General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

In 1997, the National Government committed to the Kyoto Protocol. It was an international commitment to reduce emissions, because the issue of climate change was emerging as perhaps the single biggest challenge the world faced into the future. Twenty-five years on, this year, this Government—sorry. If I can go back: because agriculture was almost 50 percent of our total emissions, the Minister of the day committed agriculture to those initiatives. Twenty-five years on, this Government launched last week a report that had been delivered to us from an industry group called He Waka Eke Noa. We launched it out for further consultation with some questions over some of the technical challenges, and therein lies the challenge before us.

Can I just go back to the question of why we’re doing this. In 2021, Tesco, one of the biggest supermarket chains in the world, launched to its suppliers a letter saying, “I’m therefore requesting you do four vital things. Firstly, disclose your current greenhouse gas emissions to us.” The second was “establish a net zero ambition for your business by the end of 2022; set science-based targets to support delivery of your ambition.” And the fourth thing was “switch to renewable electricity.” Now, that was from one of the biggest supermarket chains in the world.

Nestlé, one of the biggest food companies in the world, has a commitment to sustainability. In fact, it’s put out some guidelines as well. They realised that their commitment that 20 percent of key ingredients will come through regenerative agricultural methods, and that most of their emissions are created from dairy and livestock—their advice was that we should care for grasslands, store more carbon, and cut methane produced by animals during digestion through nutrition changes. They’ve partnered with Fonterra and Dairy NZ to take on board these challenges. Indeed, Fonterra is facing more and more questions around the environmental sustainability of their systems to get the right to supply.

On top of that, we’ve had McDonald’s, one of the biggest international chains, saying that they will be zero carbon by 2050 and will require the whole supply chain to be decarbonised by the same time. This is a company that takes 60 million kilograms of beef from our country. And last week at a forum that a couple of the National Party members were at, and I visited too, there was a presenter there from PricewaterhouseCoopers, who said, literally, the drumbeat for net carbon zero agriculture is getting louder by the month, driven by the enormous task confronting the world to reduce its carbon intensity by over half in only eight years. And can I say she went on to say that Morrisons, another food chain in the EU, is an early mover, aiming to meet net carbon zero for its beef by 2030, five years ahead of the industry. These are the market signals that are coming to us, a food producing nation. We have to get on with this.

And can I say that the report—and I’d like to acknowledge the huge work and commitment that the industry put into this report here—identified some of the scientific challenges of measuring, with credibility, the sequestration within the farm system. They’ve acknowledged, as we do, there’s a lot of sequestration occurring, but if it’s to be properly accounted for, we need to undertake quite an amount of scientific research. That’s why, when we put out the discussion document based on He Waka Eke Noa, we asked the questions here: “Do you support the proposed approach for recognising carbon sequestration from riparian planting and management of indigenous vegetation, both in the short and long term? Why? And what improvements could be considered?” This is out for consultation. We are wanting feedback from farmers on the ground.

The document that is being considered is the proposal put to us by the industry. We commit to those industry leaders that we’ll follow through with this. But if there’s a question, as there is from some farmers up and down the country, of why we are doing this, then go and speak to Tesco, go and speak to Nestlé, and go and speak to McDonald’s and ask them why we have to move to reduce the emissions from the food production systems that we—

Nicola Grigg: The Americans aren’t; the Canadians aren’t.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: We are. And we are some of the best farmers in the world. We must be the best farmers for the world and we’ll do that by leading the charge on lowering our emissions from agricultural production.

It’s been a week of Shakespearean tragedy for this Government, and now is the spring of our discontent as inflation runs right across the landscape, eating into families’ budgets, adding pressure to Kiwis as they go to the supermarket, as they pay their bills.

And with inflation comes higher interest rates, as the Reserve Bank scrambles to restore its credibility as an inflation fighter. Those interest rates will hurt families across the country. An extra $26,000 a year for an average Auckland mortgage holder, we were told today. And the Reserve Bank’s task is being made harder by this Labour Government that still has its foot flat to the floor, increasing spending, adding to inflationary pressures, and starving the country of the extra workers that it needs through overly tight immigration and incompetent visa processing. And it’s still spending hundreds of millions on Depression-era make-work schemes like the Jobs for Nature.

And in this hour of need, do we see Jacinda Ardern or Grant Robertson standing up with a clear plan to get inflation under control, to restore discipline to spending, to reduce pressure on businesses and families, to give people hope? No, we don’t. We see increasing desperation.

They stand like Macbeth as they see the great Birnam wood coming against them, crabbing relentlessly across the plain. All their announcements of spending, all their good intentions, they don’t stop the relentless march of inflation, of falling real incomes, of worse outcomes on every measure: with the wait times in emergency departments, on ram raids, on school attendance, on emergency housing, on people on job seeker benefits, on access to help for mental health all getting worse, despite all the spending—despite an extra billion dollars a week since they came into office.

And then—and then—enter stage left, holding a dagger, enters Dr Gaurav Sharma saying, “I have supp’d full with horrors, and I’m out of here.” The people of Hamilton will have their chance to give their verdict on the Government, the ram-raiding capital of New Zealand will have a chance to stand up and say to this Government, “How have you gone?”, and their wrath will lie hot on the necks of this Government.

