Address in Reply

I move, That a respectful Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General in reply to His Excellency’s speech. I offer my congratulations to you first, Mr Speaker, on your election to the prestigious role of Speaker of this Parliament. Your years of service in Parliament have been rewarded well. I state how proud I am of becoming a foot soldier in a strong caucus team led so capably, so practically, and so effectively by our new Prime Minister, the Hon John Key.

'E mua ia ona o`u taia,

le tu tafa’itoa,

i paia o le as’o,

ma o’u faatulou atu ,

i le mamalu o le saofaiga a le Palemene,

le paia faa-tafafa o le Maota Fono,

ma lau tapuaiga Aotearoa.

Ua mata-lupe le se-uga o le as’o,

aua o lea ua fesila-fai,

sega ula o le faamoemoe,

i le alofa o le Atua.

Tulou ia,

tulou,

tulouna lava.

In Samoan I greeted everyone by requesting your indulgence, Mr Speaker, so that I can acknowledge the sacredness of today. I asked for everyone’s grace so that I can acknowledge this sitting of Parliament and the sacredness of the four corners of this parliamentary Chamber, and pay tribute to those in attendance, as well as acknowledge the prayers and thoughts of all New Zealanders. I say that this day is rich, plentiful, and climactic. The day is also important because of the sega ula or beautiful birds—a reference to important or ceremonial people or groups—are now meeting under the banner of God’s love.

Nō reira, e ngā rangatira, e ngā waka, e ngā karanga maha, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou i runga i te painga o tō tātou Matua Nui i te Rangi. Ahakoa he tangata Hāmoa kē ahau, he mihi tonu atu ki a koutou, arā, te Rōpū Māori. Nō reira, tēnā koutou.

[So greetings to you leaders, canoes, and the many callings. Greetings under the goodness of our Great Father in Heaven. Even though I am a Samoan person I acknowledge you, the Māori Party, with great respect. Greetings.]

I stand before members today as the member of Parliament for Maungakiekie. I am humbled by an enormous debt of gratitude to the people of my community who have put their faith and trust in me.

I stand before members today because of the love, support, and encouragement of my family. To my father, Lotu; my mother, Usuga; siblings, Kenneth, Oleta, and Brigitta; and my wider family, I say fa’afetai and thank you. To my wife, Jules, for allowing my dream to become our dream, I say fakaue lahi and thank you. Finally, to our late daughter, Samaria, although you are not here with us today, I know that you hear my voice, and I say that I miss you and I love you.

I stand before members today because of the hard work of my campaign team under the disciplined leadership of Mark Thomas, the shrewd counsel of Simon Lusk, and the industry of Josh Beddell, and with the support of many, many supporters, many of whom are here today to be with us. Finally, to the National Party president Judy Kirk, regional manager Alastair Bell, and their respective teams, I say thank you for putting your confidence and trust in me as a candidate in this year’s general election.

The Maungakiekie electorate forms the geographic heart of Auckland. Literally, it means the hill of the kiekie vine. Of course, that is the Māori name for One Tree Hill, which is a symbol of great importance for both Māori and Pākehā. In pre-colonial times Maungakiekie was one of the most important of Māori pas. Its strategic placement within the isthmus of Tāmaki-makau-rau afforded the people the rich variety of seafood from two harbours. For European New Zealanders, One Tree Hill and the surrounding Cornwall Park is an important legacy left by Sir John Logan Campbell. The adjoining parklands provide about 540 acres of some of the most idyllic urban public green space in this country.

In Maungakiekie 149 different ethnic groups are represented. Over one-third of our residents were born overseas and a third speak foreign languages, 70 percent have a religious faith, and our schools range from decile 1 to decile 9. The Maungakiekie electorate is at the heart of Auckland’s diversity, with the iconic Maungakiekie as its jewel. It spans the Auckland isthmus from the Manukau Harbour in the west to the Tāmaki River in the east. In Auckland City, outside the central business district, the largest number of people employed in any single area is within Maungakiekie. Maungakiekie is middle New Zealand. Its roots are further reflected in the sports we play and host. We provide a home to Oceania Football, the New Zealand Warriors, and, of course, the world-champion New Zealand rugby league team.

Maungakiekie represents the emerging, bustling change of metropolitan Auckland, and it is a pointer to the diverse influences that are sweeping across our country. Yet despite its very individualistic diversities, many of the social and economic issues facing our people are shared by our fellow countrywomen and men across this nation. Everyone is concerned about our economic future and prosperity. All people desire first-class educational services, safe and secure neighbourhoods, and bountiful employment opportunities. Some of these goals are under pressure at this time of recession; others have still not been achieved, despite our coming through one of the longest sustained periods of growth in a generation. This country needs the changes that National campaigned on, and of course part of these changes will be appropriately diverse policy responses to take account of our more diverse peoples. I believe that the minority-led, increasingly diverse National Party and Government, together with our range of support partners, are very well placed to effect these changes.

My personal story is borne of the fabric of the community I represent. Born in Samoa, I migrated to New Zealand when I was a child and I lived in Māngere with my family. We lived in a three-bedroom home with a double garage, where our custom to care for our extended family sometimes meant that we had up to 16 people living in our home at any one time. My father, in particular, made huge sacrifices. The stories he told of shifting from the warm climes of Apia to the snow and sleet of Bluff move me. The stories he told of having to walk from Ponsonby to Parnell to save the bus fare in order to have some lunch humble me. My parents suffered and endured a great deal just so that we children could live better lives. We were not a wealthy family but we were rich in spirit, resourceful, and determined to succeed in this country. My family continues to be the cornerstone of my life. My parents instilled in us strong family values, Christian principles, and a diligent work ethic. The values are of honouring our elders, respecting others’ opinions, and treating others as we ourselves would like to be treated.

I was taught at a young age that education was a key to a successful future, not only for me but also for my wider family. I am grateful to my parents, who sacrificed and saved in order for my sibling and me to attend reputable State schools and universities. For me, education was the key to unlocking so many of the opportunities that I have enjoyed in life. Education allowed me to travel, meet new people, and experience different cultures. Those cultures also taught me that the best teachers in the world can—and should—be our parents. Our parents should encourage aspiration, and teach core values and an honourable way of life. I was taught that success is ultimately defined by doing our best in the area of our choice. If we set out to be the best that we can be in any role, and apply ourselves diligently and honestly, then success will be the fruits of that labour. A solid education gave me employment opportunities in finance, law and commerce, and a chance to enjoy these varied experiences. Education blessed me with the many lifestyle choices that I have today. I was taught that my success will not be based on my bank balances, assets or looks; success will be based on the breadth and the depth of relationships, and the ability to positively impact on and love others. I am proud and humbled to live in a country that has offered me so many opportunities; I want to apply all my effort so that future generations of New Zealanders get those same opportunities.

Throughout my life I have taken the notion of aspiration into my work endeavours, within both the private and public sectors. As an Auckland City councillor I have seen how local government works, and how it strives to improve the lives of its citizens. In critical times like these, it is crucial that the Government proceeds with caution. This implies the notion that fiscal prudence and accountability will be prioritised, and that bureaucracies are to be challenged to produce the desired outcomes for our people.

I am also acutely aware of the importance of the private sector in building the future of this country. Of the jobs in my electorate, 70 percent are provided by the private sector. Its health is their lifeline. The aspirations of business people and entrepreneurs are critical to the success of our economy and our country. Creating employment opportunities and improving productivity can arise only from having an educated workforce, with an attitude of being the best. This attitude is not only that we can be the best in our neighbourhoods, our cities, our region, or our country, but also that we can, and will, be the best in the world. Fundamental to the health of the private sector in these difficult times are lower taxes, less bureaucratic red tape, and legislation that encourages fruitful investment into our productive assets and industries.

Aspiration has also driven my desire to understand the views and opinions of my community. My involvement in various community organisations stems from a passion to serve the interests of both individuals and groups within our communities. As the Government, we must stay in touch with all New Zealanders who aspire to get ahead, and encourage those whose motivation falters. Building communities must not be solely left to the Government, though; the voluntary sector plays a huge role in addressing our communities’ issues. I am proud to be involved in the social services organisation Great Potentials, and the impact that its parenting and mentoring programmes have on the lives of parents and their children.

The private or philanthropic sectors can also contribute to the advancement of communities. I am proud to be involved in one such organisation, the I Have A Dream Charitable Trust. This trust motivates and empowers children from low-income communities to reach their education and career goals. I believe that solutions to many of our problems lie within the communities that combine to make up our society. This Government will promote front-line services over back-office administration. Bigger Governments do not produce better solutions. It is bold leadership that usually produces a brighter future. Governments may build taller buildings, stronger bridges, and safer roads, but ultimately the state of a nation’s wellbeing is based on the nature and the depth of relationships between individuals and groups.

Finally, I would like to mention my personal belief in the notion of public service. We have a Samoan proverb that says “O le ala i le pule o le tautua.” Loosely translated, the proverb means “The path to leadership is through service.” To serve means to listen, respect, engage, and sometimes even disagree. It is a verb, and therefore one should always act. I look forward to implementing change in Maungakiekie, and within this Parliament, through service to its people and its institutions. Yesterday I pledged my loyalty through God to Queen and country. Today I affirm my loyalty to the leadership of this Government. To the best of my abilities, I will also serve my fellow Parliamentarians in select committees, meetings, and other fora within which we will congregate. I am here to serve the people of Maungakiekie and, through them, the people of New Zealand. It is their best interests that I will have at the top of my mind when I serve in my role as a member of Parliament.

I leave you, Mr Speaker, as I began. Although I arrived here as a migrant 35 years ago from Samoa, carrying with me rich pride in my culture, my language and my values, today I stand here as a New Zealander to carry this pride, and all I have learned since, to serve the needs of all New Zealanders. I salute you all. I am honoured to serve in this, the forty-ninth Parliament of New Zealand. I thank you for the opportunity to deliver this, my maiden speech. May God bless you, this Parliament and the people of Aotearoa New Zealand. Soifoa, and good day.

Pese, “Faafetai i le Atua”

I second the motion that a respectful Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General in his reply to His Excellency’s speech. I begin my maiden speech by congratulating you, Mr Speaker, on your election to the Chair. I wish you, your deputy, and the Assistant Speakers my very best. From a journalist’s point of view of how this House has operated in the past, your job is one that requires the patience of a saint. If the little time I have spent speaking with you in the past few weeks is any indication, I have no doubt we will benefit greatly from your vast experience in Parliament.

I take this opportunity to acknowledge the Hon Anand Satyanand, our Governor-General. It is an honour to be giving my maiden speech under his watch. I pay tribute to our Prime Minister, the Hon John Key, for delivering such a fabulous election result for the National Party and New Zealand. He is indeed the fresh leadership the country has demanded, and I am privileged to be a part of the future he envisions. I acknowledge the members of the National caucus and other parliamentary colleagues; it is indeed my great honour to be here with them all and to call them my colleagues. I particularly acknowledge our very first Asian member, and now the first Cabinet Minister of Asian origin, the Hon Pansy Wong, who has encouraged and supported me. She has my gratitude.

I pay tribute to our National Party President, Judy Kirk, who has shown me that a powerful woman need not lack grace or style. I say thank you for her guidance and love. I also thank the National Party northern region’s Alistair Bell, Alan Towers, Kate Graham, and Peter Kiely, who were there to help me with a friendly ear and ready advice whenever I needed it. I also acknowledge the former Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, who has been a great supporter of the television programme Asia Down Under and the Korean Cinerama Trust over the years—thank you.

It is with great honour that I deliver my maiden speech, not only as the first MP of Korean descent in New Zealand but also as the first woman of Korean descent to become an MP outside of Korea. It is indeed humbling. It is truly a sign that the world has come of age in a global sense. It is also a step towards realising our Prime Minister’s, and the National Party’s, vision to make our Parliament more diverse, and truly representative of the population that now makes up our country. I am also very pleased to be giving my maiden speech in this House at a time when New Zealand has chosen to say no to a particular party whose policy gained support from people who dislike me simply because of my ethnic heritage. Call it irony or just a fortunate turn of events, but with the exit of that particular party comes the first Minister of Asian origin in Cabinet! New Zealand has come of age, it seems, by saying we have no room at this particular inn for racists. It is the dawning of a new era, and it is my privilege to be a part of it.

