General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Earlier this year when a lone police sergeant was lured into a trap by 300 illegal street racers and their supporters, we saw in New Zealand an extraordinarily ugly side of illegal street-racing activities. We saw a truly criminal element. The fact that those people attempted to get the police officer out of his car, and that his life was endangered, showed this Government that it needed to act, and that it needed to act quickly. So I thank the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport, and my colleagues for the support they have given to the illegal street racing legislation.

New Zealanders were told by the previous Labour Government that it had sorted out the problem, and that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove had put through some bills—which we supported, as well—to deal with the situation. Unfortunately, that was only part of the story. We found there were numerous loopholes. One of them was the fact that the so-called illegal street racers could hide behind their mothers’ skirts, or even their nanas’ skirts, and have the car in nana’s name. They thought that we could not touch them; of course, under the current law, frankly, we really cannot. So the legislation that Steven Joyce and I are bringing into the House will deal with that. We will be able to look behind the veil of vehicle ownership. One of the other things the current law allows those people to do, if their cars have been confiscated and set up for sale, is to sell them to a mate next door for $100 and therefore void the whole confiscation. That is the sort of loophole that this Government is trying to close, to prevent the courts and the law from being held in contempt by those people in their activities.

If any members wonder whether we should be taking the action we are taking, I suggest they think about the residents of places like Bealey Avenue in Christchurch and the people whose businesses have been destroyed. They should think about the people in the Southern Cross Hospital there, who have to shift patients out from their rooms every weekend or every night it happens, and take them somewhere else, because people cannot sleep. It is not just the noise that has been destroying lives; it is the fact that so much damage is being done. I listened this morning to Radio New Zealand, and I heard so many people from Christchurch talking about the damage that has been done. Not one of those people said they wanted to be identified by their name or their address. The reason is that they are frightened of the violence that is being meted out to them in that community, and in other communities from one end of New Zealand to the other. We have had people from Dunedin to Kaitāia contact Minister Joyce and me. They are people who have had their property values absolutely destroyed, who have had their health destroyed, and who are living with fear and intimidation. Those people need strong action.

I am surprised that the Labour Opposition has said that the legislation is just window dressing. If this legislation is window dressing, what was Labour’s legislation? All I can say is that it was a few bits of lace curtain. Labour’s comment is absolute rubbish! Labour should be supporting this bill to the hilt. It should be supporting the police, it should be supporting the courts, and it should be supporting the judges, not bagging them, as I heard the Leader of the Opposition do yesterday. It is no wonder that people do not respect the rule of law when the Leader of the Opposition is bagging judges. It is no wonder that that happens. In fact, Labour should be supporting the good, law-abiding people of Christchurch, the good, law-abiding people from one end of the country to the other, the Automobile Association, and the people who have to pick up the pieces—the St John’s ambulance staff and the police—they have to be supported. This Government is not going to stand by and say it is too hard and that we might upset the human right to do burn-outs. I tell members that there is no human right to do burn-outs. There is, however, a human right to be allowed to live in peace and to get on with one’s business, and not to have to put up with the sort of behaviour that has been visited on good, law-abiding members of the community.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Who disagrees?

Actually, Mr Cosgrove does. Mr Cosgrove was very, very funny about it yesterday, and talked about how the legislation was only window dressing. He said that Labour members would support it to go through the first reading, but they were not too sure about it after that. Well, I suggest that Mr Cosgrove goes back down to the 300-majority seat he holds in Waimakariri and explains to the good people there why this illegal street-racing legislation is not good enough for them, and why they do not want to see the very worst recidivist offenders dealt with. That is what he wants, so I suggest he actually does that. I think it is extremely important that the people of this country know who supports them—who supports law-abiding people and who supports criminals.

A lot is hanging on tomorrow’s Budget in this time of multiple challenges to our economy and to our way of life. Unemployment is predicted to go over 7 percent, and people are asking whether the Government has a plan to keep people in work. People are also asking whether it will be meaningful work that will leave the economy stronger. That, after all, was the stated purpose of the Job Summit. Let us hope that that work will not consist of digging holes and filling them in again, as people did in a previous recession.

People are asking whether the Government has a plan to start a transition to a low-carbon economy that will be less reliant on oil and more resilient to price shocks, or whether the Budget will assume that we will return to a business-as-usual economy—an extremely wasteful, consumption-oriented, and unequal economy—as soon as the recession is over. People are asking whether the Government has a plan to protect our main marketing advantage, our reputation—not really justified—for environmental responsibility and clean, green production. People are asking whether the Government has a plan to unlock the creativity of our communities, allowing good ideas to flourish and be supported, creating new small businesses and jobs, and strengthening community relationships.

We in the Greens suspect that the answer is no, the Government does not have such a plan. We note that Labour is not putting forward anything to achieve these goals either. The Green Party does have such a plan. It is called the Green New Deal. The first step towards it is our economic stimulus package, announced a couple of weeks ago, which is what we would do in tomorrow’s Budget to haul ourselves out of both economic recession and environmental crisis at the same time.

