Hansard: Questions and Answers - August 8

• ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Transport, Auckland-Rail

1. JACINDA ARDERN (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Did the Auckland transport announcement he made on Sunday include any acceleration of his Government's plan to wait 30 years to build rail to the airport; if not, why not?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Our announcement on Sunday confirmed that we are committing $267 million to improving commuter rail in Auckland and in Wellington, to support future passenger growth. It is part of a $24 billion transport plan that we have worked together on with the Auckland Council, and that plan is currently being updated. That update process will take account of growing demand for light rail, and it is always possible that it could come forward, but right now Waterview has reduced the travel time to 25 minutes and reduced congestion, and so we have got time to consider the need for light rail.

Jacinda Ardern: Given the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) says traffic volumes to Auckland Airport have risen by a third in the last 4 years, how long does he expect the delays will get in the next 30 years?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The travel time has dropped considerably since the Waterview tunnel opened, and that is a big step forward. As part of the transport plan with Auckland, we need to fast track the route protection for the mass transit corridor, and that is agreed and under way. As the plan is reviewed in light of changing demand, we are interested in the light rail and it may come forward if that is what is required.
Jacinda Ardern: Does he agree with NZTA that Waterview-thank you, Labour-"is not a means"-

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will ask her question without the level of interjection that is coming from my immediate right.
Jacinda Ardern: Does he agree-[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have just given a warning and it was ignored by one very senior Minister. I hope I do not have to mention that again.
Jacinda Ardern: Does he agree with NZTA that Waterview "is not a means of removing congestion altogether, especially in peak periods,"; if so, why is he relying on what is likely to be a temporary solution to fix Auckland's transport issues and refusing to give Aucklanders alternatives and choices?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is simply wrong about a lack of alternatives and choices. Waterview has just opened. That is having a big impact, particularly for those travelling from west to south. The City Rail Link is under way, which, when completed, will double the train capacity, and all of this is in the context of an agreed plan with the Auckland Council, where $24 billion of projects is planned and agreed and the update is likely to bring the number up to about $27 billion of planned agreed projects and funding.

Jacinda Ardern: If light rail is "a good idea", as he said on Sunday, why is it not a good idea until 2047, by which time Auckland's population will have grown by an estimated 700,000?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have said, the plan between the Auckland Council and the Government has concluded that fast-track route protection for a mass transit corridor should get under way. Secondly, the Auckland Council and the Government are not willing to do light rail now at the expense of the key economic project of the East-West Link, which is about freight and trucks and economic activity. Labour's proposition is going to scale back the East-West Link and bring in a regional fuel tax. We simply disagree with both.

Jacinda Ardern: When the Auckland Council, Greater Auckland, and the Auckland chamber of commerce all support light rail to the airport straight away, why does he think he knows Auckland's transport needs better than Auckland's own community leaders?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have spent a number of years-the last couple of years-forming the Auckland transport plan with the council. For the first time ever, central government and the council have a common view about the projects, a common view about the funding, and, of course, there are some differences of opinion. We both agree we need the East-West Link because it is critical to the logistics of getting in and out of the largest industrial area in New Zealand, and I am surprised that the Labour Party does not understand how necessary it is.

Jacinda Ardern: Does he understand that Aucklanders are paying the price of congestion already-they pay it in the time they spend stuck in traffic, in the work that does not get done, we have the world's worst housing shortage in Auckland yet our builders are spending hours a day stuck in traffic; does he understand that the cost of doing nothing for 30 more years is great?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may have noticed all the red cones around Auckland, because there is no major transport route that is not undergoing major change, with more projects to come. Waterview has just opened, we have the northern corridor improvements, and we are expanding a number of lanes on the Southern Motorway. There is the now planned busway on the Northwestern Motorway where there has already been a lot of work. The City Rail Link is the biggest project of them all, the East-West Link is to come, and we are dealing with Mill Road. Aucklanders see all this happening and it is having an impact on the flows of traffic. We have a growing economy-that is a good thing. We are going to invest to support that growth.

