General Debate

Bill English is a smart enough politician to know where the action is. That is why he is going where the action is rather than staying here. Bill English knows that the National Party caucus is having a meeting, but that meeting is not there, it is not here, and he is not invited to it. That is why his heart was not in his speech today. That speech had to be the worst general debate speech from that member that I have ever heard.

It was not so long ago that Bill and Mary English were on the front cover of the New Zealand Woman’s Weekly, with the title “Up and coming politician”. But nobody says that about Bill any more; Bill knows that his time is up.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member knows he cannot use just one name; he must use the member’s full name.

Mr English knows that his time has come and gone. After years of hard work he is here to prove the truism that a soufflé never rises twice.

Where is Murray McCully? Where is the “Prince of Darkness” at the moment? What coup is he about to run?

💬 Jill Pettis: He’s counting.

We have just had Halloween. The clanking of chains around the National Party is not the sound of Murray McCully; it is the ghost of Brian Neeson. Do members remember Brian Neeson? He was the hard-working member from Massey West. He was the honest butcher who met a worse butcher, the wicked witch of the east, Michelle Boag. She came in the dead of night, slew him, and made room for the barrow boy from the money markets, John Key, who is so passionately committed to Waitakere that he moved to Parnell. It is said that John Key can read a map but he has no compass. But he can now find his way to Henderson, as long as he has a chauffeur in the car with him. But what does he stand for? What do we know about this man? Seriously, the only thing we know about John Key’s vision is tax cuts.

John Key is a man whose early years were blighted by tragedy. He is a man whose young life depended on the resources of the State for housing and education. There is nothing wrong with that. We believe that all people deserve a hand up when they need it. But what does he stand for now? We know—to the extent that we know at all—that he stands for reducing the resources of the State, to provide the same chance for the next generation of John Keys or “Rangi Keys” or whoever. That is what he stands for—and that is a word starting with the letter “h”. He is so narrow that he makes economists look sexy. He has that beady-eyed glint of the rapacious foreign exchange trader who is to throw away his own heritage for a profit.

So what can one call it but the belief that money solves all one’s problems? If a members wants to stand in Helensville and live in Parnell, there is no problem. He needs only to buy a house in Helensville and pretend to live in it. If a member wants to have street cred in Waitakere but wants to drive a Beemer or a Merc during the week, there is no problem. He needs only to buy a Commodore, put his face on it, and get someone else to drive it around Waitakere. If a member wants to fit in out west and be seen in his electorate but is too busy running around the country plotting against the guy who mentored him into Parliament, there is no problem. He needs only to buy a few more billboards or buildings and stick his face on them, or in the window, and people might think he lives there. None of this is illegal, none of it is wrong, but nor is any of it true.

Therefore, who is the real John Key? What does he stand for? Where would he lead the National Party, and, God forbid, if he ever got the chance, where would he lead New Zealand? The truth is that nobody knows, because John Key does not take stands; he takes positions. He tries to judge where the market trend is in the short term, and he will long it or he will short it. Members can take the example of climate change. He simply said: “the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill is a load of rubbish and the National Party will not be supporting it, for very, very good reasons indeed.” Well, guess what? National now supports the bill. John Key apparently supports the bill also, but one cannot really tell, because he will not tell people what he stands for. He does not take stands; he just takes positions. He is good at reading maps, but he has no compass. He is good at manoeuvring, but he has no vision. If the National Party makes the same mistake it will remain on the Opposition benches.

Suddenly, the Prime Minister is talking about sustainability, the environment, global warming, and carbon neutrality—well, just about anything to get the public diverted from the pledge card and her illegal spending for the 2005 election campaign. Shame on her. The environment is too big an issue and too important an issue to be a mere diversion. Excuse me for my cynicism, but for the last 7 years Labour has been too involved with pushing its social engineering agenda to think too deeply about the environment, and it has left it all to the Greens. But now, just when Labour’s “business as usual” approach is looking downright grubby, Ms Clark discovers her environmental consciousness. Well, excuse me!