With a very modest investment of just $3.3 billion over 3 years, the package would create more than 43,000 new jobs. It would create a stronger economy, with less demand for electricity as a result of major energy-efficiency improvements. That would delay the need for more power stations and give us better security of supply. It would reduce our oil imports by moving funding out of low-quality spending on new motorways, which struggle to even break even on a benefit-cost ratio, and into high-quality spending on increasing public transport capacity and attractiveness, so as to carry a lot more people, and on safer cycling and walking.

The Green Party’s plan would leave us with healthier people and lower hospital costs as people’s homes were made warm and dry. It would leave us with 6,000 more homes. It would employ out-of-work builders, plumbers, and electricians, and make a sizable dent in the waiting list of homeless people. It would raise business productivity as energy costs would be contained by investing in efficiency. It would stimulate a range of community businesses in waste recovery, iwi housing initiatives, car pooling and dial-a-bus schemes.

I look forward tomorrow to the announcement of one of those Green New Deal initiatives, which we have been able to negotiate with the Government—a large-scale home insulation programme. I challenge the Government to pick up the rest of our programme in order to counter the effects of the economic recession and the environmental crisis at the same time, to employ our people, to leave our economy stronger, and to give the people of New Zealand hope.

I am very proud to be part of a Government that yesterday introduced two bills addressing illegal street racing, and to have had a personal role in bringing one of those, the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill, to the House. I think it is a sign of a very busy Government. If we look at all the things that the Government has announced over the last couple of weeks, we see that after only 5 months in office the Government is moving fast to deal with some of the issues facing New Zealand in important areas like economic growth and productivity, law and order, and better provision of public services.

Tomorrow of course we have a Budget and I would like to introduce a brief comment about economic reality, because I think we will all come up fast against it tomorrow. It will be a tough Budget. It would be tough for any country. It will be a Budget in which we need to talk about economic growth, growth of productivity, controlling expenditure, and also about looking after the revenue side.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Hear, hear! Yes!

The interesting thing about that is—and I note the expressions of agreement from the Hon David Cunliffe opposite—that I have not heard anything from Labour members on any of those matters. In fact, I read a very interesting article in the Independent last week in which the Hon David Cunliffe gave us a history lesson on economics, and followed it by saying that Labour’s solution would have been simply not to do any of its pledges, and to have a mini-Budget in December 2008. Well, here we are in May 2009, only 6 months later, and we have not heard a word from them about what they would do.

We have had a lot of criticism about the National Government’s expenditure changes. In fact, I think Labour has opposed just about every single one of the National Government’s expenditure changes. We have had lots of criticism about that. We have also had lots of criticism of National’s initiatives around productivity and growth, and no solutions at all from the Opposition. Labour members will get their chance tomorrow after the Budget to tell us exactly, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition and the finance spokesperson, exactly what they are going to do if they are ever given the opportunity again.

The difficulty is that those members do not want the New Zealand Government to take any of the tough decisions, and it is exemplified in one of the areas I am particularly familiar with: transport. On the one hand those members are telling the Government it should build the big Waterview Connection tunnels for $2.77 billion, and on the other hand they are saying we should not change the Government policy statement on transport, at all, both at the same time. They say they do not have a means of funding it, but they do not want to change the funding to be able to afford anything from within it. Those members have no solutions whatsoever.

Those members will have to answer to New Zealand—ideally, I think, before the Mt Albert by-election; that would be the honest thing to do—whether they are saying that they would add $2.77 billion to whatever the Government debt figure turns out to be in the Budget tomorrow to build the deep tunnels of the Waterview Connection, or whether they finally agree that the Government has it right with its policy. I think that is a fair question for New Zealanders to ask because it is not a trifling sum of money in anybody’s language; $2.77 billion is a lot of money. I think the public of Mt Albert are owed an answer before the by-election next month; they are owed it very soon. At least this Government has been honest with the public and the people of Mt Albert. We have stepped up and said “This is what we’re prepared to fund”. I look forward to seeing what the Labour Party’s solution is. This is one of the bigger discretionary amounts that could have been in the Budget tomorrow, so it will be interesting to see what their views are of that particular announcement.

The National Government is very focused on jobs in tomorrow’s Budget. Some of the things we have already announced include State highway improvements of a billion dollars, improving maternity services by $103 million, upgrading Middlemore Hospital by another $208 million, $50 million on the cycleway project, $40 million for the social services Community Response Fund, and of course we are maintaining all the training as well. In the face of the world’s toughest recession, we are focused on jobs. The members on the other side can bleat all they like that they want us to be focused on jobs, but the fact is that we are. Those members need to answer the tough questions about expenditure and what things they would control, including the big-ticket items like the Waterview Connection. Thank you.

It is a bit rich to be lectured about honesty by a party in Government that campaigned on tax cuts it knew it could not afford. It was selling a lie to the New Zealand public. That lie was under the signature of John Key. The lie was that you can have everything you have got under Labour, you can have Working for Families, you can have transport—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker does not wish to have some of those things. I did not pull the honourable member up a moment ago when he was getting very marginal about what he was saying, as well.

The Speaker is wise, and I apologise. National told New Zealanders that they could have Working for Families, protected superannuation, and 3 years’ worth of tax cuts as well. The crime is not in changing that; the crime was in promising it after the IMF told everybody that the world economy was going to heck in a handbasket, after Lehman Brothers hit the wall, and, by the way, after the New Zealand Labour Party, campaigning for a fourth term in office, pruned back its election commitments because we were fiscally prudent and acting with integrity. I ask Mr Joyce to please spare us the lecture on honesty, because we have been honest about our promises.

