Questions for oral answer
1. Budget 2016—Economic and Fiscal Conditions
[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:712;Page:2. Text is subject to correction.]
1. TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Finance: What economic and fiscal conditions is the Government factoring into its planning for Budget 2016 on 26 May?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): As the Prime Minister said in his pre-Budget speech today, Budget 2016 will be delivered with a backdrop of a growing economy, more jobs, and higher incomes, notwithstanding the challenges for the dairy industry. Most New Zealand forecasters are predicting growth of around 3 percent on average over the next few years. In respect of the Government’s books, we have moved from an $18.4 billion deficit to a surplus in 2014-15, and as long as we remain fiscally prudent we are on track to reduce net debt to around 20 percent of GDP by 2020.
Tim Macindoe: How is this outlook translating into growth for particular sectors of the economy?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The fortunes of the export sector are particularly important for New Zealand, and despite the dairy downturn we are seeing continued export growth. Despite a $3 billion fall in dairy exports Statistics New Zealand reports that in 2015 total exports rose $1.9 billion—even with that decrease in dairy exports. Important factors in this were a $2.3 billion increase in spending by international visitors and an increase of just under $900 million of meat exports. Other exports are also growing: international education and wine.
Tim Macindoe: What challenges does the New Zealand economy face, given fluctuating global conditions?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Despite forecasts of continued reasonable growth, nothing, of course, is guaranteed. In the latest World Economic Outlook the International Monetary Fund has reduced its global growth forecasts yet again, highlighting China’s slowdown, the impact of low oil prices on emerging markets such as Brazil, and persistent economic weakness in Japan, Europe, and the US. New Zealand needs to understand the impact of these on our situation, rather than just the headline numbers.
Tim Macindoe: What initiatives does Budget 2016 include to support the growth of small businesses?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Today the Prime Minister announced a range of adjustments in the tax system that are friendly to small businesses. These will reduce compliance costs and make tax simpler for small businesses. This is just the latest initiative that we have introduced. Others include cutting ACC levies by around $2 billion since 2011, introducing 90-day trials and the starting out wage, and making it easier for businesses to interact with the Government.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why has it taken the Government so long to adopt the brilliant policy of removing provisional tax with business PAYE, announced by New Zealand First on 15 July last year?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: First, we announced it before New Zealand First, and, secondly, we actually have to do it.
2. Tax System—Overseas Trusts
[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:712;Page:3. Text is subject to correction.]
2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he have any financial interests which may affect his decisions around foreign trusts; if so, what are those financial interests?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): No.
Andrew Little: Did he disclose to Cabinet his links to Antipodes Trust Group when making decisions on the review of foreign trusts in New Zealand?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I rely on the members knowing about my pecuniary interests.
Andrew Little: Did he send John Shewan and Don Brash to the Bahamas in 2014 to advise that Government on tax matters?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. I think they went to talk to them about GST.
Andrew Little: Can he confirm that John Shewan and Don Brash advised the Bahamas that its financial services be zero-rated for value-added tax in order to protect the offshore services industry of that country?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. I am not aware of that level of detail.
Andrew Little: I seek leave to table an article from a Bahamas news outlet, not widely available—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member is seeking leave to table a document. I want to listen to what it is. If there are interjections coming from particularly my far-right quadrant, that makes it difficult. Would the member start his introduction again as to what the document is.
Andrew Little: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a media report from the Bahamas, not widely available, on the advice given by John Shewan and Don Brash to the Bahamas Government to the effect that international financial services be treated as zero-rated to protect—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been well and truly described. I will put the leave and the House will decide. Leave is sought to table that particular media article from the Bahamas. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.
• Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Andrew Little: Does he not see that there is a fundamental problem with appointing a person to review our foreign trust laws who has advised a Government on how to protect its tax haven status?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member has proven over the last 2 weeks that he is completely unfit to judge who—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That is a straight personal reflection on the member who has asked the question, and that will be ruled out of order. Would the Prime Minister stand now and answer the question. [Interruption] Well, I have not heard the answer. [Interruption] Order! I have not heard the answer, so I am going to invite the member to re-ask the question so I can hear the answer.