I have to say that I admire the Greens’ dedication to environmental issues. They understand the importance of looking after our natural world, and they have worked long and hard to raise public awareness of environmental issues and to change behaviour. But, as with all pioneers of new ideas, it has been hard work for them to get their message out to ordinary New Zealanders and to motivate change. They have also suffered from being linked with extreme-left political policies, as many middle-of-the-road conservative New Zealanders have not been able to get past those politics to consider the important environmental issues. These people see the Greens as the “Watermelon Party”—green on the outside, but pink in the middle.

National’s blue-green environmental policy, released last month, is the first public manifestation of an environmental consciousness that has always underpinned National’s work. For the last 70 years, National’s rural voters have been the guardians of the land and, generally speaking, they have done a fine job. We are still one of the cleanest and greenest countries in the world, but with increasing urbanisation and pressures on resources, there needs to be a new, partnership style of environmental guardianship of our natural heritage.

The Bluegreens were formed in 1997 and they have worked quietly in the background ever since. They are a testimony to the fact that one does not have to be red to be green. The blue-green vision for New Zealand is for all New Zealanders who want a better environmental future for our country. It seeks long-term consistency and effectiveness in environment policy. If we are to make a real difference, we need to negotiate with all stakeholders and all political parties to reach a real consensus, because our natural environment will be here long after individuals, voters, and political parties are dead and gone. We need to make good decisions about the environment: decisions that are timely, decisions that are based on good science, and decisions that will give us long-term, sustainable results.

National believes that most New Zealanders want to do things differently in respect of our environment, and now is the time to focus on the important issues—to clean up our air, to clean up our water, and to manage our resources better. We need to decide on the key indicators to monitor the health of our environment, for, at the moment, after 7 years of this Labour Government, many of the important indicators are looking pretty sick.

With regard to our air, scientists estimate that nearly 1,000 people die prematurely each year because of air pollution. That is three times the number of crash victims we have. In the face of global warming in the last 7 years, our greenhouse gas emissions have increased faster than for almost any other country in the world. How carbon neutral is that? And in the area of water, New Zealand has real problems with managing both quality and quantity of its water resources. More and more New Zealanders are concerned about substandard drinking water in streams, rivers, and lakes that are also no longer safe to swim and fish in. We need to take action, and we need to take it fast. In forestry, growing trees is one of the smartest ways to combat global warming—and Labour is chopping them down.

I do not want to be critical, because that is just not the sort of thing that we do in the Labour Government. But to hear the member Nicky Wagner, who is opposite me, talking about cynicism just makes me laugh—talking about National’s blue-green policy, about its commitment to addressing climate change, when its leader has not even accepted that there is a problem. I think this is another example of the National Party’s leader being out of tune with what the members of his caucus are up to. My goodness, what are those members up to, as we speak? When I look over there at those members sitting on those benches, I see there seems to be quite a bit of plotting and scheming going on. We would just love to know what is going on. But to hear that member talk about blue-green policies!

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: An oxymoron.

What an oxymoron! I tell Mr Cunliffe that that is no way to talk about those people. But what about National’s blue-green policies? If we mix blue and green together, what colour do we get? We get puce. We get a yucky, horrible puce colour. I think that pretty well sums up what those blue-green policies are going to be.

But I do not want to wallow in negativity; it is just not our style. I want to say that it is great to be back in New Zealand. What a privilege I had recently in attending an international conference in Geneva with two very affable travelling companions, John Carter and Nandor Tanczos. What a team we were. We all felt a sense of pride when representatives from other countries came to us and said that we are so lucky to have the Government and the leader that we have.

💬 Jill Pettis: And Mr Carter was very proud.

Oh, I think he was; I think he was bursting with pride. Helen Clark is a leader who is resolute about the appropriate handling of Iraq, who is genuinely committed—not like the blue-green puce approach—to addressing climate change, and who is unashamedly, as leader of the Government, promoting an inclusive society.