Ka mihi atu ki te tangata whenua, otirā, ki ngā waka huhua katoa i whiti mai i Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, mai i Hawaiki nui ki Aotearoa. Nā rātou te ara i whakatakoto, otirā, nā rātou te ōhaki i ea ai te kōrero, he iwi kotahi tātou. Pērā i a rātou, i haere mai au ki konei mā runga i tētahi waka i te tau waru tekau mā waru. Engari, ko ngā hoe o tōku waka he parirau kē, ā, i tere ake te haere ki tērā o ngā waka o ngā tūpuna. Ka awhi au i a Aotearoa, ka awhi mai a Aotearoa i au, i tēnei rā ko au tēnei kua puāwai. I tēnei rā, ka minamina au ki te kī nōku anō hoki tēnei whenua, nōku hoki tēnei tūrangawaewae. Nō reira, kua tae mai te wā hei whakahoki ki te motu i tāna i hōmai ai ki a au.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[I pay homage to the tangata whenua, and indeed to all the canoes that crossed the Pacific Ocean from Hawaiki to New Zealand. They paved the way, and they initiated a unity that has made us who we are today. We are one people. Like them, I too arrived on a waka, in 1988. The only difference was that my oars were replaced with wings, and it travelled much faster than that of the ancestors. But as I embraced New Zealand, it embraced me back, and nurtured me into what I have become. Today I can honestly identify myself as being a New Zealander, and Aotearoa as my home. Therefore, the opportunity to give back to New Zealand what it has given to me has come to hand.]

New Zealand is indeed a land of many people of diverse cultures and heritage, and I am proud to be representing the third-largest Asian population in New Zealand—the Koreans. It was reported before the election that only 2 percent of the 40,000 Korean population had voted in previous elections. If the support I received during the campaign is any indication, I would say that 100 percent of Korean Kiwis—also known as “Kowis”—voted on 8 November. I would like to thank them, regardless of which party they voted for, because voting is the ultimate realisation that we live in a democracy.

Korean settlement in New Zealand has not been for long, and often I am confronted by people’s misconception of Korea formed out of ignorance, and by television programmes like MASH. When people have preconceived ideas about what others are like, settlement into New Zealand can be paved with tears. I remember a Korean migrant who had a visit from the police when the stench from dried cuttlefish—a Korean delicacy—raised the curiosity of her neighbours, who jumped to the conclusion that she must have killed her Pākehā husband to have produced such a foul stench. But now when I look around New Zealand—our cities—I am pleased to see restaurants offering food from different cultures. And it is not just we black-haired people who frequent these premises; I have even been told our Prime Minister likes kimchi, which is literally fermented bok choy full of chilli and garlic, and according to one of my European friends smells like sewage. That is rather strange to me as it smells comforting to me. I am grateful New Zealand’s taste buds and sense of smell are evolving. The variety we have now makes us more interesting than in the era of big boil-ups. Thankfully it is not only our taste buds that have evolved.

When my parents first left Korea more than 30 years ago to provide my brother John and me a brighter future, it took a lot of courage—the pioneering spirit New Zealanders value. Courage was what ultimately brought them to Aotearoa. Through failed businesses and lost opportunities, my parents worked harder than anyone I know to provide a good life for my brother and me. Never once did they complain about not getting a handout, nor did they ask for one from the Government or anyone else. They took personal responsibility for our family. It is something we learned from our childhood, and are in turn instilling in our own children to value.

I still remember my early days in Auckland. My day at the Sunday News as a young reporter would finish around 5 p.m. and, while others went to the pub, I would head for my parents’ dairy in Grafton. We would all work as a family until the shop closed at 11 p.m. and then have supper together and drive home. A strong family bond was always fostered and maintained through my mother’s strong leadership. My story is not unique; it is the story of thousands of Asian migrants who have come before me and who will also come in the future, and who now make up about 10 percent of New Zealand’s population. Family is also the foundation on which New Zealand was built.

As a mother raising a 10-year-old boy, I have become frightened for all children growing up in New Zealand in recent times. I wish there were more parents like mine who would go the extra distance. But New Zealand has had a shameful record when it comes to our children, and there have been some pitiful examples of parents and caregivers. I was overjoyed to hear of the convictions of Wīremu and Michael Curtis at the Rotorua High Court recently, for the murder of 3-year-old Nia Glassie, and of the conviction of Nia’s mother, Lisa Kuka. No child should have gone through what Nia did, and no child should ever do so in the future. More shocking to me than the abuse and the murder of Nia was the fact that the neighbours, friends, and family who knew what was going on turned a blind eye to the horrific abuse this innocent child suffered at the hands of these monsters. It is indeed a sad indictment on our country.

It is also very pleasing to read about the arrest made for the killing of octogenarian Madam Yang, who died in her home earlier this year. What she must have gone through—the fear, the violence, and the eventual death—I can only imagine. As a victim of a home invasion myself, who was confronted by two men wearing balaclavas, with a gun and a hammer, I do not feel safe in my own home, let alone in the streets. More than 10,000 people took to the streets to march against violence in South Auckland earlier this year. It is my hope that their voices are heard and repaid with a tougher stance against criminals in this country. It is not right that Madam Yang had to die in her own home, where she should have had her safety guaranteed. It is not right that little Nia Glassie died at the hands of people who should have protected and cared for her. It is our duty as a nation to provide safety in our homes and in our communities. It is a priority that we must deliver as lawmakers, in my view.

Our children are our future but instead of teaching them to become achievers, we are teaching them that it is OK to become losers. Instead of teaching them the values of hard work and the satisfaction that comes with it, we are teaching them not to bother because the Government is always there with an open purse, promoting a Government-funded dependence. Instead of reporting unspeakable crimes like that inflicted upon Nia Glassie, people are cowering behind closed curtains for fear they will be accused of meddling.

Instead of celebrating our New Zealand identity, our children are growing up lost between American, British, and Australian television programmes, which dominate our airwaves because we are too frightened to put a stake in the ground to say “This is who we are.” As a child, when I needed to find some information I turned to the Encyclopaedia Britannica; now children turn to Google. We must use technology to foster the New Zealand identity our children so lack and need. We must use television, radio, and the Internet to empower them, and to make them understand who they are and where they stand in the world, in order to make them stand proud to be Kiwis, regardless of what their ethnic heritage may be. There must be a mandate to provide and support local programming to foster these identity issues, because without it our children will never be empowered. Take a look at South Auckland—it seems absurd to me that people who should feel proud of their Pasifika and Māori cultures feel proud to display the ghetto cultures of America.

New Zealand is a young country compared with the country I was born in. Korea has a 5,000-year-old history, but that does not mean that New Zealanders cannot feel proud of their heritage. I may not have been born here, I may not even have been brought up here, but I made a commitment to become a New Zealander and I am a proud carrier of a New Zealand passport. This is a privilege, and I am proud to call myself a Kiwi. But not all New Zealanders would accept that I am a Kiwi; because of my skin colour, I will forever be a foreigner. This must change. We are far too small a nation to be divisive. We must work together to decide who we are as a nation, and work together to achieve where we want to be in the future.

We have had some brilliant moments in history, when we have led the world. New Zealand was the first country to give women the vote. It was a New Zealander, Ernest Rutherford, who split the atom, and there was the late Sir Edmund Hillary. We have also produced bands and actors over the years, some of whom Australians insist are theirs. There are many others—far too many to name them all—who are placing New Zealand on the map. We should not only applaud their successes; we should celebrate them, and build a nation these global Kiwis would feel proud to come home to.

Many people have asked me why I put my name forward to be selected by the National Party. As a journalist over 20 years, it was not possible for me to show my true colours. Although close friends and family have known for a long time, I decided to “come out”, so to speak, because I felt the need to have a say in the shaping of the future of New Zealand. With my 20-year career in journalism and business, I feel I come equipped with just a little life experience.

To close, I would like to thank some very special people in my life: my mother, Min-ja—thank you. Thank you for always—I always do this when I talk about her—encouraging me that there is nothing I cannot do; my dad, Peter, for his hard work to give John and me the very best opportunity in life; and my son, Ethan. Your campaign impressed me, boy; I did not ask you to do that. I love the “I’m a Key person!” T-shirt that you took to school every day. I want to work hard so that I can become a good role model for you; I hope I make you proud.

뉴질랜드 한국 교민 여러분 그리고 전 세계에 계시는 동포 여러분 - 그동안 저에게 보내주신 성원 감사드립니다.  그동안 저에게 보내주신 격려는 저에게 피는 물보다 진하다는 것을 새삼 느끼게 해주셨습니다.  이제 최초의 한국계 뉴질랜드 국회의원으로서 조심스럽게 첫 발을 내딛으면서, 제가 5,000년의 역사를 가진 대한민국의 딸이라는 사실과 한국 교민 공동체가 제 뒤에서 저를 응원해 주시고 계신다는 것을 항상 기억할 것입니다.

To the Korean community in New Zealand, and to Koreans all around the globe, thank you for your support and encouragement. Your emails and phone calls of support came simply by virtue of the shared culture and heritage. I am truly humbled. I am grateful that the Korean community is always behind me to support me as I take my baby steps as the very first New Zealand member of Parliament of Korean heritage.

Last but not least, to my God: I know You are always beside me to guide me. It is a great honour and a privilege to be in this House as a member of Parliament, and I pledge to do my very best.

I move, That the following words be added to the Address: “and expects, over the next 3 years, to see a closing of the wage gap with Australia; reduced serious crime, including family violence; reduced waiting time for elective surgery, with twenty new dedicated elective surgery theatres; fewer people on working-age benefits; lower greenhouse gas emissions; increased investment in infrastructure, including rail and public transport; the extension of the fibre network to nearly all homes; all sixteen and seventeen year olds in education, training, or employment; no cuts to public services; expanded availability of subsidised medicines; a police to population ratio of 1:500, with all new sworn police officers committed to general duty roles; a doubling of the number of prisoners receiving drug and alcohol treatment; and the settling of half of the remaining historic Treaty of Waitangi settlement claims”. I moved that motion because those were the expectations raised by the National Party when in Opposition. I say to Mr Key that we on this side of the House will be holding him to account to deliver on the promises that formed his mandate for Government.

There was a time in this country when successive Governments could get away with making promises in order to be elected, and later disavowing those promises. One of the things about the fifth Labour Government of which I am the most proud is that we honoured the promises on which we were elected. We not only honoured those promises but we, in fact, after each election, over-delivered on promises that were made. We under-promised and over-delivered. The challenge to this new National Government is to do likewise. I say to Mr Key that he will be judged on his ability to do that.

I congratulate the new Government on its election, and I take a moment to congratulate the two new members of Parliament who moved and seconded the Address in Reply. I acknowledge the quality of their contributions, and I wish them well in this House. I tell the new Government that Labour has left National an economy that is well-placed to deal with the impact of the international financial crisis. Members opposite can laugh at that statement, but that is not a statement that was made by this Opposition; that was a statement made last week by Fitch Ratings, the international credit-rating agency. It gave this country a AAA credit rating.

This is what Fitch Ratings told New Zealanders about the record of the outgoing Government: “the longstanding record of fiscal prudence, marked by reductions in the general government debt and net public external debt, will leave us well-placed to weather the economic downturn.” That is the legacy that the Labour Government has left for the incoming National Government. Under the fifth Labour Government we did not squander the good years by simply spending the surpluses. I utterly reject the empty political rhetoric that Mr Key put in the Speech from the Throne that talked about missed opportunities.

I will tell members about some of the missed opportunities. The Labour Government, under Michael Cullen, reduced Government debt from 35 percent of the GDP down to 17 percent. As Mr English borrows heavily to deal with the downturn, he will be very grateful for the sound fiscal management of Michael Cullen, the former Minister of Finance. The same former Minister of Finance put into the Cullen superannuation fund $14 billion, which the National Party is now so keen to invest. That was what the Labour Government did. It was opposed by the National Party, but National is very grateful for the legacy it has received.

Then we had the lie in the Speech from the Throne that talked about the fact that we did not achieve the same growth rates as other countries. Mr Key, I refer you to the document presented to your Government and your Minister of Finance by Treasury—the briefing document for the incoming Government.

💬 Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member is an experienced member and knows he cannot address the Chair in that way.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Mr Goff, I just mention that you did use language that is not very helpful a few moments ago, but I let it pass. I just warn you.

Mr Key will see from reading the document presented by Treasury—unless, as Judith Collins says about the police, Treasury is a Labour-loaded organisation; and that would take some imagination—that, in terms of growth rates, over the period of time measured, New Zealand was in fact ahead of Australia, ahead of the United States, ahead of Japan, and ahead of the average of the OECD countries. The legacy we have left to the National Government—but, more important, to our country—is a country well placed to deal with the international economic difficulties.

