1. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “we are on the cusp of something special”, given P is cheaper and easier to get, youth unemployment has risen nearly 30 percent on his watch, and the average home in Auckland now costs over $1 million?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, I do stand by that statement, and I am proud of the progress New Zealand is making. For example, the economy grew by 3.6 percent in the year to June, putting us in the four top-performing OECD countries. The average annual wage is now $58,000, an increase of 25 percent since National first came into office. More than 300,000 jobs have been created since the depths of the global financial crisis and a further 170,000 people are forecast to be in work by 2020. Cost of living increases are low: annual inflation is just 0.2 percent, well below average weekly wage increases of 2 percent in the year to June. So backed by the Government’s successful economic plan and New Zealanders’ hard work, our country is making good progress.
Jacqui Dean: Can the Prime Minister provide further examples of how New Zealand is making good progress in dealing with social and economic challenges under this Government’s stewardship?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I can. There are a number of other indicators confirming that New Zealand is making good progress. For example, the manufacturing and services sector, including tourism and ICT, is growing strongly and is succeeding on the world stage. The Government has fulfilled its promise of returning to Budget surplus, which gives us choices into the future. More Kiwis are voting with their feet and coming home, as opposed to leaving for Australia by the tens of thousands as they were when we took office, and the Government is addressing some of New Zealand’s most difficult challenges, such as improving educational achievement, supporting vulnerable families, and boosting skills and employment.
Andrew Little: Is the Salvation Army wrong when it says “the balance between training and recruiting young New Zealanders and simply importing skilled and unskilled labour needs to change in favour of young New Zealanders.”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The biggest challenge facing New Zealand when the Government took office was neatly summed up in the Salvation Army’s state of the nation report in 2008. It said: “More of our children appear to be at risk of harm, more of our young people are engaged in petty crime, there is … violent crime and more people [are] in our jails. None of these trends can be seen as progress.” The Salvation Army went on to say that despite a huge increase in social spending up to 2008, it had contributed little to our social progress. Outcomes were mixed and disappointing. The Government has addressed that by measuring success by the results achieved, not by how much we spend.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Absolutely, a better future for young New Zealanders. But I was not the one who got up at Diwali on Saturday and said “I’m with the international students.”; that was Andrew Little, who was there trying to make out he is the friend of the migrant—when he is not bagging them for having a Chinese name and he is not out there telling them that Indian chefs are not welcome in this country.
Andrew Little: Is it not true that his Government has just shut the door on 70,000 young New Zealanders not in employment, education, or training (“neets”), given that he and his Minister of Finance believe that they are either “pretty damned hopeless” or drugged and lazy, and they prefer low-skilled immigration?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. In fact, the “neets” rate for 15- to 19-year-olds is almost the lowest since records began in 2004. A huge number of young New Zealanders are in apprenticeships. The economy is creating a huge number of jobs and opportunities. I think migration of people to New Zealand is a positive and good thing, but if the member wants to come into this House and say the opposite, please stop going to the events I am at with you and saying the opposite, because it has got a word. It starts with “h”, and you know what it is.
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government believes that the effectiveness of public spending, not the size of it, is what matters for delivering New Zealanders the public services they deserve. We saw, for instance, that up to 2008, when the previous Government’s social spending increased by 70 percent in the 5 years to 2008, many social statistics were going backwards. So while we have lifted spending in health, education, and justice, we are at the same time investing in systems that measure the impact of those dollars on people’s lives. This will allow the Government to concentrate resources on interventions that change lives, particularly for the long term.
David Bennett: How does the Government’s investment approach reveal the case for early intervention and help to lift the quality of public services?
Carmel Sepuloni: How can he reconcile his statement that the amount spent is not a factor in the effectiveness of services with Shamubeel Eaqub’s statement, in reference to National’s investment approach, that an investment approach cannot work if there is no new money, no focus on every stage of life, and it is motivated by economics-speak?
Ron Mark: Does he stand by his statement in March that he is working closely with Ministers Anne Tolley and Steven Joyce to “ensure that Kiwis are at the front of the queue and that immigration policy is at the end of the pipeline.”?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is probably a question more appropriately directed to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment, but, seeing as you have asked it, I am pleased to report to the member that the number of 15- to 19-year-olds who are not in education, employment, or training (“neets”) is at nearly the lowest level since the household labour force survey started right back in 2004, and in terms of the total 15- to 24-year-olds, it is back now to levels last seen before the global financial crisis. There is more we can do, but I can report for the member that we currently have 43,000 people in apprenticeships, and we are bringing that through to 50,000 people as soon as we can.