Jacinda Ardern: Rather than delaying a decision as he did with the City Rail Link for so many years, will he join with me to make Auckland a world-class city by building a modern light rail network linking to the city centre, to the airport, to west Auckland, and to the North Shore? It is an open invitation. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am interested in hearing the response.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have done something way better than that-we have got together with the Auckland Council, and work with it. Interestingly enough, while it is interested in light rail, it, unlike the Labour Party, is interested in the people who live down south, the people who live out west, and the people who live up in the north-and that is why we have got a comprehensive $24 billion plan, and it is currently being updated to probably about $27 billion.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Prime Minister possibly tell the country how it is that we have massive infrastructure problems in Auckland from roading and trains to housing, medicine, and health when the two parties who are having a row in the House today about it caused it with mass immigration in the first place?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I think the member may know, the biggest single change in population in New Zealand has been that over the last 5 years, 150,000 Kiwis who were predicted to leave actually stayed home. They put New Zealand first, and I thought that member would have thought was success. That is why we welcome the growth and we invest to support it rather than the member's view that we should stop New Zealand being successful to slow down to what he can handle.

David Seymour: How much infrastructure would New Zealand have if New Zealand First was in charge and nobody had ever immigrated here?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no prime ministerial responsibility for that.

• Prime Minister-Statements

2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader-NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on the Todd Barclay matter; if so, how does he actually do that?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes; because I said them.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why, at yesterday's Prime Minister's press conference, did he tell reporters that he "wasn't aware of the employment settlement" relating to the Todd Barclay matter, when one of his texts says: "settlement was larger than normal because of the privacy breach"?
Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: That was the text that came out with the police report. That was the discussion that was had with them at the time. There is absolutely nothing new in that. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will have the supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why, at yesterday's Prime Minister's press conference, did he tell reporters that he "wasn't involved and didn't know about the nature of the employment settlement.", when his text message states that Glenys Dickson's settlement was "part paid from prime ministers budget to avoid potential legal action."-his words?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I stand by what I said at the prime ministerial press conference.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which of the following statements does he stand by: (a) "I wasn't involved and didn't know about the nature of the employment settlement.", or (b) "The settlement was larger than normal because of the privacy breach", and "Had to be part paid from prime ministers budget to avoid potential legal action. Everybody unhappy."? Which one of those two statements does he stand by?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just remind the Prime Minister that in rising to answer the question, he does not need to make any comments around the leader's budget. He has no prime ministerial responsibility for that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, he put it at issue at his Prime Minister's press conference yesterday, which makes it relevant, and that is why he should be answering the questions, not ducking behind-

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat immediately.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, I will resume my seat, but you answer that question.

Mr SPEAKER: In the first two-I advise the member that when I ask him to resume his seat, he does so. In the first two questions, he certainly referred to statements made at the press conference. In the third supplementary question, which he has just asked, he did not, and that is why I gave that warning to the Prime Minister.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That will not do. The Prime Minister at his press conference said he-

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume seat immediately, and if he carries on behaving like that-

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Don't threaten me.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I will threaten the member. If he carries on behaving like that, I will be asking him to leave the Chamber. Does the Prime Minister wish to address the question that was asked?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have no ministerial responsibility for that.

Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Without questioning any of the previous rulings that you have made on this, with reference to Speaker's ruling 170/2AA-which has not previously been canvassed-by Speaker Carter, it states: "Although considerable weight must be given to Minister's claim that actions or statements were not made in a ministerial capacity, this can never be definitive. Where I judge a question to reveal a reasonable likelihood of a connection to ministerial responsibility, an informative answer must be given." I would contend that given that it was the Prime Minister's office that arranged that additional payment, I would say that there probably is a reasonable likelihood of a connection to the ministerial responsibility that is there for you to judge.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for his scholarly study of Speakers' Rulings. Can I refer the member to Speaker's ruling 173/1: "The Prime Minister is not responsible for funding provided through Parliamentary Service to the party."