Andrew Little: Does he not see that there is a fundamental problem with appointing a person to review our foreign trust laws who has advised a Government on how to protect its tax haven status?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot confirm whether the Bahamas is a tax haven or not—I simply do not know. I do not think the member would know either.
Andrew Little: How can New Zealanders have any confidence in his judgment as Prime Minister on tax-dodging foreign trusts when he has links to Antipodes Trust Group, a company specialising in foreign trusts?
Mr SPEAKER: It is a very marginal question as to whether there is prime ministerial responsibility, but I will let the Minister address it.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have fully disclosed my positions. As is quite clear I am not going to go into those because I have no prime ministerial responsibility for them, but I am quite confident that I understand my positions and I am quite confident that they are above board. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!
Andrew Little: Why, in answer to my question yesterday, where I asked “has he ever been involved personally or professionally in a foreign trust or other vehicle used to reduce tax,” did he fail to disclose his links with Antipodes Trust Group, a business that specialises in foreign trusts?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not involved in a foreign trust. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am referring to the front bench of the National Party. Order!
Andrew Little: Why is his trust run by a firm that specialises in helping the mega-wealthy set up foreign trusts to dodge tax?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! No. In that particular case, that question is definitely out of order. There is no prime ministerial responsibility. I can clarify my ruling there if it would help, if there are any further supplementary questions: “Individual Ministers are not responsible for the Register of Pecuniary Interests. That is a thing that members of Parliament are required to comply with. However, Ministers are responsible for their management of conflicts of interest, and where there is a potential conflict of interest with the Minister’s portfolio interests, then there is a legitimate ground for questioning.” I refer members to Speaker’s Ruling 172/1. A Minister may be asked about financial or other interests only in so far as it involves potential conflicts of interests relating to his or her portfolios, and in the case of the Prime Minister there is a responsibility for every portfolio, but he still only has ministerial responsibility for potential conflicts of interest. I would also take this opportunity to draw members’ attention to Speaker’s Ruling 171/4, which states that “A question whose sole purpose is to pry into a member’s private affairs is not in order”. The Cabinet Manual makes it clear that Ministers do have additional requirements with respect to personal interests because of the influence and power they can exercise. Ministers are responsible for identifying, reviewing, and managing conflicts of interest, and that is a legitimate subject for questioning in the House today or any day. The member may want to rephrase that question.
Andrew Little: How can New Zealanders have any confidence in his judgment as Prime Minister and the management of his conflicts of interest when, days after appointing somebody to investigate our foreign trust and tax-dodging laws, he discloses he has money deposited with Antipodes Trust Group, given that that arrangement is not standard practice for the management of trusts?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is standard.
Andrew Little: Can he give New Zealanders a cast-iron assurance in relation to the management of his conflicts of interest that the money he has with Antipodes Trust Group is not associated with any vehicle designed to avoid tax?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have made it quite clear: it is money that is held in my name that is in with a New Zealand trading bank. It is no different to anybody else, and pretty much any lawyer around New Zealand does trust work.
Andrew Little: In relation to that last question and the management of the Prime Minister’s conflicts of interest, given that his trust lawyers say “client information is kept strictly confidential. Reporting requirements are limited, and the identity of the settlor and beneficiaries need not be disclosed.”, why does he still say that New Zealand has full disclosure of information in relation to its foreign trust law?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because it does, and, actually, interestingly enough, a specialist trust firm is subject to part one of the anti – money-laundering rules. It has to know both the source of client, it is subjected to 2-yearly reviews, and it is subjected to full disclosure of any information that is asked of it, with countries that have either a double tax agreement or an information-sharing agreement. Actually, they are, basically, the crème de la crème of making sure that there is proper disclosure.
Andrew Little: Has he ever had any links to any companies or other financial vehicles that are used to reduce tax?
Mr SPEAKER: I do not see a prime ministerial responsibility in that question.
Chris Hipkins: Point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: Point of order—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order!
Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think, as you have made very clear in your ruling, the entire line of questioning has been around potential conflicts of interest for the Prime Minister, and I think it is perfectly legitimate for the Leader of the Opposition to be testing that.
