order 380, when it was putting both inference and opinion into the question. So in that regard, Mr Parker is absolutely right. Once evidence was presented to me of an effective publication, and the Government has taken the opportunity to call it such, that gave me confidence to accept the question as being authenticated.
Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a fresh point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: It is another matter altogether?
Chris Hipkins: Yes.
Mr SPEAKER: If it is another matter altogether, I will hear it. I do not want any further discussion around the authenticity and the right for this question to be here.
Chris Hipkins: Well, it is related to the authenticity—
Mr SPEAKER: No, well, then it is not a fresh point of order.
Chris Hipkins: Well, there is a fresh point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: No, it is not. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. We have had the opportunity to speak to you privately where you continue to raise points of order that you claim are addressing another matter—and you are saying that this is going to address another matter. If it is, I am happy to hear it. But if in any way it is just continuing to relitigate a ruling that I have made, that in itself leads to disorder, Mr Hipkins.
Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have the video clip. It is a National Party video clip and not a Government video clip. Does that mean that we can question Ministers on anything that is a National Party publication?
Mr SPEAKER: No. No, and it does not—[Interruption] Order! It does not mean that you can question it. As I said, when I sought the authentication I did not bother to clarify whether it was the National Party or a Government—I should have done so; I did not. But it certainly does not mean that in the future the Opposition can question a Government on a party matter. The question has been accepted. It is now some time since it has been asked, and I do not think we have had the question, so I am going to invite Todd Muller to repeat the question.
Todd Muller: How many homes have been completed as part—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! If I hear another interjection from Carmel Sepuloni in question time today, I will be asking her to leave. Would the member Todd Muller start the question again.
Todd Muller: How many homes have been completed as part of the Government’s very comprehensive housing programme?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: At Hobsonville 680 homes are finished and 391 are under construction. At Waimahia 155 homes are complete and another 32 are under construction. On that site a home is being completed every third day. At Tāmaki 32 are completed and 122 are being constructed. At McLennan 11 are complete and 52 are under construction. At Awatea 24 are complete and 20 are under construction. Government projects are expected to deliver at least 10,000 new homes in Auckland by 2020.
Todd Muller: How does the scale of residential building by public agencies compare historically?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This year Housing New Zealand has budgeted to spend over a billion dollars on maintenance, upgrades, and new builds. This is double the level—double the level—of the annual investment under the previous Government. Last year Housing New Zealand completed over 800 new homes—that is more than double any year that was achieved under the previous Government—that is, homes completed. Housing New Zealand is ramping up its new house build rate with 2,000 homes to be completed over the next 2 years, and, of course, that is just Housing New Zealand. There are a large number of other agencies, including my own ministry, that are directly contracting for house builds.
Todd Muller: How much funding is the Government providing to Crown agencies for housing, and how does it compare historically?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Government payments to Housing New Zealand need to also take into account the dividend that is paid back to the Government. The average payment to Housing New Zealand has been $600 million per year under this Government with a dividend per year averaging $73 million—i.e., net payments of $500 million per year.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Hon David Parker.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is not responsible for Housing New Zealand. I am somewhat surprised that the last two questions have been in respect of someone else’s responsibilities, not his own.
Mr SPEAKER: No. I considered the matter quite carefully at the time, but I think the matter is related enough for the question to be accepted. Does the Minister wish to complete his answer?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am sure members opposite do not want the comparison, because as compared with the $500 million of net payments this Government has made to Housing New Zealand, the previous Government averaged $300 million in payments and $50 million in dividends, i.e., net payments of $250 million from the Government—i.e., this Government is providing Housing New Zealand with more than double the funding of the previous Government.
Schools, Special—Salisbury School Closure
7. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): to the Minister of Education: Does she have confidence that all schools are receiving the funding necessary to serve the diverse needs and abilities of students?
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā anō e Te Mana Whakawā, huri noa i tō tātou Whare ngā mihi nui.
[Thank you once again, Mr Speaker, and huge acknowledgments to us throughout our House.]
I am confident that this year, for the first time, we are spending over $11 billion in education. However, we can always do better, and that is why the funding review advisory group is considering proposals to ensure funding is going to the right student at the right time so that all our young people get the best chance of being educationally successful.
Chris Hipkins: Why is she proposing to close the special residential school Salisbury School, given her last attempt to do so was overturned by the courts, with Justice Dobson concluding that it was common sense the risk of sexual abuse for girls with impaired intellect was likely to increase, that “No great leap of logic [was] required to recognise the validity of concerns”, and that her arguments amounted to “an abrogation of the responsibilities involved in making a decision”?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: Just as the member is concerned to ensure that we are confident that all schools are receiving the funding they should, we are also equally concerned to ensure that the best value is attached to that. In the case of Salisbury School, for which the process of consultation is open, what we know is that the nine students at that school are costing us, on average, $214,000 per student, compared with the intensive wraparound service, which is costing us $27,000 per student. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Tracey Martin, we just need a little less interjection.
Chris Hipkins: If lack of enrolments is her justification for closure, why is she making it so hard for students to get in, with one family making five attempts over 2 years to enrol their intellectually disabled daughter, who was finally accepted into the school the day that the Minister announced her intention to try, once again, to close it?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: Lack of enrolments is not the reason that I am in discussion about Salisbury School. It is part of it, but, in fact, there has been a lack of enrolments over four successive years but it is also—[Interruption]—about the cost. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Tracey Martin.
Hon HEKIA PARATA: If I could speak to the particular circumstance the member is raising: that family was trying to get into the intensive wraparound service that then gives the opportunity to consider a residential option; having been accepted into the intensive wraparound service, we then facilitated the enrolment at Salisbury School—that is the process.
Tracey Martin: What a lie.
Hon HEKIA PARATA: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member has just said “What a lie.” as part of her ongoing barrage. It is not a lie.
Mr SPEAKER: To Tracey Martin, if she is going to continue to interject like that she will create disorder. I require her to stand and withdraw that remark.
Tracey Martin: No, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Then the member will leave the Chamber. [Interruption] Order! Just leave the Chamber.
Tracey Martin withdrew from the Chamber.
Chris Hipkins: Did she indicate in her answer to my first supplementary question that the cost of educating kids at Salisbury School was one of the reasons for considering closing it; if so, is the cost per student related to the number of enrolments?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: The way that Salisbury School has been funded has been on a nominal roll, not an actual one. The nominal roll has far exceeded the actual roll in each of the last 4 years. That funding, therefore, when it is averaged against the number of actual students, is significantly high. That is one of the reasons. As the member himself has indicated consistently, his concern is that education resources are getting to those who need it most. We also have to make sure that we do have that available for the intensive wraparound service, which is proving very successful for families.
Chris Hipkins: If the cost per student is one of the reasons, as she has indicated, for her considering closing Salisbury School, why have so many parents who have asked to have their children sent to Salisbury School been declined that opportunity?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: I would have to verify the assertion the member is making, but perhaps I could enlighten him and the House as to the process. When the application is made it is considered by the appropriate clinical and educational experts, by the family involved, by the school, and by the Ministry of Education. They then form a panel to make decisions and, as a result of that, either a young person is accepted into the process or they are not.
Hon Member: That’s rubbish. You changed the criteria.
Hon HEKIA PARATA: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have got another member of the Opposition basically calling me dishonest—[Interruption] I am happy to run a workshop.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Hekia Parata will immediately resume her seat.
Hon HEKIA PARATA: Sorry, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: It is an interjection that is not helpful, but it is hardly unparliamentary.
Lending Practices—Responsible Lending Code
8. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent reports has he received on the effectiveness of the changes made by the Responsible Lending Code?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Last year the Government strengthened the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, which included the introduction of the Responsible Lending Code. The code provides guidance to lenders on how to comply with the new lender responsibility principles, and changes were made to give the Commerce Commission more tools and powers to protect consumers from unscrupulous business practices. I am pleased to say that the commission was recently successful in court action against the first two mobile traders sentenced under the new law to increase penalties. The companies involved, Better Life and Good Ring, were collectively fined over $170,000 for failing to provide borrowers with legally required information in a clear and concise way.
Chris Bishop: What do these prosecutions mean for other truck shops and pay-day lenders?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: These prosecutions send a clear signal to any dishonest mobile traders working out in our communities that the Commerce Commission is active and will work to crack down on unscrupulous lending practices. Although we cannot stop people paying too much for things, we can help consumers to make informed choices and to protect them from deceitful and irresponsible lending practices. But for the honest mobile traders who keep up to date with their obligations and adhere to consumer protection laws, these prosecutions confirm they are able to compete on a level playing field.
Chris Bishop: What else is the Government doing to protect consumers and promote competition? [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Sue Moroney. The Minister is answering the question, not Sue Moroney.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Government’s role is to provide three things to consumers: effective legislation, proper enforcement, and, thirdly, to make progress towards the long-term goal of improving the financial capabilities of all New Zealanders. And as part of that third goal, I intend to announce changes to the Financial Advisers Act next week—changes that aim to ensure that New Zealanders can access quality financial advice to help them plan, prepare, and progress their savings and investment goals.
Silver Fern Farms—Board Conflicts of Interest
9. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Does he believe the Crown entities and legislation he is accountable for are protecting the minority shareholders of Silver Fern Farms?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I find this a puzzling question. Protecting minority shareholders from what? If he means protecting them from the effects of market downturns: no; from the effects of competition, foreign or domestic: no. But if he is implying protection from illegal actions by other parties, I am confident New Zealand has a robust system in place.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is true, Minister, how could Jane Taylor, a board member of the Crown entity the External Reporting Board and of Radio New Zealand, be acceptable to represent Silver Fern Farms before the Financial Markets Authority on 6 May in her capacity as a director of Silver Fern Farms, and how does she handle that conflict of interest?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I do not agree that there is a conflict of interest.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table four documents. One is the Official Information Act document dated 28 April 2016 from the Financial Markets Authority chief executive Rob Everett regarding Jane Taylor’s role.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The second document?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: The second document is a notification for an advance from Livestock Logistics to Silver Fern Farms amounting to $44,000 inclusive of wages, office expenses, and rents, and—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That has been described enough. The third document?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the notification for an advance from Livestock Logistics again for, this time, $55,000, describing wages, office expenses, and rent as “cartage”.
Mr SPEAKER: And the fourth document?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: The next one is a notification for an advance from, again, Livestock Logistics and Silver Fern Farms. It sets out $57,000 in wages, offices expenses, and rent also coded as “cartage”—or barometer for theft—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The documents have been well and truly described. Leave is sought to table one Official Information Act document and three documents associated with Livestock Logistics Ltd. Is there any objection to them being tabled? [Interruption] Is there any objection? There is none. They can be tabled.
Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Police Resourcing—Community Policing and Crime Rates
10. STUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of Police: Does she agree with Local Government New Zealand President Lawrence Yule when he said that many local councils are now having to fund “new safety measures to fill the gap left by a lack of resourcing for community policing”; if not, why not?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Police: No. The police have always worked in partnership with our local communities and local government, where appropriate, including supporting local community patrols, monitoring closed-circuit television (CCTV), and hosting volunteers in stations. This is a long-established partnership aspect of the policing model in New Zealand, and it is greatly valued.
Stuart Nash: Does she think it is appropriate and fair that the Hastings District Council has had to foot a million-dollar bill to install CCTV cameras and organise security patrols because police told them they have not been given the resources to respond to many crimes?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I would have to go away and check that statement, but what I can say is that the allocated budget for the eastern policing districts increased from $51.9 million in 2010-11 to $55.2 million in 2015-16. In addition, there is an extra 15 constabulary staff and, of course, an extra $24 million being spent on new police stations in that community in Hastings as well as Napier.
Stuart Nash: When she responded to a previous question in this House regarding 18 councils’ criticisms of police resources, by saying “I would also remind them that there is a local government election going on this year.”, was she implying that those councils’ concerns were not genuine and were just politicking?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: We stand by that statement.
Stuart Nash: Can she confirm that, according to Statistics New Zealand, burglaries have increased by almost 8,000—or 14 percent—this financial year to date?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look, the bottom line with the policing story is that there is more money, more police hours, less crime, and, actually, higher public satisfaction with the performance of the police—and that is a documented fact.
Stuart Nash: What is her answer to Lawrence Yule from Local Government New Zealand’s question regarding councils having to fork out for security patrols: “Is it actually the role of local government or is this the systemic underfunding of the Police that has ended us up in this situation?”
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is exactly the same answer as was given to the primary question.
Stuart Nash: Why does she think that assaults have increased by 6 percent and robberies by 10 percent this financial year to date?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: One would actually have to go and check those statistics; but what I can tell you is the only real fact here is that there has been a 50,000 reduction in offences over the last 5 years and a 16 percent decrease in crime, at the same time as there is over half a million extra police front-line hours being delivered per year. So draw your own conclusions on the link between those two.
Native Birds—Kākāpō and Takahē Recovery Programmes
11. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Conservation: What recent announcements has she made regarding efforts to save some of our rarest native birds?
Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): E Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. There have been two significant announcements on partnerships in the past 2 weeks. Meridian Energy is the new partner for the kākāpō recovery programme. That is great news to save one of our most critically endangered taonga species. Meridian Energy’s investment will help fund research into kākāpō fertility, genetics, nutrition, and disease management. It will also really identify potential homes for new generations of kākāpō. The other partnership signed this week is worth $1 million, and that is a partnership between the Department of Conservation (DOC) and Fulton Hogan, which will help the critically endangered takahē continue its recovery and will support the next step of re-establishing it in the wild—the South Island’s high country tussock and the Murchison Mountains, primarily.
Dr Shane Reti: What reports has she received regarding the breeding successes as a result of these partnerships?
Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The year 2016 has been the biggest breeding season in the history of the kākāpō recovery programme, with a 30 percent growth in the numbers. Kākāpō are notoriously fussy breeders. Of the 35 chicks that fledged this season, 23 have been successfully raised in the wild. This represents a globally significant conservation success story and has attracted international media attention. That is great news, as is the takahē recovery programme, which has also had its most successful breeding season in history, with 38 chicks fledged in the recovery programme. This has raised the population of a bird that was once considered extinct to around 280 now. This is a tribute to the hard work of DOC’s heroic and outstanding staff and the 4,000 or more community groups and volunteers, who are doing their utmost for the conservation of our natural taonga.
Homelessness—Government Response
12. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green) to the Minister for Social Housing: He kaha te whakapono o Te Minita ki āna kaupapa here whiwhinga whare?
[Does she have confidence in all her housing policies?]
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing): Yes.
Marama Davidson: Ā, ka whakahē a ia ki tētahi uiuinga kāinga kore nā tōna āwangawanga, ka puta mai te tino raru?
[Will the Minister oppose an—oppose housing problems? (Interpretation)]
Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but I did not quite get the interpretation.
Mr SPEAKER: Can I just ask for the member to repeat—the interpretation just came through a little slowly—the question.
Marama Davidson: Ka whakahē a ia ki tētahi uiuinga kāinga kore nā tōnā āwangawanga, ka puta mai te tino raru?
[Will the Minister oppose an investigation into housing problems? (Interpretation)]
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes.
Marama Davidson: Tokohia ngā tāngata e noho kāinga kore ana i Aotearoa?
[How many homeless people are there in New Zealand?]
Hon PAULA BENNETT: There is not a definitive number on that.
Marama Davidson: Pēhea te mahi puruma atu i te raru ki raro i te whāriki, pērā ki te pūtea patipati ki ngā tāngata kia wehea atu i Tāmaki-makau-rau, he “comprehensive plan”?
[How is sweeping the problem under the mat, as in that obsequious fund for people to leave Auckland, a “comprehensive plan”?]