Myself and my great westie colleagues David Cunliffe who spoke so well earlier, Darien Fenton, whom I know we are going to hear from, and also dear old Chris Carter, who is a great friend and colleague, had a great meeting in Waitakere only last Sunday. There was standing room only, which is something Opposition members would not know about given the sad little groups they get at their meetings. We packed a hall full in that beautiful leafy green area of Titirangi. We had the wonderful children from Te Atatu Intermediate, who did a wonderful welcome for us. Who did we have singing to us? We had Indira, runner-up in NZ Idol. I can tell members of the pride we felt when she stood there and started her performance in front of those 400 to 500 people and said: “I am proud to be part of a Labour family.” That is us. We are hip, we are groovy, we are happening. That is our westie pride, and it is our country’s pride.

What else received applause? It was the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. Members can imagine how I seethe with rage when I hear Opposition members banging on about blue-green policies, when they absolutely opposed that bill. It is absolutely shocking stuff. I will tell members what else attracted similar applause at that meeting attended by 400 to 500 people. All of the Government’s good policies did, such as our early childhood education policy, our interest-free student loans, our apprenticeships, our industry training, and New Zealand’s absolutely thriving economy. New Zealand probably has the lowest rate of unemployment that even someone of Dr Brash’s age can remember. These are all great attributes. They are great things that we can celebrate in Government.

It is good to stand in this House and say that Labour members are proud of what we have achieved. We have done much, but there is much to be done. We are really pleased that we are in the third term of a Labour-led Government, and we are already working hard towards a fourth term so that we can keep acting on these great initiatives.

How funny it is to hear National and Labour fighting about who has the best environmental policy! It is the most bizarre thing I have ever heard. Suddenly National has decided to take climate change seriously and to talk about sustainability. I have to say, though, that the National Party has had a poor, poor record—fighting Kyoto, opposing the carbon charge, opposing the “fart tax” that would have dealt with methane emissions from agriculture, attacking the Resource Management Act, supporting much more money going into roading and private car use, and, of course, always putting economic growth above all else. But I have to say that that also sounds very much like Labour Party policy. It was Labour that got rid of the carbon charge and refused to stand up for it when it should have done so, that got rid of the “fart tax” when it should have stood up and defended it, that has itself undermined public involvement in the Resource Management Act, that has invested billions of dollars in roading when it should have gone into public transport, and that also still puts economic growth over and above environmental sustainability.

There is no doubt that this is a very interesting little battle. But the fact is that it is the Green Party that has environmental issues in hand. It is the Green Party that has actions in place and proposes things that can be done right now. That is what I want to talk about this afternoon. The Green Party has six members’ bills that it is putting into the ballot tomorrow afternoon, all of which will provide immediate solutions to a number of the problems around climate change emissions and peak oil. They will not fix everything but they are actions that can be taken now. Neither National nor Labour has said a single thing about what they will do right now to fix those problems. The Green Party has some of the solutions right here.

The first one of our bills is the Climate Change (Government Vehicle Procurement) Bill, which will require all State sector organisations, when buying or leasing passenger vehicles, to purchase only those with an engine capacity of less than 1800cc and that are in the top 10 percent in terms of fuel efficiency. It is a good model for the community. The second bill, the Climate Change (Electricity Fixed Charge) Bill, relates to getting rid of fixed charges, so that people who conserve electricity in their own homes get the financial benefit of not being charged a fixed charge. There need to be incentives to conserve electricity. The third bill is the Climate Change (Airline Emissions) Bill, and it will require airlines in New Zealand to cap by 2012 their total greenhouse gas emissions at the level they are at in 2007 and require them to take measures to reduce their emissions to 1990 levels, putting them on a par with similar industries in that sector.

The Climate Change (Public Transport Funding) Bill will require two-thirds of national land transport funding to be allocated to public transport, walking, cycling, rail, coastal shipping, and travel demand management. That will help us to deal with both the impact of climate change and peak oil, by saving fuel and decreasing the transport-related carbon dioxide emissions. The Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill will require that the managers of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund consider climate change and broader environmental impacts when making investments. The Climate Change (Rail Electrification) Bill will set targets for the electrification of different parts of the rail network and require the rail operator to use bio-diesel on those parts that are not electrified until 2012, ultimately reducing our carbon dioxide emissions.