Mr SPEAKER: No, I just ruled—the member is right about most of the questions, but he is not right about that question. There was no mention of potential conflicts of interest, as I heard the question.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a different point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just clarify—we had an issue yesterday where I asked the member whether he was raising a fresh point of order and he said it was. I reviewed it, and it certainly was not. I do get a bit impatient when we continue to relitigate matters. If the member does have a fresh point of order, I am happy to hear it, but if it is in any way questioning whether I have just made the right call in saying that question was in order or out of order, that is, then, just questioning me as a Speaker, and that in itself is very disorderly.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Speaking to the point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: No, I have a point of order here, first—or do I not? [Interruption] A fresh point of order from the Hon David Parker.
Hon David Parker: I believe it is, and I accept your comment about yesterday. The Prime Minister, to the New Zealand public and to this Parliament, quite often relies upon his expertise in banking and his experience as an international member of that industry prior to election to justify his expertise and his views on matters. Mr Speaker, the flip side of that is when we come to other issues that relate to international banking. The history of the Prime Minister’s experience is relevant to the views that he has, and if it is relevant on the positive side, I suggest that the Opposition must have some latitude in respect of exploring issues where those same ethics—and I do not mean that to impugn—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the point to an end, please.
Hon David Parker:—the ethics there—and those same factual bases become relevant from another point of view.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The questions from the Leader of the Opposition have been in relation to a conflict of interest about a foreign trust. I have never had a foreign trust, I do not have a foreign trust, and, therefore, I cannot have a conflict of interest with one.
Mr SPEAKER: Does the member have a further supplementary question?
Andrew Little: Yes, one more.
Mr SPEAKER: Further supplementary—unless I am required to rule on Mr Parker’s point, but I would simply say that I have, in my opinion, given latitude to the Leader of the Opposition throughout his questioning, apart from one at the very end, which I am comfortable I have ruled out of order, and should have done so because in my opinion it was prying into matters for which there was no prime ministerial responsibility.
Andrew Little: Does he think that he can properly manage his conflicts of interest as Prime Minister if he does not give New Zealanders a cast-iron assurance that he has had no links to any companies or other financial vehicles that are used to reduce tax?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I just answered that in the point I made earlier. I have never had a foreign trust, and I pay my fair share of tax. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I do not want to have to mention the name of the member twice in 2 days.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Referring to his statement that New Zealand is not a tax haven, is the Antipodes Trust Group Ltd a foreign trust operation or a domestic trust operation?
Mr SPEAKER: There is no prime ministerial responsibility for that at all. That is about the member’s pecuniary interests. I made a ruling earlier.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not about his pecuniary interests. I am asking about the status of an operation that he is familiar with, because of his connection with the chief executive and lawyer, namely the man who set it up. That is not a matter of pecuniary interest. I want to know the facts.
Mr SPEAKER: I listened carefully to the question, and it did not meet the requirements that I established quite clearly during question time today.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If we are going to get at the truth of this matter, I want to know, as a point of clarity from you, what is the offence that I am engaging in here if I am asking for the status of a trust operation that is now out in the media and known by everybody?
Mr SPEAKER: Because I have just ruled that that is a matter associated with the member’s pecuniary interests return, and, as I said earlier, that is a responsibility for every member of Parliament in this place. It is not something for which there is a specific prime ministerial responsibility.
3. Prime Minister—Statements
[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:712;Page:6. Text is subject to correction.]
3. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, I do.
James Shaw: Does he stand by his statement that New Zealand is not a tax haven because “New Zealand has full disclosure of information” when it comes to foreign trusts?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.
James Shaw: If New Zealand has full disclosure of information, why does Antipodes Trust Group describe New Zealand foreign trusts as offering limited reporting requirements, where the identity of the settlor and the beneficiaries need not be disclosed?
Mr SPEAKER: No, again we have just transgressed into exactly the territory we were in before. If the member wants to ask a question about full disclosure, do so. But do not use the question to pry into any member’s return of pecuniary interests.