And then, lurking in the shadows, we see Willie Jackson and Kelvin Davis like demented versions on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, accusing everybody who disagrees with them with racism, and if they’re Māori then they’re not Māori enough, and Jacinda Ardern looks the other way.

As to the Shakespeare itself, well that was a speedy U-turn, wasn’t it? The Prime Minister spent Monday saying of the Arts Council will, when they pulled the funding for the Shakespeare festival, “Oh, it’s nothing to do with us. They’re independent.” The next thing, she tells the education Minister to find some money pronto—and he did.

And the Prime Minister said she acted in the festival, and there’s a lot of speculation as to what roles she took. Was it Bottom from A Midsummer Night’s Dream, perhaps, who said, “The eye of man hath not heard, the ear of man hath not seen, man’s hand is not able to taste, his tongue to conceive, nor his heart to report what my dream was.” Maybe that was Bottom. But I think probably Cleopatra. It was said of her that,

The barge that she sat in, like a burnish’d throne,

Burned on the water.

I think that might be appropriate for the Prime Minister. But I have been told, actually, that it was Lady Macbeth. And then she wrung her hands together not with hand sanitiser but saying, “Out, damned spot! Out!” And yet, Gaurav keeps coming back—he keeps coming back!

What it doesn’t remove is any of the changes that they’ve made: they’ve got Education paying for the Shakespeare festival, but the point is, the Arts Council said that the festival “did not demonstrate the relevance to contemporary art … in Aotearoa.”

Have we become so insular, so small-minded, that our kids can only engage in contemporary, local stuff? Can we not find inspiration from the timeless glories of the past? Aren’t we as a country best when we’re fully engaged with the rest of the world, we’re confident when we take the best of what there is to offer, and enjoy it? The Arts Council seems to have forgotten—it goes on about biculturalism, but forgets that there are two sides to biculturalism, and the British side of history has a lot to offer and a lot to enjoy and a lot to engage in. This attitude that comes from this Government has flowed through to the Arts Council and has ended up with Shakespeare. Well, the only thing I could say is that it will come to a sticky end—

The soliloquy has come to an end, Mr Goldsmith.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I want to thank that Māori—oh no, that’s right, he’s not a Māori—the man, I think he’s from Ngāti Porou? No, the National Party thinks he’s from Ngāti Porou! The poor member doesn’t know where he’s from or who he is, and that was pretty evident in today’s speech.

I want to talk about all the great Māori things that are happening, Māori initiatives, and the great Māori economic development that’s happening out there. You would have heard some of that in question time today, but I want to first of all address Rawiri Waititi and how disappointed I was with his kōrero today. I could not believe he was talking about asking for the resignation of someone who is so committed to a kaupapa, in terms of children and in terms of our people, and I am very disappointed with him given his background—

Nicola Grigg: He’s not here.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —having worked with him. It’s all right, I’ll ring him up afterwards—don’t worry. I’ll message him. I just could not believe it, given the changes that have happened with this Minister. This is a Minister who’s committed to devolving to the community—absolutely committed. Sack the whole board, for goodness sake—sack the whole board? Replace that board with a totally Māori board? Take it from me, too, and others here who’ve worked on the ground, these problems, they’re not solved overnight. They’re terrible. I’ve seen it in my own community. I’ve worked in my own community on the ground. I’ve gone in and taken babies off families.

We have watched families mistreat kids and babies—terrible—through the years. And so you need a strong leadership at Government level—whether that was Labour, National, or whoever. It doesn’t matter if you have a Minister who was committed. That’s what you wanted, and we’ve got that here. And I’m, as I said, really disappointed with the approach from the Māori Party on this given, I thought, they would have seen all the changes and their people—their people—on the very boards that are overseeing this. And we’ve still got problems. So I want to mihi to my mate Kelvin Davis. Well done. Yes, his commitment—I know how taumaha [burdened] he is at the moment—but he will, with the support of people in the House from all sides, get there. Marama Davidson is working closely with us in terms of Te Aorerekura. We know the work going on in that area. She’s just been brilliant. So I mihi to him.

I want to move now, though, to the wonderful things that are happening in terms of Māori economic development; the unemployment rate for Māori down to 3.3 percent. When I was employment Minister, I talked about the day when—sorry, down to 5.5 percent; general rate is 3.3 percent. That’s happened because of the investment in kaupapa Māori initiatives: programmes like Māori trade training, Mana in Mahi, He Poutama Rangatahi, Progressive Procurement. This is about programmes targeting and investing in our people. There have been partnerships with Māori right across the country, so the unemployment numbers are not accidental. They’ve come about because of the investment and the targeting in terms of Māori across the country—partnering with communities, partnering with organisations, working with Pākehā, too, at ground level who have a real investment in communities. We’re not choosy; if we have Pākehā people who have worked alongside Māori all their lives, we will partner up with them too, so they can be involved in Māori trade training, He Poutama Rangatahi, Progressive Procurement. And we have started to turn around some of the terrible statistics. So I’m pleased in terms of Māori economic development.