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister tell us why he deleted hundreds of his text messages relating to the Barclay matter, according to the media, yet insisted upon Judith Collins producing her telephone records when she was a contestant against him for the job of leader of the National Party?

Mr SPEAKER: The right honourable Prime Minister, in so far as there is prime ministerial responsibility.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have no idea what the member is referring to.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Of the times he has been down to the Clutha-Southland electorate since he retired as its MP, how often were those trips primarily to meet with Glenys Dickson?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have no ministerial responsibility for that, that is for sure.

• Economy-Reports

3. ANDREW BAYLY (National-Hunua) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the state of the New Zealand economy?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Ratings agency Moody's Investors Service last week said it expects New Zealand to be one of the fastest-growing Aaa-rated economies in the coming years, outpacing others in the Aaa group such as Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, and the United States. The Moody's assessment is based on New Zealand's economic resilience, proactive policy-making, and fiscal flexibility, all of which feed into economic growth. This kind of economic performance is a hallmark of the Government's strong economic plan, which has been in place since 2009.

Andrew Bayly: What risk did Moody's highlight in its report?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Moody's notes that the New Zealand economy is exposed to unexpected shocks, such as natural disasters or sudden downturns in the global economy. That is why it is important to keep the Government's books in good order, and we have made good progress in that regard. New Zealand now has one of the lowest debt to GDP ratios amongst Aaa-rated countries. However, we need to maintain our resilience to shocks further if we want to ensure people in hardship retain access to entitlements should a shock occur. That is why Budget 2017 commits the Government to cutting net debt to 20 percent of GDP by 2020, and further reducing it to between 10 and 15 percent of GDP by 2025.
Andrew Bayly: According to Moody's, how have housing market risks eased?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Low interest rates are a reality of the post - global financial crisis environment worldwide, and that has fed right through into the prices of all sorts of assets, including housing. In this, New Zealand is no different to any other country. However, Moody's reports point out that the introduction of macro-prudential controls by the Government, and then their inclusion by the Reserve Bank, means that the housing market risk is now much lower than 5 years ago. This can be seen in Auckland house prices, which are currently flat and falling. However, there is no place for complacency, and once again I would encourage homebuyers to factor in where interest rates could be in the future, not just where they are today, when making borrowing decisions.

Andrew Bayly: What other factors contribute to New Zealand's Aaa rating and strong growth outlook?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: One of the key differences between New Zealand and some other advanced economies we compare ourselves with is the level of policy stability that we have enjoyed in this country over the last 8 years. You only have to look at the US, the UK, and Australia to see the negative impact that a changeable policy environment and a changeable political environment can have on the economy. I am sure New Zealanders will be assessing these matters in this country as we approach the upcoming election.

Grant Robertson: Can he confirm the Statistics New Zealand reports that show that the export sector has had three consecutive quarterly falls in output, of minus 1.1 percent, minus 3.2 percent, and minus 0.4 percent, and how is he going with that export target?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I will not confirm that for the member, because I find it always pays to look at his data quite carefully, because he is prone to making some interesting observations. New Zealand exports by value have been growing over the last couple of years, despite the dairy industry struggling for a 2- or 3-year period. Now, with the dairy sector starting to grow again and prices recovering, I fully expect that maintenance of growth and export values to continue.

• Housing, Rental-Prime Minister's Statements

4. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour-Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does he agree with the statement of the Prime Minister that a shortage of rentals is "a problem of success"?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Construction): The member asked the identical question 2 months ago, and, as I said then, I stand by the Prime Minister's full statement. New Zealand is doing well. Kiwis are not leaving in droves as they were, and our population is growing strongly. This is putting pressure on the housing market. The good news is the massive growth in home construction now has building activity at record levels and a record pipeline of new homes coming on stream of over 100,000 over the next 3 years.

Phil Twyford: Does he think it is acceptable that more than 50 percent of those receiving the accommodation supplement spend more than half their income on rent, according to his ministry's own analysis?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would draw the member's attention to Massey University's housing affordability measures, which show in every region of New Zealand houses are more affordable now than when this Government came to office.

Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary and the supplementary questions were about rents.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I think it was around 50 percent of the accommodation supplement being spent on rent. That is around affordability, and in this case I think the question has been addressed. I invite the member to consider asking further supplementary questions.

Phil Twyford: Why does he think the cost of rent has been outstripping the growth in incomes, particularly for those on the lowest wages, as shown by his ministry's own analysis?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would ask the member to look at the record of rent increases under the previous Labour administration, because, actually, rents have not gone up as quickly under this Government. Furthermore, I would draw the member's attention to the Family Incomes Package in this year's Budget, which put a huge level of support and increased accommodation supplements for those families that are facing increased rents. I note with concern that members opposite voted against those accommodation supplement increases.

Phil Twyford: If I am willing to acknowledge that rents went up a lot under the last Labour Government, will he admit that rents have gone up even more in relation to incomes under National over the last 9 years, and will he explain to renters now what he is doing to rein in out-of-control rent increases?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would draw the member's attention to the latest rental data. It shows that in the market of Christchurch we are now in the second straight year of rent declines, and the reason that has occurred in Christchurch is that the Government took hold of the planning system, released large volumes of land for housing, and that is now delivering benefits. The Auckland market is larger but exactly the same approach is proving to work, as we see by the growth in home construction.

Phil Twyford: Given that in so many rental markets around the country property speculators and the shortage of housing are responsible for driving up rents, why will he not tax speculators and back a massive Government-backed house building programme?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I love the hollow lines from the member that he is going to ban speculation. My simple challenge to him is this: when he goes along to a housing auction, how does he determine those who are genuine investors and those who are speculators? You cannot. It is a nonsense, and it just reinforces the hollow sound bites from that member. I contrast that with the substantive tax changes, planning changes, and other changes that are seeing a record-high house build and these issues being addressed.

• Tourism Infrastructure Fund-Announcements

5. MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister of Tourism: What announcements has she made about the Government's Tourism Infrastructure Fund?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Tourism): Last week I announced that applications are now open for the first round of the Government's new $100 million Tourism Infrastructure Fund. With tourism booming, creating employment in our regions and in our cities throughout New Zealand, we acknowledge that there is some pressure on infrastructure, and this fund is now open for councils to apply to.
Maureen Pugh: How does the fund work?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The first round will focus more on helping communities in the most immediate need of assistance. To give an example, for the mid-sized facilities grant that we previously had, for $5.2 million we were able to get 28 projects under way. This is a $25 million a year fund, so we will be able to have a number of projects, particularly for those councils that have a low ratepayer base but high visitor numbers.
Maureen Pugh: What other support is the Government providing for tourism infrastructure in the regions?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Budget 2017 also included a $76 million fund for the Department of Conservation. That is to upgrade tourism infrastructure, which is used by both visitors and New Zealanders to look at some other short and great walks throughout New Zealand, to advertise that there is more than just the Tongariro Crossing, and to acknowledge that there are needs around toilet facilities and car-parking.

• Transport, Minister-Statements

6. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader-Green) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Yes, including my statements that Kennedy Graham and David Clendon are men of principle who do not accept dishonesty in public life. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has a right to ask his supplementary question.

James Shaw: Does he stand by his statement on rail to Auckland Airport that "route protection will be progressed with urgency to future-proof options for both advanced bus and light rail."?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Absolutely. That is exactly what we are doing. We are getting on with the job and we will move progressively to rail, as demand requires.

James Shaw: Can he confirm that the urgent business case for protecting the light rail route to the airport was originally due to be completed this year?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: That sounds right, and it shows what a great Government we are-making progress on a huge raft of projects and a range of projects in our biggest city.