Ron Mark: Is he aware that the Salvation Army released a report today that supports New Zealand First’s stance on turning the tap down on immigration, particularly low-skilled workers, or is he of the view that this religious organisation is also xenophobic and racist?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have to say I was disappointed in the Salvation Army report today. It was overly pessimistic and contained significant inaccuracies and misconceptions. But the interesting thing is that this Government does have a lower number of essential skills work visas than previously. In the last year 33,000 were granted; a decade ago it was 44,000 or 53,000. So, definitely, the young people at the front of the queue are New Zealanders, unlike when the member’s party was involved in the previous Government.
Ron Mark: Is he satisfied with his Government’s youth unemployment record, which has consistently been around 75,000, or is he content with using his Government’s appalling record on “neets” as a pathetic excuse just to bring in more low-skilled migrants instead of educating and training our own young Kiwis?
Ron Mark: Oh, come on! He’s the Minister. He’s bringing them in.
4. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by Jonathan Coleman’s statement that the Government should have instigated a review of mental health services after years of evidence showing the system was failing people; if so, why is a review not needed now?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes. These paraphrased comments from way back in 2008 reflected the general concern at the time about Labour’s management of the health system. A massive amount of work has been undertaken over the last 8 years, which has resulted in more New Zealanders gaining greater access to the mental health services that they need, in a more timely manner. There is always more to do in this complex area, and 8 years on a review is unlikely to provide any information that we do not have already.
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I dispute that range of assertions, but the fact is that the number of people seeking mental health assistance from the system has increased from 96,000 a year a decade ago to 164,000. So there has been a big uplift. But at the same time, of course, there is more funding going in there, so it has gone up from $1.1 billion to $1.4 billion per year. We have got initiatives like the Prime Minister’s Youth Mental Health Project, the Like Minds Like Mine approach, and the Rising to the Challenge mental health strategy. There is a lot of work going on. I welcome the member’s constructive suggestions, but unfortunately I do not think she has got any.
Hon Annette King: When he said in 2007 that over 2,000 reported suicide attempts represented “measureable outcomes in mental health, and by that criteria this Government is failing”, do the over 3,000 reported suicide attempts—the latest figures available—represent his Government’s failing; if not, why not?
Hon Annette King: You’re snookered.
Hon Annette King: I’m here to ask the questions.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Of course it is essential that we have support not only for young people but also for the caregivers, who open up their lives and homes to our most vulnerable children. Financial assistance will be provided to the caregiver, particularly for pastoral care, taking into account the young person’s individual circumstances. The Government is committed to ensuring that caregivers have the support and resources they need to continue to provide a stable and loving home as these young people develop into their late teens and twenties.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I am advised that it has not been standard practice to release such information. However, the member, like any other member of the public, is welcome to request advice under the Official Information Act. Any request will be handled in the usual way and treated with careful consideration. I am not going to pre-empt that process today. In addition, I would note that the member’s question refers to ships visiting in November from the United States, the United Kingdom, China, and France. If the member is referring to the Royal New Zealand Navy’s 75th commemorations, I would point out that neither the United Kingdom nor France is actually sending a ship. They are contributing in other ways, which we very much welcome.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, I think it does give irrefutable evidence, and that is because the advice that was prepared and given to me to enable me as Prime Minister to sign the approval declaration came not only from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Minister of Foreign Affairs but also from the Attorney-General and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. They use a wide range of information sources. I notice that in this morning’s newspaper, one of the activists who had swum out in, I think, 1983 was saying that even he would not bother donning his swimming togs, because he accepted that the ship was neither nuclear-armed nor nuclear-powered.
Dr Kennedy Graham: When he cites the advice given to him by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in respect of the US vessel scheduled for November, is he confident that he has met the requirements imposed on him by section 9(1) of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act to “have regard to all relevant information and advice that may be available”, or does he acknowledge that there are experts outside the New Zealand Government who may have other views?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I have not seen a single person who has raised a contrary view that the USS Sampson is anything other than non – nuclear powered and non – nuclear armed. If the member can point to somebody, that would be interesting. Of course, there will always be people around the world who are conspiracy theorists, and if that is the line he is pushing today, he might have to put himself in that category.
Dr Kennedy Graham: Does he agree with the New Zealand Prime Minister of 31 years ago that: “Nuclear weapons make us insecure. … We all of us know that it is wholly without logic or reason to possess the power to destroy ourselves many times over; and yet in spite of that knowledge the nuclear powers continue to refine their capacity to inflict destruction on each other and all the rest of us.”; if so, will he follow that lead and stand up for a nuclear-free New Zealand?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. I should remind the member that at the invitation of President Obama, I have been to a number of the nuclear security summits that he has held, and that is reflecting the credentials of New Zealand. One of the very, very first statements I made a decade ago when I became the leader of the National Party—in Opposition, in 2006—was that we would be observing New Zealand’s nuclear-free status.