I’m pleased in terms of Māori housing: $730 million invested in Māori housing has created economic and employment opportunities right across the country. With papa kāinga, we’re building 1,000 new houses. And what’s the National Party’s response? Well, we hear it—we heard it in the last couple of days: they want to privatise welfare by setting up a social investment fund that will allow wealthy New Zealanders to donate to welfare. Someone needs to tell the National Party we already have a social investment fund that their wealthy mates can pay into: it’s called the taxation system. I know that’s hard for them to contemplate, but maybe we would have more of a fund to spend if the National Party didn’t keep trying to lower the top tax rate. That’s the problem. Why is the National Party embarking on this strategy, where they’re sort of rolling out the old economist Milton Friedman? You know, they base everything on these types of economics. There’s a real ideological problem going on. That’s why we have to set up this wonderful TVNZ-RNZ merger, which is going to be the future for all of us. We’ll see ourselves, hear ourselves. What a future we have. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it’s a pleasure to take a call in the general debate. I want to go back to the Hon Damien O’Connor, who spent five minutes trying to back his way out of He Waka Eka Noa and explain it away. He did raise some very good points. The market definitely has great ambition, and no one can actually deny that or actually knock it—that’s fantastic. Unfortunately, the ambition is moving ahead of the technology, and that is the problem with the Government’s response to tax farmers. They are actually ahead of the technology to measure things adequately, and they’re well ahead of our trading partners. And that is an issue that the National Party stands against, but my colleague Nicola Grigg will speak more on that when she gets her call.

I want to bring it back to the energy sector because those points are exactly what has happened in the energy sector, and we only need to look to Europe and the UK. This is such a serious problem that many people will die this winter in Europe and in the UK because of the rising cost of energy. In most places, their energy bills are five times what they were last year. People will have to make the terrible decision between whether to eat or to heat, and that is—in a cold climate that is right around Europe and in the UK—effectively, a life and death decision for some poor families. The reality is that affects low-income people the most.

It is, actually, largely a problem of their own making. They tried to eliminate energy options ahead of the technology to cope without it. So wind and solar were going to be the nirvana, the renewable energy that would be the key to net zero. Unfortunately, they can’t do it on their own. That’s not to say wind and solar aren’t good technologies; they are, but you can’t do it on your own, Mr Speaker—not you, of course. The Europeans and those in the UK are finding out to their cost, now, the folly of their ways. They tried to import their energy—to get someone else to sin for them. In this case, it was the Russians. All of this problem had nothing to do with the Ukrainian situation. That has brought it to a head sooner than many expected, but it was coming anyway, and we are heading down the same track.

We are fortunate that we’re not connected to the international energy markets—particularly gas. We’re isolated here. That has advantages, but it has disadvantages as well. The UK is paying really high energy prices because their interconnectors connect them to the European market. They are paying the European price for their gas, which is largely how they heat their homes. Here in New Zealand, we are isolated. If we ran out of gas, we would have to import liquefied natural gas. We couldn’t do that overnight.

I’ve been out and met with Methanex, which is the largest user of gas in New Zealand. Without that one, single, big customer—either Methanex or someone else—the gas industry will fall over. Unless the gas industry invests in developing their wells continuously, the wells decline quite quickly. They won’t be able to raise money to do that if they don’t have a large customer.

The oil and gas ban had a massively perverse effect on our international reputation. It’s trashed our sovereign risk rating significantly. I also met with Ballance Agri-Nutrients Ltd today who make fertilisers in New Zealand, and they will be out of business in 2030 at the rate of change that we have with our emissions allocations for energy intensive export-trade exposed industries. They will go out of business.

At this stage, we are on track to decarbonise by deindustrialising. That doesn’t just mean losing jobs; that means importing goods into New Zealand with higher emissions. How’s that good for climate change? It’s not. We have to face up to the reality that this is a long pathway and we can’t go out on our own. We have to put New Zealand’s interests ahead of personal ambition and actually face up to the fact that we can’t move ahead of the rest of the world.

E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe, otirā ngā mema katoa o te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker, and to all the members of this House, greetings one and all.]

We’ve just returned back from two weeks’ recess. Like many of us, it’s a time to go back into our electorate and I did exactly that. I want to talk on what I saw and who I engaged with in those two weeks, and I want to talk about the many farmers up and down this country who invited me on their farms.

I’ll talk about Quintin Morgan from Nepuroa, Ben Purua from Tapapa, Sophie Hunt from Kihikihi, Richard McIntyre—you might know Richard because he is the president of Federated Farmers (Fed Farmers)—in his farm on Porou Kakouko. I also went to Ngāi Takoto farms in the Far North. I’ve been engaging with Morrinsville young farmers. I’ve been to Ngāi Tahu farms. I’ve been to Parininihi ki Waitotara farms. I’ve also been to the mighty Poverty Bay A&P show.

What I can tell you out there is of course there are challenges in our primary sector, but let’s be real. In this year—the end of June 2022—the primary sector situation return in export earnings hit the $50 billion mark. It hit $52 billion, of which beef and lamb was an increase of 18 percent.

So I’ve heard in this House this week that there’s going to be, with the emissions pricing plan, a decline in beef and sheep when we know 18 percent earnings went up in this year alone.

I’m not saying it’s just the Government, but it is a Government that during two years of challenges have identified our agriculture primary sector as essential workers. It has allowed them to operate as well as support them. But we’ve bought returns because our Minister for Trade and Export Growth has carved two free-trade agreements—in the EU and the UK—all towards supporting our primary industry.