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, there is a massive, comprehensive plan when it comes to social housing, whether it is from the emergency housing places that are both providing new beds and funding those existing beds—the first time, actually, that any Government has ever funded the sector with certainty—to the special needs grants, which are now a true grant and not actually a loan, as it was for those in real dire circumstances; to reviewable tenancies where, through just them, we have seen more than 750 people move out of Housing New Zealand houses in order to free them up for people who are more in need, and more than 70 of them have gone and purchased their own home; to the policy of building more houses and seeing developments like I saw last week, where five Housing New Zealand houses are being removed for 18 new homes, where families will have a great start in life, right next to a primary school; it has got everything kind of going for it. Time does not allow me to go through the rest of our comprehensive plan.
Estimates Debate
In Committee
Debate resumed from 6 July on the Appropriation (2016/17 Estimates) Bill.
Primary Sector (continued)
IAN McKELVIE (Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. As I said in the few seconds I had last night when I was interrupted while talking about the travelling levy imposed on the taxpayer, the levy saved a significant amount of money for our taxpayers and significantly boosted the opportunity for border security and our biosecurity challenge at the border. We, of course, have quite a number of challenges around biosecurity, and, particularly, in the last year or so we have had challenges around velvet grass, fruit fly, and others, and it is very important that the Budget for this is maintained. Biosecurity is absolutely our priority, along with food security, in maintaining our export industries in New Zealand.
I want to talk about one or two other topics that I think are hugely important. One is the Crown investment irrigation fund, which amounts to some $102 million. When you look at the irrigation progress in New Zealand and you think about how any business in New Zealand, or any council in New Zealand, started its water schemes and you look at the manner in which these irrigation schemes are being, I guess, commenced, it is hugely important that there is some seed funding in place to make sure—
Denis O’Rourke: That’s not how they got started.
IAN McKELVIE: —that these schemes—the knowledgable man. It is hugely important that there is the opportunity for seed funding to fund the piece that we need to commence these funds. I congratulate the Minister for Primary Industries and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) on the initiative to get this under way. It is hugely important for New Zealand’s future and it is important for those schemes, but it also contributes significantly to our environmental challenges and the ability to improve the environmental outcome for those regions where these irrigation schemes take place.
I also want to talk briefly about food safety, which, along with biosecurity, is the other very important leg that props up and supports our food industry in New Zealand. Of course, our food industry completely relies on agriculture and the product of agriculture to ensure it keeps going. It is a very important part of the business of MPI and the primary industry sector.
I want to talk briefly also about the Primary Growth Partnership (PGP). We have got a significant fund in this area—some $720 million worth of Government funding and private investment contributing to some very good outcomes in this area, particularly around the Afforestation Grants Scheme, where we have another $22.5 million. Back to the PGP, there is some very exciting work being undertaken here. We have got Precision Seafood Harvesting, which has produced a great result for New Zealand. We have also got the Steepland Harvesting PGP Programme and some pretty amazing technologies being used in this area now, which is saving lives, encouraging efficiency, and certainly making a great difference to the way our forestry industry works. Of course, right at this moment in New Zealand the forestry industry is seeing some of its best prices probably ever for export logs, and is certainly giving encouragement to that sector in encouraging it to plant more trees as we go along.
The PGP, of course, as I have said, has had some $720 million worth of Government and private investment to date, and I think we are going to see a great result from that in due course.
Just on the issue of TB funding, which has had some changes this year—some $69.8 million worth of Government funding has been added to the TB challenge, along with the $30 million that we already had in this area, which has made quite a difference to this. But the point I really want to make is that the farmers’ contribution to this, on top of that, is another $150 million over the 4 years. So that is pretty much satisfactory. Thank you.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): The National Government—the farmers’ friends! Well, I bet that member Ian McKelvie over there, who is a farmer, is pleased he has got some off-farm income—if he was a normal farmer, that is. Never have confidence levels been as low as they are at the moment across the whole of the agricultural sector. The National Government has completely failed to offer any vision or any direction across agriculture. The horticultural sector might have been one exception, but the events of the last week have even put a cloud over that.
The issue is: what has National done with its funding? It has sprayed funding around the primary sector like some feral cat, trying to identify its territory and get support from every single sector by giving them a bit of money but providing them with no leadership and no direction. I will go to a recent article here from one of the Government’s cheerleaders, John Brackenridge. He has said—and I like what he says—that he would like New Zealand to be known as the best country in the world by being the best country for the world. Well, while we have child poverty, while we have homelessness, while we have students indebted to high levels, we cannot claim to be the best country for the world, and Mr John Brackenridge’s hopes and aspirations will fail under the current National Government.
I go to another recent document identifying some of the issues within the agricultural sector: the KPMG agribusiness report. It is a very good document—170 agribusiness leaders have come together and given their advice. The first bit of advice that they offer is that biosecurity is the No. 1 concern for all people across the primary sector. And what have we had recently? Well the Government claims that it has put more money into biosecurity. In fact, $100 million is coming from visitors to this country, in a levy being taken at a rate of $23 per visitor, to offset taxpayer funding. So the National Government is paying less money for biosecurity, and visitors to the country are supplementing that, and indeed, the system is still failing.
We have had blackgrass, velvetleaf, and now we have got weevils in pea seeds in Wairarapa and a eucalyptus leaf beetle—which the Government has tried to keep under wraps—offering real threat across the whole of the primary sector. That is just part of the failure of the biosecurity system under this National Government. People across agriculture see it as the No. 1 concern and they have every right to, because this Government has dropped the ball on biosecurity.
The second issue that farmers and foresters want to see under control is food safety. I am picking up this document—and later in this House today we will have a food safety bill that is the direct outcome of a massive failure in the WPC80 inquiry. Fonterra initially, through a mistake, and then Government agencies, through incompetence and a lack of funding, failed to identify the fact that there was not botulism in any WPC80, but our reputation across the world, at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, has, effectively, been tarnished. This Government has failed to put proper resources in where people deem them to be essential.
I will go on to the third issue, and that is about delivering market signals to producers. This is what KPMG has said. It has said that what this Government has refused to do is to provide any leadership across agriculture, particularly in the meat sector. My colleague here, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, has brought to the attention of the House today the fact that some of the Government’s own mates are overseeing a process that is, effectively, going to hand to Shanghai Maling over 50 percent in effective control of the biggest meat company in this country. Do you know what? That crowd over there want it to happen. They want it to happen. They will get their mates in the process to facilitate it because they want to sell any agribusiness they can into the hands of foreign investors because they believe that that is success. The failure to deliver any guidance, any leadership, across the meat industry is going to mean that New Zealanders lose control of the destiny of their meat. It is a massive failure of the current Government in the primary sector.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Land Information): E Te Tiamana e te whānau o Te Pāremata o Aotearoa, tēnei aku mihi mahana ki a tātou katoa i roto i Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori, kia ora huihui tātou katoa.
[Mr Chairman and the family of the Parliament of New Zealand, my warm accolades to us all in Māori Language Week, and so welcome to us all gathered here.]
I am delighted to stand and speak in this Estimates debate and outline some of the work of Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) for the 2016-17 year. Land information is one those portfolios that is fascinating in its breadth and in the scope of the work that it undertakes, whether it is charting the ocean floor, whether it is the maps that we use to get around the country, or whether it is some of the more interesting technical work it is doing currently with elevation data and things like light detection and ranging (LiDAR).
I thought I would take just a few moments to talk about some of the quite innovative and not just life-changing work that Land Information does. Its work is important not just to us as a country economically. It is becoming increasingly important in terms of our protection from threatening earthquakes and flood incidents, for example, with the data that Land Information has. I thought I would just use the time to outline some of the work and focus for the year ahead.
One of them is the vertical datum. LINZ has completed a 5-year project to improve our datum, which is a reference for measuring the height of land and its features. So, as a result of this work, planners and surveyors and engineers now have a consistent reference for measuring heights accurate to 3 centimetres. So in terms of flood risk, which I am sure the Committee will accept is a challenge that we are facing in the years ahead, it makes it easier for local authorities to share information about risk and ensure that vital infrastructure can be managed.
The LiDAR programme and the LiDAR data is three-dimensional information. So this is work, again, that central government is doing in partnership with local government that makes it more effective and more efficient for all of our citizens. It will help us to respond more quickly to natural disasters, such as flooding, but also can look at greater productivity in forestry and agriculture, which is, of course, incredibly important to those across the primary industries. We know how important the primary industries are to New Zealand. We know how important it will be if we look at the 50,000 new jobs expected in the sector between now and the year 2025, and using data, using evidence, to inform decisions and to enable businesses to grow, up and down this country, is fundamental.
I wanted to talk about some of the other areas that Land Information is involved with. One of them is clearly around pest management. In this Budget one of the areas of focus for the Government is on wilding conifer control, and Land Information is a contributing partner in that work. And for those of you who, for work or play, access our lakes, weed control is another aspect that Land Information will continue to work in. Those are the kinds of nuts and bolts things of Land Information.
The area that I think has the greatest opportunity to transform our country’s economy is in the vital work that Land Information does in open data. Hopefully, some of you will have come along to the open data showcase that we held here in Parliament. This is greater use and access of public data to enable three domains, really. The first domain is greater decision-making, both in local councils and in central government. It also enables the greater level of data that is shared across the country, and a greater participation and engagement with civil society, which I think is a fundamental part of making our country work better.
The third aspect of open data is the opportunity it creates for new businesses, and for businesses to crop up and grow. Just recently I had the opportunity to visit one of those companies that displayed here in Parliament, a company called ThunderMaps. It also has an office in Europe—in Sweden—and does work across the European Union. So I am really proud of the focus and the funding that we invest in Land Information in open data. It is a critical part of how we grow our country, how we enable citizens to participate through civil society, and how to ensure that our decision making is based on good data.
An example of that is the aggregate data that Land Information collects and provides to the Inland Revenue Department every time any property in New Zealand is sold. So for every single transaction—whether it is a house, a bare section, a commercial property, or a farm—we collect the Inland Revenue number and the data associated with the tax residency when that property transaction occurs. In the first 6 months 3 percent of every single transaction for property was associated with a person who had an overseas tax residency. So this data is really important in terms of informing future housing policy. Although we have got only the first 6 months so far—the next quarter will be due out later this month—my firm belief is that at the end of the 12 months of the first collection, this is hard evidence and hard data that our Government will be using to drive greater decision making and greater policy around housing. So this is a Government that is not just plucking names or figures out of the air. We will make our decisions based on hard data.
I did also want to touch on one of the other areas that is, of course, important to New Zealand and that is, of course, Smart Cities - Smart Nation technology. This is another area that is perhaps quite invisible to the general public in terms of the important work that Land Information does. This is the ability to have sensing technologies that are used in partnership with local government to monitor things like water quality, traffic and pedestrian movements, and to actually look at hazards in cities—whether it is people who are living on the streets or people who are causing trouble in particular areas—that cause a safety issue for members of the community. It is a project that LINZ is leading in association with Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch city councils, and it really is transformative in terms of the ability to use real-time data to react, to provide assistance and support, and to make decisions.
The final aspect that I do want to touch on is the Overseas Investment Office. Our Government is very clear that foreign investment is critical in terms of growing our economy. There would not be a member in this House who could not look at an example in their own area of where a business has changed hands or been supported, where new technology has come into their neighbourhood, and there has been the creation of jobs. I will also want to put on record that in some cases these transactions are not about just the creation of new jobs. In some cases they save jobs.
Some of the transactions that come before the Overseas Investment Office are situations where if the application was not approved, it could mean the loss of 100, 200, or 300 jobs in a local community. But I am clear that the way the applications work—the office considers 23 criteria in terms of whether or not the application or the proposal would benefit New Zealanders; that is the key part of it—there has to be a substantial and identifiable benefit to New Zealand. Whether it is a business changing hands of over $100 million—in some cases they are part of a multinational global transaction of which New Zealand is a small bit-part player. In other instances it is the opportunity to introduce technology to New Zealand that otherwise would not be here.
The fees review for the Overseas Investment Office that came into effect just on 4 July means that there will be a significant increase in the resources for the office. If you have got a potential overseas investor who wants to buy a business, then 6 months is really too long, and in some cases what is happening is those investors are going to Australia or elsewhere. That does not help New Zealanders and it does not help the opportunity for more New Zealanders to gain employment, new technology, and benefits for New Zealand. So that is important work that the office is leading.
EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E Te Tiamana, tēnā koe, ki a koutou huri noa i Te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. Ngā mihi o Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori ki a tātou katoa.
[Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman, and greetings to you all throughout the Chamber. Accolades of Māori Language Week to us all.]
I am pleased to take a call on the Primary Sector Estimates and I would like to talk about one of the things in Vote Lands that the Minister did not talk about, and that is tenure review in the Crown pastoral leases of the South Island. There was $51 million spent on this last year, and there is $131 million proposed for spending this year. In the Mackenzie Basin we have a collaborative group that the Government set up that reached an agreement about over 100,000 hectares of the Mackenzie Basin needing protection because of its high landscape and biodiversity values. We have seen a major expansion of dairying and irrigation in the basin, and a destruction of some of the major areas of the tussock grasslands and shrublands that give the basin its outstanding landscape character, and which attracts many of the tourists and provides habit for threatened species like the robust grasshopper and for a lot of braided river birds.
Yet, through Vote Lands and through tenure review, this Government is failing to ensure that we are protecting areas of the Mackenzie Basin, particularly on the basin floor, despite all the parties having come together and highlighted the need for this. We have seen tenure review on properties like the Wolds where virtually all of the pastoral lease is proposed for privatisation and freeholding, and this is despite the provisions in the Crown Pastoral Land Act, which provide for land of significant inherent values to be returned to full Crown ownership and management by the Department of Conservation. So once again, in terms of the way the Government is allocating funding, despite $121 million being provided in this vote for tenure review, that is likely to be going to leaseholders to allow only small areas to be protected as conservation land.
We have seen under this Government an increasing use of covenants rather than restoration to full Crown ownership and protection as conservation land. It is really disappointing because we have seen tourism grow, overtaking dairying in the primary sector in terms of the export returns, and yet areas such as Mount Mary on the Wolds, which provides an outstanding area to view the Mackenzie Basin and is a major area of ecological significance, landscape importance, and recreational value in terms of people being able to walk up to the summit, being proposed for freeholding. So tenure review is failing to achieve the objectives of the Crown Pastoral Land Act, in terms of protecting areas of significant inherent value.
I would also like to speak on what Vote Primary Industries and Food Safety is doing in terms of the area of irrigation. We had a previous speaker, the chair of the Primary Production Committee, talking about how Crown Irrigation Investments, the Crown’s irrigation company, is providing seed funding for some irrigation schemes. But we have a major portion of the vote, over $100 million, going to the Crown irrigation company as a major way of providing cash handouts to these irrigation schemes. That is public money that has been taken from the sale of our energy company and is now going into subsidising irrigation, allowing private sector interests, such as the big irrigation companies and landholders, to take a public asset—rivers, lakes, water from our aquifers—and, effectively, use that to privatise the benefits. They get the benefits of the increase in value when land is irrigated, and yet there is no resource rental to provide any return to the community.
So the Government is taking over $100 million for its irrigation company, instead of investing that money in much-needed research into better understanding the whole basis of our primary production sector—understanding soils, understanding how climate change is going to affect our primary sector, and understanding the distribution of pests. We need to understand our natural systems, which are the fundamental basis of our horticulture, primary production, fisheries, and all of those export sectors. Yet what do we have instead? We have the Government failing to recognise that a healthy environment is the basis of a healthy economy, and instead we have this massive spend on irrigation.
