Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeQuestions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 20 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18081. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Questions to MinistersBudget 2014—Tertiary Education and Research6.Dr CAM CALDER (National) to theMinister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: How will Budget 2014 advance the Government’s work to strengthen the New Zealand tertiary education system?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment): Budget 2014 contains an additional nearly $200 million over the next 4 years from new spending and reprioritisations for tertiary initiatives that will further improve the quality of our universities and help maintain their international competitiveness. It continues the Government’s focus on increasing funding for science technology engineering and maths—areas that are critical to innovation and to New Zealand’s economic future and where there has been long-term underfunding relative to other subjects. The funding lift provides a lift in tuition subsidies for science agriculture and selective health sciences. This comes on top of funding increases for engineering and science in previous Budgets. Since 2008 we have increased the average funding rate for science by 23 percent and engineering by 20 percent.Dr Cam Calder: How does Budget 2014 support excellent research?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Budget 2014 boosts operating funding for the centres of research excellence by $53 million over 4 years. This means that the Government will be now funding 10 centres of research excellence from 2016-17 up from the six that were recently selected through the competitive process run by the Royal Society. The Government has decided that one of the four additional centres of research excellence shall be dedicated to Māori developmental research. I want to thank the Māori Party for its strong advocacy for this approach. Centres of research excellence are research networks that produce world-class research and make an important contribution to our society and economy and we are very pleased to support the programme.Dr Cam Calder: What investments has the Government made in tertiary education since 2008?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government invested $2.25 billion in publicly owned tertiary institutions in 2013. That is an increase of 14 percent since 2008. This has been a significant increase in tough economic times. Funding of universities has increased greater by 19 percent from 2008 to 2013. We have significantly increased the size of the Performance-based Research Fund. That will hit $300 million a year in 2 years’ time. We have also seen increases in the Marsden Fund. Our reforms and increased investment are paying off. The tertiary system produced more qualifications than ever before in 2012. The number of domestic students who completed a Bachelor’s degree in 2012 was the highest ever at 25400—up by nearly a quarter since 2010.Budget 2014—Financial Support for Families7.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to theMinister of Finance: How will the changes to the Parental Tax Credit he announced in the 2014 Budget help those who as he states are at “the hard end of poverty”?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The extension of the parental tax credit which applies to 15000 families will assist those who are at the hard end of poverty if and when they are able to get into work. The parental tax credit extension is part of a package that has five elements and three of those are available to all children and all families regardless of parental income—for example free doctors’ visits and prescriptions for under-13s as well as significant investment in protection for vulnerable children. As it happens the member I know has a view that a lot of the families covered by the parental tax credit still have children who are “in poverty” even though they do have some work income.Jacinda Ardern: Why do those at the hard end of poverty in work deserve help but the up to 14000 who are at the hard end of poverty and who have not been able to find work not deserve support from this Government?Hon BILL ENGLISH: In fact this Government has devoted more new spending over the last 2 or 3 years to those families than any previous Government has through practical support and the welfare system. For example every sole parent under the age of 20 has a supervising adult in their life funded wholly by the Government. That person or organisation has the purpose of ensuring that that family gets their power bills paid that they have some kind of stable housing that they are protected from violence and that their social issues have some opportunity to be dealt with at the cost of $7000 per head per year for each of the now around 3000 sole parents under the age of 20. Their children are among the most vulnerable in our community and they now have extensive support from the Government.Jacinda Ardern: What additional income support have the 14000 families at the hard end of poverty received from his Government in this Budget or indeed in any Budget?Hon BILL ENGLISH: They have received an increase in their benefits consistent with the increase in the CPI over the last 4 or 5 years despite the fact that we have had a pretty tight Budget. They benefit from increased early childcare subsidies which I think have doubled in the last 5 years in cost to the Government. If the simple transmission of cash was the answer to all these problems we would have no poverty because for 30 years Governments have been increasing the payments per child and benefit payments for these families. That is why this Government has taken a much more targeted and individually supportive approach to helping people out of persistent deprivation.Jacinda Ardern: Does he agree with Dr Nikki Turner that free doctors’ visits and prescriptions will do little to reduce child poverty without also improving the incomes and the housing conditions of the very poor; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has had a very strong focus on improving particularly the housing conditions for the most disadvantaged through the insulation programme which has meant that every single State house that can be insulated is now insulated and through a 5-year programme of discussion with the community housing sector about how we can more efficiently help more people in serious housing need and we continue to make changes in that respect.Jacinda Ardern: Does he agree with the Justice and Peace Commission of the Catholic Diocese of Auckland a group that deals with people struggling to make ends meet that the Budget does not address the root causes of poverty or does he consider a CPI adjustment for those at the hard end of poverty to be sufficient?