Yes, the emissions pricing proposed by the Government was released last week. Let’s look at all the partners who are on He Waka Eke Noa, who formed in 2019. Let’s name them: Agriculture New Zealand, Beef + Lamb New Zealand, DairyNZ, Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand, Deer Industry New Zealand, Federation of Māori Authorities, Fed Farmers New Zealand, Foundation for Arable Research, Horticulture New Zealand, Irrigation New Zealand, the Meat Industry Association, the Ministry for Primary Industries, and the Ministry for the Environment.

This is the partnership group who presented their proposals, which this Government has endorsed with those areas that we have identified that are out for consultation. If that side haven’t read it, let me help you identify those issues that are out there for consultation. We’re talking about the levy to be set out for consultation, governance arrangements to be consulted, how farmers and growers will report and pay for emissions, and what on-farm actions—including sequestration—will be recognised.

So let’s bring it all back. Let’s remove all the noise, all the slogans, and let’s go back to an industry group full of partners who presented a proposal which the Government on this side has heard. The Government on this side has put it out, and have also identified quite clearly in our proposal launched last week the areas that we want to consult for farmers and I’ve just identified. That is it; it’s not a big issue in the sense of the world’s going to collapse and farmers and the rural community are going to fall down. It’s not about that. This is about us taking our global advantage, as we continue to do, to punch above our weight internationally.

I can say this: in the recent travels to both India and Singapore, they are looking at New Zealand because they realise our primary production is world-leading and they recognise that we can have productivity by also being a sustainable and a very safe producer of food. I have every confidence in all our farmers up and down the country that they will be able to pivot to what is this challenge.

Nicola Grigg: A pivot, don’t tell them that. You won’t get invited back.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Well, it is. It is.

Simeon Brown: It’s a tax.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: It’s not a tax. It’s being competitive in the international and global market like we continue to do. This is an emissions proposal I am very proud to underscore in this House, to recognise all the partners who have done an enormous amount of work.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The ACT Party believes that if New Zealand wants to show the world that we are proud of our liberal democracy, we have to be willing and capable of defending it. It was good to see the Minister of Defence putting the spotlight on the issues that he and the Defence Force are facing, in a recent media interview, especially on the back of comments made publicly by the Chief of Defence Force last month. The most pressing issue, which has been well canvassed in the media—well, to some degree, anyway; I’m trying to help with that—is attrition, particularly with the army. The Minister stated, in his recent interview, “These are some of the worst rates that the Defence Force has seen in its history.” While the army’s overall attrition rate of 17.4 percent, as reported in August, is troubling in and of itself, an even bleaker picture emerges when you drill down into the details.

If we take the Royal New Zealand Armoured Corps as an example, those with the rank of private are leaving at a staggering rate of 51 percent, up from an already high attrition last year of 26 percent. The trades in particular are suffering, and it’s bad wherever you look. Firefighters are as high as 60 percent. For electricians, it’s up to 66 percent, and for electronic warfare operators, which is something that is becoming a bit more important in this theatre, the attrition rate is up to 68 percent—absolutely astonishing. A smoking-hot labour market, as the Minister of Defence put it, is attracting people away from the Defence Force. So the question is: how will the Government respond in terms of remuneration and working conditions for defence personnel? The Minister also noted that Operation Protect was the last straw for many personnel, which was, basically, as we know, posting soldiers to guard hotel rooms. Indeed, figures earlier this year put it at over 600 personnel—I’m sure that number is higher now—of those who were involved in Operation Protect have now left the Defence Force.

That leads me to the issue of remuneration. It was quite something when the Chief of Defence Force said recently that the $90 million over four years, as promised in Budget 2022, just doesn’t cut it. With inflation soaring, it has been wiped out in an instant. I applaud the Minister for being upfront, when asked if we pay the Defence Force personnel enough, and he said, “Me personally, I don’t think we do.” One stat that is incredibly concerning is that there are 2,746 army personnel with a base salary less than $44,096 per year. The reason I asked about such a precise figure is because that’s minimum wage. So the party that is supposedly for the worker is paying a third of its uniformed personnel below the minimum wage just because they can get away with it in the armed forces. That is staggering. No wonder, in the findings from the latest pulse survey—that’s the internal Defence Force survey—63 percent of respondents did not agree with the statement “The pay I receive is fair for the work I do.”

A brief but important note on recruitment—it’s part of the equation—according to the Minister, 62 percent of job types have not met their enlistment targets this year, and that, I’m sure, goes some way to explaining the Chief of Defence Force stating that it could take up to 10 years to get out of this hole that they’re in. One quick point on leadership that is a worry: the latest pulse survey also produced quite a shock result. When personnel were presented with the statement “I trust senior/organisational leadership.” just 19 percent of Defence Force personnel agreed with that statement—in terms of trusting their leadership; 19 percent. It’s astonishing. So what does this all mean for the country and for the Defence Force? Well, capabilities across the board will be severely impacted. New Zealand will not be able to respond to calls for assistance from our friends in the Pacific or confront threats in our backyard. If the situation doesn’t improve, the Defence Force is actually at risk of collapse, as attrition severely outweighs recruitment.