Tomorrow is Budget day. Tomorrow is a Budget that must be about jobs. It has to be about jobs, because ordinary, decent, hard-working New Zealanders are living in fear of losing theirs. I understand that this week alone 1,250 extra people registered for unemployment—1,250 New Zealanders. Their families, their livelihoods, their dignity, their homes, and their mortgages are under threat, and what is this Government doing about it? In the last few weeks the Government has been running a campaign to soften up New Zealanders by talking about debt. Government members had the Secretary to the Treasury running around, making exaggerated claims about $50 billion of extra debt—shame on them. They even brought in Standard and Poor’s as extras in this great charade. The problem this Government has now is that its public relations campaign fell apart, because the ratings agencies themselves said that debt is not New Zealand’s No. 1 problem. We have low debt because the previous Labour Government left this Government with the second-lowest debt in the Western World. We had 17.5 percent gross debt and zero net debt. Most countries would give an arm and a leg for that starting point. Most Governments would want to have that to start with.

Debt is not the No. 1 problem; I ask members to guess what the real No. 1 problem is. It is the other deficit—the deficit in the real economy. It is the export deficit and it is the jobs deficit. Tomorrow, when the Government unveils its great plan, it had better be a plan that addresses that deficit. It had better be a plan like Michael Savage’s plan, which gave New Zealanders confidence and hope that the end to a recession was in sight. If it does not, then it will mean that some extra New Zealanders will lose their jobs and their homes, because the balance that this Government has struck will not be the best balance.

I think all members of this House agree that this will not be an easy Budget. That is beyond dispute. I think all members of this House, including the Greens, agree that fiscal prudence is required, and it certainly would be if Labour was in Government. But the goalposts we have to kick this ball between are, on the one hand, making sure that we manage prudently and, on the other, making sure that not one New Zealander unnecessarily loses his or her job, because that Government is not doing enough to protect New Zealanders. I want to see no stone left unturned, no programme left untested, no State house that could have been built left unbuilt, and no public transport programme that could have been laid down not laid down because that Government did not have the nerve to face down ratings agencies and take sustainable growth to the furthermost point that it could.

It is a bit rich to be lectured about honesty by a Government that thinks it is OK to suspend payments into the superannuation fund and to pretend that there will be no cuts to benefits. It is a Government that does not know what it really thinks.

Every day that I come into this House, I mentally thank the people of New Zealand for voting for National at the last election. I thank the public for voting for National so decisively that at last, after 9 long years of Labour, our Government can finally get on with building a new, stronger, and better New Zealand. After 9 long years of mediocrity, of a lack of aspiration, of trending downhill economically, and of boy racers, we have a Government that is taking action on the things that matter to New Zealanders the most.

Yesterday, at last, common-sense legislation was announced to deal to boy racers, but why did we have to wait so long for it? Since I came into Parliament I have been agitating for action. Until we got a National Government, I was hitting my head against a thick Labour Government brick wall with Harry Duynhoven sitting perched on top of it. Labour dragged the chain, and the problem became worse and worse. As Labour looked on, the boy-racer culture developed, grew, and flourished. Dangerous driving, noise, and antisocial behaviour was everywhere in our cities, in our towns, and at gatherings across the countryside. As Labour dragged the chain, families, businesses, hospitals, and even animals bore the brunt of its lack of action. New Zealand developed a tarnished international reputation for that bizarre behaviour, which affected our tourist expectations and the income that comes into Christchurch from tourism.

Night after night, people were disturbed, kept awake, and intimidated by hordes of boy racers who were indulging themselves in fast, noisy, alcohol-fuelled good times, at the expense of everyone else. Unless you heard it yourself, you cannot imagine the threatening effect—

💬 Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You required David Cunliffe not to address members as “you”. The member just said “Unless you”. If we are to have the same rules for all members, then the member must not address the Chair in that way.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I apologise for not having picked that up. The honourable member will please comply.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Unless people have heard it themselves, they cannot imagine the threatening effect created by large numbers of souped-up, high-decibel cars screeching around city streets or down country roads. It sounds as if the city is out of control and it feels like anarchy. People hate it. They are well and truly over it.

In my city of Christchurch, people have been calling for Government action for years, and this week they got it. There is much delight in having a “three strikes and you’re out” option to crush cars, in the legislation. People who have lived the nightmare of having boy racers in their neighbourhood will love to see an end to the cars that make their lives a misery. But there is also a reasonableness about New Zealanders, so they support the giving of a series of warnings to boy racers before drastic action is taken. There are three deliberate steps towards the crusher. Everyone was young once, but there is absolute support for a process that means repeat offending has a real consequence. A crushed car cannot race; a crushed car cannot disturb the peace.