We have left other legacies that may be under threat from this new Government. One is KiwiSaver. It is the single most effective saving programme in New Zealand’s history, with 827,000 New Zealanders having signed up to it. It is a programme that has been more successful than any action by any Government over 30 years in ensuring that New Zealand acquires a savings record, which enables and motivates New Zealanders to save, and ensures that we have the money to invest in the future of this country.

The incoming National Government talks about investment in infrastructure. I remind that Government that we increased the investment in infrastructure by 190 percent—190 percent in the rail networks, the electricity generation, and the roads, and that can be seen all over New Zealand. What is more, we promoted the creation of a 21st century economy with lower corporate tax rates. [Interruption] I say to Mr English that we were the only Government in 30 years to lower corporate tax rates, and to create tax incentives for research and development.

One of the threats we see from this incoming Government is the threat to demolish the 15 percent tax credit for research and development. At a time when we want to create an economy that is innovative, creative, and can compete in the world, research and development is essential. Yet the incoming National Government is promising to slash the basis on which we can achieve that innovative and creative economy.

One of the things that we are all proud of on this side of the House is the fact that Working for Families—the programme that Mr Key said was communism by stealth—has lifted out of poverty tens of thousands of New Zealanders and children. What I expect from the incoming National Government is all the rhetoric in McGehan Close, all the rhetoric in the Speech from the Throne about the underclass to be translated into action that does even a fraction of what the outgoing Labour Government did, which was to lift our children out of poverty.

I noticed that Melissa Lee, in her speech, talked about the appalling rate of child abuse in this country. It is appalling, but to stop that abuse from happening we will have to do a lot more than simply double the prison sentences for abusers. One way we can stop abuse from happening is to create an environment in which each and every child in our country can grow up in a family that has the economic means and the social skills to provide that child with a stable, secure, caring, and loving environment.

I say to Mr Key that among the other missed opportunities must have been, of course, the rescuing of our national airline. Air New Zealand was bankrupted by the private sector board that National put in charge of it. It is now a thriving and viable national carrier for New Zealand. I could mention, too, Kiwibank. The bank that was opposed by every National member is now providing lower mortgage interest rates, and performing better than its Australian-based competitors. We gave New Zealanders the choice to go to that bank instead of a foreign multinational. I could add, of course, bringing back KiwiRail to ensure a sound and properly integrated national transport system.

One thing that the National Party did give credit for—although not explicitly to the outgoing Labour Government—was, this year, the achieving of the basis of market access to our key international markets: the signing and bringing into effect of a free-trade agreement with China, the fastest-growing market in the world; the conclusion of a free-trade agreement with the ASEAN countries, a $4.6 billion market for New Zealand; and, just a couple of months ago, the initiation of negotiations for a free-trade agreement involving the United States and New Zealand.

I say that there were no missed opportunities. We are very proud of what the Labour Government, under Helen Clark’s leadership, created for this country. The record is clear, and no amount of obfuscation by National in the Speech from the Throne will deny that record—independently commented on by Treasury and by credit-rating agencies—as leaving New Zealand in a strong position.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell us about the Electoral Finance Act.

Labour left a positive legacy for the incoming Government and one, I say to Dr Smith, that the National Government should not squander. Labour’s commitment in Opposition is absolute in terms of working to protect and promote the jobs, the living standards, the social services, and the well-being of everyday Kiwis in this country. We will work to preserve the legacy of a fair and inclusive society that provides opportunity for all.

We reject the ideological Treasury prescriptions for New Zealand, which were put out in its recent document. It is totally unacceptable for a Government agency to talk about slashing the tax rates of the wealthy and the most affluent at the same time as it advocates the undermining of minimum wages and working conditions in this country and promotes a “fire at will” legislative provision, which the National Party has picked up.

My challenge to Mr Key is this. He talks about opportunity for all, and he talks about the underclass. Will this National Government do better than its predecessor National Government, which over 9 years raised the statutory minimum wage by 73c? It was raised by 73c, I say to Mr Key. I would like an indication from the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance as to whether the rhetoric is empty and meaningless.

Will the National Government continue to protect those hard-working New Zealanders who go to work every week in our factories, our hospitals, and our offices, or will it again leave those people to languish on a wage that they cannot possibly live on? I think we know the answer. I say congratulations to Mr Key on his Christmas present to New Zealand workers who are under stress and in fear of losing their jobs—he is saying to New Zealanders that in the first 3 months of their employment they can be sacked and that they have no redress to challenge the validity, the legitimacy, the fairness of that sacking.

That policy was not outlined by the National Party as a priority for its first 100 days. It did not even find its way into the Speech from the Throne. It was not mentioned by National Party members as they campaigned on television during the election period. It was hidden away. That longstanding and fundamental right of New Zealanders will now be repealed under urgency by this Government, without notice and without ordinary New Zealanders having the ability to come to a select committee at Parliament to say what they think about the legislation.

Mr Speaker, you will know that there is scarcely a bill that comes before this Parliament that does not go to a select committee. Every member of this House knows the value of putting legislation before a select committee. It is to find out the flaws in rushed legislation, and by God we have seen flaws from this Government in just 2 weeks—flaws that cost it $700 million over KiwiSaver, and flaws that left New Zealanders stranded in Bangkok. We could go on and on. I believe that this is an ominous sign for the future direction of the National-ACT Government.

Those National and ACT members opposite when in Opposition talked so much about the right of people to be consulted and the right of New Zealanders to come to their Parliament to make submissions on vital legislation. This National Government is denying the right of every New Zealander to have his or her voice heard on legislation that takes away the rights of every New Zealander. That is what Geoffrey Palmer would once have said was a constitutional outrage. It is a sign of how quickly that Government has become arrogant. It is a sign of the future direction of the National Party, which, when campaigning, was keen to persuade New Zealanders that it was benign and that it would do what Labour was doing, but rather more nicely. The real face and the secret agenda of the National Party, I say to Mr Key, is being revealed in this House over these last 2 days.

That legislation will be strongly opposed by the Labour Opposition, and I suspect by other Opposition parties in this House, because it denies New Zealanders the rights that they properly deserve. In this last week we have seen the case of two New Zealand women who were sacked because they were pregnant. They had the chance, under existing law, to put in a claim for unfair dismissal, and they won. They will in future not have that right in the first 90 days of their employment, and that is simply a disgrace.

The other legislation that will be rammed through Parliament is the tax bill. From what I have seen of the intent of that legislation, it is legislation that will benefit some people in our society. People like Mr Key will get $120 a week out of it—I am sure it is needed. The chief executive of Telecom New Zealand will get $500 a week out of it. But if we do the figures, we will see that a person who is on a low income will be worse off under that legislation. Let me give an example of the sort of person who will be hurt by it. I will mention the person by name. His name is Hada Robadi.

He works in a factory in Porirua. His income is $35,000 a year. His wife works as a hospital cleaner. She earns $22,000 a year. They have three grandchildren. They have custody of them and responsibility to care for them. Under National’s tax plan, that family will lose $14 a week.

💬 Hon Members: What?

They will be $14 a week worse off. I do not care that John Key gets $120 a week more under this plan. That does not worry me too much. I do care that this family—on a low income, with both people working and contributing to New Zealand through their work and through their care of their grandchildren—will be worse off under this tax bill, which is meant to make New Zealanders better off. That, frankly, is unacceptable.

Every one of the people who have joined KiwiSaver will be worse off, because National wanted to rip $3 billion out of savers’ accounts—which would in the long term and medium term be good for New Zealanders—to meet short-term tax cuts. I cannot believe that the ACT Party’s Sir Roger Douglas would support that programme. Everything I thought that member stood for was about long-term planning, not short-term electoral bribes. Yet we see, in this legislation, a short-term electoral bribe at the expense of the long-term need of this country—that is, for savings. This is absolutely unacceptable. A low-income family with a child, earning $50,000 a year and saving with KiwiSaver will, under the National Party’s tax plan, lose up to $70 a week.

💬 Hon Members: What?

A low-income family on $50,000 will lose $70 across that family. How is that equitable for the everyday New Zealander?

I hear today that National has a new plan, and that is to transfer the cost of the KiwiSaver plan—which the Government is meeting as an incentive for people to save—and load that on to the saver. That means a further $200 million will be ripped out of the savers’ accounts to meet the Government’s costs. That is a case of robbing Peter to pay Bill English, and it is simply not good enough.

Labour members when in Government worked, over the last 9 years, to advance positively the interests of Kiwis and a fairer society. In Opposition we will continue to do so. We will hold this National Government to account, expose its inadequacies, and oppose any secret agenda—which we have already seen emerging over the last couple of days. Mr Key, the Prime Minister, might have had a plan for being elected, but the Speech from the Throne offered no vision, no plan, and no carefully developed mechanism for dealing with the challenges facing New Zealand or for seizing the opportunities ahead. The Speech from the Throne indicates that there is no plan to protect everyday Kiwis from the potential risks they face, caused by the international economic situation. To the contrary, all we have seen out of this Government to date has been backward steps.

Let me direct this comment to the Minister of Housing, Mr Heatley. When he was the Opposition spokesperson on housing he stood on this side of the House and condemned Housing New Zealand for failing to meet the housing needs of 10,000 New Zealanders on the waiting list. We did point out that that may have been because 13,000 State houses had been sold, and not replaced, under the last National Government. Yet Mr Heatley, in his first pronouncement as Minister of Housing, now says that National is going to stop adding to State housing stock. What about the 10,000 New Zealanders about whom he was crying crocodile tears just a matter of months ago in this very Chamber? At a time when the building industry is at the lowest point in housing construction in 16 years, surely one would take advantage of that unutilised labour and resource to build the houses that children and needy families require.

Mr Key talked about infrastructure, but I tell him to start by making sure that New Zealanders can be housed at a time when, at last, we have the unutilised capacity to house them. If that were not enough, the big announcement made by the National Government on being elected was that it would scrap the $1 billion investment in retrofitting houses so that New Zealanders could have more comfortable, safer, and healthier homes. They have scrapped that programme—in the very week when the Business Council for Sustainable Development said that such a programme would save $4.75 billion in wasted energy over the next decade.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Where is the money?

Dr Smith asks where the money is. That is the cost accountancy approach of the National Party—it knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

The Business Council for Sustainable Development said that that programme by Labour and the Greens would, each year, have kept out of hospital 18,000 people suffering from respiratory illnesses caused by damp and unhealthy homes. That would have stopped 180,000 absentee workdays each year because people were living in unhealthy homes.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Where is the money?

That would have saved $4.7 billion over a decade, and Dr Smith keeps prattling on about the money. Not only would that measure cut ordinary New Zealanders’ power bills, and keep them healthier, out of hospital, and in work but it would also be an investment in a job-rich scheme. That is the very sort of scheme that is needed at a time when the international economy poses that challenge to New Zealand. There are two examples.

The last example I want to give is about the Government’s suspension of the emissions trading scheme. I remember—and every New Zealander remembers it—Shane Ardern driving his tractor up the steps of Parliament because the National Party was fundamentally opposed to a carbon tax. The National Party went into the election campaign promising New Zealanders that it would have an emissions trading scheme but with a few alterations. Within days, and because of the ACT-National agreement, National has dishonoured its promise about the emissions trading scheme and started talking about the carbon tax, which it told the country it was fundamentally opposed to.

Mr Brownlee might know about the Kyoto Forestry Association. He used to talk about that in very high terms of regard. I tell Mr Brownlee that the Kyoto Forestry Association said the move by the National-ACT Government cost—immediately—$125 million in investment and scores of jobs across provincial New Zealand. The National Government talks the rhetoric about stimulating the economy, and has, so far, done exactly the reverse. Its Housing New Zealand policy, its insulation policy, and its emissions trading scheme policy have cost this country the investment and the jobs that we need.

I wind up by saying that the Government has been elected on expectations of what it promised to deliver to New Zealanders. We will hold this Government to account for delivery of those things. Where it acts in a positive way on behalf of ordinary New Zealanders and their well-being, you will see constructive support from the Opposition. Where, on the other hand, you break your promises, you have hidden agendas, and you work contrary to the needs and well-being of New Zealand, you can expect this Opposition to absolutely hold you to account for what you do.