So what would ACT do? Well, New Zealand needs to do its part in protecting our way of life and values. We need to invest in ourselves and strengthen our alliances. By doing so, we make it clear that we are a proud nation that will protect its waters and territories if necessary. We say that we should demonstrate the same commitment as our traditional allies—2 percent of GDP. In dollars, that means we are committing to over $9 billion annually by 2026. That is almost double what Labour would spend. This significant increase in spending would send a message to our defence personnel that we value their service and, to the rest of the world, that we take our defence obligations in our backyard seriously. In Government, ACT will ensure that the Defence Force has the people, the equipment, and the means necessary to defend our nation. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The National Party are treating New Zealanders like fools. They think that they can say one thing to one group and another thing to another group and that no one will notice. They think that they can sign this country up to international climate change agreements, do nothing, and then when this Government does something, they can complain and no one will join the dots. But here we are today, seeing exactly the same thing.

Damien O’Connor stands there today and outlines a pragmatic approach to work with industry to deal with agricultural emissions, and the National Party scream out “We need the technology first.”, as if no one in the country can remember what that party did. When the Helen Clark Government proposed a levy for agricultural research to deal with methane emissions, their leader, Bill English, stood on the forecourt of Parliament and held a sign that said “The mad cow shouldn’t have signed”. The National Party MPs walked around the forecourt of Parliament saying “No fart tax”—a levy that would have paid for research into agriculture emissions and reducing methane emissions—and now they stand up today and say, “We couldn’t possibly do anything to address this.”

They’re ignoring the future-value markets that we could capitalise on, ignoring all the facts that are in front of them, and saying, “We can’t do it until we have the research and technology.”, despite the fact that they have denied and opposed every effort to get there. They signed us up to the Kyoto Protocol and then did nothing, they signed us up to the Paris Agreement, and then did nothing, and every step along the way that this Government has tried to work with industry to reduce emissions, they have whinged, they have moaned, and they have opposed.

They tell the country that they want to meet the targets that this Parliament has agreed to on reducing agricultural emissions by 2030, yet when we have a proposal that has been put together by industry and led by industry initially—under Barbara Kuriger—they come up with a measured response. Then Luxon gets the yips and says, “No, we’re going to reverse it. We’re going to repeal it.” So how on earth are they going to live up to the commitment that they have made to join forces and actually reduce agricultural emissions by 2030, which is what they say to one group, when they say to the other groups, “No, we’re going to reverse it.”? It doesn’t add up, and I don’t think that New Zealanders will fall for it.

Nicola Grigg: They’re all telling you it doesn’t work. Maybe start listening.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: And Nicola Grigg can yell all she likes, like she did during Damien O’Connor’s speech. “We need the technology.”—where was that when we were proposing a levy to put money into agricultural research? They are deliberately ignoring the fact that anything raised through this proposal will go into agricultural research to ensure that farmers can continue to obtain as much value as possible in high-value markets and have a sustainable industry.

They seem to believe that New Zealanders will fall for the idea that if we do nothing, we will magically reach the targets that we’ve committed to and that farmers won’t have to deal with climate change. Now, in my role as emergency management Minister, I see week in, week out the reality of climate change. It is farmers and rural communities that are bearing the brunt, and I think it’s incredibly disingenuous for Nicola Grigg to laugh as I’m outlining the impact on rural communities, the communities that she is supposed to look after and that she is supposed to advocate for. Go to Marlborough and laugh, go to Nelson and laugh, go to Northland and laugh—

Nicola Grigg: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I’d just place for the record that I take offence to that comment that I should “Go to Marlborough, love”—this, coming from one of the biggest-named bullies in this Parliament.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Speaking to the point of order, I think that was unnecessary when it was clear to everybody that I said “laugh”, not “love”. I was talking about her laughing during comments about the impact on rural communities. There is no way that I would ever call another parliamentarian “love”.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I heard the comment, Nicola Grigg, and he did say “laugh’, not “love”. Continue, the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Nevertheless, despite what I think is a genuine misunderstanding there—I’ll put it down to that—I think I did hit a nerve, because there is a track record here.

There’s a track record of saying that there was no housing crisis, and then when this Government comes in and deals with the housing crisis, they criticise and say that there are no houses—and, yet again, they laugh. I’ll give you an example. In Wairarapa in 1999, the National Party sold all the State houses in our region—in Wairarapa and in the Tararua District—and it’s this Government that is bringing social housing back to that region. They can try and hoodwink the country all they like, but no one, I believe, is going to fall for it.

I was thinking, just earlier, after hearing Damien O’Connor’s contribution to the House followed by Meka Whaitiri’s, that we’d heard two valedictory speeches this evening, and I think I can add a third to that list. Yet another five-minute diatribe just proving nothing but what a tin ear the Ministers of this Crown have. We hear nothing but denial and defence coming out from this Government. They are so, so enthusiastic about rewriting history.

The facts of the matter are the industry, the 11 partnership groups of He Waka Eke Noa (HEWN), took a proposal to the Government. The Government has come back with its response just last week. It has dumped the parts that the farming sector was prepared to sign up to. That is what the so-called “whinging and carping and griping” that Kieran McAnulty talks about is about, because, once again, this industry has been roundly ignored by this Government. And, yes, we do, on this side of the House, stand by the fact that we will not support a pricing mechanism until the science and technology is in place, otherwise it is not a levy; it is a tax. It is a tax on food while our country is in the grip of a cost of living crisis, and this Government is doing nothing but to fan the flames of that crisis.