These bills address some aspects of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on oil. They are a demonstration of leadership on these issues—leadership that is lacking from the Government at the moment and that is absolutely absent from any of National’s policies at all. Two of the bills—those relating to vehicle procurement and New Zealand Superannuation Fund investments—require action from only the Government. The Government could do what they propose right now by ministerial directive; it does not need legislation. It needs to take action now, and it can. Three of the bills deal with transport emissions, given that those are the second-largest contributor to our overall emissions in New Zealand. The bill that gets rid of the fixed charges for electricity goes directly to incentivising and supporting the community to make changes in people’s own homes.

With this level of change at a structural level by the Government and with the modelling the Government can provide in addressing issues around business, transport, and incentivising families and communities, we cannot go wrong. The package deals with all of the issues and really shows that we are taking leadership here. We expect, given the arguments between National and Labour about who has the best policy and who is more environmentally sound than anybody else, that if and when these bills are pulled out of the ballot, those parties must support them. We must take action. Rhetoric from both big parties is no longer acceptable. We simply do not have the time. I challenge the other parties to come up with similar bills, to put them into the ballot also, and to support the ones that are pulled out, so that we are involved in a cross-party solution-setting process and take action now to protect our country, our future, and this planet. Thank you.

I am proud to follow my westie colleagues Lynne Pillay and David Cunliffe in this debate today. I am proud to work with other Labour MPs in west Auckland as well as with my Labour North colleagues in Helensville.

Unlike the member for Helensville, who is busy trying to be the leader of the National Party, I live among other westies around the communities of Waitakere village, Swanson, Massey, Rānui, Henderson, and Taupaki. I have raised my family there and I am proud of where we live. There are many different families around us. Some live in State houses. Many are young families who have bought their first home. There are older people, families of all ethnicities, and people working hard to get ahead. They deserve a fair go and that is why this Labour-led Government has put affordable housing on the agenda. That is why we have introduced KiwiSaver and Welcome Home Loans. It is why we bought back the State houses sold by National. Under those excellent Ministers Mark Gosche and—another westie MP—Chris Carter we have built many more State houses and have made them affordable with income-related rents.

💬 Lynne Pillay: Mark Gosche did it, too.

I said Mark Gosche.

But the member for Helensville, whose office is not far down the road from where I live, does not want affordable housing—particularly State housing—in his electorate, even though he does not live there and it will not affect him. Plans for a development at the Hobsonville airbase, which would provide for accessible and affordable housing for the whole community—young and old, singles and families, rich and poor—have motivated John Key to get out in his electorate. He has hosted some public meetings to whip up opposition to State housing at Hobsonville. The other day I met someone from Massey, which is in his electorate, who went to one of the meetings. She said it was shocking; people there were saying that they did not want “trash” in Hobsonville.

This is Mr Key showing his true colours; he says that State houses should not be developed on that piece of pristine land. Well, do poor people not deserve views, as well? And where will the future workers of west Auckland come from if they are not allowed to live in areas of new development? I suppose that National members think they should be shipped in from South Auckland—keeping them well out of the way but increasing the traffic, and keeping Hobsonville and Helensville pure for the rich.

The people in my neighbourhood are those who serve the factories and offices of west Auckland. Their lives are on the up and up, thanks to this Labour-led Government. I want the future leadership hopeful of the National Party to come clean and tell those workers his plans for them. Does he support the Employment Relations Act or would he amend it, delete it, or get rid of it along the lines of Wayne Mapp’s member’s bill? If he had a chance, would he scrap paid parental leave instead of extending it? Would he stop the fourth week of annual leave that this Government is delivering from next year?

💬 Jill Pettis: Just hire an au pair.

Yes. Would he take away the rights of workers to get paid extra on statutory holidays? Well, yes. We do know that National would renationalise accident compensation, because its members said they would during the last sitting of the House, repeatedly. Would he bring back those awful health and safety laws we used to have, where workers had no say at all? And what would he do about paid employment equity? I am not even sure he could say the words. All we have heard from that side of the House is talk of tax cuts and insults about workers and their unions.