The real, practical value of this legislation is the provision of more tools for the police. I have worked closely with the police on this issue in Christchurch, and I believe they have done a great job, with limited resources. While most of us were home in bed and complaining—and the phones to the police station ring hot at night—the police were out there night after night, dealing with these issues. It has been a very frustrating exercise. I am particularly pleased that this legislation will give the police the tools to make a difference, and the police are pleased about that, too. I pass my congratulations on to the Minister of Police, Judith Collins, and to the Minister of Transport, Steven Joyce. This sensible legislation will work. It will make New Zealand a better place to live and work in, and it will make New Zealand a much more attractive tourist destination, which will help those dollars to come in. Thank you.

Tomorrow is the National-led Government’s first Budget, and every week we see 300 more New Zealanders losing their jobs. The member who has just resumed her seat, Nicky Wagner, has just wasted 5 minutes of the country’s life talking about crushing cars. It seriously beggars belief that when one person loses his or her job, let alone 300 people every week, crushing cars is considered to be the issue on which the entire Parliament should spend its time. Frankly, it beggars belief.

She also failed to tell the full truth, which is no surprise at all and is entirely consistent with her behaviour and that of her colleagues. She said there had been total inaction over the last 9 years from the previous Labour Government, but she failed—through a lapse of memory, I am sure, rather than through deliberately misleading the House—to mention the fact that the previous Labour Government took measures to take boy racers off the streets. One measure ensured that boy racers have their cars noise-tested. If the noise of their car is over 95 decibels, they are required to bring it down to 90. We gave judges the power to take cars from boy racers who behave badly on their first offence, not on their third offence, as the “Crusher Bill” aims to.

Despite that, we certainly support the improved measures in the bill going to a select committee. Let us see whether those measures deliver. Let us see whether they will work. It is interesting that despite the member’s promise to the people of Canterbury—which I heard during the election campaign—to ensure that no vehicle over 90 decibels would be allowed on our streets and that cease and desist orders would be introduced, neither of those measures was delivered. It was another broken promise.

The people of New Zealand are looking for leadership from their Government in the Budget, particularly in the area of jobs. This is a time when New Zealand, more than ever, needs a real jobs plan, not just gimmicks. We do not want any more talkfests or rhetoric and words; we want a real plan and real action for jobs. The 9-day fortnight, the cycleway, and the equity fund have done nothing to stem the loss of jobs for New Zealanders. There is no greater gift a Government can give to an ordinary New Zealander than the dignity of a paid job. That is something National members should realise is within their grasp as a Government. Instead of leading the unemployment increase by pushing public servants out of jobs and ignoring the desperate need for support of New Zealand businesses, they could be taking up the opportunity for leadership that the role of Government provides and give hard-working, ordinary New Zealanders, who are now in danger of losing their jobs, that gift, that dignity of a paid job.

The only jobs John Key and Bill English seem to care about are their own, and that is not good enough for the rest of New Zealand. Not everyone has the opportunity to come into Parliament. It is a privilege and a responsibility. Government members should take up that leadership opportunity and provide the country with a real plan for real jobs in the Budget tomorrow. The Government is leaving all the hard work and heavy lifting to ordinary New Zealanders, who should not have to bear that huge responsibility on their own.

We know that ordinary families are having to do more with less, are suffering more stress and more anxiety, and have less money. Uncertainty and stress are not the way in which we should treat New Zealand families. We should be providing them with the support they deserve and with certainty for the future. It is difficult for a family when it is facing mounting bills and mounting pressure.

I will talk about the Budget. This National Government came into power at the end of 2008 with a very, very strong vision for the future, and that vision was about jobs and growth. I am very excited at the prospect of the Minister of Finance Bill English delivering his first Budget tomorrow.

But first, before I talk about the Budget, I will congratulate Minister Judith Collins and Minister Steven Joyce on the excellent initiative they have taken to tackle the issue of boy racers. The Opposition might not think that it is terribly important to tackle that issue, but I believe it is. I believe that the long-suffering people of Christchurch and people up and down the country who live in fear of boy racers finally have some direction from these two excellent Ministers. The problem was too hard for the previous Labour Government. It tried, but it was just too hard. It did the window dressing, but the real work has been left up to this excellent National Government.

But I need to talk about the Budget, because that is the most important thing happening this week. This Budget is about jobs. This Budget continues to implement the National Government’s job and growth plan for New Zealand. That is why we won the election. We won the election because we have the vision, the strength, and the commitment to carry out our jobs and growth plan for New Zealand. This Budget will continue to support New Zealanders on low incomes by maintaining the entitlements they receive. That is so important, and it is news that has been welcomed in all quarters.

We already know a couple of things about tomorrow’s Budget, and there are one or two things I would like to highlight this afternoon. One of those things is State Highway improvements to the tune of $1 billion. That is significant—$1 billion. That investment will translate into jobs for New Zealand. That is significant. The people of New Zealand have not been forgotten. I was terribly excited to hear of the improvements in maternity services worth $103.5 million. We care about young mothers. The National Government cares about young mothers, so we are committing money in the Budget to improving maternity services. But I have to say that the announcement on the New Zealand cycleway project will have a real impact on jobs in New Zealand. How do I know that? Because in my own electorate we have the Otago Central Rail Trail. Over the past 10 years the Otago Central Rail Trail has provided real economic benefit not just to Central Otago but to New Zealand as a whole. Why? Because the Otago Central Rail Trail, which was developed with community passion and involvement, is providing jobs—in the hospitality sector, the bike retail sector, and the tourism sector. A number of farming families were struggling. Those farming families have now taken the opportunity to provide hospitality and accommodation to travellers. There is a real economic renewal happening in Central Otago, and with that comes a confidence in the future of New Zealand. It is that confidence that is so important to New Zealand, and that confidence that the Budget that is to be delivered tomorrow will bring to New Zealand.