Nobody on that side of the House is talking about the 20 percent of sheep and beef farms that are going to go out of business. By the Government’s own numbers, one in five sheep and beef farmers in this country will go out of business, and they have the nerve to talk about this side of the House criticising them and not supporting this proposal. We would support this proposal if it was fair and if it was equitable. We have said from the outset that the National Party does support emissions pricing for the agricultural sector if there are fair and reasonable sequestration options in place; if there is the science and technology in place. We will not stand by a proposal that puts one in five of our sheep and beef farmers out of business. We will not stand by a proposal that sees our richest industry, the industry that earns this country some money, sent offshore to high-emitting farming countries. We will not stand by it, we will not support it, and I do not apologise for calling the Government out on it.

If you don’t want to hear it from me, Mr McAnulty, maybe have a look at the latest industry rag out this week. Here we go: “Govt ‘fails fairness test’ on HWEN”. “HWEN has farmers upset over offsets”. “Sector flags ‘immediate concerns’ on HWEN”. There is no balancing of the ledger on the levy; take that from the people in the industry, Mr McAnulty. And while Ms Whaitiri crows away about the farmers inviting her on to their place, I’ll tell you what: it ain’t for tea and tinnies. It is to try, in a desperate, final attempt—in the six weeks they’ve got left, it is to try and educate this Government as to what it is doing to our most productive sector. Fifteen percent of this country earns 50 percent of its revenue, and you lot over that side of the House should pay wise words to that.

Every single one of the industry groups, the 11 groups that signed up to this thing, have reacted angrily and have opposed the Government’s response to it. Once again: you took their advice back in May; perhaps you best start listening to them now. As you keep saying, they are the industry. They are the ones at the coal face. They are the ones who should know what they’re talking about. Well, they’re telling you now: this thing does not work, and the National Party wants to work with those groups and find something that will work. We are committed to reducing carbon emissions. We do agree the primary sector does need to pay its way, and it plays an important part in designing a system, designing its own process for recording and pricing those emissions. It can only happen, though, if farmers are allowed all options of sequestration. That includes shelterbelts; that includes riparian planting; that includes native bush and reserves.

A National Government would invest in driving technology. It wouldn’t just announce $300 million technology incentives and funds and just write a press release and put it out; it would actually invest. Come down to my electorate. Come and visit Lincoln Agritech and all those solutions are right there. They have been developed. They need some sort of system to commercialise them and incentivise them. I would suggest, Mr McAnulty, if you want me up in Marlborough having a look at the flood damage, come down to my electorate, take a look at the technology being developed down there, put your money where your mouth is, and start investing behind them.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Well, National talk a big game—they talk a big game, whether it’s the environment, where they’re non-committal; whether it’s law and order and their lack of delivery; or whether it’s their hollow promises. Underlying all of that is an agenda to cut services—to cut our basic services to provide a tax cut for the top tier and provide nothing for those below.

I often think that the Hutt Valley is a little bit of a snapshot of the world. In fact, I might be a little bit biased, but I think it’s pretty much got everything. When I look at the level of investment in the Hutt Valley—and I shudder to think what we would look like if a National Government got a hold and cut services. What sort of things would people’s lives have to go through if a National Government got into power and actually started to cut those services and reduce those things that people rely on?

Last week, the Lower Hutt area got $98.9 million for infrastructure—much needed; over 200 kilometres of stormwater pipes to free up land and to make way for more housing. We’ll see more housing—up to 3,500 additional homes built through the RiverLink and the Valley Floor project through this additional money made through the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund. It’s been welcomed across the board by all parts, including our Hutt City Council. It’s fantastic news for Lower Hutt, and it means that we will have more ability to build much-needed houses. And that’s exactly what we’re doing, with record consents for housing and social housing being built as well. Epuni: 160 units. Waterloo—and more being built across the board. We are seeing more homes being built and the infrastructure in place to let those houses be built. I question whether that level of investment and development in people’s lives and wellbeing would continue if taxes were cut, if taxes were given to those on the top, and our funding was cut to those critical investment services that we’re providing.

In terms of transport, we’ve got RiverLink funded—a game-changer for the Hutt; a significant interchange—as well as much-needed RiverLink with flood protection across the board. We’re also seeing a full cycle network being developed, with Te Ara Tupua, the shared pathway all the way between the Hutt Valley and Wellington; the Eastern Bays cycleway, right around the bays; and also the Beltway connecting up to give people transport choices in being able to get from A to B safely.

I’ve already spoken about housing, but let’s touch on the schools—all public schools that I’ve seen and visited receiving much-needed funding for their building: leaky roofs fixed, libraries put in place, playgrounds built. All of those schools that lack the funding in their buildings budget to be able to make repairs and put additional classrooms in place for growing roles have now taken place right across the Hutt Valley. That includes the three major high schools: Tawa College, Hutt Valley High School, and Wainuiomata High School all having a significant rebuild from the ground up to make sure we have warm, safe, dry learning areas for our young people.

After that, we see big changes also in trade training. What I’ve enjoyed doing over the last recess is going and visiting some of those businesses that have benefited from the 50,000 apprentices who have got our trade training scheme in place. Not only were young people given the opportunity to learn and earn at the same time, but those employers who might not have otherwise been able to afford to pay for their apprentice in the first or second year were now able to do that. I saw a young Māori business owner who’d worked as a boat builder and was now putting himself through a joinery apprenticeship and making bespoke, beautiful whakairo-inspired carvings—a whole range of joinery—and doing an incredible job at that. The ability to take a trade training boost and get involved had opened that business up to serve more and to boost him and his business and the local economy.