One of goals of the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) is to increase the number of hectares under irrigation by 220,000 hectares, and yet in the answers to select committee questions we saw quite clearly that even though the company is called Crown Irrigation Investments, this is not about getting a commercial return for the Crown; it is about handouts for irrigation. MPI said: “Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd’s focus is on investing in schemes that are expected to be commercially viable in the long term but the initial shortfall in irrigator uptake makes it difficult to fully source finance from the capital markets.” MPI would not disclose the commercial return that Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd is expected to get. It is said that that was commercially sensitive. So this is all about handouts.
We have got the Crown potentially investing in schemes like Ruataniwha, which TrustPower and Ngāi Tahu in 2014 decided was too much of a financial risk and that they were not going to get an adequate financial return so they would not invest. So all the funding for these schemes is likely to come from the public purse through the Crown’s irrigation company. ACC is reportedly part of a consortium to also invest in the scheme and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, through the Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Ltd, is also being forced to stump up public money for the scheme, which cannot attract adequate private sector investment.
It is a nonsense that this public money is being put at risk in such a scheme, particularly because it will have a significant impact on water quality, affecting the Tukituki catchment, the estuary, coastal processes, and significantly increasing nutrient pollution. One of the other interesting things that came back from MPI in response to select committee questions was that MPI does not take into account greenhouse gas emissions when it assesses applications for irrigation funding. We have seen the Irrigation Acceleration Fund now rolled into Crown Irrigation Investments with no account of the impacts on our climate, and this is when agriculture accounts for 47 percent of climate emissions, and this is when, for a successful agricultural sector, we need a stable climate.
We know that the risk of fires will increase as the climate warms. We know that pests will increase and their impact will spread. Yet the Government does not seem to be recognising the basis for a healthy sector. We need a healthy climate. So it does not even take greenhouse gas emissions into account. It does not take into account how these subsidies for irrigation are going to create climate pollution. We want a healthy primary sector. We want a stable climate to ensure that. That is why the Government’s priorities are all wrong, in terms of spending up large on irrigation and agricultural intensification while failing to take account of the impacts on the climate.
This Government is letting countries like Ireland get a march on New Zealand through its Origin Green scheme. Ireland has got thorough sustainability initiatives—which are accredited and which are audited—which all of their primary producers sign up to. But, instead, this Government’s goal in the primary space is simply to double exports by 2025 without ensuring that we are protecting our “100% Pure” green brand by ensuring that all of the industry looks at sustainability initiatives and that we invest in that rather than in handouts for more irrigation, more climate pollution, and more water pollution.
STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): That previous Greens speaker, Eugenie Sage, underlined the wisdom of putting in commissioners at Environment Canterbury, I think. So I would like to address a couple of matters that were raised there. There was $37 billion in exports earned from the primary sector, with a stretch target of $64 billion by 2025. It is a stretch target, and that is what we put a target in place for: to make it difficult to attain. It will be difficult to attain that. It will not be reached simply by doubling production; it will be reached by increasing value—so growing value over volume in a sustainable way.
I am very proud to be a part of the National Government, which is taking environmental issues sensibly and attacking them in the right manner, so—
Todd Barclay: Pragmatic.
STUART SMITH: —it is economically sustainable as well. It is pragmatic environmentalism—absolutely. I will come back to the growth targets in a little bit, but I want to touch on TB. I think bovine TB is a significant issue that is being tackled by the Government, and $70 million put up in this Budget to help eradicate TB in the next 4 years is a fantastic goal. To get rid of TB out of cattle and deer by 2026 is a difficult target, but one that is really worthy of trying to achieve.
We also have the goal of eradicating TB from infected wildlife by 2055, and that will be difficult to achieve, but it is also quite worthy to do that. I know from personal experience that having to destroy deer that were false positives is pretty disappointing for the farmer, particularly when you find out it is woody tongue and not, in fact, TB that the deer has reacted to. I might add that the tests have actually improved in the last few years.
There are other things that I would like to touch on. Wilding conifers—there has been $16 million over 4 years put into controlling wilding conifers. That is something that most people do not take a lot of notice of. But, particularly in places like the Mackenzie Country, it is quite insidious. It does not just change by growing a few trees that are unwanted on land that is not really economically viable to get rid of; it actually changes the whole landscape, and that affects everyone. I think $16 million will go a long way over 4 years to help deal with that problem, and I applaud that.
I want to now come to growing our exports to $64 billion. The Primary Growth Partnership (PGP) projects are going to help along the way. I also note that the organic sector, which used to be worth $70 million in 2002, has grown to $240 million. Organics is an important part of growing that value. Often it achieves a higher value, and that is what we are trying to do to grow our primary production to $64 billion. I know that is only a small part, but it helps to grow the brand. I really support that. One of the appeals I would give today is that the organics sector needs to become united to make it much easier for them to attract money from things like PGP. If they are not together it is very difficult to do that.
One of the other things that I would like to talk about is Lifestyle Wines, which is a PGP project. That is to enable the wine industry to produce low-alcohol wines in a way that does not detract from the full flavour and experience of the wine that the consumer likes to drink. It is about mouthfeel and other things. Often you lose mouthfeel with lower alcohol, because it does have a fattening impact on the palate. So it is quite an important thing.
The wine industry in the Marlborough region is growing significantly, and it is growing value, as I alluded to earlier. I have got this visual aid to demonstrate that. It shows the area planted in Marlborough overlaid over a map of Wellington, going all the way up to Upper Hutt—right through Trentham, right up into Upper Hutt. That is the area in green. The area in yellow is the proposed new plantings over the next 4 years. That is, in part, driven by the TPP, and we have got a great trade agreement there. That will help us to drive our growth. It is a great result.
RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): It is always a pleasure to follow from the previous speaker, Mr Stuart Smith. I have to berate him somewhat. As a fellow winemaker, Mr Smith, honestly, you can have low-alcohol or you can have wine.
I do want to touch on some of the comments of Ms Upston, one of my two favourite Ministers, even though she did use her call as an opportunity to apply some spin to the statistics, and continue the myth that foreigners are not coming in in droves and buying our farmland out from under us hand-over-fist. Investment is one thing; ownership is another. Simply changing ownership from a New Zealand owner to a foreign owner does not actually count as investment, particularly when there is nothing stopping the money that changes hands disappearing off to the Gold Coast, as I imagine quite a few of the sellers do.
It did raise an interesting point, because it sort of segued into what Eugenie Sage was saying about the changing face of the landscape. Obviously, some of that new money, I will call it—it is not investment—is going into converting land-use types. Of course, the tussock in the Mackenzie Country is not a natural landscape for that area; 2,000 years ago it was all tōtara forest. Now, of course, nature is trying to turn it back into pine forest, as we have seen with wilding pines, which, of course, the Government is putting money into and trying to eradicate in this Budget.
That in itself connects with irrigation, and New Zealand First is actually fully supportive of the Government’s stated intention of putting more money into irrigation start-up schemes. The difficulty with that, as I am sure my colleague Denis O’Rourke would attest, is not the schemes themselves but actually the difficulty is obtaining money from them for some of these schemes. In actual fact, the amount of capital that is needed by irrigation schemes to start up is minuscule in relation to the total cost of those schemes. What is really needed is a little kickstart to get the schemes over the line, because when that happens—most of the money that goes into them is private equity from farmers, as I am not sure is well understood, perhaps, in other parts of this side of the House, never mind the wider public. I do not really want to dwell on that.
The chair of the Primary Production Committee talked about biosecurity, and, obviously, Mr O’Connor spoke on that as well. We have heard many times that it is the single most important priority of the Minister for Primary Industries. Ian McKelvie said in his contribution that it is very important that we keep up the amount of money, the amount of expenditure going into biosecurity, which is why it is staggering to me that when you look at the expenses, revenue, and capital expenditure for biosecurity under Vote Primary Industries and Food Safety, revenue from the Crown for biosecurity has dropped by $16 million, and revenue for border biosecurity monitoring and clearance is down by another $18 million.
I know that the Government talks about the biosecurity passenger levy. That is going to take some time to ramp up, and even when it does it is only going to be a replacement stream of revenue for that service, not an increase in revenue for that service. So, whereas it could be argued at an ideological level that there is nothing wrong with passengers coming in and paying for their own biosecurity clearance, it is not actually additional investment by the nation in the vital activity of border biosecurity.
We know that we are not inspecting cargo that comes into this country at anywhere near the rate we should be. One in four containers, at best, gets inspected. There needs to be more money spent on that. We know that we are not succeeding with our biosecurity strategy, because we have threats coming through. We know that the green lane, for example, even if it worked up to 98.5 percent, which was the Government’s target, would still have let in 135,000 things that should not have got through the border in the last 4 years alone. Nothing is going to work other than a return to 100 percent screening, and that is going to take more money. I almost despair of raising the question of biosecurity with this Government because it has come to the point where it believes its own propaganda.
What it is going to take, I think, is 18 months and a change to a New Zealand First Government—and the next Government will be a New Zealand First Government in one shape, form, or another.
Todd Barclay: Ha, ha!
RICHARD PROSSER: Mr Barclay can chortle, but he is going to be looking for another job after the end of next year. It will be a New Zealand First Government in one shape, form, or another, and we will deal with this then.
I also want to touch on forestry, because, again, Mr McKelvie mentioned that log prices were as good as they have been for a long time. Actually, revenue from the sale of forest products from Crown Forest Industries Ltd is down by about $12 million. There are two things about that. I guess the Government will say it has reduced the size of forests, and maybe it has. But what on earth is the Government doing selling logs anyway? Surely, the whole thrust of “New Zealand Inc.” is that we should be selling value-added products, not simply logs.
What I really want to concentrate on is the anachronism that is the lack of importance this Government seems to afford to aquaculture and fisheries. We know that aquaculture is the way of the future in terms of feeding the planet. As the world’s population increases, and the amount of available land decreases, and as pressure to produce protein increases, we look increasingly to the sea. In fact, last year the tonnage of farmed ocean fish harvested globally exceeded the tonnage of wild-caught ocean fish harvested for the first time. So we know that not just here in New Zealand but all around the world ocean farming is becoming more and more important, and yet the amount of money, under the sustainable economic development of trade’s departmental output, and, again, the expenses the Government has put into aquaculture have dropped by half a million dollars. Under fisheries management, which we are told is, again, of vital importance, that has dropped management itself by at least $200,000 and fisheries enforcement and monitoring by nearly the same margin.
There is a divergence between the Government’s rhetoric and what it is actually putting on paper—what it is actually putting in the bank to make these things happen. Aquaculture is the way forward for New Zealand in the future, and New Zealand needs to be right at the cutting edge of this industry—the development of it, and support for it in all its aspects, be that fin-fish farming, shellfish farming, mussels, and oysters.
Salmon farming, of course, is the great El Dorado on the horizon. The market for farmed salmon is about 2.4 million tonnes. Norway currently produces around about half that. There is a potential for New Zealand. We have a unique species in this country, chinook salmon. Nobody else, apart from one small company in Canada, is farming it. We are doing it better than anybody else. There is a potential for us to supply about half the premium in that two and a half million tonnes. There is a potential for this country to have a $2.5 billion salmon farming industry. The Government is simply not putting any real effort, priority, or money into that. That is another failure on its part, and yet another thing that we will have to correct once we are the Government. Thank you.
BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. It is a pleasure to take a call today in this Estimates debate the Primary Sector—a sector that provides real value to our country. The target is to double the value of the primary sector to $64 billion by 2025, and the Government has taken a number of really important steps enabling it to do that.
One of the big steps was actually signing the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement because that is going to take a range of tariffs off and, particularly around kiwifruit and beef, there are some big wins. But we never want to underestimate what dairy got. Dairy did not get quite what it wanted, but, actually, there is still a value of $96 million in there for dairy. It is still a sizable chunk, and still the largest chunk that we got.
I want to mention the Primary Growth Partnership (PGP) programme today because there is some fantastic work going on there. The previous speaker, Richard Prosser, talked about aquaculture, but there is also some great—I commend the aquaculture projects because they are starting to go really well, but there is some excellent stuff going on with the Precision Seafood Harvesting. So this is the project that went on with PGP that actually allows the equipment to let the small fish out and only harvest the size of fish that we need. Not only is it more sustainable for the fishing but, actually, it is more cost-effective for the fishing industry to not be taking in a whole lot of fish that it does not need. One thing we do not need is waste in any of our food industries.
We also touched on bees before. You know, bees are actually having their time, and it is really good to see that industry coming together. The mānuka honey has got huge value in it. You know, it is important that, not only for that industry but what I am also seeing in our own industries, particularly with dairy when we look at sustainable agriculture, people are taking out of production the most difficult areas of their farm that are either close to water or not that great for putting dairy cows on, and planting areas of that into mānuka. So they are creating diverse agricultural systems. I am really pleased to see that PGP money going into mānuka honey.
TB—again, my colleague Stuart Smith mentioned TB. It is good to actually see $69.8 million of new operating funding going into that. It is really important now because we are actually going from containment of TB right through to planning for active eradication. Our global markets, particularly around beef, dairy, and deer, really hinge on our ability to be TB-free, so it is extremely important that we have really ramped up and stopped talking about containment and started to talk about total eradication instead.
The other things that are going to be extremely important to our primary sector are the new small-business packages. If you can imagine right now with the dairy payout going up and down, the provisional tax—you know, the whole thing is it can go up and it can go down. It is actually really difficult to get that in a sort of smooth cycle. So it is really important for people starting in those small businesses to actually be able to pay as they earn. It takes some of the sting out of having to get bridging finance and funding that provisional tax, when actually it is quite difficult to estimate out into the future how much actual terminal tax people are going to be paying.
I also want to commend the $212 million accelerating the 14 important State highway projects. A substantial amount of that money is being spent in my own Taranaki - King Country electorate. There has always been a difficulty, in terms of that road, in getting our products out of the Taranaki region. It is quite a road blockage with some winding, hilly parts of the road. It was never built for 600 trucks a day. Improvements on that road are going to help get out the products that we make—the quality products in Taranaki. Not only will it help the primary sector, it is actually going to help tourists get in and out as well.
I would also like to note the $100 million that is going to improve water quality. I really want to commend our farmers for the years of work that they have already done in terms of fencing off waterways, in terms of planting around waterways, and in terms of keeping those stock out of waterways. It is really commendable. There has been a huge amount of work done there. I know in terms of the Taranaki Regional Council I think there is some statistic like the amount of trees planted and fencing done would actually go from Taranaki to Auckland and back about 20 times, so the area is absolutely substantial. Thank you.
TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): It is a privilege to be able to speak in the Estimates debate for the primary sector. My electorate, the electorate of Clutha-Southland, is 38,000 square kilometres. It is the size of Switzerland geographically. We are made up of 34 towns and communities, and all bar two of them are towns and communities that service the primary sector. It is an incredible aspect of my electorate, and it takes up a lot of time visiting the various businesses, farmers, and individuals who are working in that space.
Before I start, I just want to acknowledge our Ministers from the Primary Production Committee. I want to acknowledge the Minister for Primary Industries, Nathan Guy; Associate Minister for Primary Industries, Jo Goodhew, who is also the Minister for Food Safety; and the Minister for Land Information, Louise Upston, and to commend them for their presentations to the select committee. You have got very robust and complicated portfolio areas. As a country we are significantly relying upon the work of your departments, and I think that we can be proud as a country that we have got some great leaders leading those departments.
I just want to make a few remarks about the Ministry for Primary Industries and its relation to my electorate. The first is I want to acknowledge its efforts regarding the velvetleaf recovery. The minute that that issue resonated in my electorate the Ministry for Primary Industries and Environment Southland worked incredibly hard to get around a large number of farms, surveying and canvassing the crops to make sure there was no infection from velvetleaf. I just want to acknowledge both Environment Southland and the Ministry for Primary Industries for their quick response and their community-centred effort around that. I think it is important to acknowledge departments like that when they are going through those sorts of rescue and recovery efforts.