James Shaw: I seek leave to table a briefing obtained under the Official Information Act (OIA) that confirms that the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) was to urgently progress a business case for route protection in 2017.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

James Shaw: Can he confirm that the urgent business case to protect the route for Auckland Airport rail has now been delayed until the end of next year?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, I cannot confirm that. Look, as I say, I think my expectation of the NZTA has been very clear. I expect it to get on with that route protection. What we know, though, is that light rail and mass transit on that route is not a silver bullet. We know that Waterview is doing a fantastic job of halving the travel across that corridor, but, actually, it is really important that we get on with a range of projects-whether it is Waterview, which is done now; the Northwestern busway; Mill Road-where there is real growth and where there are Aucklanders who need the assistance.

James Shaw: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act response from the Transport Agency stating that "completion of business case work for route protection is now late 2018".

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is not. It can be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

James Shaw: What led his Government to delay work protecting the airport rail route, which it had previously described as "urgent"?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: We have not. As I say, my expectation is that we get on with it. I think, as we have heard from the Prime Minister, there are a huge number of orange cones all around Auckland. We understand that we have got to make progress on a range of projects in public transport, roads, rail, and cycleways. We are not just going to pick one winner when we know that the north, the west, and the east all need the work because of the high growth and the strong economic opportunities that are happening in Auckland right now.

James Shaw: If his response then is accurate-that his expectation is that they get on with it-how does he explain the discrepancy between those two OIA documents, one of which says that they were to progress the business case for route protection in 2017, the next of which says that they have delayed it until late 2018? How does he explain that discrepancy?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, I think the member is trainspotting, quite literally. I think if you go through it and you look at really big projects, they do take a long time. There is a lot of legal, practical, planning, and design issues to work through. That was true of Waterview, it is true of the City Rail Link, and it is true of the massive projects that we are progressing all around Auckland at the moment. What is also true is that when you oppose every kind of Resource Management Act reform that has ever come to this House, you are not going to help us to do these projects quicker.
James Shaw: Given that two separate business cases have already shown that airport rail has significant positive benefits, how can it possibly take 2 years to do a third?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The member is simply incorrect. What is true is that it takes time to do this kind of work. What is also true is that this Government has prioritised route protection, and then it will get on with mass rapid transit, such as buses, I think, and moving to light rail, as the demand requires. But I think where the Labour-Green members, in their close unity, get things wrong is that they do not remember that actually you have got to keep working on a range of projects; it is not one silver bullet. Actually, the people out in West Auckland need the Northwestern busway. The people out of the South, where there is massive growth, need Mill Road, and that is why we are doing all of these projects.

• Health, Minister-Statements

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour-Dunedin North): Thank you. My question is to the Minister of Health-[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I just need to ask that the conversation cease so that Dr David Clark can ask his question.

7. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour-Dunedin North) to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the authors of an open letter to him reported on Checkpoint yesterday that comments he made on Southern District Health Board "suggesting one of our departments is 'toxic'" and that the district health board "is a 'cot case' are particularly unhelpful"; if so, will he now apologise for those comments?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): The comments that the member is referring to have been plucked from a 14-minute interview that I did last Friday. With regard to the first comment, that is how matters had been described to me. I also said in the interview that the reason we had to put a commissioner into the Southern District Health Board (DHB) was that it was a cot case. Turning around the Southern DHB was never going to be fast or easy. But I am pleased to say that thanks to the hard work of the commissioner, the new chief executive (CE), and the 4,500 thousand staff, the DHB is on a long-term track to sustainability. The Government is working on the indicative business case for Dunedin hospital. The facility needs upgrading, and this Government is determined to make that happen.

Dr David Clark: Does he think it is acceptable that one-third of orthopaedic patients at the Southern DHB are unable to be seen and are referred back to their GP because of a lack of capacity?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As with any assertion that that member makes, we would have to go and check that; he was wrong on the intensive care unit (ICU) beds. But the fact is that across the country, out of all those patients referred from general practitioners for first-specialist assessments, 87 percent see a specialist, about 5 percent are turned away, and another 8 percent have just been inappropriately referred or their time has passed. Thanks.

Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table a letter, not publicly available, sent to the Minister yesterday, which references-
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The members know the letter. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular open letter to the Minister. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none; it can be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Dr David Clark: Is he concerned that as part of the cost-cutting measures at the Southern DHB, clinicians are improvising by modifying their own equipment, including a pair of hardware store vice grips used in surgery, one of the 112 non-registered medical devices removed from southern hospitals by the end of last year?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I would have to go and check all of that. I would expect the CE to look into it. So I am not aware of the claims that he is making.

Dr David Clark: In light of his acknowledgment that there is a shortage of ICU beds in the Southern DHB, does he think that it is appropriate for financial penalties to be imposed on the DHB when it fails to meet its targets?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Let us be very clear: there are eight ICU beds there. They have just approved another one. But, crucially, they will be able to double the capacity to 18 by next August, and the fact is that there are not financial penalties.
Dr David Clark: Has he seen a draft of the urology report being circulated at the Southern DHB?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not.

• Freshwater Management-Water Quality of Lakes and Rivers

8. SARAH DOWIE (National-Invercargill) to the Minister for the Environment: What are the next steps in the Government's programme to improve New Zealand fresh water, and what specific lakes and rivers will benefit from these initiatives?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Today I have announced with the Prime Minister 33 freshwater improvement projects across the country, covering over 100 lakes and river. The grants, totalling $44 million, involve a total investment of $142 million with council and other contributions. It will fund fencing, riparian planting, sewage reticulation, water storage to increase minimum flows, the eradication of water weeds, removal of pest fish, and the restoration of marginal land adjacent to waterways. Significant waterbodies included in the initiative are the Wairoa River in Northland, Lake Tarawera in the Bay of Plenty, Lake Horowhenua, the Manawatū River, the Waimea River in Tasman, the Selwyn River in Canterbury, and Lake Wānaka in Otago, and I note the member's advocacy for the Waituna Lagoon in Southland.

Sarah Dowie: How does the level of Government investment in improving freshwater quality over the past nine years compare with the previous nine years, and what is the total amount this Government has committed?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Our Government has committed $201 million over the past nine years, as compared to $29 million over the previous nine years; i.e., the investment has increased by sixfold. This is the amount actually spent on programmes. We have also committed a further $160 million through initiatives like the Whanganui, the Waikato, and other rivers from previous funds and Treaty settlements. Today's announcements bring the total to over $400 million of investments in cleaner water for New Zealanders.

Sarah Dowie: How do these announced initiatives fit into the Government's broader freshwater improvement programme?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government is simultaneously putting in place stronger national policy direction and regulation. Just today I have launched new forestry regulations with Associate Minister for Primary Industries Louise Upston, which will see a substantial reduction in the amount of impacts of that sector on water quality. I am also working with the Minister for Primary Industries on national regulations that will require 56,000 kilometres of fencing. We have also put in place national rules around ecological health, limiting nutrients like phosphates and nitrogen, and setting a clear target of 90 percent of water bodies being swimmable by 2040. No Government in the history of New Zealand has made as much progress on improving freshwater management.

Marama Fox: What steps has the Government taken in response to the consistent and impassioned advocacy by the Māori Party to ensure local iwi are involved in freshwater clean-up projects across New Zealand?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first initiative of the Māori Party was formally recognised in Te Mana o te Wai, in our national regulatory framework, and that will be put in place. Secondly, with respect to this Freshwater Improvement Fund, the Māori Party advocated that a condition of receiving funding was for local iwi and hapū to be involved in those clean-up projects. That is a condition of those 33 projects that we have announced today. Then, the third area of work has been with the Minister for Māori Development, in which, through the work between my ministry and his, we have also funded a further 12 specific projects in partnership with iwi.