Before I take the next call, I just remind members that robust debate is healthy and to be expected, but things run off the rails when the words “you” and “your” are used, and experienced members should know that that brings the Speaker into the debate. I did not want to interrupt the honourable member because when one loses momentum in a speech, it is most unfortunate. But I do remind members that “you” and “your” are not to be used in debate. and I want to establish that at the outset.

Can I be the first in this House to congratulate Mr Goff on his position as Leader of the Opposition, but I say what a lethargic speech that was, I think, as a starting point. If there were any take-away points from it, I guess one of them was that Mr Goff seems to think that the 90-day trial period for small to medium sized enterprises was part of a secret agenda. You see, the only minor problem with that was that not only was that trial period in National’s manifesto but it was in every newspaper in the country. The problem was that it was not in the Melbourne Age, which is where most of the Labour caucus were actually reading the news!

Mr Goff tried to talk about tax cuts. The problem for Mr Goff was that to his right was the previous Minister of Finance, who is a man not known for being a serial tax cutter. No one should have believed that Michael Cullen would ever have delivered on those promised tax cuts—they would not have happened. Michael Cullen was not a man to deliver on his promise of tax cuts.

Election 2008 was an election where New Zealanders voted for change. The country elected a new Government, a vibrant Government, an ambitious Government, a young Government, and, I might say, a very determined Government. But Labour also had change. Phil Goff replaced Helen Clark. It was a case of out with the old and in with the old. Poor old Mr Goff has been waiting, waiting, and waiting for 9 years to get the top job, and what is he doing now? He is waiting, waiting, and waiting for Shane Jones and David Cunliffe to stab him in the back. I understand that the talk around the Labour Party caucus is that the leadership of Phil Goff is so transitional that he is known as “Phil-in”. But enough of the tired Labour Opposition!

I acknowledge you, Mr Speaker, for your 24 years of dedicated commitment to this institution. I acknowledge your intellect, and your respect for this institution. You will make a fine Speaker of this Parliament, and we all wish you the very best. I also offer my congratulations to Deputy Speaker Lindsay Tisch, who will also make a great contribution to this House. We have borrowed him from the racing industry. I congratulate Assistant Speakers Eric Roy and, of course, Rick Barker.

I take this moment to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply debate—in particular the mover, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, a young man who is indeed a real mover, and who I thought gave a very moving speech in the House this afternoon. He is a man who talked about the diversity of our Parliament, a man who believes very deeply in family values, and a man who I thought had a great line this afternoon when he said that bigger Government does not always produce better solutions. I acknowledge Melissa Lee, the first Korean member of Parliament. I confirm that she was correct: I am a kimchi lover, and if she is going to brew up a batch in her flat, I will come over and try a little bit of that.

I congratulate all of the new MPs in the House, and I wish them the best for their maiden statements, which are, of course, a window into their journey of why they are here, and their beliefs. My thanks go to the National Party MPs—a fine group of individuals, all 58 of them. I particularly thank the new MPs: Steven Joyce; Amy Adams; Hekia Parata; Kanwaljit Bakshi, the first Indian member of Parliament—my congratulations to him—Paul Quinn, a man who will be making a significant contribution to the parliamentary rugby team; Michael Woodhouse; Simon Bridges, who showed us that a massive win in Tauranga was always on the cards and possible; Louise Upston; Todd McClay, who along with Jonathan Young comes to this House with a family pedigree in history; Tim Macindoe; Aaron Gilmore; and, lest we forget, Nikki Kaye, who delivered Auckland Central for National, which is something that had never been achieved in our party’s history. With each Parliament our Chamber becomes more diverse and more reflective of modern New Zealand, and the forty-ninth Parliament has not disappointed in any way, shape, or form. We have a new-look Parliament, a more diverse Parliament, and one that will reflect, I believe, modern New Zealand.

We are, of course, a minority Government supported in confidence and supply by three parties. I acknowledge, firstly, the ACT Party, its five MPs, and Rodney Hide. It will bring to the Government a serious focus on economic development, economic growth, and solutions to the problems that our economy will need at a time when our economy is desperately in need of that. I congratulate Rodney Hide and Heather Roy for their promotions to their portfolios.

I acknowledge the United Future leader, Peter Dunne, who once again will make a tremendous contribution to this Parliament, as he has done in previous Parliaments. He is the man known as “Mr Common Sense”, and he will need to bring all of that common sense to the select committee he will be chairing on climate change.

Last, but by no means least, I acknowledge the historic and special relationship with the Māori Party. In particular I thank Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia for their courage, their leadership, and their belief that this was a relationship worth investing in. I know that this relationship will benefit not only Māori Party supporters but indeed all New Zealanders.

The ninth of November 2008 was a new dawn for New Zealand. It was the day after the country rejected the tired old policies of the Labour Government, its lack of direction, its years of distractions and sideshows, and its decade of missed opportunities. It was a Government that had forgotten who put it there, and, frankly, after a period of time it had forgotten why it was there. On 8 November 2008 the New Zealand public elected a Government they wanted to be focused on the issues that matter.

But we have assumed the mantle of Government in arguably some of the most difficult economic conditions seen in a generation—maybe in the lifetime of New Zealanders. This is a global financial crisis that threatens to put the world in recession. It is a global financial crisis that has seen the global banking system put on life support—a system that has required an injection of capital right around the world. We have seen a pretty extraordinary situation, where a bank such as Citigroup, worth just under US$300 billion, collapsed into a value of around US$28 billion before it was bailed out by the United States Government. So the challenges that my Government faces are very different and very difficult ones. They are certainly very different challenges from the ones that the Labour Government of the last 9 years faced, when the hardest decision for Labour was how to spend New Zealand taxpayers’ money. That was it—how to spend taxpayers’ money was the hardest decision—but that will not be a luxury our Government will have.

People can imagine how we reacted, when, knowing conditions would be immensely tough, we then found the ticking time bomb called the Accident Compensation Corporation—a $2.3 billion hole that Phil Goff did not talk about in his speech. I simply say this: for a party that campaigned on trust, to leave a $2.3 billion hole in the accounts is nothing short of a disgrace. But I guess that is why that party was thrown out of office: the New Zealand public did not trust it. We will be undertaking a ministerial inquiry. I cannot tell the House whether that inquiry will find that Labour Ministers broke the fiscal responsibility Act and broke the law. But I do not need a ministerial inquiry to tell me this.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: There is no such Act!

They do not want to hear about it. They are very chipper and very chirpy, but that was not the case when they were writing to each other about the $300 million yearly ticking time bomb. They were not quite so vocal at that point. You see, I do not need a whole ministerial inquiry to know that the Labour Government defeated the spirit of the fiscal responsibility Act. Those members knew there was a billion dollars required for the non-earners account alone, and they were as quiet as little church mice. They were busy making lots of noise out there, but they were very quiet when it came to accident compensation.

We have assumed the Government benches in very difficult economic times. In the middle of December Mr English will release the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, and I think New Zealanders know that that update will contain a lot of red ink. Well, my message for New Zealanders is that they should not take this as a time when their Government should overreact. We have a plan for this economic problem; we will reach through the recession. This is not a time for slash-and-burn; this is a time for the Government to show some strength, and it is time for the Government to look beyond what are some pretty short-term difficult numbers, because we know we can take New Zealanders out of this and make New Zealand stronger. But we should be under no illusion: the only hope for the finances of the Government, the only hope for our young people, and the only hope for our country is—

💬 Hon Chris Carter: A new Labour Government.

—not a Labour Government, as Chris Carter would say; we all know that. The only hope is economic growth. That is the only hope to get us through. If there was a decade of deficits when Dr Cullen had not even taken into consideration the worsening 6 weeks, or the billion dollars of the Accident Compensation Corporation’s non-earners account, it is fair to assume that the deficits of the decade will be considerably larger in the way that Treasury is forecasting them. The Government actually—

💬 Hon Chris Carter: Is this a speech, or is it stream of consciousness?

Well, you see, the difference between our Government and Mr Carter when he was in Government is that we are actually going to have to do things. We are going to have to actually get out there and not just spend money, not just create more inter-departmental Government working groups, and not just have more strategies and more sessions; we are actually going to have to do more with less. That is what we are going to have to do as a Government. We are going to have to eliminate waste. We are going to have to get on top of the huge growth in bureaucracy we have seen in the State sector. Again we picked up the paper today to read about the Government Shared Network—yet another experiment that the Labour Party commissioned. That has failed. There was no mention of that in Labour’s speech. There was no mention of the fact that there were no tax cuts for 9 long years under a Labour Government until it was staring down the barrel of defeat. It was much keener on lifting the bureaucracy and much keener on spending other people’s money. It was only in the dying days of a dying Government that there was any commitment on that.

Our Government will lift the cloak of red tape and compliance costs on the suffering small businesses in New Zealand. I can tell members of the House that out there amongst small businesses there is a real sense of excitement and encouragement that help is on its way. But we will not be passing a new law or a new regulation, or finding a new way to slow them down; we will be backing them. There was Mr Goff, in his speech, back again on the politics of envy. We stand for the politics of aspiration. We believe in New Zealanders doing well and supporting themselves. There are tens of thousands of those small to medium sized enterprises out there, and I know they welcome the change of Government.

One of the big challenges for the Government over the next 3 years—and then in the terms beyond—will be to build infrastructure in this country, because we have a major infrastructure deficit. That is why my Government has appointed not just any Minister as the Minister of Infrastructure but the second most senior Minister in Cabinet—if I can say that—Mr English. He will be the guiding force as we look to build infrastructure across the country in roading, in energy, in public transport, and in broadband. My good colleague here, Mr Brownlee, sent me a fascinating stack of information about the increase in electricity prices overseen by that Labour Government over the last 9 years. I think it was a rate of 86 percent, was it not, Mr Brownlee—83 percent? There was an 83 percent increase in power prices over the last 9 years because that previous Government failed to invest in our national grid, failed to reform the Resource Management Act, and failed to bring enough new generation on stream.

As I go around the country, I see the excitement in the eyes of New Zealanders when they know they will have ultra-fast broadband delivered to their homes.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Yeah, right!

They are the sorts of people that David Cunliffe hangs around with in the weekend, the sorts of people who are actively encouraging Shane Jones to challenge for the leadership so early on, and the sorts of people that Stuart Nash knew in his former career as a business person—they are out there; they want ultra-fast broadband. That will be delivered under our Government, and New Zealanders will be in the 21st century with ultra-fast broadband. But it will not happen with a bit of pixie dust or by snapping our fingers; it will happen because this Government is committed to reforming the Resource Management Act. That is a top priority for this Government.

And, yes, we have a high-level task force to assist the Minister in that regard. That is actually a very interesting point. The difference between our Government and the previous Government is that when we get advice from people who know what they are talking about we listen to it. OK, that is a big difference. Can I say, by the way, that while I was listening to Mr Goff’s 30-minute speech, never once did I hear the very first words I heard out of his mouth when he became the leader: “I’m so sorry about the Electoral Finance Act. I didn’t really believe in it. Helen made me sign up to it, and I’m really sorry. OK? I’m really sorry.”

💬 Hon Member: And what did Annette say about it?

Annette said: “I’m really sorry, too.” She is really sorry that as Minister of Justice day after day, week after week, she had to be pulverised by Bill English in the House when she said that the law of common sense would resolve it all. Even the Law Commission could not understand the law of common sense. I want Mr Goff, in his temporary leadership role, to know that we will reach out to the Labour Party and consult on the new legislation that will repeal and replace the Electoral Finance Act. I cannot remember whether it was in the Otago Daily Times—it may have been in the Dominion Post—but in one of the editorials in the last couple of days a very good point was made. It said the new National Government should leave that legislation in place for 3 more years so that Labour could suffer even longer under its own legislation. But on this side of the House we are not so cruel; we are an inclusive Government, we are reaching out, and we will be doing that.

In relation to the Resource Management Act, I say there will be more money and more capital expenditure going into infrastructure. Public-private partnerships are something Labour talked about but under Labour they were like white rhinos—we never saw them. We heard about them, but we never saw them. Members will see some public-private partnerships under our Government.

One of the very, very important things our Government will be doing is lifting education standards in New Zealand. What a fine job Anne Tolley is going to do in leading that charge, and what a contribution Pita Sharples is going to make to that tail of underachievement—of lifting up that tail to opportunities. Today we heard the story of two young people who have come into this House. Both of them mentioned the value of education, the difference education made to their lives, and how education was a liberator. Every one of the 122 members of this Parliament, we can assume, has enjoyed the benefits of a good education, while one in five young New Zealanders do not enjoy the benefits of a good education. Their literacy and numeracy skills are so poor that they have no future—

💬 Hon Chris Carter: What are you actually going to do?