Looking over the last 6 or 7 years, since the Ministry for Primary Industries has been the beast that I suppose it is, it is responsible for and it has got an oversight over a large, robust work programme addressing a number of long-term, complex challenges with regard not only to the primary sector but also to our economy as a whole. If you look at the complex environmental challenges it is tasked with playing a strategic role in—the social implications of the primary sector and its operations, the workforce capability issues that it is basically forced to try to assist industries to overcome over the medium to long term, and then career development for those who are working within the sector—it is incredibly important for regional New Zealand. The ministry in its presentation with the Ministers over Estimates gave us an oversight of a number of initiatives that it is undertaking quite actively with the sector to try to build that capability and ensure that we have got that going into the long term.
I note also the economic implications of global events. I want to remark on the dairy payout. Obviously it is quite a challenging time for all of our dairy communities across the country, but the resilience that our farmers and the banks are showing in coping with the challenge of the global events centred on the dairy payout is really remarkable. The Ministry for Primary Industries is playing a significant role in that. We heard from the Minister in the Estimates debate some of the initiatives that the ministry is taking to work closely with banks and with communities, particularly around mental health and the role that the rural support trusts are playing. It was pleasing to see as part of the Budget the increase in investment that we have put into the rural support trusts. There are a lot of people and a lot of agencies that play a significant role within the social fabric of our communities, but there is one that always stands out that is playing a significant role in helping communities and farmers through what is an incredibly tough time, and that is the rural support trusts. So I just wanted to acknowledge them and the Southland and Otago branches within that.
Looking at the other challenges that the Ministry for Primary Industries under the leadership of the Ministers is having to deal with, it was pleasing to see some of the initiatives within the Budget that can support that. One challenge is also around traversing and navigating an increasing range of complex partnerships, whether that be with iwi, councils—regional councils and district councils—across the country, or private sector investments through the Sustainable Farming Fund and various other funds that we have got in the primary sector, and also with international counterparts and the increasing role that the Ministry for Primary Industries is playing with our major trading partners across the world. It is interesting seeing over the last few years within the Budget the increased capacity that the ministry has been putting into our diplomatic or trading capacity overseas. It is important. It is our main industry, and we need to make sure that our main industry has those relationships as well. Thank you.
STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): E Te Tiamana, tēnā koe, ki a koutou huri noa i Te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. Ka tū au mō ngā Kākāriki ki te kōrero i roto i te tautohetohe mō ngā whakatau tata e pā ana ki te oranga tinana, oranga kai, oranga noho.
[Salutations to you, Mr Chairperson, and to you all throughout the Chamber. I stand on behalf of the Greens to speak in the Estimates debate relating to the healthy body, healthy food, and healthy living.]
I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak in the Estimates debate around healthy soil, healthy food, and healthy people—effectively, primary industries and food safety. In particular, I want to speak to the discussion on organics that was had at the Primary Production Committee with the Minister for Primary Industries and where we are going in this country in terms of the promotion of organic agriculture, horticulture, and primary production overall.
Mostly, we need to look at what the state of play is internationally and see whether we are missing an opportunity. In 2014 the international market was more than $100 billion. It is rocketing away still. In 2015, 83 percent of US families bought some organics, and Aotearoa New Zealand exported $250 million of certified organic products that year, an 11 percent increase on 2012. We are growing, but we are not growing anywhere near as fast as we would if this Government put in the resources that other Governments do to ensure that the benefits of organics are seen in both value for exports and the environmental benefits that we can expect.
Here in Aotearoa, supermarket sales of certified organic products raced up 127 percent to $167 million over those few years. Here, New Zealanders are prepared to pay more, if necessary, for organics, to some degree. It needs to be affordable, and the Government needs to get in behind that. Consumers want certified organic, and I add that they want GE- and GMO-free kai. GE-free is the fastest-growing label in the USA—the fastest. Organic is the next one down in terms of food. People over there, where they have been fully exposed to the risks and the poor nutritional quality of GE food, know it and yet we have still got people here pushing for it, and this Government is supporting some of it through the research funding. But where is it doing that for organics, where there is actually a growing demand?
I think we need to compare ourselves with Denmark. Denmark? It has not too many more people than New Zealand, has a similar agricultural focus, and has understood the benefits of going down the organic path. It carried on growing, even through economic recessions, and organic accounts for something like 7.8 percent of all food products sold there now. But what they are actually doing—the Government is getting in behind; it has got a target of 60 percent of all public food being organic. So it is doing it on a procurement basis, but it actually realises that there is a benefit. In Copenhagen, I think, organic food is over 80 percent at this point, already, of the publicly available food. Restaurants, canteens, and public institutions have doubled their sale of organic in the last 3 years, but, of course, Denmark is also realising an enormous benefit in terms of exports.
I would like to see New Zealand go down that path, and I would like to see the Government actually get in behind it instead of talking about divisiveness within a sector that, actually, is not as divided as is being made out. Even should it be, there is no reason why the Government should not be getting in there and supporting that sector to get going. It does not even have the advantage of commodity levies like other sectors, and yet the Government is expecting it to play up to a certain a level when it could actually be getting in behind.
Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Thank you.
Votes agreed to.
Social Development and Housing Sector
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, we come now to votes in the Social Development and Housing Sector, volume B.5, volume 10. The question is that Vote Building and Housing and Vote Social Development stand part of the schedules.
ALFRED NGARO (Chairperson of the Social Services Committee): E Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. I rise to take a call on this Estimates debate in regard to Vote Social Development, and because we have the Minister for Building and Housing, who will be speaking, I will focus my comments and my approach on the Vote Social Development component. There is a saying that a country, a community, and a society will be judged by the way that it cares for its young and for its old—
Carmel Sepuloni: Well, then, that Government’s failed.
ALFRED NGARO: —so that has got to be really important. Although the member has just made that statement, I think she needs to go back and read her own history to realise that actually, we will all be judged—we will all be judged by that. My comments are that in regard to that saying, we need to look at what it is that we are doing under this Government in regard to caring for the young and for the old in regard to social development.
The whole thrust of the social investment strategy is around looking at the whole picture of the whole system. It is not just turning round and saying: “The people that we’re servicing are part of the problem. We need to get better at servicing them.” It actually stops and says what a Productivity Commission report turned round and said: that when we look at the system as a whole there are important aspects of the way we deliver that service that need to be transformed and changed. A social investment strategy means that it targets the individual. It targets them and looks at the aspirations that they have. That is the approach that this Government is taking, and it is highlighted, also, in its Budget of 2016.
So the social investment package is an overall package of $652 million. It overhauls the New Zealand childcare protection system. I have previously been a part of childcare protection panels. I have been involved as a community worker in a number of cases, which were behind complex needs situations, family group conferences—the whole issue. I have even been involved in an advisory committee around the blueprint approach. In all of those, I have been a part of what they called 14 different reviews of the sector. In that regard, it has not shifted or changed anything. What this Government has done, under this Minister, the Hon Anne Tolley, is to say that it is about time we do not just have another review. In fact, in the Estimates hearing, what we did have was that a number of officials said of those 14 different reviews that they just added another layer of complexity; it was not making a difference. We can say that by overhauling the system, we know that it is making a difference to that.
Budget 2016 includes $347.8 million for care and protection services, to ensure that we transform the system to ensure that it does care for our children—for our young people, who are in that system as well. It has five key core services in the new operating model: prevention, intensive intervention, care and support, transition of care—that becomes critically important. We have approximately 61,000 children who come into the notification of Child, Youth and Family. We have 64 percent of those who are known. Those statistics have not shifted or changed. Under this Government, we are ensuring that we are changing that. We are seeing that change happen because of the system and the care that we are taking to ensure that happens. Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr Chair—$144.9 million of that over 4 years will meet the cost of cost pressures to allow for an increase in the demand for services, to make sure that our children and young persons are cared for as well.
We know that the results of that have already been proven. The latest valuation has shown that the number of those who are on welfare has been reduced. This means that there are 900,000 fewer future years on benefit for clients. The number of people on benefit has fallen below 280,000, which is below the number from the global financial crisis in 2008. We are continuing to see that momentum change. These are the facts; these are the figures we know that are truly making a difference, Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr Chair. I think that is critically important as well.
There is $61.2 million to expand youth services. The transition and the duty of care are currently before the House. That is another initiative to ensure that we raise the age of the duty of care from 17 to 18. This, again, is an initiative that has been taken on by this Government. It has heard the submissions that have been made. We think they are significant as well. There is $26 million to maintain the targeted case management to 120,000 clients to fund through the work initiative as well. We think that is significant as well.
Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr Chair—I keep saying “Mr Deputy Speaker, Mr Chair”; you are one and the same. We know that the Ministry of Social Development provides services and support to over 1 million New Zealanders; 140,000 families are included in that. We think that is important. The Government expenditure is $24 billion over that period of time, and we know that there is $12.9 billion in superannuation and $7.3 billion in benefits alone and other related expenses. We believe that the Budget that has been allocated and the overhaul of the system—not just another review, a significant inner change—are showing that we are listening to key stakeholders. Thank you.
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): This Government claimed that it has a comprehensive housing strategy. That is laughable—laughable. To the Government the term “comprehensive housing strategy” is just a name, not a reality. If it had a strategy we would have heard about it years ago, because strategies are long term. In fact, it is just a term that has been invented by the National Government in the last few days, purely for political spin purposes. Everybody in this country knows that this Government does not have, and never has had, a housing strategy, let alone a comprehensive one. That is the truth of the matter.
Even if it were a strategy, it would be clearly one that has been aimed at accelerating house prices to over a million dollars in Auckland, and having them rise steeply in other parts of the country. It would also be a strategy characterised by a design for skilled workers to be forced out of Auckland, where they are needed most, because they cannot afford a home. It would be one that tolerates people living in cars, tents, and under bridges, and that sort of thing.
When you look at the Estimates—
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Oh, thank you!
DENIS O’ROURKE: Yes, I have looked at the Estimates, Mr Chairman.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Let’s talk about them.
DENIS O’ROURKE: And when you do that you see this. You see that what I am saying is absolutely true, because what it provides for is this: a total of $257 million over 4 years. That is an average of about $64 million per year. But of that, $200 million, or an average of $50 million per year—the lion’s share of it—is to top up the income-related rent subsidy. So that is absolutely nothing new. There is nothing strategic about that at all; it is just business as usual.
In addition to that, there is $41 million for emergency housing, again, over 4 years. That is only about $10 million per year, and, in fact, Minister Bennett admits that all that will do is maintain the status quo for emergency housing. Emergency housing is needed, of course, because this Government has not actually got a housing plan or strategy, so it needs emergency housing, which should not be necessary if there was an adequate housing plan in the first place. It is just a band-aid at the bottom of the cliff. It is not even an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, just a band-aid. The $10 million per year will not go very far for emergency housing. It is just a bit more money to put people into more motel rooms while the panic continues over how they should be housed properly. So there is no strategy, no genuine plan.
New Zealand First also objects to this other provision in the Budget, which is one entitled “Growing the Māori Housing Network”. That is a fund allocated at $3.15 million per year for 4 years—a total of $12.6 million—for “repairing and building homes for whānau living in substandard accommodation, including emergency housing”. It should not be necessary to have a separate budget provision for housing for Māori. The truth is that people in this country who cannot afford housing, cannot find a place to live in, need to be assisted, whether they are Māori or Pākehā—whatever their race may be. It is wrong to allocate funding like that, according to race, and New Zealand First strongly objects to that.
What New Zealand First does want is what the Government is not actually providing, which is a genuine long-term housing strategy. That is something we believe needs to be done independently of the political process, by a housing commission. It needs to be based on a much, much greater degree of direct Government investment in housing: by way of the Government providing the funds for the purchase of land where it is needed for residential housing; by seeing that that land gets developed; and by selling sections and built houses on easy terms to first-home buyers directly, probably on a subordinated loan basis so that the people could still go and get a bank loan if they wished, as well. So that is the kind of policy we see as being necessary.
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): The Estimates contain a very long list of piecemeal, tinkering housing policies and grudging half measures, and I want to go through some of those with the Committee. But I have to say, first, that it has been quite something to watch the Government’s housing woes come to a head in the last few days, when it announced a billion-dollar loan to councils for new infrastructure for housing development.
I want the Committee to imagine the brains trust of the National Government’s housing policy. Paula Bennett, Nick Smith, and Bill English are sitting around the table in a scene from the Austin Powers movie, with Nick Smith as some kind of Dr Evil, with hair, with his little pinkie out, going “A billion dollars—bwahahahaha!”.
It is true that the billion-dollar loan promise did generate one or two headlines, but it did not take very long for the pundits and the critics to unpick this latest piece of piecemeal tinkering from the Government and to point out, not unkindly—and David Seymour, the Government’s subsidiary brand and the sole member of the ACT Party in this House, was unkind enough to point out to his coalition partner that all the Government was doing was changing the lender, because councils can borrow that money any time they like, almost as cheaply as the Government can. The Government’s entire policy—the so-called billion-dollar policy—was simply changing the lender. Someone else also pointed out that instead of being a billion-dollar policy, it was a $25 million to $30 million policy, because that is the cost of the interest payments that councils were being given a temporary holiday from, and of course they have to pay back that money.
So it just illustrated that the whole country is desperately waiting for solutions. It is waiting for a Government that will admit that there is a housing crisis and that the plummeting rates of homeownership in this country are a national disgrace. The fact that we have got children as young as 11 sleeping under bushes on the side of the roads—
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): It is not a general debate. Come to the Estimates.
PHIL TWYFORD: —thank you, Mr Chairman—is a cry from the heart for some serious policy that will actually do something meaningful about the housing crisis.
What is the Government doing? Let us talk about some of the things, because the Ministers love to talk about this comprehensive housing plan. Well, what does the comprehensive housing plan include? Well, in the area of emergency housing, it includes flying squads that do not exist—flying squads that, actually, have never existed. They are simply officials from the Ministry of Social Development doing the job that they are normally paid to do. There were no flying squads. And Paula Bennett made it even worse for the Prime Minister when she advised him that Government officials had gone out with the Salvation Army and knocked on the doors of cars at Bruce Pulman Park in South Auckland. Well, that never happened, and it has now entered political folklore.
We have got emergency housing grants in the Estimates from Paula Bennett that are supposed to cover the cost of 7 days in a motel, because Paula Bennett’s solution to the housing crisis is to block book motels. That is what it has come to in this country. A country that once prided itself on putting a decent roof—having a warm, dry home for all families in this country, and now we have got Paula Bennett block booking motels. Her big announcement recently was that she was going to let people off for the first 7 days, but what we know, from the Government’s own officials, is that it takes—
Carmel Sepuloni: 155 days.
PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you, Carmel Sepuloni. The average length of time is 155 days. That is 5 months that it takes the Government to find housing for homeless people, and yet Paula Bennett, out of the generosity of the taxpayer’s heart, is going to let people off the first 7 days. Well, the Government’s own figures tell us that that is going to lumber these homeless families with bills of between $25,000 and $35,000.
Alfred Ngaro: I don’t know about those figures.
PHIL TWYFORD: Alfred Ngaro, who is the Government’s sort of self-styled human face of its disastrous and punitive social policies, who is the chair of the Social Services Committee, had to front up to the television cameras yesterday and explain why the National Government would not support a cross-party inquiry into homelessness. How embarrassing—how humiliating.
We have seen a whole lot of other policies from Nick Smith. We have seen special housing areas, where he promised 39,000 houses in Auckland—very few of them are affordable—and the Government has built only a thousand of them in nearly 3 years. It is a total and utter failure. That is the centrepiece of the Government’s supply side initiatives in Auckland.