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I respect the voice of the Justice and Peace Commission of the Catholic Church and I expect it to be better informed than a lot of other spokespeople for pretty obvious reasons. In fact when I put money on the plate each Sunday I know that some of it is going to our critics and that is what you expect in a robust democracy. But I think it would be interesting to have a discussion about what we believe the root cause of poverty to be because if it was just a lack of cash then we would have solved the problem years ago. In fact this Government is focusing in on those things that lock people into poverty which are welfare dependency no educational achievement and victimisation and regularrevictimisation through crime. We are digging into those long-term causes. Of course where we do have the capacity to provide more cash support we have such as $500 million for families in this last Budget.Accident Compensation—Levies and Car Safety Ratings8.JOANNE HAYES (National) to theMinister for ACC: What reports has she received which show New Zealanders could pay lower ACC levies in 2015?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): As I announced last week Budget 2014 indicates the Accident Compensation Corporation is on track to provide further levy cuts for New Zealanders of around $480 million in 2015-16 following more pleasing results over the past year. Today ACC announced it will go out for public consultation on the 2015-16 levy rates. ACC continues to improve its financial situation transforming the way it supports injured New Zealanders back to independence and building on its investment returns. As a result it is proposing reductions in the workers and earners accounts and the motor vehicle account. New Zealanders can take part by submitting to the ACC by 5 p.m. on Tuesday 17 June 2014. Consultation papers are available on ACC’s website. The Government will make its final decision after ACC’s public consultation but we anticipate the bulk of these cuts will be for motor vehicle levies along with the possibility of a levy reduction for employers and the self-employed.Joanne Hayes: What factors are taken into account when determining levies?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Each year ACC assesses the levy rates required for future levy years. The assessment is based on a number of factors including actual and projected claims costs returns on investment interest rates and the number of registered motor vehicles. Due to changing patterns of these and other elements the amount that ACC must collect may change each year. ACC is successfully managing these factors in order to provide a scheme that is fair for levy payers and for clients. Following the consultation process and receiving ACC’s recommendations the Government will make a decision on levy rates also taking into account public interest considerations such as the economic environment. It is also important that any decrease in ACC levies is sustainable and provides consistency for households and businesses inthe long term. Nobody wants to be the Government that has to put up levies as we had to do after Labour left ACC in such a mess.Joanne Hayes: How is ACC addressing car safety in the consultation process?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: What an excellent question. As well as reducing average motor vehicle levies ACC is also proposing the introduction of risk rating for cars in 2015. Risk rating would mean the cost of levies would more closely reflect the level of risk associated with a car. All car owners would pay lower levies under ACC’s proposed changes. Owners of the safest cars would receive the largest levy cut. The proposal is for the implementation of four bands for light passenger vehicles based on how vehicle design affects injury outcomes. Each band would have a different levy rate based on the combined risk of injury to the vehicle occupants—Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there are rulings about tabling press releases but I would encourage the Minister to table that press release she was reading out there.Mr SPEAKER: Order! And that is not a point of order but I think the point the member was attempting to make is that the answer was certainly going on for a long long time.Housing Affordable—OECD Ranking Issues and Government Policies9.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū) to theMinister of Housing: Is he concerned that New Zealand has gone from the 10th highest rate of house price growth in the OECD from 2004-2011 to the highest in 2013?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): I am concerned that house prices rose by 9 percent in 2013. That is why the Government initiated a whole batch of reforms on land supply development costs and materials and expanded support for first-home buyers. The member is being very selective though in his choice of years in the study because in the preceding 5 years house prices rose by only 1.8 percent—i.e. 11 percent over the last 6 years. In the preceding 6 years house prices rose by over 10 percent every year for 6 years—i.e. 83 percent. The difference in what the previous Government did was that for 6 consecutive years with house prices over 10 percent a year it did nothing; we have 1 year at 9 percent and we have got a big package of reform.Phil Twyford: Does he agree that there is market failure when house prices increase so much faster than rents and wages; and when will he stop whining about historical data and get on with helping young Kiwi first-home buyers into their own homes?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes there was serious market failure in Auckland with a metropolitan urban limit that drove land prices through the roof. The interesting part is that Mr Twyford was one of the architects of the metropolitan urban limit. We have broken it and we have got 33500 new sections coming on stream.Jami-Lee Ross: Which countries in the OECD study showed the most favourable house price data and what elements of those countries’ economic policies is the Government considering adopting?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In respect of the table quoted in the original question the countries that had the lowest house price rises were Greece and Spain. These countries have unemployment rates of over 25 percent. They have massive debt problems and huge deficits. People are leaving those countries in droves. It might be the economic prescription that members opposite have for New Zealand; we have a very different vision.Phil Twyford: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that falling rates of homeownership Kiwi first-home buyers being locked out of the market by loan-to-value ratios and Government agencies referring people to live in campgrounds are all symptoms of an economy that is successful?