I say to Mr Carter that I recall that when one of the major school principals was sitting next to me on a plane a few months before the election, he told me: “I’m going to do something I have never done in my life. I’m going to vote National.” I said: “Why is that?”. He said: “Because Mr Carter has been the worst Minister of Education in this Parliament’s history and he has failed to lift education standards.” Labour had 9 years and they squandered that opportunity; that will not be lost on our Government. Our Government will be legislating for national standards. We will be legislating for national standards, and we will be ensuring that youngsters have literacy and numeracy skills. We will be ensuring that that benchmark is there. We will be making sure that parents can understand exactly where their child is, in terms of literacy and numeracy, against the national standard. Most important, we will make sure there is an action plan to resolve those issues. That is how a Government makes a difference to a country. It is when everyone has equality of opportunity, and that comes through education.

But it will not start and finish with national standards; trades and skills will be a very important part of the agenda for our Government. There will be world-class trade academies built in our schools across the country to give young New Zealanders an opportunity—a pathway to trades and skills. There will be the Youth Guarantee for 16 and 17-year-olds. Mr Goff was kind enough to talk about it in his opening remarks. [Interruption] That is right—for 16 and 17-year-olds. Not all of them will want to stay at school. They will be there enjoying the opportunity of free fees so they can go to the wānanga, the private training establishment, or the polytech to get those foundation skills and to go on those courses, to ensure that they can achieve in life.

The fact has already been mentioned in the House today that law and order is not at a level where New Zealanders feel comfortable, or feel it is acceptable. My Government is going to have a real focus on lifting law and order and ensuring our communities are safer once again. That will involve quite a lot of legislative changes. They will include changes to the bail laws, they will include changes to parole laws, and they will include tougher sentences for those who commit crimes against young people. Why did it take 9 years of failure for the previous Government to address the issue of young people? There was not a peep, not a squeak, and not a word. Those members were like church mice; they were very busy changing the Electoral Finance Act or worrying about Winston Peters. They were too busy worrying about those things to get on with the core basics such as national standards or crimes against young people. Our Government will change that.

A very important issue for our Government is making sure that we crack down on the serious end of crime. Something that will not be going under a National Government is the Serious Fraud Office. It will stay, and it will investigate some very interesting crimes—I would suggest white collar crimes—over the next few years in New Zealand. Those who have broken the law—mainly those who have defrauded New Zealanders out of their retirement savings with all sorts of dodgy schemes—will know that the Serious Fraud Office will be there with all of its powers to investigate them.

We will be dealing with the issue of gangs. Again, Phil Goff was 9 years in Government and there was not a peep, not a squeak, not a word, about gangs. On the campaign trail 4 weeks before the election he was despatched to say, all of a sudden, that he was going to do something, and that he might outlaw gangs, or that he might ban gangs. I can understand why he might want to ban Shane Jones’ gang—but, no, in 9 years there was no change. We will be changing that. And we will be delivering 600 police. It was great to see George Hawkins today when I was walking over the Parliament House bridge going into the reception, and I said to Mr Hawkins that, yes, 300 police would be coming to his community, to Counties Manukau, and to Judith Collins’ and Pansy Wong’s electorates, and we will be making those streets safer.

We will be dealing with the issue of climate change. I guess if there was one change in Mr Goff’s speech it was this: it took him 29 minutes to debate the issue of climate change. It certainly was not the world-leading carbon neutrality—

💬 Hon Member: Same with you!

Well, you see, we have always taken a balanced view to climate change, our environmental responsibilities, and our economic opportunities. We are not prepared to wave goodbye to New Zealand businesses; we are going to do something, and this Parliament, in a proper and mature way, will be debating that. When we despatch our Minister of Trade and Associate Minister for Climate Change Issues (International Negotiations) to Poznán in Poland in the next few days, he will be fighting for our corner when it comes to agriculture and land-use change and the ability to keep our economy strong, and we will be investing in technological solutions.

My Government will be focused on fixing the health system—and what a mess Mr Cunliffe left in his short period of time there! There are stories of district health boards with exploding budget deficits. One of the very first moves—and we will be making an announcement on it this week—will be to take the financial stress off those New Zealand women who are currently paying for Herceptin. We are standing up as a Government and paying for 12 months’ treatment. Mr Cunliffe said it could not be done; Mr Ryall has been in the job for fewer than 3 weeks and it will be done. That is what an action-focused Government is about.

Thirty minutes is just not long enough when there is so much to talk about as a new Government—whether it is the investment of 40 percent of the superannuation fund in New Zealand, whether it is the fact that we will be holding a referendum on MMP, whether it is the fact that we will be setting new standards for Government, or whether we will be in a situation where we are prepared to tackle the hard issues. We could spend so much time—

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: Move an extension of time, John, if you want to say more.

I am more than happy to take more time, I say to Pete Hodgson, if he likes. I am more than happy to take more time. But, you see, in the end we really left that to the people of New Zealand who, on 8 November 2008 said very clearly through the ballot box that it was time for a change. And that change is about to be delivered.

Mr Speaker, I offer my congratulations on your election. The Green Party will support you in your efforts to raise the standard of debate and behaviour in the House. It is time.

On behalf of the Greens, I extend a welcome to new MPs. I hope they succeed in making the difference that they came here to make. I offer our congratulations to all returning MPs on their re-election.

The Greens are proud to be the third-largest party in the House and to welcome three new members—a 50 percent increase in our numbers. We look forward to serving on more select committees, asking more questions, and covering more issues. So I am happy today to introduce to the House Kevin Hague, Catherine Delahunty—who yesterday became a grandmother—and Kennedy Graham. We have no backbenchers in the Greens. They all received a raft of portfolios on the day they arrived, and we know that all of them will make a big contribution to Parliament.

As the third voice in Parliament, the Greens are neither in Government nor Opposition; we are an independent voice for those who have no other voice here—for the natural environment, for sustainability, for children born and for children to be born in the future, for those who suffer discrimination, poverty, and violence, and for all the creatures that we share this beautiful planet with. We are not part of any voting bloc. We have no agreement or defined relationship with the Government, but we do not see ourselves as a professional Opposition whose job is just to oppose. We will vote for good legislation. We will seek to amend bad legislation, and we will vote against it if we cannot amend it sufficiently. We are not opposed to any people or any parties, but we are opposed to poor policies, wherever they come from, and to bad legislation.

We made it clear before the election that we would not give our confidence and supply votes to National, as its stated policies and programmes are just too different from ours. But we said that if it became the Government we would seek to work with it wherever we had common ground. Where that common ground might be is still to be established, but we will be talking before Christmas.

I offer my congratulations again to John Key on becoming Prime Minister. It is a time of huge challenge, and he must be feeling the burden of that. I also acknowledge Helen Clark, who has made a big contribution to the history of this country. I say to Helen that her Government made a difference to many families who were struggling. She kept us out of an illegal war in Iraq. She embraced sustainability too late in her 9 years to deliver on it, but she may have eased that path for the future. We hope she finds another role in which to further the causes she believes in.

It is commonplace now to say that this is the worst crash of the financial markets since the Great Depression. Last year’s panic over inflation and an unsustainable bubble in the housing market has given way to a different panic, with nearly a year of economic contraction, lower commodity prices, people losing their savings with the collapses in the financial sector, people losing their jobs, and people losing their homes through mortgagee sales. The path out of this scary situation will not be quick or easy.

We are in this mess because of greed, because of speculation, and because of individuals, corporates, and nations living beyond their means. Compulsive consumerism combined with a lack of regulation and safeguards around financial markets have been an explosive mixture. It is unrealistic to expect that the same behaviour will get us out of that mess. The invisible hand of the free market has shown what it can do, and it is not pretty. The freedom to sell what one does not own, and to lend what one does not have, results in the freedom for others to lose their homes, their jobs, and their families’ security. What will get us out of the mess is a return to the values of cooperation, sharing, and sustainability.

The financial markets create no real wealth; they just move around the wealth created by others. They trade in what they call products, which are really just shadows of the real economy—they have no intrinsic value. It is a zero-sum game: no one can make money in the financial markets without someone else losing it. That is not a recipe for social progress. But we are in a bind: if there is no credit, the modern economy cannot function, yet the more we bail out those who are failing, the more we use the savings of the prudent to reward the reckless.

Of course, it is mainly not those who caused the mess who are suffering from it—it never is. Even the high-flyers who go bankrupt have very comfortable lives stashed away in trusts. The chief executive officers of companies announcing mass lay-offs still arrive for talks in their individual jets. Those with money do very well out of snapping up forced sales of companies, shares, and houses. So for every action we try to take to deal with the mess, we must ask who is paying for this, who will benefit from this, and what kind of behaviour this is encouraging for the future.

We now have as Prime Minister a man who has come out of those same financial markets that have overreached themselves and crashed. I say to John that I guess we are all hoping that after spending all that time among them, he has some insights about how the international community could control them and ensure that this never happens again. Most of all, we are hoping that he will not allow this financial mess to disguise the much more fundamental mess that underlies it. Professor Peter Barrett, one of our most distinguished scientists, put it very clearly in the Dominion Post on Friday: “Markets recover in a few years—climate takes millennia.”

Our society is now so divorced from its relationship with the natural world that many people cannot see that our economy and our markets are totally reliant on the environment, which provides resources and absorbs wastes. We cannot balance environmental responsibilities and economic opportunities, as the Speech from the Throne suggests. The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. If the parent company collapses, so does the subsidiary.

We note with disappointment that the only mention of the environment, even obliquely, in the speech was as an obstacle to development, requiring the weakening of the Resource Management Act. We hope this will not become known as the generation that saved the banks but let the biosphere collapse. It is not just climate. Demand for oil, gas, fresh water, food, and some minerals is outstripping supply, thus causing price rises that have contributed to financial collapses, at least for homeowners who could no longer afford to pay their mortgage as well as fill their tank and their pantry.

The world economy has grown so fast that environmental processes are breaking down. That tells us that unless we make radical changes in the way we do business and live, more growth will mean more pollution, more resource shortages and rising prices, more inflation, and, eventually, more ecological collapse.

There is a very direct relationship between oil prices and the recession. Oil prices of over US$150 a barrel have stretched household budgets and pushed people further into debt. World recession has seen oil drop to a 4-year low, because demand can now be met from the old onshore fields, where it costs US$5 to US$10 a barrel to extract and process it. Growing demand requires tapping the new fields in deep water or in the Arctic, where it costs US$70 to US$90 a barrel to extract and process. The surest sign that the recession is not yet easing is that fuel prices are still so low. If demand starts growing again, they will be back up to US$150, but a lack of refining capacity will mean scarcity and price rises. This will show up in food prices and in the inability of our markets to afford our exports.

Nations are right now in the middle of a life or death negotiation in Poland on whether to act collectively to preserve a liveable climate for all of the world or to hold out for our individual, short-term interests—and so all go down together, because we are all on the same ship. It is sad and embarrassing that New Zealand is not on the side of those arguing for clear, binding targets for all OECD countries and financial instruments to enable developing countries to cut their emissions, too. Instead we are arguing for taking food production out of the Kyoto Protocol. We are seeking an exemption for 50 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions before we even start trying to reduce them at all. The climate will respond to what we put into the atmosphere. The climate does not care whether we are food producers. After all, the world needs more cars, but Japan is not arguing for steel and coal in vehicle production to be outside the climate change agreement. We have to be realistic here: all emissions change the climate, and all emissions must come into the agreement.

It is significant that New Zealand has sent its Minister of Trade to the talks to fight our corner. Trade negotiations are never about the collective good; they are always about individual country interests. They stall for years over trivia. They demand special exemptions for demanding political constituencies. We cannot afford to let Kyoto become another Doha.

A few months ago we passed legislation—many years too late—that put a price on carbon emissions. It was a weak economic signal to clean up, but at least it was a signal. Part-way through, the Government got cold feet and delayed the entry of transport for another 2 years. I ask Labour members, when they look at fuel prices now, whether they wish they had held their nerve on transport. Next January would have been the perfect time to bring transport in while fuel prices were so low—as originally planned—to keep up the momentum towards lower fuel consumption.