Two Budgets ago it promised to reduce the cost of building materials, because we are paying too much in this country for the building materials like Gib board and roofing material and concrete. Nick Smith promised to knock $3,500 off the cost of building materials for a new house. Well, what happened as a result of that policy? Building material prices went up by more than the $3,500 he had promised to save—a complete sham and a fiasco.
We have got the National Government, in this financial period we are talking about, selling off State houses to merchant bankers, public-private partnership investors from the UK, and offshore companies, in the middle of a housing crisis. It is not content to just leave thousands of State houses empty, and it is not content that it has sold down the number of State houses by 2,500 since 2011 while families are living in cars and garages, but it is persisting with its misguided mission to flog off thousands of State houses, and it does not care who buys them. Merchant bankers, property investors—you name it, they are all lining up to get their snouts in the trough.
We have got the brightline test that was supposed to crack down on property speculation. It has had zero effect. I hope members of this Committee saw the recent QV figures that came out. House prices in Auckland are going up faster now than at any time in the last 12 years.
Louisa Wall: 15.4 percent.
PHIL TWYFORD: 15.4 percent in the last year; thank you, Louisa Wall. The housing market in Auckland is out of control because everything this Government does has failed. It has had no effect. I think it is interesting, if people saw Fran O’Sullivan’s piece in the New Zealand Herald a couple days ago, which was titled “Why won’t Key act on housing?”. That is what Fran O’Sullivan asked. She said he is giving baby boomers a bad name.
Bernard Hickey wrote a very interesting piece this morning, a very insightful piece. It said that John Key had taken a tactical, poll-driven approach to the housing crisis for the first few years. It said that he was just looking at the housing crisis and thinking “Well, people are getting richer. Their house prices are going up.”, oblivious to the powerful speculative forces that are at play in the Auckland housing market. And now they are utterly out of control. It takes 50 years now to pay off the average house in Auckland. It is a disaster. We have the lowest rates of homeownership—the lowest rates of homeownership—in 65 years. We have families living in cars and garages, and this National Government is in total denial because it does not believe there is a housing crisis. Apparently it is a challenge; it is not a crisis.
This Government is so out of touch that the Prime Minister thinks—and I think this is why the Prime Minister has not acted on this. If there is one thing that this Prime Minister stands for, it is that he likes to see people making lots of money. When John Key sees speculators getting rich in the Auckland housing market, he has got the Gordon Gecko motto—he thinks greed is good. Let us not get in the way of people making a killing at the expense of Generation Rent. Never mind that Monte Cecilia Housing Trust has to close its doors because it does not have enough emergency housing for all the people who need it.
This Prime Minister is so out of touch with the aspirations of ordinary New Zealanders that he does not think the housing crisis is a crisis. He thinks it is OK that people are getting wealthy at the expense of the half of the population who are living in rental accommodation.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): So back to the Estimates.
PHIL TWYFORD: The entire list—this catalogue of piecemeal tinkering that we see in the Estimates debate—of grudging half-measures that this Government wheels out almost every week are deliberately designed to make it look as if the Government is doing something about the housing crisis while it is doing as little as possible.
I want to come back to where I started, which is the billion-dollar promise to fund infrastructure for new development. On the surface it looks like a lot of money—a billion dollars—but what we need to do is change the way that we finance infrastructure for development. We need to better manage urban growth and stop the artificial restrictions that are driving land prices so high. What the Government should have done is introduce genuine reform to the way infrastructure is financed and adopt Labour’s plan to allow bond financing of infrastructure, paid back by a targeted rate. That would make a difference.
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Following on from my colleague Phil Twyford, I just want to restate a fact, and that fact is that there is a housing crisis in New Zealand, and no matter what National says, New Zealanders know that that is the case.
There are many examples from the Estimates hearing that I am going to refer to in my speech, but before I even go there, I want to give a very recent example of why and how we know we have a housing crisis in New Zealand. I have just got a written question back from the Minister for Social Housing. My question was simple: “What is the definition of homelessness?”. And the response I got was: “I am unable to provide an answer within the time frame that the member requires.” All I wanted was a definition, and the fact that they cannot provide that answer within the time frame makes us question how on earth Alfred Ngaro and the National Government could vote against having a homelessness inquiry, especially when the terms of reference that we put up—
Alfred Ngaro: In the 48th Parliament Moana Mackey did it—OK?
CARMEL SEPULONI: —included defining homelessness, Mr Ngaro. So Mr Ngaro—
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): So back to the Estimates debate. This is not a general debate.
CARMEL SEPULONI: I am going to go back to the Estimates debate and I am going to talk a little bit more about how we know we have a housing crisis, and the Government’s response to that.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): You are tying it to the Estimates, of course.
CARMEL SEPULONI: We had the Minister Anne Tolley come to the select committee for the Estimates hearing, and she was questioned in detail about her role in respect of the housing crisis and the special-needs grants, in particular. The Government has announced that it will be putting an extra $9 million towards emergency accommodation, with the purpose of addressing the very real housing crisis that we have. But when asked what the numbers are in terms of the money that the Government has spent on emergency housing, she said: We don’t collect that data.” When asked “How then does she know that $9 million is the right amount of money to inject into the special-needs grant to address the emergency housing crisis?”, she had no answer. When the Minister was asked “Does she therefore recognise, because an extra $9 million is going in, that the need for emergency housing has increased significantly?”, her response was: “No.” That makes no sense. Why, then, put extra money in there? Why, then, is every other New Zealander out there, apart from anyone sitting in the National Government benches over there—why, then, do we all know that this is the very real reality?
We had both Paula Bennett and Anne Tolley come to the select committee, both of them answering questions about the housing situation, and one of the things that came up was that the Government is so proud of the fact that it is going to inject some funding towards providing 7 days’ free emergency accommodation for anyone who presents as homeless and requires emergency accommodation. They told us that the reason they were paying for 7 days is that their report says that that is the average stay that people are staying in emergency housing. I got a Cabinet paper last year that said the average stay is 10 days, and it was a Cabinet paper, yet Paula Bennett and Anne Tolley say it is 7 days. But on top of that I then got a written question back about a week ago that says that it is taking the Government 155 days—155 days—to house a homeless person. Actually, that sits about right with me, because the people whom I have coming through my office who are accessing emergency accommodation through Work and Income are staying in there for months. It is not a matter of a week or 10 days; it is months. One recent case covered by The Hui on TV3—5 months for this family. This was a couple with four children, staying in motel accommodation. They now have thousands of dollars that they have to pay back, and it is unacceptable that the Government continues to allow that to happen.
We had a discussion at the select committee about housing and also about the debt in relation to emergency accommodation, and the debt overall. What should be disturbing for most New Zealanders is that debt from Work and Income clients has significantly increased under this National Government. The Government would like New Zealanders to think that all of that debt is sitting in the benefit fraud category. But actually that is the smallest category of all the debt. The real concern is with the debt that is in overpayments, which comes down to administrative errors by the Government’s ministry.
The other area of concern was, of course, the recoverable cost side. We have asked the Minister and the ministry to go away, and come back and tell us how much money people are actually being charged and how much money the Government is forking out in loans for these people, in respect of that emergency accommodation. We had Paula Bennett come to the select committee and tell us that one of the Government’s responses to the housing crisis will be to pre-purchase motel rooms. As far as we are concerned, that is an admission of defeat. That is not a plan; that is just saying that actually we have no plan to resolve this issue, and so what we are going to do is try to make those motel rooms a little bit cheaper than what they have been to date.
Even the Minister, when we said to her—the Minister for Social Development now; I am talking about Anne Tolley—that 7 days was not enough, given the length of stay that people would require, said the reason that it had to be 7 days was that other people might require that place; other people might require that room. That was her answer, and it is in the transcript. What a silly, silly answer from that Minister. What do you do? Do you say: “OK, your 7 days are up. Sorry, family, now you have to go and live in a car.”? Is that the response the Minister is going to give? She may as well be saying that, because we know that it is not going to take 7 days to house these families; it is going to take, on average, 155 days. So the Government’s response to date has been abysmal.
I think one of the things it comes down to, in respect of John Key, the Prime Minister, is that he has made a crucial mistake with regard to this housing issue. He has assumed that those who already own houses will be greedy enough and just self-focused enough to care only about the fact that they have got their foot in the housing market; they have got their home. But actually what we are finding is that New Zealanders do care about the number of people who are homeless. New Zealanders do care about this generation, Generation Rent, who are unable to get into their own home. The National Government and John Key have underestimated the ability of New Zealanders to actually care about those who do not have as much as them.
That Government is out of touch, and I want to just say that it does not have a comprehensive plan, despite the fact that it keeps trying to tell New Zealand that it does. Labour does have a comprehensive plan, and it was great today to see the announcement of $60 million going to over 5,000 places for people who are homeless, so that they will have a roof over their heads. That is a part of a comprehensive plan, and it would be great if the Government could follow suit and actually listen and maybe learn from what the Opposition has to offer.
The Government is out of touch. We have rising levels of demand for everyday houses, and what we hear from organisations like citizens advice bureaux is that the situation with regard to homelessness has become distressing. That is the point. This is not just about the issue being some sort of political football. The issue is we have increasing numbers of New Zealanders who are in this distressing situation who do not have the fundamental thing that, as New Zealanders, we know we have the right to—that every New Zealander should have the right to—and that is a home. We have increasing numbers of New Zealanders who are living in cars and living in garages. We know, from the ministry’s own numbers, that two-thirds of the people who have been homeless—according to the statistics that the ministry has—have at least one or more children. Those people are living in cars and living in garages. It is unacceptable that the Government has continued to allow that to happen.
There is nothing that was put up at the Estimates hearing by Paula Bennett or Anne Tolley that came close to even addressing the issues that we are facing as a country, with this very real housing crisis. The first step really would be for the Government to acknowledge that we are in the midst of a housing crisis. The second thing that would have been great is for the Government to support the homelessness inquiry that we proposed, particularly given the fact that it cannot even answer the simple question with regard to what the definition of homelessness is. Government members are too scared to answer that question or to go down the track of an inquiry, because what will happen is that they will be exposed for having been wrong this whole time that the debate around the housing crisis has been taking place.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I am delighted to take a call on the Estimates for this year in the area of building and housing, and to talk about the Government’s plans around dealing with the issue of supply, dealing with the issues of the quality of New Zealand housing, the issue of affordability, and the issue of homeownership.
I think it is very important that we have this debate in the context of some of the challenges that we have. The truth is that we have the lowest interest rates in 50 years. That is, actually, for the vast bulk of New Zealand. If you look at the independent indexes from Massey University, if you look at the indexes from interest.co.nz on the affordability of homeownership, those record low interest rates actually mean that housing is a lot more affordable today in the vast bulk of New Zealand—
Carmel Sepuloni: No one believes that. No one believes that.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —than it was when we were elected to Government. The member interjects. Well, go and have a look at the indexes that are produced by Massey University, because that member is denying a fundamental fact. When we came to Government, interest rates averaged 10.5 percent. Today interest rates average 4.8 percent. That is a very substantive drop in interest rates, which is so crucial to those families who are out there actually meeting their mortgage repayments.
The second thing that is true is this: New Zealand is doing well, and we have net levels of immigration that are the highest ever for our country. If everything was as bad as members who have just spoken from the Opposition say, why is it that a record number of New Zealanders are choosing to come home and build their future here? What we see in that report that I attempted to release in the House today—it is up on the website—is that—
Grant Robertson: Ha! You told us it wasn’t.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No—I put it up on the website because I was denied leave in the House, Mr Robertson. I would invite you to have a look at it, because what is going on in New Zealand right now is that we are doing well. As a consequence more New Zealanders are choosing to come home, and as a consequence that is putting more pressure on the housing market.
The third part of the equation is that New Zealand has very high economic confidence. That is, people feel good about the economy, they are prepared to invest, and that is providing very strong growth. Let us, firstly, deal with the issue of supply, because we know from the experience in Christchurch that supply is the ultimate answer. If you take house-building right now in New Zealand—$18 billion of construction activity across New Zealand right now—it is at an all-time high. It is 30 percent above the highest peak that previously occurred more than a decade ago.
So when members of the Opposition stand up and say “Oh, there’s no houses being built. There’s nothing happening.”, I say: look at the record levels of house-building activity. Look at the record numbers of people who are billed in the industry. Look at the record number of people who are in apprenticeships. Those members know in their heart of hearts that there are more houses being built today than there has been in many decades, and that is part of the answer.
Grant Robertson: What percentage is affordable? What percentage is affordable?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I remind Mr Grant Robertson, who is chipping in about the issue of affordability, that, actually, during the last Government, house prices more than doubled. What did the last Labour Government do in response to that doubling of house prices during its watch—
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will resume his seat. I think he was actually in the House yesterday when there were rulings from both Chairs around focusing on the Estimates of expenditure and not having an excessive look backwards, which may or may not be appropriate for a review.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I want to come to the issue of quality of housing, because, actually, there is not just record growth in the number of houses that are being built but we have actually been ensuring Kiwis have access to homes that are of quality. In this year’s Estimates, for the very first time—
Carmel Sepuloni: They stuffed that one up too, didn’t they?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, let me again remind the member of the record, and I just simply say: how many homes are we insulating as a Government? What provision is made in this year’s Estimates to make sure we continue that progress? The truth is, in the term of this Government, more homes will be insulated and at a better quality than has ever been the case in our country.
Last week we passed the smoke alarms legislation. Do you know, in the very first of that legislation, lives have been saved? Lives have been saved in Wanganui, where a landlord specifically said they bought a smoke alarm as a consequence of the advertising that is provided for in these Estimates, and young families and lives were saved—as a consequence of this Government’s move on quality. There was a very similar incident in Westport just 2 days ago, again, where lives were saved as a consequence of this Government’s initiatives around improving the quality of the housing.
On 1 July this year with the funding that is provided here for the very first time my ministry has a compliance and enforcement unit to ensure the quality of New Zealand housing.
Grant Robertson: What about heating?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, the member, Grant Robertson interjects. I simply say to him: what did any previous Government do in this space? Zip—absolutely nothing. We are a Government that is providing for enforcement and compliance standards, and that is something—
Grant Robertson: Insulating cold houses—that’s a great idea. Heating?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, the member does not even understand the rules. Actually, the housing regulations right now, Mr Robertson, require heating.
Grant Robertson: Do they? Are you enforcing that?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: They do. And here is the answer: up until 1 July the law did not allow it. It was a National Government that passed the law that allows the enforcement of the regulations to actually ensure that our standards get up to a minimum standard.
These Estimates also provide for the HomeStart scheme. In my role as Minister for Building and Housing do you know what issue I get more letters on than anything else? It is around the number of New Zealanders, off the back of the KiwiSaver scheme and the HomeStart grants, who are getting the opportunity to buy their own home. That programme—a programme of $430 million of grants—is the most generous support that any Government has provided in a generation for people to be able to get into homeownership. In the first year over 12,000 New Zealanders have taken up that opportunity. The numbers in these Estimates provide for even more in this year.
It is a good scheme, and do you know what the biggest risk is for those New Zealanders who are working hard and saving hard under KiwiSaver with the Homestart scheme? It is that Labour has promised to scrap that scheme, and that would be a tragedy, because it is actually one of those things that is making a real difference for Kiwi families who are wanting to own their own home. Also provided in these Estimates is funding for the Crown land programme—another $100 million—and this week the announcement was made about using 10 hectares of land that is currently with the Counties Manukau District Health Board and producing that into housing.
It is very interesting to look at the amount of houses that are in the pipeline and actually being built, because the truth is this—and the members opposite will not acknowledge it—this Government is building more houses than any Government in 25 years. That is the truth. Let me give you the numbers. We are using a billion bucks of Housing New Zealand investment. Do you know what the peak was under the last Labour Government? Not more than $500 million. So the amount of money that is being invested by Housing New Zealand in its own properties is more than double.