The question I want to ask John Key is whether he has the bottle. Has he got the bottle to go for Don Brash’s job? Has he got the bottle to come clean with the people of west Auckland about his policies for them—or has he actually got any policies? Has he got the bottle to front up to the people of Massey, in his electorate, and tell them that they are too poor to live in Hobsonville? I bet he has not. Has he got the bottle to tell the working people of New Zealand that the agenda of the National Party has not changed a bit when it comes to workers’ rights? I look forward to hearing from that wannabe leader of the National Party. I look forward to his showing he has the courage and the guts to go for something—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member can never challenge someone’s courage. That is a personal reflection; the member must withdraw.

OK. I look forward to seeing that he has the tenacity to go for something he believes in, because it is not clear what he does believe in. Thank goodness Labour is the Government, and will be for a long time to come!

I have been doing a wee bit of reading on the environment because I think it is terribly important to back one’s talk up with facts, and that is something I would like to ponder in my brief 5 minutes. I have had a wee look at the annual report of the Ministry for the Environment. It is nice; it is a very good report. What I wondered about, in reading this report, was how much commitment the Ministry for the Environment has put toward solving the problem of climate change. We have an awful lot of words from that ministry, but how does it back them up?

In the report it was interesting to find that at the end of 2005 the Ministry for the Environment had invested $8,309,000 in investigating climate change. OK, that is not a lot. It is a big subject, but that is a start. How has the ministry done at the end of this financial year? I found that at the end of 2006 the Ministry for the Environment had invested $6,791,000 in investigating climate change. Hang on a minute! The Government’s investment in climate change investigations has gone down. This is a Government that is extremely hot on climate change, yet in its annual report from the Ministry for the Environment, we find that not only is the Government not even treading water in terms of investment in investigating climate change but its investment into finding out about climate change has actually decreased by over $2 million. That is what I call commitment!

💬 Lindsay Tisch: Oh yeah.

Oh yes, $2 million less in this financial year; it is talk, talk, talk. The Government’s investment in investigating climate change shows it is backing away. That is how committed this Government is to addressing the issue of climate change.

I thought that that was interesting, and that I would have a little deeper look at this report. I found that, under the “achievement” criteria—this one is “develop and implement policies”—the ministry rates its performance as only “partially achieved”. Well, members probably did not need me to tell them that today. But when it came to representing New Zealand at international forums, the ministry managed to achieve that goal. In fact, the trips overseas are ongoing.

So what do we have? We have a decrease in investment, and we have talk upon talk upon talk. What has all this expenditure, all those overseas trips, achieved? [Interruption] According to Steve Chadwick, the climate change policy is: “Don’t just wait; it’s coming.” Well, so is Christmas, and I bet that after that we will still be waiting. Let us have a look at the Government’s record on climate change. It is all very well to talk the talk, but what has the Government actually done in the last 7 years, on its watch, to solve the problem of climate change? The Government has built coal-fired power stations yet has prevented the building of two sustainable hydro stations. The Government sat on the fence over Project Aqua, the Government sat on the fence over the Dobson hydro power scheme, yet we find we have two new coal-fired power stations—that is, under this Government’s watch.

This is a Government under whose watch the annual rate of investment in forestry has gone from around 60,000 hectares per annum throughout most of the 1990s to practically none today. So that is the Government’s record on forestry. This is a Government whose Ministers drive around in big, gas-guzzling, self-driving ministerial sedans, who then offset that by buying a little bit of forestry to gain carbon credits—and that makes it OK. If that is how the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues models good behaviour, then, boy, I would like to see what is not good behaviour. [Interruption] Gosh, it has got them excited, has it not? It has got them really going, and is that not funny?