The range of infrastructure projects we see booming in the Hutt Valley is reflective of the wider New Zealand and the detailed plan to put them into place in areas that need that help, and that will stimulate our local economy. All of the projects I’ve mentioned provide not only better amenities for families and better income for our local economy and our local businesses but also job opportunities for our young people. So here’s to keeping on going, keeping the momentum going, and making sure we invest where we need. I don’t want to look at an alternate universe that has cuts to those critical areas and cuts to where people will suffer in the long term, because this is a Government dedicated to progress and dedicated to putting people first.

Fakaalofa lahi atu ki a mutolu oti, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to participate in this debate. I did want to acknowledge the passion of our rural MPs advocating for their constituencies, both on this side and that side of the House. As someone that lives in a rural province as well, in a rural village as well, these are the sorts of issues which come front of mind all the time for me as well.

Climate denial has gone; it has left the building. But what we still have now is climate procrastination. We have climate procrastination where folks, whether willingly or not willingly, or unwittingly, are kicking the can so far down the road that we’re running out of road. The floods in Pakistan just recently were so severe—so severe—that you could see them from outer space. That’s how bad they were. And these erratic weather events are happening all the time. We’re having, you know, 500-year floods every other year. And I’m mindful of all the events that happened in Whakatū, our whānau down in Nelson, all throughout the Tairāwhiti as well. It’s like every other day there’s something that’s happening with the weather. I mean, it was snowing just the other week as well, in the middle of autumn. So it’s important that we, as members of this House, do all that we can to actually—instead of listening to the noise, the white noise, the busyness, that we actually listen to the science. Let’s listen to the science. That’s what’s important. And the science is telling us that we actually need to take action right now. That action needs to happen right now.

I was just reflecting on a report that just came out from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, where they were talking about offsets. It showed in that report that it would take 6,000 square metres of pine forests for us to offset the methane emissions from a single dairy cow, and 4,000 square metres of pine forests to offset the emissions from a single beef animal. For the rugby fans out there, that’s the equivalent of a rugby field of pine trees for just two animals—for just two animals. So that tells me—that should tell us—that we can’t rely on offsets. That’s what the science tells us.

And so this proposal that we’ve been talking about this afternoon—some supporting it, some not supporting it—will go in front for public consultation. But at the end of the day, what we need to happen is for those emissions to come down—those methane emissions to come down. That’s what we should all be aiming for. So there’s a bunch of things that we’ve been advocating for for a while now, as Green MPs: making sure that when we put a price on agricultural emissions, that it actually comes down as well. And we know, because of the Commissioner’s report, that offsets are not going to do it. Let’s look at tradable methane quotas as well; that’s something that our Minister for Climate Change, James Shaw, has been pushing on, that the emissions trading scheme (ETS) is not up to it. Let’s look at something else to see, to make sure that those emissions come down as well. We also want synthetic nitrogen fertiliser brought into the ETS—that causes intensive dairying, which contributes to climate change—so making sure that’s on there as well, we think, would help to actually bring down emissions.

There’s other things as well—for example, palm kernel expeller; making sure that we phase that out, because the optics of that are just terrible. Whether you want to have an argument about whether it’s a product or a by-product or whatever, it is contributing to deforestation in places like Indonesia—it’s just a bad look. It’s a bad look for the industry and a bad look for exports from New Zealand as well. So we need to actually be mindful that we do that as well.

We just don’t have time, and we need more than a groundswell. What we need is a “mindswell”. So I would invite members from across the House, both sides—that’s left side, right side, upside down side—to actually listen to the science and whatever we propose, bring those emissions down.

I did have a bit of a moment of “Back to the Future” when Kieran McAnulty was speaking, because I actually remember being out on the forecourt when Bill English rode up on his tractor. I didn’t know what it was all about, and I found out about it later, and it was protesting against the carbon tax. That was in 2003, I think. Nearly 20 years—20 years. We’re at the endgame here, folks. Whatever we’ve got to do, we’ve got to do it now. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It’s my pleasure to rise in this House tonight to talk about the economy. Yes, there’s a lot to be done, but it’s worth noting that the size of our economy now is larger than it was pre-COVID and we, as a country, are now in a strong position to face any future global turbulence. I’ll give some examples.

The median earnings growth is at its highest rate since records began in 1998. Unemployment is at its near record low of 3.3 percent, and 100,000 people have moved off the benefit and into work in the past year. Young people are outperforming every other age group in entering the workforce, and filled jobs for people from 15 to 19 are now up 18 percent compared to year on year. And in New Zealand, our inflation rate is below the OECD average and our economy has pulled through the pandemic better than we did during the global financial crisis.

That’s what happens when you have a Government that believes that the economy exists to support people. That’s what happens when you put people first. And like my fantastic colleague the member for Hutt South mentioned in her fantastic speech, in the Waimakariri electorate where I live, there’s been significant growth in the last five years. Building consents are up, houses are getting built, and builders are taking on apprentices. If anyone wants to get into the trades, then we want you in the Waimakariri electorate. Phone my office and we’ll get you in touch with the people that can help you out.