We had the programmes at Hobsonville. Let me tell you about Hobsonville. The first sod was turned in 2002. It was the only sod that was turned in the term of the Labour Government. Already we have over 600 houses built on that site, and houses are being built on that site at great guns. You go to a site like Waimahia, a project that we have done in South Auckland where a new house is being completed every 3 days—every 3 days.
Peeni Henare: Ha!
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member chuckles. I challenge him. Will he visit Waimahia and acknowledge that houses are being built? Do you know what happened to that block of land during the term of the last Labour Government, when house prices doubled? That land sat vacant, absolutely unused for every year of that 9 years, and that truly is a tragedy. Whether you look at the project for Tāmaki, whether you look at the other huge investment that is going on in housing, members have to acknowledge that whether it is the Government or whether it is the private sector, there are record levels of building activity across New Zealand.
The very last area is an area that I want to acknowledge is under pressure. We are building so many houses there is actually real pressure on quality. The Auckland councils and other councils are really struggling. So these Estimates provide for a big investment in building standards. We have got to make sure we are building more houses, but we have to make sure that they are of quality. That is done in terms of investments in the building code and also in building standards.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): E Te Tiamana, ko taku tino hiahia kia whai i ngā kōrero o Te Minita, ā, ka tīpako i tērā o ngā korero: “Kei runga te kōrero, kei raro te rahurahu.” He maha ngā rahurahu i roto i ēnā korero. E māharahara ana au i taua wā i haria ātu ai ngā kairīpoata ki ngā māra me tōna kī ake: “Anei ngā wāhi ka whakatū i ngā whare maha mō ngā tāngata kei Tāmaki-makau-rau.” A, ka aha, ka aha? Ahakoa tana kōrero, e hiahia ana ki te whakatū whare, he aha te utu o aua whare? Nā wai i whiwhi? Ēhara nā te hunga rawakore! Ēhara nā te hunga pōhara. Ēhara i a rātou e tino hiahia ki te hoko whare. Mō tētehi atu kē! Tērā pea, ko te 1 paihēneti o ngā tāngata e whai rawa ana ki te utu aua whare.
Tēnei anō te korero: “Ka mate kāinga tahi, ka ora kāinga rua.” Ēngari i tēnei wā: “Ka mate kāinga tahi, ka mate kāinga rua.” Ka aha? Ka tuwhera ngā kuaha o Te Marae o Te Puea, me ō rātou ngākaunui, kia kuhu mai te hunga pōhara, rātou kore kāinga ki roto i tērā o ngā marae, kei te poho o tērā marae nā runga i te aroha. Karekau he āwhina i tēnei Kāwanatanga ki a rātou. Tēnā pea, me āta whakaarohia tērā, ahakoa te kōrero o Te Minita; he maha ngā tāngata kāinga kore kei ngā tōpito katoa o tō tātou nei whenua, me mutu tērā atu tūāhuatanga.
Ka pai te kōrero o Te Kāwanatanga, me te maha o ngā tahua pūtea kia tukuna atu mō tēnei kaupapa o te whare ēngari, ko te mutunga ake, kei ngā tāngata ngā kōrero whakamutunga, kei ngā tāngata ngā kōrero mutunga. Ko ētehi o ngā kaupapa kua puta mai i waenganui i ō tātou nei hapori, he nui rawa atu te utu i ō rātou nei ake whare, i Tāmaki, Rāhuipōkeka, Kirikiriroa, Heretaunga, kei ngā tōpito katoa o te motu. He nui te utungia i ō rātou nei whare.
Tēnā, me hoki au ki te kāinga, tērā o ngā wahine i noho i roto i tōna whare mō ngā rua tekau tau. He kairēti i raro i te maru o Kamupene Whare. Ko tōna tino hiahia, kia hoko i tana whare. Anā, ka mea atu a Ministry of Social Development, 90 days ka tukuna koe! Ko tōna āwangawanga: “Ei, e rua tekau tau i noho au i roto i tōku whare ēngari, karekau he wāhanga māku kia hoko, kia utungia taku whare. He aha te tino take o tērā? Ka tono atu au ki te koporeihana, ka whakawhiti ki te Ministry of Social Development.” Koinā te āhua o ngā mahi whakahaere mō ā tātou nei tangata. Ka aroha atu ki a rātou, ahakoa te kōrero i roto i ngā ripoata o te kamupene. He wāhanga pea tā rātou ki te hoko i ā rātou nei whare, he tino uaua. He maha ngā taiapa, he maha ngā taiapa. Nō reira e Te Minita, pai ki te whakarongo ki ō kōrero ēngari, ko te whakatīnanahia mō rātou e tino noho pōhara ana, me āta whakaarohia tērā.
Inā, ka haere ā tātou nei whānau ki ētehi atu o ngā whanaunga kei waenganui i a rātou whare, arā, kei roto i ngā hēti, arā, kei runga i ō rātou nei sofas, kei roto i ō rātou nei waka, he mea āwangawanga mō tātou katoa. Ko tēnei wiki o Te Reo Māori, ēhara tēnei kaupapa o te utungia whare mō ngāi Māori anake, ē kao. Ēngari kua kitea mai te tino mamae kei waenganui i a tātou nei tāngata. Ki taku mōhio e ai ki ngā tatauranga, e heke iho ana ngā tatauranga o rātou e āhei ana ki te utu i ō rātou nei whare, he mate nunui tērā mō tēnei motu, inā, ka noho roa rawa ngā kairēti i roto i ō rātou nei whare, he mea hei whakatoimaha, hei whakapōhara i ō rātou tamariki, ō rātou mokopuna. Me tīni tērā āhuatanga. Ka hoki au ki ngā kōrero a Alfred Ngaro. Ahakoa tōna kōrero mō te social investment strategy, ēhara tērā i tētahi tino rautaki! Ēhara tērā he mahere hei whakatinana i ō tātou nei tino hiahia, kia whakamāmātia te huarahi mō rātou kia utungia ō rātou whare.
[Mr Chairman, I really want to follow up on the Minister for Building and Housing’s sentiments in his address and highlight the aphorism: “The lips are saying one thing, but down below it is saying something else.” There are many examples of what is being said below while the lips are saying something quite different above. I recall the time when reporters were taken into the gardens and the Minister said: “Here we are, these are the places where many houses will be built to house people in Auckland.” And what happened? What was the outcome? Despite his rhetoric and desire to build houses, how much would those houses cost? Who got them? It definitely was not the destitute and the impoverished. It was not the ones who wanted to buy a house. The houses were destined for an exclusive set of people: the 1 percent of the population who could afford to buy those houses.
Here is another wise saying: “When the first home ceases, a second one arises to replace it.” But the current situation is really: “When the first home ceases, there is not a second one to replace it.” So what happens now? The doors of Te Puea Marae, that one of the marae, open up as well as its commitment for the impoverished and the homeless to enter into the bosom of that marae because of their compassion. There was absolutely no assistance from this Government to them; zilch. Perhaps that is something that should be given due consideration, regardless of the Minister’s rhetoric; there are a vast number of homeless people at every extremity of this country of ours and we must put an end to that sort of situation.
The Government can go on about how well it is doing and the enormous funding it is providing in regard to this proposal on housing, but at the end of it all, the final word is with the people; they have the last word. Some of the proposals that have emerged here in our communities are far more expensive than their own homes here in Auckland, Huntly, Hamilton, and Hastings—in fact, at all extremities of the country. The cost of paying for their homes is massive.
I want to go back to consider that woman who lived in her home for 20 years. She is a tenant of the Housing New Zealand Corporation. She really wants to buy her home. And the Ministry of Social Development tells her they will allow her 90 days. Her concern is: “Hey, I have lived in my house for 20 years and there has never been any provision for me to buy it and, therefore, pay for my house. So what is the real deal behind that? I applied to the corporation and was fobbed off to the Ministry of Social Development.” And that is how the system works for our people. I sympathise with them, despite the rhetoric in the corporation’s reports. Perhaps they have a provision to buy their own home—it is a really difficult situation. There are many barriers—too many. So it is fine listening to your comments, Minister, but the implementation of them for the very impoverished has to be given due consideration.
And so our families go to some of their relatives to live amongst them in their homes; in other words, to live in the sheds and sleep on their sofas or in their cars—that is a concerning thing for all of us. Even in this Māori Language Week, this matter relating to buying homes is not just solely with Māori people—not at all. But the real hurt can be seen amongst our people. My understanding, according to the statistics, is that the number of people able to buy a house for them is decreasing, and that is a huge problem for this country in that, if tenants live in their rented homes for a very long time, it becomes an added burden and impoverishment upon their children and grandchildren. That situation has to be changed. I come back to Alfred Ngaro’s sentiments in regard to the social investment strategy—that was not a real strategy! That was not a plan to implement our real needs, or an easy way for them to purchase their home.]
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I want to start by talking about the language that has been used in respect of the programme for the Government around housing that is referred to in the Estimates. This week we have had this controversy in the House where the Government turns up and says it is a “comprehensive plan”. That has been the language—it has obviously been out focus-grouping the language that it ought to be using. Crosby/Textor has come back with the word “comprehensive”, and the Government has used it—no? The Minister shakes his head. Well, it has got to the silly stage and there is even a video titled “National’s Comprehensive Housing Plan” on the National Party website now, and in every question its members are repeating the answer by rote. It looks foolish, which is why the rest of the House is laughing at the National Government when it pretends that it has a comprehensive plan.
I think it is somewhat sad that National tries to sort of fool New Zealanders that it has a comprehensive plan that is working when it patently is not. On the very day—today—that we have the Chilchot inquiry in the United Kingdom criticising the Blair Government because it took the UK into a war in Iraq, as National would have done here, on the back of loaded terms like—
Hon Members: Ha, ha!
Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, it did, actually. You might laugh about it, but your National colleagues tried to take us into the war—
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to interrupt the member. I have been relatively—[Interruption] The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Matt Doocey: I withdraw and apologise.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I want to be very clear that we will not have interjections while I am on my feet. David Parker, just to make it clear, I have been tough on both sides—that we will focus on the Estimates. An excuse that the member was diverted by the Opposition or by the Government will not wash.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, loaded terms like “Operation Enduring Freedom” or the “coalition of the willing” or “comprehensive housing” should not hide the fact that the Government does not have an adequate policy funded in this Budget for housing.
I want to say something in response to what Minister Smith said. He said the Government was insulating a lot of houses. Do you know what the Government did when it got into office? It cancelled the $1 billion fund that was proposed as a part of emissions pricing that was going to fund an even bigger programme for house insulation. The Government has done quite a bit of house insulation, and it is a good thing that it has. It took the prior Government’s programme and it has extended it, but do not pretend, Minister, that that was not going to happen, and that it is somehow your innovation.
The Government says that interest rates are lower. Interest rates that house buyers and mortgage payers have to pay in New Zealand are higher than they would be but for the out-of-control housing prices in Auckland. Yes, interest rates around the world are lower than they were a decade ago. But they would be lower still in New Zealand, and we would be closer to international averages, if house prices were not so high, which is one of the reasons why the Reserve Bank of New Zealand keeps interest rates higher than it otherwise would.
In respect of earthquake issues and the housing issues, the Minister just made reference to the fact that there are challenges getting enough staff in the building and construction area. When the earthquake struck, Phil Goff and the Labour Party were out of the blocks saying “First thing you should do is train more people.”
Hon Dr Nick Smith: We did.
Hon DAVID PARKER: The Government did not, no. The Government did not. You waited 2 years before you made any substantial start on training more work force. Minister, you sat on your hands for years before you did anything about that, and as a consequence we are reliant on more imported labour. You know, there is nothing in these Estimates about the housing problems that we have got in the provinces. In some parts of the provinces we have got needs for urban renewal. We are sick of hearing, in the provinces, that all of the problems lie in Auckland. There are problems in Auckland that the Government has not got under control, but the rest of the country has got problems too. In parts of south Dunedin, for example, there is very old housing, very cold housing, a low accommodation supplement, and high heating costs. There are a lot of people down there who find it very hard to meet their housing costs, but there is no plan from the Government to address any housing issues, except in Auckland. Indeed, it sells down State houses in the other parts of the country, and it does not address private rental issues either.
It has got so bad that there was this cartoon in the Otago Daily Times this week. It shows a great big person who looks like Mr Creosote, and he is depicted as Auckland, with the Government’s $1 billion housing infrastructure plan as the pie in front. A big fat Auckland is shown, and it says: “I’ll let Tauranga, Hamilton, Christchurch, and Queenstown lick the plate”. Then the rest of the country has got a plate thrown at them in the face. That is how the pie is distributed, they say. That is how the rest of New Zealand feels as a consequence of what the Government has got going wrong in housing policy in Auckland. It is not a good thing for our country. You saw what happened when you got jealousies between London and the rest of Great Britain; you got “Brexit”. You get people outside of London voting against—those sentiments are being borne in New Zealand out of the Government’s poor housing policy.
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): As always, investment in the social services and housing sector is a huge commitment of this National Government. Talking about social services, that is why we have committed $652 million in Budget 2016 to help New Zealanders in need. It is a significant amount, a $652 million package over 4 years. This package includes $200 million for new services for young people and children. It includes $50 million for helping people get into work, including people with complex health needs. It includes $43 million to help 150,000 students who are at risk of educational failure. It also includes $36 million to make houses safer, warmer, and healthier.
The social investment approach that we, in this Government, have is working really well for us. We are seeing the lives of low-income New Zealanders improving because of our social investment approach. That is why Budget 2016 is committed to our social investment approach, and it is also providing for meeting the demand for increasing social services that are required to fulfil the demand of the population that we have. We have also seen that, with our social investment approach, the number of people relying on benefits—that number is going down. Actually, that number has gone down significantly, and as a result that has reduced the long-term welfare system’s fiscal cost for current and future taxpayers by $12 billion—yes, $12 billion. That is why our current and future taxpayers are going to be grateful to this National Government for making that saving for taxpayers. As a result, we have fewer children in benefit-dependent families, because these people are in training or in employment, and they have a new way of life because of our social investment approach.
Talking about benefits, it is this National Government that gave a benefit increase of $25. This is the first time in 43 years. We are also reforming the Child, Youth and Family system, because we know that the current system is not working for us. The current system is not giving us the results that are desired from the Child, Youth and Family system. As Minister Anne Tolley keeps saying, we want a system that is focused on children. It is about providing the right kind of interventions. It is about providing the right kind of support during the transition process and seeing that these young people do not get into fields that we do not want them to get into. We want to see them doing well in their lives. This National Government is committed to people, and we want to see people doing their best in life.
We are also setting up the first register for child sex offenders. This is a huge commitment of this National Government, to protect our young people from sex offenders. And yes, this is not going to be publicly available; it will be available only to authorised police and corrections staff. It will be available to third parties only if they are appropriate. With a targeted approach we have seen positive results.
That is why we have just passed legislation to invest $61 million to extend youth services to 19-year-old beneficiaries with children, and 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries without children who are considered to be at significant risk of long-term welfare dependency. We have committed $41 million for emergency housing, and this is the first time a Government has committed to emergency housing. This is $41 million for 3,000 places for a year. This is going to help people get into emergency housing when they need it. This will be done through non-Government organisations, and it is expected that the first contract will be in place from September this year.