A number of other announcements have already been made in advance of tomorrow’s Budget 2009. There will be $20 million allocated for oil and gas exploration. The National Government knows about sustainability. The National Government also knows about economic growth. Here is yet another example of a Government that is prepared to make the hard calls for the good of New Zealand. The police have not been forgotten. There will be Tasers for police throughout the country to the tune of $10 million. That has already been announced as being part of Budget 2009.

As we all know, tomorrow is Budget day. The Budget is being written against the background of sharply rising unemployment—shockingly rising unemployment—in New Zealand. Twenty thousand people have lost their jobs in the last 3 months. The Labour Government placed emphasis on two things. Closest to our hearts will always be high employment and low unemployment. As a Government we succeeded in bringing down unemployment in New Zealand to the lowest rate in the world. That is a position we swapped with South Korea from month to month—we were the lowest or second lowest in the world.

Our other principle was that in a time of plenty—and there were boom times around the world and in New Zealand—we held out against National’s irresponsible calls for unaffordable long-term tax cuts. We focused our tax cuts on families with children, and as a consequence we ran Budget surpluses year after year, which reduced Government debt. The Government debt that this National Government inherited was amongst the lowest in the world, and the third lowest in the OECD. So when we hear from the National Government that it has no room to move to moderate the effects on unemployment caused by the current recession, we know it is not telling the correct position to the public. National inherited more room to move than virtually every other Government in the world. It inherited the third lowest Government debt in the OECD.

National must be held responsible for its Budget. The Budget will not do enough for unemployment, because National does not put as high a value on keeping people in work as Labour always does, and as we did when we were in Government. That value was evidenced by the fact that we left the incoming Government with amongst the lowest unemployment rate in the world, and more room to move than just about every other Government in the world, because we also left them low Government debt.

What has the Government been doing about unemployment? It has said its first priority is infrastructure. Let us look at what the Government is doing on infrastructure. One of the biggest areas of infrastructure in New Zealand is what we spend on the power sector. During the time of the previous Labour Government, we increased the amount spent on transmission infrastructure tenfold, from about $50 million a year to $500 million per year. What has the National Government done in that area? That is right: it has done nothing. Actually, it has done something: it heralded its plan to bring forward the painting of some pylons. What a pathetic extra spend on infrastructure in that area!

What about in the area of roading? Who increased expenditure on roading and public transport? It was the previous Labour-led Government. What has the National Government been doing on infrastructure in that area? It has been telling people down my way that increased spending on infrastructure is what will keep unemployment low. South of Christchurch, in Dunedin, Otago, and Southland, no extra infrastructure is being built—not schools, hospitals, roads, or power, other than painting some pylons. The message we are getting from the National Government is that the South Island does not matter. You are certainly not putting money into infrastructure. In fact, you are already selling State houses in Dunedin. You are not even reinvesting the money in new State houses in Dunedin; you are taking it out of Dunedin. You are not reinvesting it even in Queenstown, which has the highest housing costs in New Zealand. You are not reinvesting in even one State house.

💬 David Garrett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think I counted the Hon David Parker using the word “you” five times. If members want to be picky, the rules need to be applied equally.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I thank the member. The member is correct: the member speaking should not bring the Speaker into the debate. It is all very well to identify a person and then go on to refer to “you”, but to constantly use the word “you” brings the Speaker into the debate.

I accept the point of order.

The Government is not spending one cent of the money it is taking from the sale of State houses in Dunedin on other State houses. The Government is not spending one dollar on State houses in Queenstown, which has the highest cost of housing in New Zealand. None of the money is going into South Island in infrastructure.

What is National doing in respect of its Job Summit? We have heard about its much-lauded cycleway, which is now being seen as a damp squib. I actually agree with cycling as a priority, but it should not be sold as the big fix for unemployment, because it is not. National members talked about the Job Summit being a “do-fest” and not a talkfest, which is another bit of tortured grammar from the National members. They are not just ruining the employment market; they screw up the language at every point. But they are not doing anything to support the real economy.

I came down to the House 5 minutes ago, intending to speak on the issue of infrastructure. David Parker could not have given me a better lead-in to that. One of the challenges this country faces is its declining living standards. The previous Labour Government came into power 9 years ago with a promise of raising New Zealand to the top half of the OECD. What happened? We dropped. Our living standards dropped, and the income differential between us and Australia increased. I campaigned for the ACT Party at the general election on the issue of raising our living standards. We in the ACT Party would have liked to see parity be achieved with Australia by 2020, but we have had to settle with the National Government on doing that by 2025. What raises living standards? Nothing raises living standards more than raising productivity does. How do we raise productivity? We need to have infrastructure and investment.