Sarah Dowie: Do any of the freshwater improvement projects announced today involve irrigation schemes?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, two of the projects do: one in Canterbury and the other in Tasman. The $1.1 million project from Environment Canterbury involves taking water from the Central Plains irrigation scheme to recharge the Hororata, the Irwell, and the Selwyn rivers, resulting in improved volumes of water and improved quality, and will significantly help a number of notable swimming sites. The Tasman proposal involves a partnership with the council and irrigators for the Waimea Community Dam in funding water storage for increasing summer recreation and ecological flows. This pragmatic approach shows that smartly designed water infrastructure can deliver both environmental and economic benefits, consistent with this Government's blue-green approach.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister still believe his repeated statements that a swimmable standard is impossible for our rivers because of bird excrement, volcanic soils, and floods; if not, what date did he flip-flop, and if he cannot remember that date, what date did he put a stop to bird excrement and floods?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am happy to line up, on any day he likes, the record of indecision that occurred over the 9 years of Labour on freshwater management and the progress that we have made. I would further point out that the swimming standards that this Government has proposed are even tighter than those in the only other jurisdiction that grades them-in Europe-and represent a substantive step forward for New Zealand.

• Conservation Land-Public Walking Tracks

9. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: Does she support the locking of gates across public walking tracks on conservation land to facilitate mining?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): If it is appropriate to protect the public from danger, then of course I do. If decisions of that kind are made, they are made by the operational people on the spot. I am sure Department of Conservation (DOC) staff always weigh up public access and safety, and I support them to make the appropriate decisions.

Catherine Delahunty: Why has she allowed New Talisman Gold Mines to restrict public access to conservation land-
Hon Simon Bridges: You guys know about restricting access to people at the moment.

Catherine Delahunty: -and prospect for industrial gold mining in an area described, Simon, by the Hauraki District Council as "a national attraction and one of our most valued assets."?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: I think I got the gist of that. It is the same refrain. The area of land that the member refers to is very small-0.3 hectares, around 230 metres. It is in a relatively low area of public use. It does not affect access to other parts of the park. It is a temporary closure between 5 June and 9 September. The alternative would be putting the public at risk. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will just have the supplementary question.

Catherine Delahunty: Will she support the petitions of 20,000 people seeking to protect Mount Karangahake from mining, by advocating for its inclusion in schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: No, I will not.

Catherine Delahunty: Does she think that the 50,000 people who marched down Queen Street in 2010 to oppose mining in conservation land have now changed their minds and welcome mining in precious places like the Coromandel Forest Park at Karangahake?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The protest that the member is referring to was around schedule 4 land. This is not schedule 4 land; it is not protected. It is land that has been mined for more than 100 years and is now in a temporary permit and a temporary closure for 3 months. The member is getting well ahead of herself.

• Immigration-Employment

10. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour-Palmerston North) to the Minister of Immigration: Is it acceptable that, after nine years of a National-led Government, there are business owners charging thousands of dollars for jobs that lead to residence?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): No illegal activity by any party in relation to immigration is acceptable at any time. That is why this Government has invested heavily in both Immigration New Zealand and the labour inspectorate to stamp out this kind of behaviour. Unfortunately, where there are rules, a small number of people will inevitably try to bend them. Our improvements mean there are far fewer problems now than there have been in the past.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Why, after 9 years of National Government, does Immigration New Zealand say that some private training establishments (PTEs) enter agreements with dodgy employers who recruit students to work at their business in order to sell these students jobs when they are ready to apply for work and residence visas?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: As I said, when there are more than 100,000 international students in our second-largest service export earner, there will always be a small number of people who try to bend the rules. That is entirely unacceptable, which is why this Government has put in place a number of measures to prevent and prosecute that behaviour.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Why, after 9 years of a National-led Government, is it possible for a PTE to bus its international students to kiwifruit orchards, to work 5 days a week for $5 an hour?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: If the member has evidence of that kind of illegal behaviour, I would expect him to tell the appropriate authorities. What I do know is that Immigration New Zealand and the labour inspectorate are diligent in deploying the resources the Government has given them in detecting that type of behaviour.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Given that answer, why was that example in an Immigration New Zealand report that was handed to him, and why does that same report say that the issues occurring at that unnamed PTE are one facet of a larger issue regarding immigration- and labour-related offending at franchises and small businesses?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It was probably in a report because Immigration New Zealand was doing exactly what I would expect it to do, and that is detect, prevent, and prosecute that behaviour. There is nothing unusual in that. It would be nice to think that of the 800,000 visas that are issued by Immigration New Zealand every year, everybody complied in all respects. That is not the reality. But we are on top of it.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Is he concerned that by opposing Labour's policy of tightening up on student visas, to weed out those PTEs that exist solely to exploit their students and create a back door to residency, he gives the impression that National sees international students as cash cows and has no interest in their welfare or the impact that their exploitation has on working conditions for all New Zealanders?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: This Government is not interested in any lazy policies that would arbitrarily cut immigration because of populist reasons and, at the same time, tar every private tertiary education provider with the same brush. There are a great number of them in this country that are doing a very fine job of delivering international education to those students.