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): As I think the member is aware, we do not tax turnover in New Zealand, so it is a bit hard to know. It is possible that the levels of tax are lower than they should be. We expect multinationals to pay their fair share of tax and be good corporate citizens. Most companies play by the rules, but the Government is continuing to tighten up the rules around transfer pricing and interest deductibility. New Zealand continues—most importantly, in my view—to work with other OECD countries to strengthen international tax settings, because, in some respects, what is most concerning about some multinationals is that they do not appear to pay much tax anywhere. We need to work with other countries to make sure that they pay their fair share as appropriate to each country’s rules.
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Can I say to the member that outrage does not fix the problem. This is a matter of New Zealand tax law and how it interfaces with international tax law. The way we proceed on that needs to keep in mind one factor the member has not mentioned, and that is that if a very successful New Zealand company, like Xero for instance, has hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of sales in Australia but has no taxable profit, we do not actually want the Australian Government just arbitrarily deciding to tax them. So we have to keep in mind that whatever treatment we applied here will be applied to New Zealand companies overseas. That is why we work with other countries to try to make it fair.
Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We were applauding the Minister’s wonderful statement, and we would like to hear the end of it.
8. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Is the construction sector report released today correct that labour productivity in the sector has increased only 1 percent since 2012; if so, will he back the industry’s call for more Government involvement in the building sector including procuring houses at scale?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In this term of Parliament we are going to build in Auckland the number of houses that there are in Whangarei. In the next term of Parliament that is to occur again. We have got the strongest building boom with over $12 billion of residential investment. In Auckland we have seen the number of houses constructed grow from 4,000 per year to over 9,800 a year. I also note, for the member’s information, that in the last year Government agencies have completed over 1,000 houses, and that too is more than in 25 years.
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yesterday I announced that $750,000 will be invested to build two new classrooms at Fernside School in Canterbury. This is part of a second round of investments in new classrooms under Budget 2016, which provides $882.5 million for school property, including 480 new classrooms to meet roll growth across the country. The first round of investments was announced in May and June this year, and that saw 21 new roll growth classrooms for Canterbury schools. Today’s investment, on top of that announced earlier in the year, recognises that schools in Canterbury are experiencing roll growth as the local population grows or shifts.
James Shaw: Does he stand by his statement in relation to agriculture and climate change that “science will deal with the issues as long as we keep investing.”?
James Shaw: Is he concerned that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report on agricultural emissions, out today, says: “there is no silver bullet on the horizon.”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Before I was interrupted, the point I was simply making is that the world does not have an option of credibly destocking in a major way. It certainly would not be in New Zealand’s interests to do that, because that production would be moved to a less carbon-friendly environment offshore. On the basis that that is the case, the world actually does need to find scientific solutions, and I would have thought that as the co-leader of the Green Party and as someone who sometimes talks about science and innovation, he would support that.
James Shaw: Does he accept advice from the Ministry for the Environment that “Any significant reduction in agricultural emissions, even in the long term, would require trade-offs against plans to grow the economy through the export of ruminant animal products.”?
James Shaw: If his Government’s research fails to find a silver bullet to cut agricultural emissions, does he have a plan B?
11. STUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of Police: Does she agree with the new Police Association President Chris Cahill, who described the front line as being at “crisis point”?
Stuart Nash: Does she believe that the Prime Minister has lived up to his 2007 promise to the New Zealand Police Association that National would “improve the ratio of police to population beyond 1:500”, given that under National the ratio has ballooned to 1:526.
Stuart Nash: Who is right: the Salvation Army when it stated yesterday that “There is an increasing use in methamphetamine.”, or the Prime Minister, who said that usage is declining?
Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Primary Industries): Last week the Ministry for Primary Industries announced the results of the latest round of the Erosion Control Funding Programme (ECFP) to reduce the serious erosion issues faced by the Gisborne district. I am pleased to report to the House that 1,438 hectares of land will be treated through $2.39 million worth of projects. The programme will bring environmental benefits to the region’s infrastructure, waterways, hill country farms, and higher quality floodplain land through reducing sediment runoff and improving the resilience of the land to severe weather.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: A very insightful question—a number of countries do, and the Australians have discovered, with some consternation, that Australian land equivalent to the size of two New Zealands is in foreign ownership, including 2.5 million hectares in the past 3 years. If 13 percent of Australia’s farmland is in foreign hands, what percentage of ours is also foreign-owned? We are going to find out.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It will apply to all land as it is defined in section 2 of the Land Transfer Act 1952. Such land includes “messuages, tenements, and hereditaments, corporeal and incorporeal, of every kind and description,” and even if it is owned by Russians.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Australia’s land register had a regulatory cost of $186,000. Then again, its system involves application fees that are funding a dedicated compliance and enforcement unit to detect breaches and enforce compliance—something we do not have in this country, and deliberately so because the Government does not want to know about it.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill): The register will record each registered proprietor who is an overseas person, including the person’s name and nationality, the amount and value of the land involved, and the district or districts in which the land is situated.