James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week we had questions in the House about statements on websites by other law firms that were offering services to people to set up foreign trusts in New Zealand. These organisations, like Covisory Partners Ltd, and so on, are very similar to Antipodes Trust Group and I do not see why we should exclude Antipodes Trust Group from the same line of questioning as we had last week, just because the Prime Minister has an account with them.
Mr SPEAKER: Because I suggest then that members refer to the two Speakers’ rulings that I gave—Speakers’ ruling 172/1 and Speakers’ ruling 171/4. They describe quite adequately the role of the Prime Minister in answering questions. It is not an opportunity for members to use questions to any Minister to then pry into the register of pecuniary interests.
James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled on the matter. I will allow the member to rephrase his question so that it is in line with the Standing Orders.
James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled on the matter. If it is a fresh point of order, I am very keen to hear it. But if it is in any way again just disagreeing with the decision I have made—
James Shaw: I am seeking clarification.
Mr SPEAKER: Well, that is really not the purpose of a point of order. The way forward—and I have given the member an opportunity to move quickly to a question and rephrase it in a way that it meets my requirements.
James Shaw: I am rephrasing the question, then.
Mr SPEAKER: I am giving the member the opportunity. Rather than ruling it out, I am giving the member—
James Shaw: Does he agree with Antipodes Trust Group that New Zealand foreign trusts offer limited reporting requirements, where the identity and settlor of the beneficiaries need not be disclosed?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would need to see that statement in context with all the other positions.
James Shaw: Does he agree with Antipodes Trust Group that potential foreign investors are available to use their services because client information is kept strictly confidential?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is not for me to comment on the advertising of a particular private sector company.
James Shaw: Has he spoken to anybody at Antipodes Trust Group in the last 2 weeks?
Mr SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Prime Minister, insofar as there is prime ministerial responsibility—insofar as there is.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Not in terms of prime ministerial responsibility, no.
James Shaw: So does he agree that it is correct that client information is kept strictly confidential?
Mr SPEAKER: Again, I cannot see how that relates in any way to the prime ministerial responsibility.
James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am simply extending a line of questioning started by my colleague Julie Anne Genter last week. The Prime Minister said that there were a number of law firms that were incorrect in their statements on their website. I am just trying to determine—
Mr SPEAKER: Well, if the member wants to rephrase the question in a way that satisfies me, I will give him an opportunity.
James Shaw: So does the Prime Minister stand by his responses to questions last week that law firms including Antipodes Trust Group, Covisory Partners, and so on, are incorrect in the statements that they make on their websites in relation to foreign trust law in New Zealand?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I was not asked about that particular firm last week.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Shaw put a generic category of firms and then included Antipodes Trust Group. The answer came back from the Prime Minister: “I wasn’t asked about that particular firm last week.” That cannot be the answer to a question that included more than that firm, as Mr Shaw put it.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Prime Minister.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member made an assertion about a particular firm and said that that was what his colleague had asked me last week. She did not ask me that last week.
Mr SPEAKER: And that was the answer that was given.
James Shaw: Does he think it matters whether or not New Zealand fits the legal definition of a tax haven if it is being marketed as one or used by people from overseas as one, regardless of its legal definition as a tax haven?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: New Zealand is not a tax haven. I had a discussion with the Inland Revenue Department commissioner this morning about exactly that point and she confirmed to me as well that New Zealand is not a tax haven.
James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order from James Shaw. [Interruption] Order! I have a point of order from James Shaw.
James Shaw: My question was not whether or not he thought that New Zealand was a tax haven, it was whether it mattered whether it was thought of as a tax haven.
Mr SPEAKER: And again the question in my mind was addressed, particularly when I refer to Speaker’s rulings 191/3 and 4. When you ask a very general question like that as a primary question, you have got to allow some latitude in the subsequent supplementary questions and the answers that might be given.
4. Tax System—Small Business
[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:712;Page:7. Text is subject to correction.]
4. ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Revenue: What is the Government doing to reduce tax compliance costs for small businesses?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Revenue): Very good news for small business. Today the Prime Minister announced a—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear the answer.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I cannot even hear myself. Today the Prime Minister announced a small business – friendly tax package that will make paying tax easier and more certain and help small businesses—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Iain Lees-Galloway, please desist the barrage. I am trying to listen to the answer. Would the Minister please start the answer again.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Happy to, Mr Speaker. Today the Prime Minister announced a small business – friendly tax package that will make paying tax easier and more certain and help small business tailor payments to their circumstances. The changes announced today will save small businesses an estimated $180 million over 4 years. The main improvement is to allow small businesses to pay provisional tax as they earn. This new pay-as-you-go option will benefit 100,000 businesses by allowing them to pay provisional tax 2-monthly based on their accounting income and reducing the risk and cost of underestimating. In addition, we will allow people to pay their provisional tax through their accounting software rather than running a separate system just for the Inland Revenue Department.
Alastair Scott: What other changes did the Government announce today to benefit small businesses?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: We want the tax system to fit in with business, not the other way around. Use-of-money interest will be removed from all but final annual payments, the 1 percent penalty levied on top of an interest charge will be scrapped from 1 April 2017 for new debt, and contractors subject to schedular deductions will be able to choose a withholding rate that suits their needs. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. We want to help them spend more time focused on their business, not their tax.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that they say that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, how many other policies of New Zealand First would he like to borrow?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I thank the member for his flattery, because the green paper that the changes are based on was released in March 2015, a full 4 months before New Zealand First’s policy.
5. Prime Minister—Statements
[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:712;Page:8. Text is subject to correction.]
5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: How could someone from PricewaterhouseCoopers qualify to review our foreign trust disclosure laws when PricewaterhouseCoopers’ association with Tegel Foods saw that company generate revenue in New Zealand of $562 million yet pay only 0.38 percent tax in this country?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: PricewaterhouseCoopers will know more about tax than that member ever will.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: How could someone—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just want the member to have a fair go. There was too much interjection.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: How could someone from PricewaterhouseCoopers qualify to review our foreign trust disclosure laws when PricewaterhouseCoopers’ association with Rio Tinto saw that company generate revenue in New Zealand of $76 million yet pay only 3.6 percent tax in this country?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: PricewaterhouseCoopers is recognised worldwide as one of the top five firms in the world, and the managing partners of it, I think, are generally recognised for their expertise. Mr Shewan actually is an international expert. I think his capacity is beyond reproach, and any feeble attempts by that member to denigrate his personality will be seen for what they are: bitter and twisted, but not—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are now moving a bit—[Interruption] Order!
Rt Hon Winston Peters: What would qualify John Shewan to do the job that the public is requiring now—or to fit the Prime Minister’s description of being an expert—when he has been heavily criticised by the Supreme Court of New Zealand and the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, and his views were dismissed by a court as high as the Privy Council in London?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Many people criticise that member, and some people still listen to him.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This, as you well know, is not about me. It is about him—it is about him. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I know it is not about the member, but when I consider the tone of the question in the first place, and the way it was levelled at a person who is not in the House to defend himself, the answer given was not one that I would have given but on this occasion I am going to rule it as satisfactory.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have made these remarks about Mr Shewan outside of the House. If he does not like them, his recourse—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why does he not see how preposterous it is to put up someone who has very recently been advising the Bahamas Government on how to set up tax-free foreign trust structures?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The genesis of the reason why John Shewan and Don Brash were sent to the Bahamas is because the Bahamas’ Prime Minister asked me about the successful introduction of GST in this country, going all the way back to the introduction under the Labour Government, and because it was looking to implement a similar policy. I thought the expertise of two experts in this area—Don Brash, who had done an enormous amount; and John Shewan—was a sensible thing to do for international diplomacy. I stand by that view. I am glad that I sent those two gentlemen and not others I could name.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Cards on the table—of the 70 leaders and heads of State mentioned in the Panama Papers, is he one of them?