I am campaigning in the Mt Albert by-election, and I hope to become the MP for Mt Albert. I am campaigning to win, and I believe that I can win. I would like to talk about the Waterview Connection, between Mount Roskill and Mount Albert to Waterview. Yesterday the New Zealand Transport Agency held a briefing for all the candidates, so that we would know exactly what was going on and could go out and inform people. It was very interesting to note that probably the chief scaremonger—in fact, I would say the scaremonger-in-chief—Russel Norman, did not even have the courtesy to turn up and find out the facts. Why let the facts get in the way, when we can scare people and spread misinformation? Why worry about the facts? Why worry about the truth? Russel Norman did not even turn up to that briefing.

I am pleased to say the Labour Party candidate, David Shearer, turned up, with a posse of TV cameras. He came along to have a debate. He did not come along to listen and to learn; he came along to have a debate. He was told very plainly and very clearly by Mr Dangerfield, the chief executive of the New Zealand Transport Agency, that that was not the agenda. It was not a meeting to debate the issue; it was a briefing held to inform candidates. It is a pity that Mr Shearer did not stay for the whole meeting. If he had stayed for the whole meeting, instead of rushing off to try to get some more votes and shake some more hands, he would have been better informed. Mr Shearer is going around the electorate and telling people in Mount Albert that the Waterview Connection will cut a hole right through the middle of Mount Albert. He is going around scaremongering and telling the people that this road, which this country desperately needs in order to complete the motorway and to unlock the benefits of it, will divide the people of Mount Albert.

Mr Shearer and the Labour Party need to understand that the New Zealand Transport Agency is proposing New Zealand’s most expensive road, two-thirds of which will be underground. Two-thirds of this road will be underground. The New Zealand Transport Agency has identified 360 homes that could be affected by it, but probably the most interesting point for me that I heard yesterday was that only approximately 200 of those homes will need to be demolished. Two hundred of those 360 homes will need to be demolished, and the other 160 will be left standing. Yes, it will be very difficult for people to live in those homes during the course of the construction of the road, and the New Zealand Transport Agency would like to buy those homes. But ultimately, at the end of the project, those homes will be available for people to move back into, if they want to. They can be refurbished, and they can be onsold.

It is interesting that only 200 homes will be demolished. How does that compare with the previous Labour Government’s scheme? Under Labour’s scheme, 160 homes were to be demolished. We are looking at the loss of a further 40 homes. The scheme put up by this Government will cost $1.5 billion, compared with Labour’s pie-in-the-sky scheme, which would have cost $3 billion. Mr Parker talked about the need for infrastructure to be built. The way to get infrastructure built is by not wasting money. The reality is that this country is not rich enough to be able to afford a $3 billion tunnel.

Mr Parker talked about the building of infrastructure. He criticised the former National Government for its failure to build infrastructure. I agree with Mr Parker, in so far as the 1990s are concerned. The 1990s were a decade of a huge loss of opportunity. The Mount Roskill to Waterview Connection should have been built 15 years ago, if not earlier than that. The 1990s were a period of massive lost opportunity. Helen Clark’s Government was very slow to get going, but at least it got going and signed a contract to extend the motorway. That Government built the section of the motorway from Hillsborough to Mount Roskill. But if that Government was as good or as generous as Mr Parker claims it was, why did it not carry on and complete the section from Mount Roskill to Waterview? It did not have to stop the project at Mount Roskill; it could have carried on. Why did it not carry on? It was because that Government wanted to perpetuate a hoax on the people of Mount Albert by telling them that somehow it was going to build a tunnel.

When I came to this House, I came here very proudly to represent the people of Selwyn. There are an awful lot of issues facing the people of Selwyn, but one that is very dear to their hearts, that they have spoken to me often about, and that is of serious concern to me, is the menace of boy racers on our streets. There are other issues facing New Zealand, and I certainly do not downplay their importance. But when I started hearing stories about an 85-year-old in my electorate who was effectively held hostage for 2 hours late at night because he had the audacity to drive down a road that these idiots were using, that was not acceptable to me. Frankly, I cannot believe how often in the last 6 months we have had to deal with issues that the previous Labour Government ineffectually minced around for 9 years. Clearly, National in its term has stood up and its Prime Minister said very early on that National was a Government that was putting its communities first, that this was a Government that was not going to be intimidated by those bully-boys. This week two of our excellent and effective Ministers have done what Clayton Cosgrove and his colleagues could not or would not do. I do not know whether they could not figure out the answer, or whether they were just too scared to tackle the problem, but let me say that they failed the people of Canterbury, they certainly failed the people of Selwyn, and I think they failed all of New Zealand. Clayton Cosgrove might have squeaked back in in Waimakariri by a handful of votes—heaven knows how—but the people of Canterbury are not happy with the previous Government’s failure to get any action on boy racing.

The Government has this week introduced the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill and the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Bill. I have no doubt that those bills will finally make a significant and real difference to this issue. Maybe the previous Labour Government did not realise what a big problem this is. Maybe it did not care. Let us give it the benefit of the doubt, and suggest that maybe it did not understand the issue. I will tell Labour members that in 2004, in Canterbury alone, we were looking at around 350 offences for boy racing annually. By 2008 that had blown out to 1,900 offences. That is a fivefold increase—a 100 percent increase a year. This is an exploding problem, it is a serious problem, and we do not currently have the tools available to deal with it because the previous Government failed to take it seriously. It failed to make it a priority. This Government will not accept that.