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The long track record of homeownership post - World War II is very clear. That is homeownership rates declined in periods when interest rates were high and improved in years when interest rates were low. It is also interesting in looking at that long-term study that interest rates were always higher under Labour Governments and lower under National Governments. That is why people who want to enhance homeownership will vote for a John Key - led Government.Jami-Lee Ross: Has he received any reports of proposals for managing migration pressure on housing; if so what feedback has he seen on those proposals?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: New Zealand’s migration issue is that Kiwis are voting with their feet and not leaving. That should be celebrated. But I have heard a proposal onMorning Report yesterday that we should cut immigration numbers by between 20000 and 30000. But when I listened toMorning Report this morning I heard a person from the same organisation saying that that was not true. The first report was from Mr Twyford; the second from Mr Cunliffe. I do not think they have got any idea what they stand for.Phil Twyford: How many of the 22000 offshore landlords he cited in the House last week own more than one house and how many of the 185000 empty houses are owned by offshore owners or syndicates?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: What we know from the Inland Revenue Department data is that there are 22000 taxpayers who live offshore and own a home in New Zealand and are receiving rent. We further know that that number has been constant over the last 5 years. There was some increase in that number under the previous Government which like most things on housing did absolutely nothing about it. That number is 1.2 percent of our housing stock. We want to focus on the main game in housing. The Productivity Commission said that it was a non-issue and that is why we are focusing on things like land supply infrastructure costs materials—those things that will make a difference.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Government so against keeping records of sales to offshore buyers and how can the Government possibly explain its policy on the housing crisis when it has no idea how much housing stock is in foreign hands?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The advice the Government has received from Treasury from the Productivity Commission and from my own ministry is that foreign buyers are having no substantive effect on the New Zealand housing market. If we had some registry where every time you wanted to buy a house you had to show your passport or evidence of your residency that would not answer the question either because the advice is that the bulk of people who are buying houses from overseas are actually then coming to New Zealand to live and gaining residency and citizenship. So if you really wanted to get accurate data you would have to fill out a whole lot more forms to then trace that further. Having an argument as to whether the number is 1.3 percent or 1.4 percent takes our housing debate nowhere.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why on earth is he trying to maintain that argument for—Hon Steven Joyce: Winston’s arguing for more pen-pushers.Rt Hon Winston Peters: —New Zealand offshore housing in the country and especially in Auckland when the OECD the Reserve Bank—and “Big Ears” when he is awake—and Treasury are claiming that it is adversely affecting both inflation and high interest rates?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member is wrong. The reality is that the advice from Treasury the advice from the Productivity Commission and the advice from my own ministry is that foreign buyers are having no substantive effect. It is the oldest trick inthe book whether it is crime whether it is unemployment or whether it is a challenge like housing for Mr Peters to jump on the bandwagon and say that it is all the foreigners’ fault. That will get us nowhere. We should address the real issues.Hon Tau Henare: Where’s the smoking gun?Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is coming son. Why is the Government trying to defend the recent record of thousands of houses bought by offshore buyers ahead of the right of New Zealanders to be able to afford a house in their own country?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The data from the Inland Revenue Department is that 22000 overseas persons own property in New Zealand and rent it. The bulk of those are actually expat New Zealanders who are living overseas doing their OE and who own a house whom members opposite now want to ban from being able to own a home in this country. We say that that is a nonsense.Phil Twyford: Does he agree with theNew Zealand Herald which said yesterday in an editorial that his refusal to seek comprehensive data “raises the implication that the Government does not want accurate data for fear of what may be revealed.”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My correct comment was that I rejected a register and I maintain the position that it would be a waste of money. I am happy to receive further information but I have to say that an argument over whether it is 1.3 percent or 1.4 percent does not make a dime of difference to the major arguments that we need to address if Kiwis are going to be able to afford their own homes.Intelligence Agencies—Information Sharing and Drone Strikes10.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to thePrime Minister: Has he received information that any other New Zealander apart from Daryl Jones has been killed in United States drone strikes; if so what was that information?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I have previously said that a New Zealander was killed in a counter-terrorism operation in Yemen. I am advised that I have not received information that other New Zealanders have been killed in drone strikes. However I am not going to rule that out for the following reasons. As I have said there are sometimes New Zealanders who put themselves in harm’s way the Government does not know where they are and what they are doing and a number of people are registered as dual citizens.Dr Kennedy Graham: Can he affirm that information supplied to US intelligence during his time as Prime Minister has never led to the death of any civilian?