The emissions trading scheme has many loopholes, exemptions, and delays, but it was a start. Now, no one can figure out what is happening, and that is a recipe for a loss of business confidence and a loss of investment—and it is already happening. The Prime Minister tells us that he will put the emissions trading scheme on hold. I ask him how. Energy, transport, and agriculture have had no obligations for ages, anyway. But foresters who planted over the winter of 2008 are legally entitled to credits in January 2009. Is this Government of property rights and business telling them that there will not be any credits in January 2009? Is a bill coming before the House during this urgency session to wipe out forestry credits and obligations? We hope not, because that would usher in a new season of clear-felling forests and converting to dairying with no penalty. I would have to drag out Nick Smith’s old speeches that went on for months and months, blaming the Government week after week for creating just that situation in 2007. That would also see an enraged Roger Dickie climbing the steps of Parliament, and I would be supporting him.

Perhaps putting the legislation on hold is just a figure of speech, and nothing will actually happen. But business does not know, and business is worried. We already have a number of investors having second thoughts about investing in New Zealand. Now we have ACT—the party that believes that climate science is wrong and that human-induced climate change is a myth—trying to delay and confuse for another year by demanding a carbon tax. That is one more year of business offloading the costs of its emissions on to the taxpayer. The select committee will be instructed to consider that, and even to consider the bizarre suggestion that politicians should review whether the international science community has it wrong. That is still in the terms of reference, in code. I say to John that he cannot afford to waste public funds educating Rodney on 20-year-old science, and he cannot afford to let Rodney pull the National-led Government into fantasy land. It is time to take serious action to reduce our emissions and to join the global effort to reach an effective agreement.

The Government is proposing an infrastructure investment package to stimulate the economy. The Greens proposed such a package early in the election campaign, before other parties did. However, the packages are not the same. It is vital that the infrastructure we build prepares us for the very different world of oil depletion, climate change, and resource scarcity. We need more and better public transport and a rebuilt rail system, not new motorways. We need more affordable housing built to high standards of energy efficiency, and close to public transport and workplaces. We need the Greens’ billion-dollar home insulation programme that this Government is going to axe. The programme would be the fastest source of new jobs in a recession, and would reduce people’s power bills and keep people with asthma out of hospital. If John wants value for health dollars then he should insulate cold, damp houses. The Greens would be happy to work with him on that, and the money for it is already there in the dividends the energy companies will pay under the emissions trading scheme.

I now hand over to my co-leader, Dr Norman, for the rest of our time.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind new members that they must refer to their colleagues by their full names rather than by just their first names.

The Green Party has a vision for Aotearoa New Zealand as a place where people respect each other and the natural world that we share. It is a vision for our country as a healthy, peaceful, and diverse place. We aspire to build an Aotearoa New Zealand in which we know our different histories and we are secure in our identity—an Aotearoa New Zealand that honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Greens are seeking to build a country in which our children, our elders, our families, and our communities are at the centre of national life, and where each person’s unique contribution is valued. The Greens come to this Parliament to strive for a future in which participation, justice, and quality of life for all are valued over the individual attainment of wealth. We come here to transform our economic system into one that enables people to meet their needs from the bounty of the earth, within nature’s limits. We are here because we have seen the damage that is being done to our beautiful country, and we believe that indigenous ecosystems need to be restored and replenished.

We are here to support all New Zealanders, so that life in our country is a celebration of diversity and creativity. We have a vision of a future in which all are able to participate meaningfully in the decisions that affect both them and future generations. In coming to this House, we recognise the rights and interests of those who cannot speak or vote for themselves, and we will continue to be the voice for those who have no voice. The Green Party exists so that we can play our role in making these islands a shining light in the world for peace, justice, sustainability and democracy. That is our vision, and that is the vision we will promote in this Parliament over the next 3 years.

The Green Party has a tradition in this place of listening to the arguments of others. We have a tradition of working constructively where we find common ground with others, in order to make progress towards our vision. These are traditions that we will hold on to in this new Parliament. We also have a tradition of being vigorous advocates for our vision, and staunch opponents of those who seek to take our country and our planet in the wrong direction. We will continue to be a staunch voice, and those who have come here to oppose sustainability, peace, justice, and democracy will find us formidable opponents. We represent 160,000 New Zealanders—about 7 percent of the votes cast—who expect us to behave respectfully in this House. But they also expect us to tell the truth about the state of the world. If that means upsetting some of those in the old, grey parties, then so be it.

This Parliament is, of course, significantly different from the last: the old, grey parties have swapped sides. To National, I say congratulations on forming the new Government. National received the votes of 45 percent of New Zealanders; it is an awesome responsibility. We are fortunate to live in a democracy where we can change Governments peacefully, based on the will of the majority. With our hearts we hope, for the sake of the future of our country, that National will use its new-found power wisely and judiciously. With our heads, we have doubts as to whether it will have that wisdom. But if National puts up sensible proposals, then we will happily work with National to improve them, just as we promised to do before the election.

To Labour, I say congratulations on getting 34 percent of the votes. We had a difficult, but sometimes productive, relationship with Labour while it was in Government. The negotiations were often ruthless, the Government sometimes lacked vision, and, truth be told, many Labour MPs are in awe of the new right. But many Labour MPs are fine people, trapped in what seems to us to be an old grey suit. Perhaps we should ask which party the young idealist Michael Joseph Savage would have joined, if he had turned up here today. I hope the relationship with Labour can be productive, but let Labour make no mistake; the Greens are an independent party of principle, and we will not be participating in any shadow Cabinet, unlike the Progressive Party.

To the Māori Party, I say congratulations on winning five of the Māori seats. I know those members wanted to win more seats, and the Greens did our best to help them. But that is still a strong foundation. We have a disagreement about tactics with the Māori Party, as those members have decided to hitch themselves to the National Government, or what should now be called the National - ACT - Māori Party - United Future Government. Every time this Government does something stupid, like opposing progress at the climate change talks in Poland, its support parties will wear some of that. Time will tell whether the decision to go with the Nats was the right one. We hope the decision will help the land and the people of the land, and we wish the Māori Party well.

We have worked with ACT cooperatively and respectfully as an MMP party, and I hope we can continue to do so. However, the ACT ideology does really seem to represent the right wing of the US Republican Party in New Zealand, as far as I can tell. The climate change denial, the opposition to science, the “three strikes” policy, the taxpayers’ rights bill, and the war for oil are all Republican Party policies that have failed in the United States, and ACT is now trying to import them into our country. The US Republicans have just been ousted after the most disastrous presidency in memory—a long, long dark night. They left that country staggering from a financial crisis due to financial deregulation, a massive prison problem, a massive crime problem, an unresolved, illegal foreign war, a massive debt, and so much more. Surely it is time to move on from the policies of the Republican Party.

I give greetings to the Hon Jim Anderton and the Hon Peter Dunne, and I hope that we can have a constructive relationship with them.

In the election campaign the Greens campaigned for our children’s future. The Greens come to this place to be a voice for generations to come, and for those who do not have a voice—those who are yet to be born, but who will bear the consequences of our actions. To paraphrase Shakespeare from Henry V: “And some are yet ungotten and unborn that may have cause to curse the Government’s scorn.” Unborn New Zealanders will live to curse this Government if it decides to go into climate change denial. We have already had one ineffective Government on climate change—emissions increased by over 10 percent over the course of the last Government—and we cannot afford to have another one. So New Zealanders as yet ungotten and unborn will curse this Government’s scorn if it continues to stand by, as the last one did, while our rivers, lakes, and beaches are polluted. The Resource Management Act is so weak that it provides little protection. Yet this Government so far bleats the mantra of industrial agriculture that it says we must weaken the Resource Management Act and cut out community participation in decision making. The weakening of environmental protection is not in the interests of our society or our economy.

The Greens are the voice for the brand of New Zealand—clean and green, 100 percent pure. It is a brand that is worth upwards of $1 billion a year in export earnings, according to a study commissioned by the Government in 2001. Let us think of the millions of dollars spent on promoting “100% Pure New Zealand”, and of the generations of New Zealanders who fought to achieve a nuclear-free New Zealand—our nuclear-free status being the underpinning of the clean and green branding. Why are we trying to throw it all away? It will not work as a tourism strategy to say: “Welcome to New Zealand, but don’t swim at our beaches or you’ll get a case of diarrhoea, or a skin, ear, or eye infection.” How can it possibly be in our long-term economic interests to lose our clean and green brand?

The problem with the last Government was that it was too scared to take on Federated Farmers and industrial agriculture in order to clean up our rivers and lakes and constrain greenhouse emissions. Is this Government similarly scared? Will this Government sit on its hands while things get worse? Economics and the environment are joined at the hip. To paraphrase Bill Clinton: “It is the environment, Stupid.” When we think about where the next wave of innovation and jobs will come from, we realise New Zealanders will either lead the world in developing innovative ways to protect the environment or find themselves once again being technology takers—paying for technology developed overseas to reduce greenhouse emissions and clean up rivers.

The Republican “Governator” of California talks about the green revolution—the economic transformation that is creating millions of green-collar jobs around the world. New Zealand can be part of the green revolution, or we can once again fall prey to the laissez-faire anti-science brigade who say that the market knows best. Well, the “market knows best” brigade has just collapsed the global financial system. Smart green solutions that face the science honestly and use innovation and the creativity of ordinary New Zealanders will be our future if the Green Party has anything to do with it. Bright, green ideas that deal with the environmental challenges, while building new businesses that employ New Zealanders in worthwhile occupations, will be the future that the Greens offer to our country.

There are those who say that the Greens should speak only about what they call environmental issues, but there is no simple division between social and environmental issues. Climate change is the biggest social-justice emergency that this country faces. Millions and millions of inhabitants of planet Earth will die if we do not act. It is an environmental issue; it is a social-justice issue. Protecting our children from violence has been a Green priority from the beginning, and it will continue to be so. We make no apologies for that. Sadly, the referendum that is coming up on so-called parental discipline will add little to the debate. Poverty will continue to preoccupy the Greens. Even the Treasury briefing to the incoming Government acknowledged that poverty is an obstacle to economic development, because the abilities of poor children are never utilised as they never get the chance to do so. Our Prime Minister got a hand up through the welfare State and State housing, and now he says he wants to cap that opportunity for others. We need more social housing, not a cap on social housing. A society that is divided on itself, a society that treats people as a means to an end for the sake of someone else’s profit, and an unequal society where the rich eat the future of the poor is not a society that will be able to deal with the challenges of environmental sustainability. By dealing with the environmental challenges we can have a more prosperous society, with a better quality of life. That is the virtuous circle.

We will also continue to campaign in this Parliament for safe food and country-of-origin labelling, just like that of our trading partners. If we do not know where our food comes from, how will we avoid a Chinese melamine scandal?

Lastly, I want to talk about our democracy. The Greens are now firmly established as the third party in our democracy. There are those who would silence the voice of the Greens. During the campaign we saw a shameful collaboration between Labour and National to keep the Greens out of the televised leaders’ debates. The result was a rather uninspiring debate. There are those who are frightened by what the Greens have to say, and there are those who are threatened by our truth-telling about the state of the planet and the state of Aotearoa, but we will not be silenced. There are those who want to try to silence the Greens by abolishing our proportional voting system and replacing it with some form of undemocratic elected dictatorship, like the supplementary-member representation system. If the last election had been run under that system, then the Greens would have one seat, or possibly two seats, in Parliament instead of nine, and that is exactly what the enemies of proportional voting want. It is not very different in that sense from first past the post.

MMP brings not only a diversity of views but a diversity of people into Parliament. We have more women, more members from a Māori background, more Pacific Islanders, and more Asians in this Parliament as a result of MMP. The enemies of MMP and proportionality want to return us to a time when Parliament was made up of white men in suits. But I warn those with aspirations to silence dissent and diversity that their attempt to get rid of proportional representation will fail. Enough people remember what happened last time. We had an elected dictatorship. Our economy was wrecked and our society was ripped asunder.

The Greens have come to this place to progress our vision of an Aotearoa New Zealand that is peaceful, just, democratic, and sustainable. We will be both constructive and staunch, as we need to be in order to achieve those goals. It is indeed, as Shakespeare would say, a case of “Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more”.

Let me begin by paying my respects to the Rt Hon Helen Clark, who led this country for 9 years. I disagreed with many of the policies of her Government—I am not a socialist—but I do not think any of us can doubt that Helen Clark worked hard, was committed to New Zealand, and is a ferociously intelligent politician. I believe that Phil Goff has big shoes to fill in taking over from Helen Clark, but I believe that he and Annette King will be up to the task. Let me also congratulate John Key and Bill English on their success and say how much I have enjoyed—already—working with John Key, particularly in negotiating ACT’s supply and confidence agreement with National.