Minister Judith Collins earlier on in this debate—and I commend the Minister for her excellent work—said something that is absolutely right. Boy racers have no right to keep people awake while they scream up and down Bealey Avenue, Lincoln Road, Shands Road, or through Templeton. They have no right to intimidate people, do damage to their property, keep them in their houses, or hold up old men on the side of the road. But I will tell members something. Communities do have a right to sleep, they do have a right to feel safe in their homes, and they do have a right to expect to have a Government that does something about it. I am very pleased that this Government is doing something about it. It was obvious to this Government that there were loopholes in the existing legislation. The teeth that the law had were not effective. We made it a priority early on in our term of Government to do something about it. Those bills will go a long way towards doing that.

I do not think anyone in this House would be prepared to stand up and say that it is OK to have a policeman lured into large crowds of 1,000 people or more—often they are young people—to be shot at and to be pelted with bottles. He could have been killed. That is not an acceptable situation. It deserves urgent attention, and it has had that attention. It is not acceptable to me that residents of whole streets, including people in hospital wards, motels, and many, many homes, cannot sleep at night and have to be moved. Often they are too scared to leave their homes. Those people are often too scared to ring the police because of the violent retribution that these thugs are known for. We cannot, as a society, sit back and mince around the edges because we are scared of them. I have already had a rock through a window in my patch, and if that is retribution from these idiots, then I say that is fine! We on this side of the House will stand up to them. We will not let this bully-boy behaviour carry on.

The people of Selwyn have spoken very clearly to me on this issue. When I talked to them recently and surveyed them, this was one of the issues that there was almost complete agreement on. It is not acceptable for this sort of carry-on to continue. Additional tools need to be put in the police tool box. Ministers have done an excellent job of working with local police, local groups, and councils to come up with a set of solutions that will make a significant difference.

There is one piece of information that this general debate should be focusing on today, and that is the 20,000 new jobless Kiwis whom we saw come out of the March quarter alone. This general debate should not be about the 90 decibels from the cars of street racers. We acknowledge the issue, but our focus at this time, in Budget week, should be on the 20,000 new jobless Kiwis whom we saw in the March quarter alone. It is the Government’s job to protect Kiwis’ jobs. It is the Government’s role to do this; it even acknowledged this through its very own Job Summit. In forming the Job Summit, the Government acknowledged that it did have a role to play in job creation. What did we see come out of that summit? What did we see generated by the National Government in order to address the needs, concerns, and fears of Kiwis? There were two things, and they are being addressed by my colleagues.

The first idea was a cycleway, and even though I do not oppose the idea in principle, I do not believe it will generate the kind of solution that we need. The second idea was the 9-day working fortnight. That measure has saved 117 jobs amongst the 20,000 new jobless. I will look at this issue in more context because I have a particular interest in young people. The statistics for that age demographic are particularly worrying. In the March quarter alone, 10,300 young people became unemployed. Almost one in five 15 to 19-year-olds is without work, without a job, and without hope. What has the Government done for this group?

Usually, we at least hear some rhetoric about what might happen or what the Government will do. I fail to hear that even from the other side of the House. Despite Paula Bennett calling it the Government’s No. 1 priority, she has not even produced a statement stating that fact. Since that member has become the Minister of Youth Affairs, she has produced, on average, one statement every 3 months. I do look beyond rhetoric, but that in itself is an alarming point. It is Paula Bennett’s job to protect jobs and to help young people move into jobs. The Government cannot abdicate from that responsibility. I have looked for leadership on this issue. In question time today I asked for leadership on this issue. I received a response pointing to what McDonald’s has done. I asked what the Minister’s ideas were, and I was told about McDonald’s.

What else have I heard? We have given the Government other opportunities. I recently attended an event at which the Minister who holds responsibility for Kiwis’ livelihoods spoke. I heard her tell audience members that if someone in their street is made redundant, it is their job to know—fair enough. Why did the Minister say this? It is not because the Minister thinks that they have a role in assisting the redundant person back into work; it is because she believes that they should make him or her a casserole. I looked for leadership on joblessness from the Minister, and I found a shepherd’s pie and a Big Mac—that is all I have seen thus far.

This Government cannot and should not abdicate responsibility for Kiwi jobs. We should not sit idly through this recession while Kiwis are made redundant. The measure of the Minister’s success will not be the number of casseroles that are made but the number of jobs saved and protected. Otherwise we run the risk of falling back into the slide of the 1990s, when one-quarter of our young people were without work. We do have the time to turn this round. We have seen the first demonstration of the fact that we are on a slide, and we have the time to turn it round. That is why the Labour Opposition took the initiative and created a specific Youth Jobs Summit, which we invited all political parties of the House to participate in. From that summit we also had attendees from the Business Roundtable, trade unions, three political parties, Business New Zealand, the New Zealand Retailers Association, the New Zealand University Students Association, industry training organisations, and the disability sector.