This is a Government under whose watch the carbon tax failed. This is a Government under whose watch the energy efficiency strategy failed, at the cost of $100 million. This is a Government whose Prime Minister now acknowledges that the Kyoto Protocol has failed. The Prime Minister herself acknowledged at the Labour Party conference that the Kyoto Protocol deficit “did come as a bit of a blow”, and that the Government is going to “go back to the drawing board to look for better, more comprehensive strategies.” Well, I ask you! If the Prime Minister has no confidence in the Kyoto Protocol, how can the rest of New Zealand.

Yesterday in the House the Minister of Local Government, Mark Burton, confirmed that long-term community plans for local and territorial authorities over the next 10 years will require expenditure of $30.8 billion. This compares with the level of expenditure over the past 10 years of only one-third of this amount. The implication of this fact is obvious: local government will have to raise considerably more revenue during the time period mentioned.

The second fact that the Minister confirmed was that over 80 percent of the additional expenditure is for essential infrastructural development—roads, sewerage, waste water, etc. A considerable amount of the rest will come from requirements for monitoring outcomes, as required by central government. The Minister was also asked what the effect would have been had councils had caps set on the amount of revenue they could raise. He responded with atypical understatement, saying: “It would have been both limiting and negative.”

The truth is that the consequences would have been disastrous—potholed and congested roads, horrendous smog and greenhouse gas levels, sewage pouring into our harbours, lakes and rivers—shades of the Lorax. It is interesting how the new “Blue-green Party” voted for the rate-capping bill. Our local communities are facing the consequences of under-investment in infrastructure during the 1990s—and the chickens have now come home to roost.

But there is another side to the equation. Because the major revenue-raising mechanism for local government is a tax on the value of properties—that is, rates—the need to raise a threefold increase in revenue over the next 10 years impacts harshly on some individuals and groups. Farmers are such a group, especially those in regions such as the one where I live, Whangarei, where there is a city surrounded by farms, and where it could be claimed that farmers are subsidising urban dwellers. The situation impacts very cruelly on those on low fixed incomes, who happen to live in homes with rapidly escalating values; values over which they have no control.

New Zealand First was able to look at both sides of the equation. Certainly, the answer was not to use a blunt instrument such as capping rates—populist possibly, but doomed to failure. There were some who said the bill should be sent to select committee to enable a wide-ranging debate. Parties that promoted this idea, and that were planning to vote positive at the first vote and then vote it down, would have raised hopes; only to dash cruelly those hopes later on. Worst still, under the Standing Orders a select committee can only deliberate within the scope of the bill. This was a narrow bill and the committee could not have scrutinised the wide range of issues that need to be teased out. In fact, those parties were conning the public.

What was needed was an independent public inquiry, and it was New Zealand First that from the outset called for such an inquiry. We were, at the time, a lone voice in the wilderness. It was also New Zealand First that played its hand astutely to ensure the Government would agree to such an independent review. The review has now been announced, and I have to say we are very pleased with not only the terms of reference but also the personnel. The report-back date will be midway through next year, prior to local government elections. The personnel to carry out the review are high-powered, experienced, and knowledgable, and are able to take an independent view—somewhat more high-powered, I might admit, than a select committee of four Nats, four Labour MPs, and one Green MP. The terms of reference have been set, and are broad enough to cover the full range of issues that need to be examined. The review will be public—that is essential—and it will deliver an analysis that will carefully consider both sides of the equation.

The review will add to a raft of initiatives that New Zealand First has delivered since the election, and will, in fact, deliver within the next 2 years and beyond. My caucus colleagues took considerable flak over the issue, but we stood resolute. As a result of this resolution, we delivered what we believe was needed. Now, groups all over the country—in fact, many of those groups that were saying: “Please vote for this bill to go to select committee.”—have publicly recognised this reality. They are saying that what we needed all along was an independent review—exactly what we have delivered to them.

I ask the House what did Rodney Hide deliver. In fact, Rodney Hide delivered nothing, which is par for the course. That is his record since 1996—a load of populism. But I also ask what did National deliver on this one It also delivered nothing. What has any other party, other than New Zealand First, delivered in this particular case? Although I am very pleased with what has occurred since that time with Labour, it has to be recognised that Labour was not enamoured of the idea of an independent inquiry, at the time.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.