• Immigration-Fraud

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader-NZ First): Supplementary question-

Mr SPEAKER: We will have the primary question. [Interruption]

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Primary question-[Interruption] I got ahead of myself. It will happen in this campaign.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just trying to get a bit more silence.

11. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader-NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: Does his Government take immigration fraud seriously; if so, how?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): This Government takes any type of visa or immigration fraud very seriously. We have done this by investing heavily in verification and risk resources, including a world-class identity management system that enables face photos and fingerprint information from applications to be captured online and automatically matched against personal data held by Immigration New Zealand. We also amended the Immigration Act in 2015 so that residence-class visa holders are liable for deportation where it is established that any of the information provided in relation to their application was fraudulent, false, misleading, or any information was withheld.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If any of that is remotely true, what is his priority to manage fraud in the Mumbai and New Delhi offices, and why has he excluded the Manila, Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong offices, where fraud updates for March 2017 to his department identified fraudulent document concerns regarding hundreds and hundreds of applications?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Immigration New Zealand has been working very hard in that Mumbai market, particularly in those high-risk areas in the north of India. But I stress, the Indian market is a valuable one for export education, but it also carries risks not only to New Zealand but to a number of countries that trade in international education. We have seen significant reductions in the number of fraudulent visas. The decline rates are now starting to drop and there has been a 90 percent reduction in fact, year on year, in terms of fraud detection.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can a self-respecting First World country like New Zealand have a Mr Big and an old boys' club controlling the Indian student market, exporting Indian students as cheap labour and charging them up to $20,000 just to get a job? Why do you not do the world a favour and resign?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I would encourage the member, if he has any information other than that, which he got from the Radio New Zealand website, to provide it to the immigration authorities. I, frankly, will not be holding my breath.

• Forestry Regulations-Announcements

12. IAN McKELVIE (National-Rangitīkei) to the Associate Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcement has the Government made regarding forestry regulations?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Associate Minister for Primary Industries): Earlier today Dr Nick Smith and I announced a new nationwide set of environmental rules for managing New Zealand's 1.8 million hectares of plantation forestry. Forestry is New Zealand's third-largest primary industry, but its efficiency is hampered by the confusing mix of planning rules across our 86 councils. This new national approach will better protect the environment while improving productivity by reducing consenting costs and applying consistent environmental standards. This new national forestry standard is an important part of the Government's Resource Management Act changes, facilitated by amendments passed in May and aimed at getting better environmental outcomes with less cost and bureaucracy.

Ian McKelvie: How will these regulations benefit the forestry industry?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The forestry industry will benefit from having a set of consistent regulations to operate under. Planning rules at local government level mean there could be as many as three sets of regional or district plan rules. The forestry sector employs over 26,000 people and exports in total around $5 billion a year. So removing this uncertainty will encourage greater investment in a significant contributor to our economy, especially at the regional level. More plantation forestry will provide a variety of environmental benefits, including improvement in water quality, carbon storage, habitat for indigenous species, and stabilisation of erosion-prone land. The standards come into force on 1 May 2018. They will be implemented over a 9-month period and key stakeholders will be consulted to ensure an effective roll-out.