Last week, the Hon Dr Megan Woods announced a massive Government infrastructure spend through the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund (IAF) to allow for thousands of more homes—11,500 in total—for New Zealanders and their families. And a portion of this investment is going into the Waimakariri electorate. Rangiora, specifically, will receive $5.7 million for transport and three waters projects, which is expected to accelerate the delivery of around 1,300 affordable homes, and they’ll be a range of homes in a development in north-east Rangiora.

Last week, the Waimakariri District Council acting chief executive, Jeff Millwood, said that the IAF funding will help bring a greater number of sections to the market much sooner than would otherwise have been possible. Over the weekend, I went and visited where this money has been invested, just down the road from my place, in the Bellgrove Rangiora development. Already that development has excavators clearing ground and drainlayers preparing for three waters infrastructure down Kippenberger Ave. This IAF investment is going to provide a significant boost to the local economy, not just for builders but also for electricians, earthmoving contractors, plumbers, and drainlayers.

Now, there’ll also be another second-order advantage due to an increased patronage of local cafes, initially from tradies working in the area, but then from residents who move into the Bellgrove subdivision and call Rangiora home. This investment will generate work for apprentices to complete the competencies towards their apprenticeships. And because the Bellgrove development area aims to address the housing needs of the community through medium-density housing, it will be affordable. And due to the apprenticeships being free, some of these apprentices, you know, they’ll come out of their time and they may even be able to purchase their first home in that same Bellgrove subdivision, because they’re not burdened with a student loan. So Waimakariri is a fantastic place to be a tradie.

That’s what it looks like when, in the economy, we put people first and investment trickles throughout all of society, not from the top down, like the other side of the House propose, but where the average person gets to see the benefits of the Government investment. I’m proud that we are following two themes with the management of our economy. Firstly, we are looking inwards, investing in our people so that we can have a diverse and resilient workforce as we rebuild post COVID-19 and, secondly, we are looking outwards, because there is an increasing global economic turbulence ahead and to prepare for that turbulence we’ve decided not to take on more debt to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest New Zealanders. We know that that would undermine our position, because that’s what we saw recently in the UK.

We’ve come out of the emergency COVID response in a stronger position than we did after the global financial crisis and we are now the envy of many nations around the world. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. In this place we talk a lot about what we know, or what we’ve experienced. In some people’s cases they also talk about what they know nothing about. I can tell you, though, that I know what it’s like to come home to a mother in tears because she has to choose between paying for power, between paying for the phone, between paying for petrol to get to work or groceries to feed her children. I can tell you that I know what it’s like to have fishcakes for Christmas dinner. I know what it feels like when there’s not enough food in the house for all the children to make lunch for school. I know what it’s like because I have lived it. I get it. Times are tough at the moment, and some of our families are struggling. But that’s why I am proud that on this side of the House, instead of listening to the braying from the Opposition benches, we haven’t cut spending on education or health as they would have done. Instead, we rolled out the cost of living payment to help our families get through.

I know that every little bit counts; every bit helps when you are budgeting down to the last cent. I also know that cutting taxes for the wealthy does not trickle down. It does not give more money to those who are struggling. I know that because during the global financial crisis, when National cut spending and borrowed money to pay for taxes for the wealthy, I left uni. And what did I leave with? Thousands of dollars of debt, two degrees, and no job because nobody was hiring. It took seven months of applying for work before I even got a part-time job. By contrast, our Government has shepherded us through the pandemic by backing Kiwis—backing our businesses.

During the management of this pandemic we’ve seen wages increase, record low levels of unemployment, and jobs aplenty. Instead of the 6.7 percent of unemployment under National, we’ve got it down to 3.3 percent. If the trickle-down effect truly worked, then every one of us would be going out there looking for the biggest, flashest house in the nicest suburb and we’d be giving those homeowners money. Then we would watch as that money trickled down to someone who’s living rough so they could get into their own home. But we don’t do that, because trickle-down theory doesn’t work. Even Liz Truss has cottoned on to that, so why hasn’t National?

There is cause for hope, and there is cause for optimism. I spent a glorious two weeks in my electorate where I held constituent meetings in Whanganui, Hāwera, and Eltham. I attended the blessing of Wai o Rua - Stratford Aquatic Centre and the first birthday of the Stratford bike park. Both of those projects are loved by the Stratford community. Both of those projects receive funding from this Government, which created local jobs.

I popped in to some of our local businesses to check on how they are doing, and I can tell you that they are feeling hopeful and optimistic. I chatted with Russell, a small-business owner who told me he’s been thinking about retiring, but he’s got a problem. The problem is he’s got too much work. He’s got a sign saying he can’t take on new jobs. So instead of retiring, he’s planning to continue on working to meet demand. Then I talked with Libby, a small-business owner who’s just moved and expanded her business, and it’s doing so well even during school holidays which tend to be a bit quiet. She was flat out. Angela Roberts and I hosted a stall at the Women’s Lifestyle Expo in New Plymouth, and even shoppers there were hopeful and optimistic, just like the stallholders.

This Government is building more houses. Just recently we had an announcement from Minister Megan Woods supporting infrastructure in Whanganui; pipes in the ground in Castlecliff to build 340 new homes there. I want to acknowledge the work of Tūpoho and the Whanganui District Council.

Times are challenging, but I can tell you that from out there on the streets, there is hope and there is optimism, thanks to this Government.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.