This is also for providing emergency housing special-needs grants for individuals and families, to cover their temporary housing costs. Looking at emergency housing, that area is well covered. We are also making houses safer, warmer, and healthier. For that, we have already introduced new minimum standards for insulation, and smoke alarms. Minister Nick Smith already spoke about the advantages of having smoke alarms and the case we have seen where it has already saved lives. That is already showing us results. That has already kicked in. From 1 July all residential rental properties are required to have an operational smoke alarm. The insulation requirements are going to kick in from 1 July—
SUE MORONEY (Labour): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Estimates for social development votes. Let us get real. Let us get real and look at the reality of the situation. The member who has just resumed her seat, Parmjeet Parmar, is trying to convince New Zealand that emergency housing in this country is well covered. Well, why are people sleeping in cars? Why are an increasing number of people sleeping in garages? And why are people in Te Awamutu resorting to sleeping in recycling skips? Those are the questions that I want to pose to that Government. If it truly believes that these Estimates mean that emergency housing is well covered, it needs to get real. It is completely out of touch with the situation that is developing at a rapid rate in our country.
The Estimates, in fact, make things worse for housing problems in the regions. Dr Smith looks confused about why that is, but it is pretty simple, actually. Paula Bennett rolled out her last-minute, desperate plan to pay people $5,000 to move from Auckland to the regions. Some of the places that she is trying to encourage those people to move to are places like Hamilton, are places like Ngāruawāhia, are places like Te Awamutu—places where we already know we have our own developing housing crises, thanks to that Government. We know that there are increasing numbers of people who are facing homelessness.
I just want to remind the Committee of the tragic story that I thought we would never see in Aotearoa New Zealand, let alone a relatively wealthy society like Te Awamutu, where a man who fell on hard times ended up sleeping in a recycling skip, and ended up losing his life in that process. That is a story that that Government should be deeply ashamed of, because it tells a story of what is really happening in the provinces, and the homelessness that really exists. These are the places that Paula Bennett wants to spend $5,000 bringing people from Auckland down to those same towns, in order to make the housing crisis worse for the people who are already trying to live there, and cannot afford to live there.
The nonsense of the Estimates saying that the Government will be prepared to fund 7 days of emergency housing for people whom it is putting in hotels and motels—that is what emergency housing amounts to in New Zealand under the National Party. When it comes to weeks like we have just had in Hamilton with the Fieldays, and the hotels and the motels are full, what chance is there for emergency housing for any family over the course of that week? Well, none, under its failed emergency plan that it says is well covered, according to the National Party speakers.
In the New Zealand Herald today, there is a story about a family from South Auckland. They are in a hotel because that is their emergency housing option. They are a mother with three children. The children are aged 13, 12, and 10. They are paying, or will have to pay back, $2,013 a week in rent for that emergency housing—the hotel in Papatoetoe—a one-bedroom hotel in Papatoetoe that is their emergency housing option. For the first 7 days the State is going to pay that, but after that, that family is going to rack up $2,013 a week, which they are going to have to pay back at some point.
But here is the really shameful fact that the Government needs to take on board—these four people were moved into this one-bedroom hotel, to stay together, at that cost, because what they had been doing up until then is that they had been in a Housing New Zealand house that was not theirs. They had moved in with family members. Two of them were sleeping in the garage. The mother and the 13-year-old were sleeping together in a bed in the garage, and the other two children were sharing another bedroom. They had to move out of there because their niece, who was threatened with eviction if that continued to happen, had to move them on.
They made three applications to Work and Income to try to get their housing needs met. The first time, they were completely and utterly declined. They had nowhere to live, but they were declined. The second time, Work and Income lost their application. How many times have members of Parliament heard that story as constituents come to see us and see the shambles that Work and Income is in?
JAN LOGIE (Green): E Te Tiamana, tēnā koe, ki a koutou, huri noa i Te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. Ka tū au mō ngā Kākāriki ki te kōrero i roto i te tautohetohe mō ngā whakatau tata e pā ana ki ngā take o Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora.
[Greetings to you, Mr Chairman, and to all of you throughout the Chamber. I stand on behalf of the Green Party to speak in the Estimates debate about matters relating to the Ministry of Social Development.]
I rise to take a call on the Estimates for the Ministry of Social Development. This is one of the largest ministries with the largest budgets overall. I would say most people in this House would recognise that this is the ministry that is critically important for our demonstration of how much we care or do not care about our fellow New Zealanders. This is the ministry that is responsible for ensuring that people are housed and have access to warm, dry homes. This is the ministry that is responsible for funding our community organisations that have developed over so many years in response to community needs. This is the ministry that is responsible for protecting and looking after people who are unable to be in paid work, people who are caring for people who need 24-hour care, people who are caring for family members who have disabilities, people who have disabilities themselves who are unable to get into the paid workforce, people who are sick and unable to work, people with cancer, parents who are leaving violent relationships and who are trying to establish themselves and their children in a safe environment, and people who have been made redundant. These are some of the functions of this ministry. So it is incredibly important that this Committee spends the proper time looking at the Government’s performance, because it matters. These people who are in the care of us all—their lives matter.
I would particularly like to just touch on a few things. There are so many things to cover, but I will briefly touch on housing. I recognise that although there has been much discussion about homelessness and a huge amount of public concern—and we have heard that the Government has put out a video titled “Comprehensive Plan” to prove that it has a comprehensive plan—what we have seen of this Government in this Budget is that there is still money in this Budget to sell State houses while we have people sleeping on our streets all around this country. We have one in 100 New Zealanders without a secure home of their own. We know our hospitals are clogged up with our children and, particularly, our elderly, who are sick and dying from the over-crowding in this country and the standard, or lack of standards, in our housing.
Then we have the Government—in response to the absolute public outrage over the situation of homelessness in this country—saying: “Oh, OK. Well, we’re going to give people 7 days in a motel that we’ll pay for. We can only give them 7 days, because, actually, there are so many people in need that we can’t cover more than that. So we’ll only be responsible for 7 days.” Even though as a Government it should take responsibility for the lack of housing, it is going to take responsibility only as far as 7 days. Then we have just heard conflicting numbers from this Government. It cannot even come into this Chamber and give us one figure of how long it takes people to get into housing. We have heard 7 days, we have heard 10 days, and we have heard 155 days coming from this Government. Those are the basics of responsible governance, and it cannot step up and meet those basic standards. I believe that there is actually a point to that, because it makes it more confusing for the public and it makes it easier for the Government to refuse to take responsibility. It is shameful.
I asked the Minister in the Social Services Committee hearing why the policy that the Government has instituted is only now going forward, when it knows there is a significant number of people who have extraordinary amounts of debt, who are out of work at the moment, and who have already racked up, for some people, over $100,000 worth of debt to Work and Income to be able to put a roof over their head. The Minister’s response was: “The Government is not interested in knowing. It is looking forward, not back.” The Government is not interested in knowing how many people have racked up debt that they are going to be left with for their lives because of this Government’s failure.
I will just remind this Committee that after the Christchurch earthquake the Green Party stood in this House and said that we needed to actually train people and start a State house building programme in Auckland so that we could have the people in the country ready to build in Christchurch when they came online. The country would be in a different position now if we had a Government that was proactive rather than one that is continually expecting the market to deliver when there is clear market failure.
I would also like now to touch on my deep concern around another aspect of social development funding in this Budget. It is in more detail that I would like to talk about this very small but significant issue, which is that this Budget shows no increase in funding for women’s refuges. We have heard from the Government that family violence, domestic violence, is a priority for it, but it has put no more money in this Budget for our women’s refuges. When I asked the Minister for Social Development about why there was no new money, she said that funding had not increased for refuges because the Government wants more information on their effectiveness. The Minister told us about an alternative idea, which we have got to assume is an alternative idea to refuges, of taking perpetrators out of the family home, rather than women and children.
I really want to put on record in this House that those things are not one or the other. We need both of them in our society. The only reason that we have legislation on domestic violence is that women in our communities came together and set up women’s refuges in the belief that women had the right to be physically safe and emotionally safe. The understanding of domestic violence in this country comes entirely from women’s refuges. They do much, much more than just put a roof over people’s heads. They are there on the phones and in person with women to talk through the safety in their relationships—whether they leave or not. They are there doing the healing work between the mothers and the children, which we know is actually the heart of what enables them to move forward in life and stop the cycle of violence.
For the Minister to say that she is even questioning their effectiveness shows, to me, a complete ignorance of the role of women’s refuges, particularly when I have surveyed 20 of them and most of those refuges—the majority—had not had a funding increase in 8 years. The Government has been cutting services and cutting staff because their funding is currently inadequate. We have heard of an area where there were 1,500 police reports going to a refuge and it had $17,000 a year that was supposedly expected to cover it in following up on those 1,500 police reports. If there is any question of the effectiveness of women’s refuges, it is only because the Government has run down their funding to an extent that they are not able to fully function.
That is putting the safety of our women, children, and communities absolutely at risk. It should not be allowed, and the Minister needs to review her entire thinking on this issue and step up and put some funding into the safety protective factors in our communities, and refuge is very much one of those. There are so many things to talk about. I would like to just, in this short period of time, talk about another very, very important issue, which is the social investment approach and funding for people who are unable to work, and to recognise that—
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I want to just challenge a few points that were made in that speech by Jan Logie that are so relevant to the Estimates. Let us get the first fact right: this National Government is the first Government ever—the first Government ever—to provide ongoing funding for emergency housing. There is $41 million in this Budget. Nine years Labour was in Government and it never provided funding for the Monte Cecilia Housing Trust or for the home shelters across New Zealand. These Estimates are the very first, ever, to provide long-term secure funding for emergency housing. The second point I would challenge that member on is that this is the first Government in 40 years to increase the base benefits for families—40 years. This Government has—
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I have previously warned the Minister to focus on the Estimates that we are currently debating. [Interruption] I understand that, but I think what he is actually focusing on is something that was announced at least 1 or possibly 2 years ago.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This year’s appropriations provide for the funding, in this financial year, for the increase in benefits for families, and that is the very first increase in 40 years in the base benefit levels for families. I have heard the speeches from the Opposition members who say nothing is being built. I was a little bit bored so I had a look on the net, and you know what the lead story on the New Zealand Herald site is? It is this, a quote from Mr Graham Darlow, the chief executive of New Zealand’s largest construction company: “I have never seen so much construction activity of such a scale right across New Zealand in my 40 years working in [our construction] industry.” This is the chief executive of Fletcher Construction, New Zealand’s largest construction company. So I say to the members of this Committee who get to their feet and say that there is nothing going on in the building industry that they should get out there and engage with the real sector, because the truth is there is more residential construction investment right now than what there has ever been in New Zealand’s history.
Then I heard the whinges of members opposite about the sale of State houses. Well, I am proud—very proud—of the first home scheme that is provided for in these appropriations. I would love to table the letters that I have had from New Zealand families that have been given the opportunity to buy their own home under that scheme. Although Labour and Green members hate Kiwi families buying their own homes, we on this side of the Chamber love it. We love the fact that we are giving families in cities like Invercargill, like Gisborne, like Dunedin, like Nelson, like Greymouth—all over the country—the opportunity to buy a house. I say to members opposite: what is wrong with allowing a tenant or a first-home buyer to buy their own State house? That is a good thing—that is a good thing—and I challenge members opposite who challenge that.
Then we come to the issue of State house building. Well, here are the facts: these Estimates make provision for a billion dollars of State housing investment. Do you know what the best that was done during the Labour years was? That party did less than $500 million; our provision is more than double. Let us take the number of houses. Last year Housing New Zealand completed 800 homes. Mr Twyford says that is not nearly enough; I say to Mr Twyford that when Labour was in Government, when house prices doubled, it never did better in any year than 430. And what do these Estimates provide for? They provide for more than a thousand homes in the next year, and even more in the year after, and I say again: that shows the progress that is being made.
The very last point I want to make to Opposition members is around the HomeStart scheme. Why will they not support New Zealand families getting some support from the Government to buy their first home? Why is it that Labour has promised to repeal that scheme? That is a beacon of hope for thousands of Kiwi families who, actually, under this Government have got jobs, they have got increasing incomes, they are getting ahead, and they want to save their money in KiwiSaver and use that scheme to buy their own home.
LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Tēnā koutou katoa. I really just want to focus on the social housing area, because it is particularly relevant to my community of Manurewa, and I want to highlight the Minister for Social Housing’s $41 million allocation for emergency places. When the Minister was asked at the Social Services Committee how many of these 3,000 places were new places, it was of interest that she did not know—she did not know. So what does that say? That is National’s comprehensive plan? What we do know is that there will be no new places under this Government’s investment.
Of the 61 providers across Auckland—and I am sure New Zealanders will be really interested in this—there are only eight specialist emergency housing providers. One of them, DePaul House, has 12 homes available to it. It provides housing and family support for the homeless. It is a specialist provider that has been existing for a number of years. It is really interesting that the Government wants to support these providers, but, actually, what level of support does the Government give DePaul House? It actually gives it only 20 percent of the funding it needs to meet the needs of homeless people in Auckland—20 percent. Most of the funding for this specialist emergency housing provider comes from Foundation North, from the Hugh Green Foundation, from Bunnings Warehouse, from the Tindall Foundation, from Mike Pero, from David Levene, from schools, from volunteers, and from philanthropy. That is who is meeting the needs of emergency housing across Tāmaki-makau-rau. For one of eight providers, that is the reality.
So who are the other providers? Who do you think the other 53 providers of emergency housing are? Well, actually, they are motels, and hotels, and campgrounds, and if you want to stay there you have to pay $108 a night. As we have heard already, the average length of a family being homeless is 155 days, and this Government, with its new $41 million investment, will pay for seven of those 155 days. How generous of this Government to meet the emergency housing needs of New Zealanders!
But the most shocking, actually, was the fact that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) did its own internal review of emergency housing policy, and what did it actually say? The review actually came out in June 2015, and we probably have not even read it—I could not find it—but thank goodness John Campbell did. What the Ministry of Social Development said about the Government’s own emergency housing policy was this: “It is incoherent. It is unfair. It is not accountable, and”—guess what—“there is no system.” That is National’s comprehensive policy. Well done, National! That is your comprehensive policy. If you have no system, then how are you ever going to meet the needs of those homeless New Zealanders who now consider their cars to be their homes? It is an absolutely shocking situation for a country that is so wealthy and has this amazing economy that the Government talks about all time. That is what that amazing economy is delivering—groups of homeless people.
The reality of homelessness in my electorate is that the other night at Victoria Park we had 27 cars parked up. We 27 cars with families, so there were mums, dads, and children—because there are children in our families. I know through the statistics from my office that in the first 3 months of this year we wrote 34 letters to Housing New Zealand and MSD for families who wanted accommodation. In those families we had 57 children. So in 3 years’ time, when the Government is going to build all these houses—hey, hopefully, our families will still be on the waiting list, but for the next 3 years, guess what? Those families have to sleep in cars, sleep in garages, sleep outside.
A big mihi to Lifewise, and to my caucus colleagues Phil Goff and Jacinda Ardern, who are sleeping outside tonight to raise awareness of homelessness. In terms of the other people in the House, I know that the Greens have got a team. I am not sure about National members, but homelessness does not exist in their world. Well, it exists in ours, and some of us are out there tonight to highlight the issue.
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou. A new word entered our lexicon in the housing debate in the last week. It was the “c” word. It was the “c” word. It was not “crisis”. It was “comprehensive”—comprehensive. That was the word that the National Government trucked out after going to all its focus groups to explain its plan.
Most people in New Zealand would think that it was in - “comprehensible” that there was not a comprehensive plan in place before this. They could not comprehend why there was not a comprehensive plan in place. After all, our houses in Auckland are about to hit a million dollars on average—a million dollars on average. Just think of that. Back in the days when John Key was in Opposition he called the housing issue at the time a crisis. That was a small pimple compared with the enormous boil that needs to be pricked in this situation right now, which we have got ourselves into under this Government.
We have got a million-dollar average house price in Auckland. I came across a young couple this week who have been trying to find a house. They put an offer in and they still have not heard. They put an offer in for a very average house in Glen Eden, and they are really hoping they will be able to pick it up for about $900,000. It is unreal. I mean, how do you find the money to put a deposit down for a $900,000 house? National Government, you have simply priced young people out of the housing market.