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot be sure of that information. As I said yesterday in my press conference New Zealand intelligence agencies have gathered information—in Afghanistan for instance—and have passed that to our International Security Assistance Force partners. Our International Security Assistance Force partners have used that information I suspect and I cannot confirm exactly the results of that.Dr Kennedy Graham: Does he then consider the New Zealand Government to be an accomplice to an extrajudicial killing of a New Zealand citizen if our intelligence agency supplies information to its US counterpart about a New Zealander and that New Zealander is killed by a US drone strike?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is talking about a hypothetical situation that has not occurred to the best of my knowledge.Dr Kennedy Graham: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My previous question was not hypothetical because in fact it has been acknowledged and accepted by the House that a New Zealander has been killed.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member was quite clear. He made the comment in his question that New Zealand intelligence services have provided information that had been used in the killing of a New Zealander in Yemen. As I have made quite clear inpublic statements New Zealand did not supply information to the US authorities when it came to the New Zealander who was killed in counter-terrorism operations in Yemen.Mr SPEAKER: The point is that the question was asked and it has been addressed in the answer of the Prime Minister.Dr Kennedy Graham: Will the Prime Minister instruct our intelligence agency to adopt a policy similar to that of its German counterpart which rules out the possibility of shared information being directly used in a US drone strike against one’s own citizens?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.Hon David Cunliffe: As a matter of policy and not of operational detail what caveats limits or policies of any kind does New Zealand place on the use of New Zealand - sourced signals intelligence provided to its Five Eyes partner countries in operations such as drone strikes?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is a very detailed question and I simply do not have the answer to that with me in the House.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It may be legitimate for the Prime Minister to say that he does not have all the detail but given that the question was carefully phrased to say “of any kind” could the Prime Minister please—Mr SPEAKER: Could the member come to the point of order? What is the point of order?Hon David Cunliffe: —say whether there is some detail that he may be in a position to provide.Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order; that is effectively the member asking another supplementary question which he may well be entitled to do. The Prime Minister has answered the question. If the member wants to continue with further supplementaries he has every opportunity to do so but not by a point of order.Justice Ministry—Employment Issues11.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to theMinister of Justice: Does she stand by all her statements?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): Yes especially my statement that this Government is focused on the big issues.Hon Maryan Street: Did she express any concern to the chief executive of the Ministry of Justice after the release of the PaulaRebstock report into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade leak regarding the employment of Nigel Fyfe?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No and it would be most inappropriate for me to do so.Hon Maryan Street: Was she or any of her staff involved in any discussions with the chief executive of the Ministry of Justice about Nigel Fyfe being put on gardening leave before or after theRebstock report was made public?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No—in fact Mr Andrew Bridgman the secretary advised me of the situation based on the no-surprises policy. I note that that member has previously put out a press release saying that I “could have moved to reinstate Mr Fyfe much earlier except that PaulaRebstock is a close friend and trusted ally of Ms Collins.” as in me. I completely reject that allegation. I think it would be most improper for me to have taken her advice.Hon Maryan Street: Has she ever referred to Nigel Fyfe as a “bad egg”?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Certainly not.Hon Maryan Street: Did she discuss theRebstock report with the chief executive of the Ministry of Justice prior or subsequently to its release in December 2013?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think I have already made it very clear that the chief executive on the no-surprises policy as he should do advised me of the situation. I was advised of the—Grant Robertson: You said nothing. You were mute at that point.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well actually I never make comments about employees. I am not a Labour Government Minister; I am a National Government Minister.Budget 2014—Kauri Dieback Disease12.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to theMinister of Conservation: What new measures will the Government be able to take to contain and control the kauri dieback disease as a consequence of the $26.5 million committed in the Budget?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): The funding will enable us to put over 100 kilometres of new track and 5 kilometres of new boardwalk in particularly sensitive areas and also to install a further 300 additional hygiene stations in the kauri forests of Northland Auckland and the Waikato. It also includes increased pig control and investment in critical research. The funding is complementary to that also being contributed by our partners in regional councils as part of the Keep Kauri Standing programme.Scott Simpson: When was funding for kauri dieback first sought from the Government and what was the process for securing that funding?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Funding for kauri dieback was first sought from the Government in 2007 and again in 2008 but on both occasions was declined by the previous Government. The first Government funding that was provided for kauri dieback was in the 2009 Budget and was provided for a period of 5 years. We did a review last year and the Minister for Primary Industries and I agreed on a Budget bid in November for this $26.5 million which is supported by science and will ensure that kauri is maintained for future generations.