The same group of people were represented at the Government’s Job Summit, and we also had one of the Minister’s own representatives. These people generated ideas that we are challenging the Government to take up. One idea was to reinforce the importance of the Skills Strategy. Phil O’Reilly has said that from a business perspective, the Skills Strategy is one of the most vital areas to retain investment in during a downturn. National’s response to the Skills Strategy is to review it. Labour members are asking the Government to look at its priorities again. A second idea was to keep people in tertiary education, and allow people to be there—to lift the caps on tertiary education. What is National’s response? The National Government will not even meet with the New Zealand University Students Association to discuss the idea; it refuses to meet with that group.

Boy racers—hoons, skangers, barryboys, scobes, rice burners, or whatever they are called in whichever corner of the world—are trouble. The first role of Government is to keep people safe in their homes—those were the words of Barack Obama just last week. This National-led Government, led by the most popular Prime Minister in a generation, will do something about it.

East Christchurch, where I live, has had a few issues with these people. I say “people” because we all know that women can be labelled as boy racers and can belong to the boy-racer cult. Boy racers are not always young. Few 18-year-olds can afford the $10,000 to $20,000 cost of car modifications on the vehicles that I have seen. This cult of thuggery is one we need to do something about.

My family has been involved for many years with all forms of petrolhead behaviour. We enjoy the pleasurable growl of a V8, the fine purr of a Harley Davidson, and the sheer, unadulterated ecstasy of being behind the wheel, or under the bonnet, of a Ford GTO or an AC Cobra Shelby. [Interruption] I understand that even the Speaker of the House suffers from a similar affliction! Most of my uncles and aunts have raced on the dirt tracks of the speedway or on the tarmac at Ruapuna. They are all crazy hot-rodders. Nearly everyone in the family, which numbers over 100, has been behind the wheel, part of the pit crew, or—like my mum—just a screamer in the crowds. I am told that petrol runs through our veins. In fact, one of my jobs as a student was a warrant of fitness mechanic, helping drivers to go faster while staying within the law.

The law changes proposed by the Minister of Police, Judith Collins, will not impact on such good old-fashioned lovers of cars, or on the law-abiding petrolheads up and down this country. However, the muppets who talk about pimping up their cars to race, who think that doing the Moorhouse Avenue lap at 2 a.m. makes them are cool, hip, or rad, and who boast of their best drift are simply wrong and definitely are a public nuisance. I say to those people that they should get some real testicles. They should get off the road and compete with real drivers on the track. I bet they are not man enough to try to do it. The real big mouths I have seen trying to drive on a track fall flat on their faces and end up hitting a wall, with the really skilled drivers and other car-racing New Zealanders laughing at them.

New Zealand has a culture that is driven by movies such as The Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift, and by racing video games such as The Need for Speed. Things are done in controlled environments on a movie set, but our young people think they can do the same anywhere, at any time. I grew up respecting the skill and ability of car drivers, and the ability of people who modified vehicles to race. These are important skills, but the place for them is not on the streets but on the track.

When it comes to throwing bottles at our police, reckless speeding that endangers others, and horrific noise outside the homes of the good, law-abiding people of Christchurch—or any other part of New Zealand—I say “Enough!”, and this Government says “Enough!”. We will give the police more powers to do something about it. Although the member for Waimakariri is not in the House at the moment, he calls it window dressing—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I think I can anticipate the point of order.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: You anticipated correctly. The member should not refer to the absence of honourable members from the House. Otherwise, the issue goes round and round.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): The point of order is quite correct. The member will not refer to the absence or otherwise of members from the House.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. While we are on the matter of the Standing Orders, I thought there was a Standing Order that relates to eating in the House. When the previous point of order was raised I noticed that the member had difficulty actually making his point, because he was chewing.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Well, we could be picky about that. Members are allowed the odd mint. I am not sure whether the member has one or two, but let us carry on with the debate.

We will give the police more powers, and if that means that we take some lunatics off the streets and make our families feel safer in their homes, then I say “Good on us!”. We will do that so that the good people of Christchurch can sleep safely in their homes and get a decent night’s sleep. If it means we have to crush a few cars, I say we should go for it. I understand that 10 cars would have been crushed in 2007 if these proposed laws had been in place. There is ample allowance to keep people within the law, and those people who want to stay within the law—out of the thousands of drivers—can learn the break points that may exist for them in terms of falling outside the law.

This measure will stop people hiding from the issue by selling their vehicles to somebody else. I would like to see a few more steps taken as part of these laws. We might be able to auction off the rights to push the button to crush the first car—and I would be happy to be in line to do so. In fact, this could perhaps be a profit-making enterprise. We could have a new State-owned enterprise—“Crusher Co.”, perhaps. I know that I am not the only person in the blogosphere who would be in favour of this.

I look forward to a situation, in few years’ time, where decent New Zealanders have peace and quiet in their homes in suburbia because of the hard work of our Minister of Police, Judith Collins, and our Minister of Transport, Steven Joyce. I look forward to members on the other side of the House sitting back and saying that their homes are peaceful and quiet because of the laws National brought in to take lunatics off the streets.

Our Government has aspirations for the future, and I look forward to this happening. I want to be able to sit in my bed at night with my young children and know I will not have some idiot driving up and down my street at 95 decibels—or whatever the case may be—annoying my family, or anybody else, and showing intimidating behaviour towards our police.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.