I want to thank the people of Epsom for putting their trust and their vote with me. I will continue to work hard each and every day to be the best MP that I can be for Epsom.

I want to thank the loyal ACT workers who have worked for many, many years to hold our party together, to build our support, and to deliver a better New Zealand. On election night we increased our vote to go from two MPs to five MPs. I think it is fantastic to have Heather Roy back, and to have Heather Roy as a Minister. I am so pleased that Sir Roger Douglas is back with us in Parliament. I am proud that we have John Boscawen, who led such a fantastic campaign against the Electoral Finance Act. If he had been a bit more successful, maybe the police would not be investigating me for my yellow jacket, but hopefully we can deal with that. I am also so pleased to have with us David Garrett, who will work to make New Zealand a safer country for everyone, which is something we all want.

On election night 2008, clearly, New Zealanders voted for a change. They voted for an end to the nanny State, to the idea of politicians and bureaucrats telling us what we can do, when we can do it, and how we can do it, to the extent of making our showers dribbly and telling us what light bulbs we can have. I believe they also voted for an end to the politics of envy. They wanted an economy that was growing, and a tax system that rewards success rather than punishes it. John Key did an amazing job of putting together in 8 days the support that he has for his Government in this Parliament. That was unprecedented, and I have to say that if his ability at doing that is anything to go by, John Key is going to make a fine Prime Minister.

For our part, we concentrated on the big picture. The ACT Party is not a party that is there just to get a few extra policemen or extra spending on this or that—what we were concerned about was all of New Zealand. We saw, and we continue to see, the key task to be building a stronger economy. That is why we have in the agreement the commitment to catching and matching Australia in the income stakes by 2025. That is a big, ambitious goal. We have set that goal in our agreement with the new Government. We realise that it is not enough to just set the goal, we actually have to measure it and adjust our policies on the basis of our achievement. To achieve that parity would require a lift in productivity of 3 percent a year. That does not mean Kiwis working harder. In fact, as we increase productivity, we can afford to work less. What it does mean is working smarter, with more.

We have in the agreement the establishment of an advisory group to advise the Government and measure our performance annually on that goal. We are proud of that. It was made possible only by John Key’s commitment to the relationship, and by the shared vision and philosophy that National and the ACT Party have. Indeed, if members saw the piece on the news last night about a poor family living in a garage, they would realise that our economy is underperforming and the costs of housing are too high. The answer to that is not for the Government to spend more money, it is actually to build a stronger economy, and get the costs of building and renting a house under control.

We achieved other successes with National on behalf of New Zealand. The first was to get ACT’s “three strikes and you’re out” policy to a select committee for consideration. I heard other parties pooh-pooh that legislation, but those parties need to answer the question of what is wrong with having a law on the statute book that would see 78 New Zealanders who were murdered—viciously cut down—still alive today. What is wrong with such a law? Do those parties value innocent lives so poorly that they would rather let their ideological blinkers say that law does not work?

Our review of the emissions trading scheme has come up for discussion here. It is very clear that ACT’s position is that we should not have an emissions trading scheme. National campaigned on keeping one. We managed to negotiate, in the best interests of the country, a proper review of New Zealand’s response at a high level. I have to say it would have been a lot better if the previous Government had done that at the start, rather than never doing it. I see those members of the previous Government continue to say they are in favour of diversity, but anyone who disagrees with them has to be shut down and shut out, and we cannot have the proper debate.

We also have a commitment to reviews on spending, and the medium-term goal of reducing the top rate of tax to 30 cents. It is clear to us and to New Zealanders that over the last 10 years spending has got out of control. We are pleased that we have a commitment to send ACT’s Taxpayer Rights Bill to a committee. We are pleased that we have a new position of Minister for Regulatory Reform, a commitment to look at the Regulatory Responsibility Bill, and, indeed, to look at a productivity commission in New Zealand.

We are pleased about the taskforce on the Resource Management Act, because even if one was a committed greenie one would have to say that that Act is disappointing. It is certainly disappointing for the frustrations that it causes over silly things. I think everyone should agree in the House that we can do better. On education, I say that I look forward to working with the National Party, the Māori Party, the Green Party, and the Labour Party on an inter-party working group looking at what is wrong with having greater choice and diversity in education, and why we have such a monolithic, one-size-fits-all view on education.

But, most important, on election night the people voted for a change. With John Key and the National Party, with the support of Peter Dunne and the United Party, with Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples and the Māori Party, and the ACT Party, change will be delivered. Thank you.

Tēnā tātou. The Māori Party stands to congratulate the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith on his election to the prestigious role of Speaker of the House of Representatives. I would also like to acknowledge the magnificent job done by the past Prime Minister Helen Clark over the last 9 years, and her achievements over that period.

In his first words to the House as Speaker-Elect, Dr Lockwood Smith drew our attention to those who have taken the call of duty offshore—the place names are up here on the Chamber walls—and fought in the battlefields of North Africa, Egypt, Greece, Crete, Europe, and Asia; those who died in honour for Aotearoa. We remember them, and we think of that proverb: “He toa taumata rau”—bravery has many resting places. Bravery is found in the actions of a man who fled persecution in Afghanistan, who survived a disaster at sea, and who sought refuge in New Zealand to build a home for himself and his five children. But bravery is also found in the homes of some 16,000 New Zealanders who are the new unemployed, in the homes of 230,000 children who did not benefit from the in-work tax credit of Working for Families, and in the homes of the 23 percent of Māori children who are living in poverty.

It is a brave nation that tackles the crime of poverty, the injustice of inequality, and the offence of violence. We in the Māori Party are proud to rise to the challenge, to be part of the solution, and to take up the opportunity to contribute to a better future for all. The Speech from the Throne is a road map ahead to guide us to that future.

The Māori Party is honoured to be taking a turn in the driving seat, advancing our kaupapa, articulating a strong and independent Māori voice in the best interests of the entire nation. We are profoundly aware that just because someone is in the driving seat, that person does not have to run people over. That is why we welcome the opening statement in the Relationship and Confidence and Supply Agreement between the National Party and the Māori Party. It is a statement that recognises that mana maintenance and enhancement are important for both parties to the agreement.

The word “mana” is variously described as leadership, influence, prestige, power, authority, and control—many things. This type of arrangement did not need the numbers to happen. The arrangement was one that transcended voting power to recognise the importance of acting in accordance with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi. The Māori Party has spoken freely of its desire to act as an instrument for the Treaty partner—not as the Treaty partner but as the link to bring the voices of the signatory to Te Tiriti o Waitangi into this Chamber. I make that distinction. The opportunity given in this arrangement is an opportunity that was endorsed by our people in the fast, full, and frank consultations schedule that we entered into some 3 weeks ago.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: How many turned up?

My smallest meeting was 50. My largest was 250. We must ensure that we all use this time wisely.

The Māori Party brings to the arrangement with National a clear focus on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, whānau ora, and investing in the economy to lead the productivity on a grander scale. We will be working hard to ensure that in all developments the impact on our people is clearly recognised. Our ministerial responsibilities in health, education, justice, social development, Māori affairs, and the community and voluntary sector emphasise our priorities for the next term. We seek significant outcomes in whānau ora through working to eliminate poverty, advocating for social justice, and advancing Māori social, cultural, economic, and community development in the best interests of the entire nation.

None of us can ignore the warning given in the Speech from the Throne that we are entering into very difficult times that have not been seen since the days of the Great Depression. But there are other tensions that we must address. Treasury’s advice to the Minister of Finance described these medium-term economic challenges as globalisation, international integration, technological change, natural resource pressures, demographic changes, and increasing expectations on the State. As Minister of Māori Affairs, my concern will be to ensure that there are policy levers in place that advance Māori economic development in areas such as aquaculture, energy, forestry, tourism, Māori land, and agribusiness.

Māori agribusiness on its own already contributes over $1 billion to our economy, with another 450,000 hectares of Māori land to be further developed. Michael Ahie, chief executive of Shirlaws has challenged us to: “release the economic potential of Māori, particularly on the land, where most of the assets are held.” He described this as the Māori edge, the resilience and flexibility with an inherent, acquired trading ability. We might call this mana Māori, derived from the strength of our relationship with the land, and the legacy of our ancestors who adapted to, and adapted, the natural resources handed down to them, to sustain themselves and future generations. Such factors—mana—are not only of value in Māori commercial and economic development. We must stay focused on the pivotal goal of whānau well-being and cultural resilience.

We are pleased to hear the Speech from the Throne give weight to vulnerable New Zealanders, to those who work hard but who may suffer redundancy or add to the unemployment queues. This House must take as a starting point the fact that 22 percent of young Māori aged between 15 and 19 are currently unemployed, compared with the national average of 14 percent. We must hold that 22 percent in our vision; we must look into their faces and make a promise to their future that they will not be left behind. Our future growth and prosperity depends on them.

My colleague Tariana Turia will be dedicating her efforts across health and social services towards achieving whānau ora. We know that the solutions are far more likely to be successful when owned and determined by the people themselves. We know, too, that Māori cannot afford to be spectators. We must actively engage with all our whānau to revitalise our time-honoured traditions that have held us in good stead until now. We must live by kaupapa that enable us to restore good health and well-being to all of us.

The Speech from the Throne identified a host of areas in which the Māori Party has an active interest. We will be participating in the review of the emissions trading scheme to ensure that we encourage environmentally responsible choices, including encouraging the biggest emitters to change the way they do business. We have a strong interest in ensuring the relevant sections of the Resource Management Act that recognise and provide for the relationships of Māori and our culture and traditions with our ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu, and other taonga are taken into account in giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Tangata whenua have a vital interest in water—the rivers, the lakes, the springs—the mahinga kai that are an integral part of their tribal mana. We are delighted to hear that the Government will demonstrate fresh energy in resolving and achieving durable Treaty settlements, as well as having the courage to review the Foreshore and Seabed Act and to initiate a constitutional review to critically examine Māori electoral participation. We are all desperate to curb the so-called long tail of underachievement that stigmatises many of our schools, and in particular the underwhelming outcomes that have featured as an indictment on Māori education for far too long. As Associate Minister of Education and Minister of Māori Affairs I will be channelling considerable energy into the literacy and numeracy programmes that have proven to be so successful.

It is time to be brave on many fronts. The Māori Party is prepared to step up and do the work necessary to ensure that a strong and independent Māori voice is heard in every debate, on every issue, and in every home as we, as a nation, unite in our resolve to invest in a brighter future for all. Tēnā koe.

I would like to begin by congratulating the Government on its achievement in winning the general election and the confidence and trust of many New Zealanders. The responsibility that the public has handed to it is enormous, and though I strongly oppose some of the plans it has made for New Zealand, as a loyal New Zealander, the Government has my very best wishes for success in its stewardship of the economy and our country.

I hope that its promises come true. National promised to make significant reductions in crime; it promised that New Zealanders would stop leaving New Zealand to live in other countries; it promised that our wages would equal or surpass the wages of Australians; it promised that it would radically cut taxes on ordinary working families, and that it would increase spending on all of our social services—all at the same time.

It promised that a National Government would not overtax New Zealanders with fiscal surpluses nor project deficits into the future, but it would, instead, berth the fiscal super-tanker precisely on a low-tax, high-spending button every single Budget. The Prime Minister, when in Opposition, travelled to many disadvantaged streets and promised that we would no longer have pockets of deprivation in our cities where some kids are left behind in poverty. He promised that all our children will be able to read and write, because the testing that National would introduce to the education system will make all the difference in the world. He promised us world-class infrastructure, the fastest broadband in the world, an end to disputes over water allocation, instant resource management decisions, and new motorways where today there are only broken dirt tracks.

The Prime Minister spent the election campaign travelling to many marginal seats, and making solemn pledges of unbudgeted “think big” spend-ups totalling hundreds of millions of dollars. In all those towns and cities they are now waiting patiently, expecting him to deliver. I wish the Government good luck with all of that.

There was not a single item on that list that I would not wish the Government to succeed in delivering. As promises go, they are slightly more ambitious than I would have been, however. I would have recommended that promising absolutely everything to absolutely everybody risked disappointing someone, sooner or later. However, I will be the first to congratulate the Government if it pulls off a significant portion of its stunningly immodest programme.

The Government will start its term this week with a swag of legislation. It will not send those new laws to select committees, however, as democracy and good government would require. This is a Government whose members campaigned in Opposition against what they said then was the end of democracy. In Opposition, those members promised a fresh new standard of good government, and the Government’s very first act was to throw out those democratic standards it supported in Opposition, such as select committee hearings on its proposals.