Mr SPEAKER: I did not actually hear the question. Did the Prime Minister hear enough to answer it? [Interruption] Order! I did not hear it, but if the Prime Minister heard it enough to answer, then he can move to answer it.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have already previously made it clear that I have no dealings with Panama.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am having difficulty hearing the member, particularly when there is continual chatter here.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question is not whether he had any dealings in Panama. It was: of the 70 heads of State and leaders mentioned in the Panama Papers, which are to do with transactions all around the world—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was then answered by the Prime Minister—maybe not to your satisfaction, but it was answered.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: If it is a fresh point of order I will hear it, but if you are going to continue to raise points of order and disagree with decisions I am making, I will be asking the member to leave the Chamber. [Interruption] Order! If the member now wants to speak to a former point of order to assist—[Interruption] OK. The Prime Minister is now saying that he did not hear the question. Nor did I, because of the level of noise here [Interruption] Order! The way forward is I am going to have the question asked again in absolute silence from everybody in the House, and then the Prime Minister can answer it.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Of the 70 leaders and heads of State mentioned in the Panama Papers, is he one of them?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, but I will not hold up a sign saying that—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! No. The question was answered immediately.
Andrew Little: How can he manage his conflicts of interest, including any conflict of interest over the appointment of a reviewer of New Zealand’s foreign trust laws, if he cannot give New Zealanders a cast-iron assurance that he has not used companies or other vehicles—not foreign trusts—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to a conclusion.
Andrew Little: —to avoid tax?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am quite confident that I have managed all of my conflicts of interest.
6. Health, Minister—Elective Surgery
[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:712;Page:10. Text is subject to correction.]
6. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that “there’s a difference between surgery people actually need, and surgery people think they need”?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Absolutely. There is a difference between a telephone survey of what a person thinks they need and a trained doctor’s medical assessment. It is like the difference between how a party thinks it is doing and how it is actually doing. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!
Hon Annette King: Is he aware that eight district health boards have not performed the number of hip and knee operations expected of them since 2011, according to figures released by the Ministry of Health, with a total of 2,181 operations not done; and is that because the patients do not need the operations—they just think they do?
Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions.
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That is absolutely incorrect. I mean, overall, we have done 2,092 extra hips and knees over that period, 110,000 extra appointments across the system, and 50,000 extra elective operations across all specialities. So, no.
Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table data released to me from the Ministry of Health, under the Official Information Act, showing the trend in procedures over time.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that Ministry of Health information. Is there any objection? There is none.
• Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon Annette King: Does Sharon Cooper of Christchurch, a 35-year-old who has been refused assessment for a knee operation three times even though her GP and orthopaedic surgeon say she has advanced osteoarthritis and cannot walk up and down stairs, squat, or kneel—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to a conclusion.
Hon Annette King: —need surgery, or does she just think she does?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As the member herself has said in the past, it is better to help patients than to use them. So if the member would like to send the details through to me, I would be happy to take a look.
Hon Annette King: Does Janet Frame, a 66-year-old who has been waiting for a shoulder operation recommended by her surgeon and who is now reliant on home support and injections for pain and has become inactive, just think she needs surgery, or could she actually need it?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am, obviously, not familiar with that lady’s case. But, once again, rather than using her, why do you not send the details through to me, and we will see whether we can help her?
Hon Paula Bennett: May I ask the Minister what reports he has had on elective surgeries? [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Well, no, I do not know yet whether it is an attack on the Labour Party at all. I have got to listen to the question, and I cannot—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! I am not going to warn Dr Megan Woods again. If she continues to yap all the way through question time, then she can do it from outside the Chamber.
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have had a report from a Mrs J A of New Plymouth, who writes: “Dear sir, I’d just like to inform you I had a hip operation on the 7th of March. I’d like to let you know the service was excellent from the op to the food and aftercare—tops all the way. The doctors and nurses couldn’t do enough for me. Keep up the good work; it’s appreciated not only by me but by others. Annette King needs to go. I remain a very satisfied customer. Janet Armstrong.” [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: So for the Hon Annette King: that is a very good reason why I cannot anticipate an answer.
7. Small Businesses—Information and Communications Technology
[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:712;Page:6. Text is subject to correction.]