You can see the panic in the Government members’ eyes when they come out with a word like “comprehensive”, and it was used 14 times in question time on Tuesday—14 times. Clearly, the focus groups have been saying: “You’ve got to get that word out and try to persuade everybody that there’s no crisis; all we’re doing is trying to comprehensively fix the problem.” Well, the only thing that will happen is that we change the definition of “comprehensive” to “piecemeal”, to “ad hoc”, and to “bits and pieces”.
Every single week Dr Smith comes out with a new initiative that is somehow wrapped up in this definition of “comprehensive”, and on the weekend it was a billion dollars’ worth of infrastructure programming. When he divides that by five cities and then applies it to Auckland, it is going to make virtually no difference whatsoever—virtually no difference. Instead, what we are going to see is the house prices in Auckland continue to climb.
I notice today that Dr Grimes is already predicting that house prices could fall by 40 percent. Not only are we talking about houses that are out of the reach of every average Kiwi out there to try to get into, but we are also creating the conditions for a bigger crisis, which is a collapse in the housing market, because we know that for 44 percent of all houses being bought and sold within Auckland, it is being done by speculators—by speculators.
Alastair Scott: Investors—always has been.
DAVID SHEARER: And when you have that amount of—they are speculators. They are the people who bought the house about a year ago and who are now selling it for $150,000 more. They put that in their back pocket, and I can tell you that that is the easiest—the easiest—way to make $150,000, if you have got the capital to be able to invest in the first place. That is why so many foreign speculators are coming into New Zealand and doing the same thing and probably laundering their money at the same time—it has got a double whammy for them. They can launder money and make an exceptional return on their money.
Our housing market should not be the pork bellies on the New York stock exchange. They should not be there just so that overseas speculators are able to come in and buy up our houses when, in fact, they should be for New Zealanders.
PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you very much for this call. In Māori Language Week, I do want to speak in Māori, but I first want to address the Minister’s challenge to me to go to Waimahia, in my own electorate. I want to challenge that Minister—and perhaps Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, the Minister in the chair next to you, Mr Chair—to come along to Te Puea Marae and, in a show of good faith and a willingness to solve this crisis, I will even sing their waiata after they do their mihi. I think that is pretty fair. So nau mai, haere mai ki Te Puea Marae.
Ka tū ahau ka kōrero ki roto i Te Reo Māori, ko tēnei rā Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori nō reira, ka kōrero Māori ahau. I tēnei wā, ka tāpae atu ko Te Pāti Māori kei tēnei take. Ka tāpae atu ko rātou kei tēnei take tā te mea, ko rātou te rōpū i tautoko i tēnei kaupapa kia hokona atu ngā whare o Te Kāwanatanga: a State house sell-off. Nā rātou tērā kaupapa i tautoko, i pōti rātou ki te tautoko i tērā kaupapa. He aha te hua ka puta mai ki ngā iwi, ki ngā Māori? Korekau; korekau! Ki roto i te reo Pākehā: nothing, zero, zilch! Tēnā kōrua e Te Pāti Māori. Tēnā kōrua mō tērā tautoko i tēnei kaupapa kore take nei, koretake, useless! Nō reira, ka tāpae ake rātou i tēnei o ngā take.
E whā ngā wāhanga o tēnei pire, e whā. Ko te kāinga ohotata, arā, ko te emergency housing. Nā, ka mihi atu ahau ki Te Puea Marae. Kua kī mai Te Minita, e hia miriona tāra kē mō te kaupapa nei. Ēngari kātahi ka hoki mai ki te kai i tana ruaki, me te kī mai: “Sorry, those are actual beds.” Nē! Ko tātou atu ki a ia, kei hea ngā moenga hou: “Where are the new beds?”. Mō tēnei take te kāinga ohotata, “ohotata”—“emergency”, nē? He kupu Māori tēnā mō tātou katoa tā te mea, rawa au i kite atu i te nuinga e rapu ana i te kōrero whakapākehā i taku korero. So I am going to mix it up with a little bit of Pākehā, because I do not see many people reaching for their earpiece.
“Kāinga ohotata”—emergency housing. Kī mai Te Minita, nā, anei he putea hei tautoko i te kaupapa, kātahi, ka huri te kurī ki te kai i tana ruaki, me te kī mai, aroha mai: “I’m really sorry about that. Actually, that’s not for new beds.” Nō reira, he raruraru tēnā.
Ka huri atu ahau i āianei ki tētahi atu kōrero a Te Minita, Tāmaki Redevelopment Company. Ko tēnei kaupapa he kaupapa nui, whakaharahara o tēnei Kāwanatanga, one of the great flagships of new social housing developments in Auckland. I haere atu ahau ki te Tāmaki Redevelopment Company ki te kōrero atu ki ngā whānau—ngā whānau i peia mai i ō rātou whare.
[I rise to speak in Māori as this is Māori Language Week, and so I will address you in Māori. At this moment, I suggest that the Māori Party is part of this issue. I contend it is this issue because it is the party that supported this proposal to sell off State-owned houses: a State house sell-off. They supported that proposal, and they voted in favour of it. What benefits came out of that for the people, for Māori? Nothing; absolutely bugger all! In English: nothing, zero, zilch! Well done, you two from the Māori Party; our appreciation to you both for supporting this useless scheme! And so I append them to this one of the issues.
There are four parts to this bill—four. There is the emergency housing, kāinga ohotata, part. Now then, I really pay tribute to Te Puea Marae. The Minister for Social Housing has stated that this proposal is worth millions and millions of dollars. But then she came back to consume her own vomit by saying at that time: “Sorry, those are actual beds.” OK. Our response was: Where are the new beds?”. In regard to this issue about emergency housing—“ohotata”, means “emergency”, right? For all of us, that is a Māori word—and I did not see many seeking an English interpretation when I said that word. So now I am going to mix it up with a little bit of Pākehā because I do not see many people reaching for their earpiece.
“Kāinga ohotata”—emergency housing. The Minister said there was funding to support the proposal, but then the dog turned around and consumed its own vomit and then said to us apologetically: “Apologies, I’m really sorry about that. Actually, that’s not for new beds.” So that is a problem.
I turn now to another statement the Minister made about the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company. This is one of the Government’s significant and huge policies; it is one of the great flagships of new social housing developments in Auckland. I went along to the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company, to talk to the families—to the ones who had been forced out of the homes that belonged to them.]
I went along to speak to the families—those who were relocated so that the rebuild could happen in the Tāmaki redevelopment, this great flagship kaupapa of this Government—and I can tell you that not many of them were rehoused in these new homes. They were relocated to, where? Whānau homes, to stay with relatives—sleep on sofas and sleep in sheds. Ētahi o rātou [Some of them] are even sleeping in their cars near the house they were taken away from.
Nō reira, he aha tēnei kaupapa, te Tāmaki Redevelopment Company? Tēnei $200 million—$200 million—ki te kaupapa nei kua peia ngā tāngata ēngari, ka moe ngā tāngata ki roto motoka i tēnei wā. In fact, one family member I spoke to even parked up outside their old home to sleep in their car.
Anei ngā kaupapa o tēnei Kāwanatanga, kua tohua nei e te kāwanatanga, e hia Minita ki te patu i tēnei ngārara? How many Ministers has this Government put in place to deal with this issue? Ko te mate o tēnā mahi whakatū Minita maha mō te kaupapa kotahi, ka ngaro ētahi tangata, ka mahue.
[So what is this proposal about concerning the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company? This $200 million—$200 million—towards this venture that has forced out people, and yet they continue sleeping in cars at this very moment. In fact, one family member I spoke to even parked up outside their old home to sleep in their car.
These, then, are the proposals that this Government has identified, and, goodness, how many Ministers have been appointed to deal with this creepy-crawly? How many Ministers has this Government put in place to deal with this issue? Appointing so many Ministers to deal with a single proposal could create a problem, in that some people might miss out and some might be overlooked completely.]
The problem with doing that is the disjointed service. What that means is people fall through the cracks. People are left behind because we hear one answer from Minister Smith, then we hear a different one from Minister Bennett, we hear something totally different from Bill English, and I wonder whether or not this is actually as comprehensive as they think it is. Tēnā koe.
MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Tiamana o Te Whare, tēnā koe, otirā, ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Acknowledgments to you, Mr Chairman, and at the same time to all of us members of this House.]
I am pleased to take a call in this Estimates debate, and I want to focus on the burning issue that has come to light, not just in recent weeks but ever since I have been a member in this House, which is, of course, social housing—particularly the concerns that I shared when I first came to this House around our homeless, the way the Government is treating our homeless. I particularly want to make some comments on the Government’s emergency housing priorities. Like this side of the Committee, when I listened all this week and the days that have ensued since the National Party had its conference—like many people on this side, I felt a mirage of caring for those who are homeless and those in real need. It is a mirage that reminds me of a movie.
Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Which one?
MEKA WHAITIRI: A 3-D movie. It is a Government that denies, diverts, and then does nothing. That is what we have got in these Estimates from this Government when we are dealing with social housing.
On Monday I had a social housing meeting with the good people of Maraenui. Maraenui, when I came into Parliament, was subjected to this Government’s social housing plan—well, if you can call it that—which was, essentially, to remove people from their homes with this promise of building and replacing the State homes with affordable homes. We were talking at that time of some 120-plus State homes. When you speak to the locals of Maraenui, they say that they welcomed those homes coming down, but they welcomed them coming down with a promise by this Government of replacing those homes—of replacing them for the local people who had lost their homes.
After 3 years’ time I can tell you many of those State homes have come down in Maraenui, and I would ask the question to the Committee: how many have been replaced with affordable homes? How many? Have a guess. Seven. There are seven homes in Maraenui; 120 have been removed. Seven homes—seven homes! The audacity of the Prime Minister to come to Maraenui to open them with a fanfare and a promise that more were coming—more were coming. But they are not there. On Monday they were not there, and people in Maraenui are desperate for homes.
I want to just take the time and look at the numbers that are on the Ministry of Social Development’s own social housing register. It makes for interesting reading. Of course, the No. 1 is Auckland super-city. Over 2,130 people are on that waiting list, and that is from March 2016. Then we go down to Christchurch—403. Then we go down to Wellington City—211. Then we go up to the Tauranga district—180 are on the waiting list. Then we go to Hamilton City—166, and then to my own electorate city of Napier at 135.
What is interesting is that some of those places that I have just mentioned are actually represented in this House by National MPs—National MPs. So when they cannot admit that there is a housing crisis, when I know that over 90 percent of inquiries in my electorate office are all housing related, then I would say: where have you been, National MPs of those electorates? Where have you been? Where have you been, and what are you doing about it?
Back to the Estimates, because as we see—homelessness, and my colleague Peeni Henare alluded to it too. We have a Minister for Social Housing who was asked, through an Official Information Act request from our colleague Carmel Sepuloni, to actually give us the number of the homeless. It was a straightforward question. And what did the Minister say? What was her response? No definite number—no definite number. So, again, a Government that is supposedly saying that it has a comprehensive housing plan cannot even put its finger on the number of the homeless in this country.
But let us look at the reports tendered by, as part of the Estimates debate, both of the select committees. When you read there, around the definition—and I am talking about the social development report that talks about homelessness and gives a definition of how many. It is interesting, because when you read that report—
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is a pleasure to speak to the Estimates debate. As many of my colleagues have, I would like to focus on housing. I would like the Government to do more on housing with the money that it spends over the 12 months. Do I have confidence that it will do that? I have absolutely none. That is because the Government has been playing silly buggers with semantics and words over the last week. For the last 2 or 3 months it has not managed to say the word “crisis”, but for the last 3 or 4 days it has been getting a little bit over the top with the word “comprehensive”. When you say a word in Parliament you should really mean it, and you should back it up with facts. So to think that the Government’s plan is comprehensive is laughable.
I will tell you why it is laughable, with a few local examples in Porirua. If you come to Porirua and go up to Cannons Creek, there is a street called Castor Crescent. In 2011 this Government demolished a number of houses and sent letters to the people living around there, saying: “We promise we will rebuild the houses that we’ve demolished here, for your community.” If the Minister for Building and Housing is offering to accept invitations to visit places, I would like to invite Nick Smith to Castor Crescent, to see the abundance of houses on that land where those houses were demolished. He will find what looks like a council park, and not a bustling community of houses, which the Government promised to replace.
Sue Moroney: Well, they could always park their cars up and sleep in them.
KRIS FAAFOI: That is right. About a month ago we held a public meeting in that community, to say: “Hey. I know they made the promise. What would you like to see on that land?”. They overwhelmingly said: “Hey, why doesn’t the Government stick to the promise it made 5 years ago and build those houses for our community?”. These are the kinds of people who have families living in overcrowded houses. They are probably the friends and family of people who are living in cars, who desperately want their friends and family to live in what we would call a decent house. So why does the Government not, as part of its comprehensive plan, stick to its word that it made 5 years ago? It actually wrote a letter, turned up to the community, and said: “We’re going to rebuild these houses.” But there is absolutely nothing there at all, and that is an unkept promise to that community.
Can I also just acknowledge the work of Housing New Zealand staff. I think it is one of the most under pressure departments in our Public Service at the moment. If you are going to talk about starving the beast, this Government is starving the beast in terms of what it is doing to Housing New Zealand. I want to use another good example of some homes—people have been moved out of them for what I understand is earthquake proofing. The houses are now vacant and they have been boarded up. The problem is that vandals have been in there. The houses have been broken into. There is lots of broken glass. No one would like that.
The issue is that they are right next to one of my local primary schools. The staff there have heard the kids talking about those homes—about them going in there and playing in those homes. If it were the school that was ramshackle and had broken windows, we would not let these kids in there, but these houses border the school. For the benefit of Parliament, this is what those houses look like: a broken window and broken glass on the second storey of those houses. And there has been little to no action from Housing New Zealand to make these houses and these areas safe. I do not blame the staff there, because they are under pressure. When you have one tenancy manager to about 800 or 900 homes, they are going to be a little bit snowed under. But this is the result of what happens when you starve the beast—
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to report progress.
House resumed.
Progress reported.
Report adopted.
Speaker’s Observations
Retirement—Chamber and Gallery Staff
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Members, as we finish, I would like, once again, to acknowledge the fact that we are losing a group of people who have worked with us and have been our friends, some of them for many years—some in the roles that they are in now, some in previous roles, and some more recently in their current roles. I am going to profess a lack of understanding of the economics of the change—notwithstanding some understanding of the way Government accounting systems work.
I also want to note that over the years there have been some changes. When I was first a member of Parliament, there was a messenger stationed permanently in the billiard room, which is now the Grand Hall, whose role it was to set up the tables and to play—there were always odds and sods of members around—against the lonely members who could not find anyone else to play with. But the rules were, of course, that the messengers always had to lose.
The other point, which I have recounted to some of the people who are leaving, is that in my first term I used to act as a whip and sit in the Government whip’s chair. In the evening sessions, sitting in the chair at the Speaker’s door, was a messenger whose name, from memory, was Trevor. Trevor was a Standing Orders expert. There were probably three or four members who were better experts than he was—Palmer, Cullen, Muldoon, and McKinnon—but, certainly, he knew more about the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings than either of the Speakers and much, much more than the Chairman of the Committee of the time.
When I was taking or replying to a point of order I would look beyond the Speaker or the Chairman to Trevor at the door. When I was on the right track he would just quietly nod his head, and when I was getting the Standing Orders wrong, he would shake his head and push me back in the right direction.
Kris Faafoi: I bet he shook his head more.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I hear the interjection from my right—they still know more. What I am saying is that times have changed and times will change, but I do want to acknowledge an enormous loss, both of workmates and friends. Thank you.
The House adjourned at 5.59 p.m.