The Government is entitled, of course, to put in place the policy it has a mandate for. But the Government makes a mistake if it thinks every bill it drafts will be perfect at the outset. Many Governments have done that. So it has started with a defining combination of mediocrity, weakness, and arrogance. It is too weak to hold public hearings on its laws, too insecure in the strength of its ideas to truly believe that they will hold up under scrutiny, too arrogant to admit its ideas could be improved, and too mediocre to deliver on the promises it has made to New Zealand.

Already in the short month since the election, we have seen one example of a weak, arrogant Government in action—its reaction to the potential Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) budget blowout. I have listened to Ministers bumble through this issue, with growing amazement that anyone could enter Government so little prepared for its challenges. Confronted with a change in the actuarial calculations facing ACC, Ministers panicked. This is an inexperienced Government that has yet to understand that officials will come to it every month, perhaps every week, and even on most days, demanding more money for something they say faces a crisis. This week it is ACC; next week it will be the hospital system. Will they panic again when district health boards report their annual deficits? They had been reporting them to the Government I was a member of for 9 years.

Let me make some predictions. Some defence and information technology projects will suddenly develop cost overruns worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Some State-owned enterprises will reduce their profit projections from rosy to deficit levels. They will demand huge capital injections to remain viable. The new biosecurity scare will need tens of millions of dollars to eradicate or control something. The previous Government had plenty of ammunition fired at it by the National Party about that. Every week other mundane crises will come before Cabinet Ministers. Ministers need to be strong enough to deal with them. But what did we get in this ACC episode? Did we get strength? Did we get sophistication? Did we get wisdom that says, yes, ACC actuarial calculations go up and down? No, we saw the sort of arrogance that is already beginning to look like the colour of this Government. There was a massive overreaction. We are to have a ministerial inquiry. We will be having a lot of those if every time there is an overrun in someone’s budget, there is a ministerial inquiry.

The Government needs to toughen up, even at this stage. It needs to toughen up because it cannot have a free lunch, with the policy it has promised. It will have to make some hard choices. In 1999 the previous Government was elected with a Crown net debt of over 20 percent of GDP. By last year, the net debt had gone. We had positive net financial assets. This National Government wants to blow that again. Treasury will not report its current set of forecasts for Crown debt until after the Government’s new laws have been passed under urgency. In other words, the Government will spend the money before it knows whether it has it. That is what National Governments seem to me to always do. They take from the future, for the short-term advantage of today.

National’s rushed increase in overseas borrowing is not to strengthen our economy. National is not going to fund more research and development. It is going to cut those things. National is not increasing borrowing to invest in higher education standards, and it is not increasing borrowing to promote exports as a proportion of GDP. Actually, I did not hear the words “exports”, “science”, or “agriculture” mentioned once in the Speech from the Throne today. That is extraordinary for a National Government. The Government is not increasing overseas borrowing to strengthen our regions or to create more jobs. The increased borrowing is to fund additional personal tax cuts. Those cuts are more generous to the most affluent, rather than to those people who are the most vulnerable in a global economic downturn.

Someone in the future will have to pay for National’s irresponsibility. When we borrow from overseas to splurge on tax cuts for people who need them the least, someone has to pay for it. Someone in the future will pay more tax. Someone in the future will have his or her services cut. The problem is being compounded because National is reducing the ability of Kiwis to create their own nest eggs. The party that used to say it was all about personal responsibility is slashing KiwiSaver to pieces.

At the very same time that we need most to strengthen New Zealand for the future, the National Government is doing the opposite. It is a mediocre Government with mediocre ideas about how we will meet the challenges that New Zealand faces. How mediocre is it? Well, the very first bill the Government announced today is a tax bill. At the centre of that bill is the largest-ever increase in tax on businesses in New Zealand. The very first thing this Government has done is increase tax on innovation. The very first thing it has done is to say that we have too much innovation in New Zealand and we are going to kill it off by taxing it. If I had more time, I would expand on that, but there will be time during the course of the next week or two.

In conclusion, I say that there is one area where we have much to do, and it is poverty, both here in New Zealand and globally. I heard the Government’s pledges, in the Speech from the Throne, to end the cycle of disadvantage. That is a worthy ambition, and I support it. But I listened hard to how it will do it. The cupboard of ideas is as bare as the food cupboards in some of our most disadvantaged homes. I have watched with fascination the speed with which Governments around the world have been able to act to bail out huge companies and banks when they have been in desperate need. They have shown that, with goodwill, action is possible to help in an emergency. Governments can act to help when it is needed.

That leaves a question for all of us in this Parliament. If that can be done for big companies and big banks in times of crisis, why cannot we do it for people in crisis? Why cannot we do it for the hundreds of millions of people who do not have enough food to eat, who do not have clean water, and who cannot have basic medicine? Why cannot we bail them out? New Zealand should be a voice for them internationally, and a voice of compelling new ideas that are emerging internationally to solve these global problems. At a time when the global crisis threatens to deepen global poverty and darken even further the skies over the lives of the world’s least privileged, we should be saying that if the world could offer crisis help to the strong, then we must also offer emergency bail-out to the weakest and the poorest.

I call on our Government to work constructively across party lines to see how New Zealand can use our almost unique position in the world as an efficient food producer to make a difference. I will pledge my support for any efforts the Government makes to do just that.

Mr Speaker, may I begin by congratulating you on your elevation to the Speaker’s Chair, and also the Deputy Speaker and the Assistant Speakers on their appointments. I wish them success in the roles they are about to undertake. I want also to pay my respects to our Governor-General, the Hon Anand Satyanand, and his wife Susan, for the tremendous job they do as our vice-regal representatives. They bring a dignity and a style to the role that befits the modern face of New Zealand. I look forward to the day in this House when we can pay tribute to our head of State as the head of the republic of New Zealand, not still as a British dominion and colony. But that is for another time.

I also acknowledge the contributions made by the mover and the seconder of this debate. What struck me during their speeches was not just their experiences and their tone, but the fact that they represented very much a new face of New Zealand. All of us in this House and across this country will have to come to grips with what that new face means and what its implications are for the development of policy, for the delivery of government, and for the expectations of our people over not just this 3 years, but 3 years and beyond, many times after that.

I express my congratulations to the Prime Minister on his election victory, the stunning nature of it, the way in which he has smoothly and seamlessly put his Government together so quickly afterwards, the confidence that he brings to the role, and the assurance that demonstrates that he will be a Prime Minister who will make New Zealanders feel proud of their country once more.

I also want to join with other members in paying a huge tribute to the previous Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Helen Clark. I think she has served New Zealand with extraordinary capacity, passion, and commitment over the last 9 years. She is widely regarded in international circles, and she has a huge contribution still to make. I for one fully support her in whatever her next endeavour might be, because she has been a great and loyal servant of this country.

I also pay tribute to the previous Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, with whom it was my privilege to work closely over a number of years. I just want to say to Dr Cullen that although we had some disagreements at times, we actually had a very robust relationship—a good working relationship—and I value what we were able to achieve during those years. I wish him well for whatever the future may bring for him, in that regard.

I also acknowledge the Hon Phil Goff as the new Leader of the Opposition. It has been said many times that he “fits big shoes”, and all those sorts of clichés. I just simply know that Phil will bring a commitment and a dedication to the role, and one will never be left wondering where he stands on issues. I wish him well in whatever he carries forward.

The election that just passed was not a particularly good one for United Future. I would be the first to acknowledge that. I lament the loss of my colleague Judy Turner, and I acknowledge those members who have said kind things to me about her performance over the last little while, but I am confident there is a future for her.

There is also a future for a party like United Future, with a strong and explicit commitment to all of the freedoms and the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to promoting human dignity and freedom, to respecting the role of parents and families—a party that says that the National Party is too conservative but the Labour Party is too socialistic, and all the others are simply too dogmatic or extreme, and a party that is fundamentally committed to making New Zealand the best multicultural nation it can be. While that flame flickers, I will be here to fan it.

In the agreement that United Future concluded with the Government after the election, there are a number of significant points I want to go over, because they are beneficial for a wide category of New Zealanders. I am delighted that our policy of income splitting for parents with dependent children, which we were able to advance during the course of the previous Government, will now be given legislative form and sent to a select committee where the whole issue of household income and the way in which second-income earners in households, in particular, are acknowledged by the tax system, can be carefully and thoroughly examined. I look forward to that legislation in about 18 months’ time.

I am also pleased that we were able to conclude in our agreement greater use of the private sector in the provision of surgery, particularly elective surgery, to help reduce those waiting lists in the public sector. It is simply crazy to have large waiting lists in the public sector while we have surplus private sector surgical capacity. I will be looking forward to working with the Minister of Health, and others, on a formula by which that balance can be redressed and that surgery provided in a more even way to the vast number of New Zealanders who currently miss out. I would like to see us, ultimately, moving to the objective of guaranteeing everyone over the age of 65, as a first instance, access to elective surgery within 6 months of diagnosis. I think that is an attainable objective. I think it is one that would give people a sense of hope and a sense of commitment that is currently lacking.

I am pleased also that we will be advancing further the work on Medicines New Zealand, the National Medicines Strategy, which was developed during the previous term of Government to give us a better balance between cost of medicines, access to medicines, and the supply of those medicines to the New Zealanders who need them. In particular, there are some immediate priorities that I want to focus on, in that regard. The first is the issue of funding for Pharmac. At the moment, Pharmac’s funding is determined in a very ad hoc manner—basically what is left over in the health budget after everyone else has had their say.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: That member knows better; he was an Associate Minister.

One of the things that Medicines New Zealand focuses on is moving to a principles-based approach to funding, which is something Mr Cunliffe will know all about, because he agreed with it when he was Minister of Health. In fact, that will be delivered during the course of this year and it will ensure that we have a better balance in how funding is determined, so that issues such as the Herceptin argument, for argument’s sake, will not have to be addressed in the way that they are at the moment.

Looking forward, beyond that, there is the issue of the much greater involvement of the pharmacy sector in the provision of medicines and pharmaceutical care, and work is already under way in terms of discussions with the Pharmacy Council, the Pharmacy Guild, and others, about how that better integration can occur. I am looking forward to significant progress in that area over the next term of Parliament.

I want to say a word about the issue of public-private partnerships, and I am pleased that in the agreement the question of Transmission Gully has been addressed and its eligibility for a public-private partnership acknowledged. I am not at all convinced that that is necessarily the way to go, at this stage, but I am convinced—and I see that Mr Hughes nods and agrees with me—that the highway needs to be built and that we need to make some decisions during these 3 years about the way in which this is funded and the way in which that development occurs, and I see a public-private partnership as a potential option. I am pleased that, in the agreement, we have provision for that occurring, and I am certain that, as a result of discussions that are about to get under way, we will see progress and we will see some certainty delivered on what has been a festering sore in Wellington’s transport regime for many, many years.

I want to make a few comments about the issue of the emissions trading scheme. What is important is that the review that is being proposed to be carried out by a select committee is seen as being a way in which we ensure that this country meets its responsibilities in a proper way. This is not the time to try to reinvent the wheel in terms of some of the science. I certainly do not see it as appropriate or competent for a select committee to try to second-guess a lot of the international evidence that has been available, but it is a time to look at whether the regime that has been put in place for New Zealand is, in fact, a workable one, is, in fact, constructive, and does not impose too many costs on New Zealanders and New Zealand households. I believe that the review that has been announced, and the terms of reference that have been foreshadowed, will enable a select committee to come to grips with that work in a relatively coherent and quick way, and to recommend a way forward, so that this country puts in place a regime that is sustainable in the environmental sense, sustainable in the economic sense, and sustainable in the political sense as well.

This Parliament has a very large workload ahead of it, and I say to the new members who have joined us that they are coming to Parliament at an extraordinarily challenging time in our country’s history, because, as I indicated in response to the speeches from the mover and the seconder of the debate, we are seeing a new tide here, and I am sure it will be reflected in the speeches of other members. A new generation, effectively, has come to this House and they expect their requirements to be met. They expect their interests in terms of the broad sweep of policy to be addressed, and I am sure that within the various parties they will be urging all of their leaderships to reflect their interests to a much greater extent. So I think the next 3 years will be exciting. I think they will be challenging, I think they will be stimulating, and, overall, I think they will be positive for New Zealand—and it will be the members of this House who will contribute to making that so.

I move, That the debate be now adjourned.