7. NUK KORAKO (National) to the Minister for Small Business: What online tools is the Government providing to help small businesses make informed decisions and reduce costs?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): on behalf of the Minister for Small Business: This Government is committed to reducing costs for small businesses and providing more online resources to help them make informed decisions. Through the business.govt.nz website there are a number of online tools to assist small businesses, such as compliance form matters, an employee costs calculator, a one-check company name and trademark and dominion name search, and compre4hensive and quick focus business plan templates. Small business owners are now able to quickly and easily create employment agreements online with the launch of a refreshed employment agreement builder tool. Hiring an employee can be stressful for a small business, but with the updated employment agreement builder we are making the process easy. This means less time working on contracts and more time working on your business.
Nuk Korako: What other Government agencies are providing more support to small businesses through online resources?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Last year Statistics New Zealand launched the “Data for business” section on its website. The online resource can help businesses succeed by identifying their customers, markets, and competition. The industry profiler tool on the website provides information about the number of businesses by region, numbers of new and ceased businesses in the past 5 years, worker turnover, survival rates, and average earnings for staff. The site has been recently updated with a new section called “Imports and exports”, which allows small businesses to find the data of the value of New Zealand trade with our top 50 trading partners. Retail trade was also included under the “Compare your industry” section to give businesses access to retail spending figures in New Zealand. It is just another way the Government is helping small businesses get more informed.
8. Housing, Auckland—Housing Developments on Crown Land
[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:712;Page:6. Text is subject to correction.]
8. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he stand by his statement that “The areas that Mr Twyford has identified are not on any of the lists that have been provided to me by officials” in relation to his Auckland Crown Land Programme?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister for Building and Housing: Yes, in the context in which they were made.
Phil Twyford: So is he still denying that the Mangere Lawn Cemetery and the Glendene electricity power substation are on the list that his officials say was used as the basis for his promise of 500 hectares, and has he informed Dame Patsy Reddy that he is planning to build apartments on the croquet lawn of Government House?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes.
Phil Twyford: Does he stand by his statement that he never saw the list that his officials released; if so, has Treasury expressed concern that he announced a $52 million Budget initiative without reading the official Budget papers, and is he concerned that the finance Minister just laughed yesterday when asked whether any more money would be forthcoming for this scheme?
Mr SPEAKER: Any of those three supplementary questions, the Hon Bill English.
Hon BILL ENGLISH: He spent his time doing what takes an enormous amount of effort to do, and that is securing surplus Crown land and making arrangements with the developers to build houses on it. He has not spent a whole lot of time going back over a list compiled from residential zonings compiled in 2008 by the previous Government. He is working very hard to get new houses built on surplus Crown land.
Phil Twyford: Can he confirm that he has wasted $52 million on a Budget announcement to make it look as if he is doing something about the housing crisis and that he has not got a single new house to show for it, and we are now only weeks away from the next Budget?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, the member’s statements are complete nonsense. This process is similar to the one we went through in Christchurch—of procuring surplus Crown land. It took up to 18 months to follow all the legal and council processes to enable the Government to lawfully build houses on the land. The $52 million will certainly be spent—all of it—and within a matter of 6 months or so, we should see signs of development on the surplus Crown land.
9. Family Violence—Announcements
[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:712;Page:7. Text is subject to correction.]
9. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has she made as part of the Ministerial Work Programme on family violence?
Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): Today with my colleagues Anne Tolley and Judith Collins, the Government has announced a new, integrated safety response pilot for family violence. The new pilot will initially be based in Christchurch and will bring together a number of Government and non-Government agencies, including agencies looking at wider issues such as health and housing, and including Whānau Ora navigators. It will provide 7-day-a-week triage and risk assessment and will develop and oversee tailored responses for victims, perpetrators, and their families. The pilot includes independent victim specialists to work with high-risk victims, and it is planned to commence from 1 July.
Joanne Hayes: How does the integrated safety response fit into the wider ministerial group work on family violence?
Hon AMY ADAMS: Today’s announcement is just one part of our wider ministerial work programme, under which Ministers representing 16 portfolios are actively reviewing and improving all aspects of the Government’s involvement in reducing family and sexual violence. From primary prevention to risk assessment, workforce development, incident response, legislative reviews, and more, this work programme and today’s announcement reflect the priority that this Government places on reducing New Zealand’s appalling rates of family and sexual violence.
10. Finance, Minister—Statements
[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:712;Page:7. Text is subject to correction.]
10. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were made.
Iain Lees-Galloway: Does he stand by the statements made to a meeting of Federated Farmers that there is “a cohort of Kiwis who now can’t get a licence because they can’t read and write properly and don’t look to be employable—you know, basically, young males” and that a lot of Kiwis available for work are, in his words, “pretty damned hopeless”?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, and I welcomed the presence of the member who strode to the front of the Federated Farmers meeting and sat there showing complete attention to everything I said, for about 20 minutes.
Iain Lees-Galloway: Does he stand by his statement that one of the reasons why immigration is “a bit more permissive” is that, in his words, Kiwis are “pretty damned hopeless”?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the member is mixing a couple of different statements there. I referred to the common—[Interruption] Well, the Government is at the sharp edge of this every day, and I referred to the common response from New Zealand employers that many of the people on our Ministry of Social Development list will not show up to the jobs they are offered and will not stay in the jobs that they are offered. If the member has not heard that from dozens of New Zealand employers, he is out of touch.
Iain Lees-Galloway: Why, after 8 years of the National Government, has he written off a whole cohort of young men as unemployable because they cannot read or write properly, and what message does it send young New Zealand men that they need to be replaced by migrant workers because, in his words, they are “pretty damned hopeless”?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has certainly not written anybody off. In fact, we have poured hundreds of millions into raising the level of educational achievement, job training for young New Zealanders, and individual supervision for every sole parent under the age of 20. Labour left young New Zealanders in such bad shape that even with that investment we still have so much more to do. And if the member cannot handle a realistic description of the problems we are dealing with, then he is out of touch.
11. Irrigation—Ruataniwha Scheme
[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:712;Page:12. Text is subject to correction.]
11. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for Primary Industries: Will Crown Irrigation Investments Limited continue to invest in the Ruataniwha Dam Project, in light of information released this morning that the total cost of the project is nearing $1 billion?
Hon JO GOODHEW (Acting Minister for Primary Industries): As Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd has not yet made a decision to invest in the Ruataniwha Dam project, I reject the premise of the member’s question.
Catherine Delahunty: Will the Irrigation Acceleration Fund continue to invest in the Ruataniwha Dam project given the cost blowout?
Hon JO GOODHEW: My understanding is that the Irrigation Acceleration Fund has given a grant of $575,000 to this particular project. It is a grant as opposed to an investment, which makes it a different type of framework to Crown Irrigation Investments.
Catherine Delahunty: Why is the Government funding or giving grants to a scheme that is undersubscribed by farmers and is having at least its fifth final deadline for farmer sign-up this month?
Hon JO GOODHEW: I think the member is jumping the gun a little. There will indeed be calls for further investment from farmers and from others who would be interested in investing in this. In fact, Crown Irrigation Investments has not made any decisions yet, but, as in the past, the Irrigation Acceleration Fund will make grants to assist schemes to be developed as a business case, in order for the technical aspects of the scheme to be determined, so that the possible investors can then make wise decisions.
Catherine Delahunty: If local farmers are unable to fund the $565 million that they are expected to pay, will the Government make up the shortfall, and by how much?
Hon JO GOODHEW: I believe that the member is asking me to speculate, and that is not something I am prepared to do on behalf of the Minister.
12. Health Services—Oral Health
[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:712;Page:12. Text is subject to correction.]
12. JONO NAYLOR (National) to the Minister of Health: What steps is the Government taking to improve the oral health of New Zealanders?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yesterday the Hon Peter Dunne and I announced a proposal to move decision making on water-supply fluoridation from local government to district health boards. I would just like to acknowledge Mr Dunne’s contribution to this important policy work. Fluoridation will potentially reduce tooth decay by 40 percent in children and 30 percent in adults. That is really important given that 35,000 children under the age of 5 had a rotten tooth extracted last year.
Jono Naylor: Why is this decision making on fluoridation being moved away from local government?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It makes sense to move the decision-making process from local government to district health boards, as district health boards not only have the relevant clinical expertise but also can align decision making with local health priorities. The move has been welcomed by Local Government New Zealand and a range of respected health bodies. This is a significant step forward for public health in New Zealand.