General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Seventy-three percent of people in my electorate earn $40,000 or less. The tax cuts announced in National’s Budget 2010 will mean very little—in fact, nothing at all—to the great majority of workers in my electorate and many other Māori electorates throughout the country. Not one constituent has expressed optimism about the impacts of tax cuts in places like Te Kūiti, Tuakau, Pukekohe, Tokoroa, Tairua, or Thames—not one. They know that Budget 2010 will not deliver to them. They know that the sharp edges of the recession may have been softened for the small percentage of Kiwis, but not for the large majority. Those same tax cuts are exacerbated by rising inflation, making the cost of living pressures a real issue for far too many families in my electorate.

National has promoted this Budget as positive for growth and jobs. Meanwhile, 60,000 young people are unemployed. Job Ops has been promoted as an ambitious solution to solve that problem, but it is a short-term fix to a long-term challenge. There is nothing in the Budget to increase the uptake of Modern Apprenticeships placements. I was in Raglan last week and heard a story of a young man who was keen to take up an apprenticeship. He did OK at school, but his own teachers, by their own admission, would say that he was better learning with his hands. He wanted to do an apprenticeship and take up a trade. He was no slouch, but he was not able to take up a Modern Apprenticeship placement. There is nothing in this Budget to encourage many more young people like him throughout the country who want to earn while they learn. There was no opportunity for him to take up a Modern Apprenticeships placement. The Government has not recognised that there are heaps and heaps of young people throughout the country who want to work, but 60,000 of them are currently out of work. There is nothing in the Budget to address that particular challenge. National is throwing a lifeline of a 6-month training opportunity to them.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: What’s that going to do?

Very little. Young people do not want a training opportunity; they want to work. They want a job, and to earn while they learn. There is no vision and no ambition for young people in National’s Budget 2010.

Families are bracing themselves for the impact of GST increases. It will hurt. There will be increased costs to the weekly kai bill. Take, for example, a weekly kai bill of $261. Add to that 15 percent, which means an extra $39.15 per week on that whānau’s kai bill. It will hurt. There will be increased costs for mortgage or rental payments, increased costs for school uniforms for the kids, increased costs for household items, and for rates. Let us look at rates. Take an annual bill of $2006.23, and add to that 15 percent. That will cost $300.93 extra a year.

💬 David Garrett: It must be a nice house.

I heard a comment over there that it must be a nice house. In fact, rates in Kāwhia are more than that, and those are humble baches, so let us be very clear that the member for ACT has no idea what everyday families are paying in rates. He should be ashamed. Far too many—[Interruption]. What did he say?

💬 David Garrett: I know Kāwhia very well.

He knows Kāwhia very well. He obviously does not know its rates bills very well at all. He should be ashamed that he is supporting a 15 percent increase to rates bills, which will add around about $300 a year to them. Pensioners in Kāwhia will not be getting any more out of the Rates Rebate Scheme, because that has gone under National’s Budget 2010. GST hikes will hurt, no matter how National slices and dices its message. They will hurt many households, many Māori households, and many whānau, and I know that Hone Harawira does not like that particular decision.

These are the types of changes that Māori families and individuals will feel, because they will hurt them in the pocket. Five members of the Māori Party voted for these changes on the basis that they have made far too many gains to turn back now. Well, let us look at the checklist. First there was flying a flag on one day of the year. Yes, they delivered that—woo hoo! That is done, but it means very little. The repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act is done, but the solution is not what was promoted out in the communities.

A few days ago the Prime Minister announced an agreement on the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. National and the Māori Party have worked very hard on this matter since 2008 to try to heal the wounds inflicted on New Zealand by that odious legislation. One of the real pleasures for me since 2008 has been working on that issue with Tariana Turia and the Māori Party. Mrs Turia’s name will always be remembered in New Zealand for her principled and courageous stand on the foreshore and seabed. Being able to work with her to find a solution to this legislation has been the highlight of my time in this place. The Foreshore and Seabed Act is Helen Clark’s legacy to New Zealand; its repeal is Tariana Turia’s, and I have to say that Mrs Turia is by far the greater politician.

As my colleagues have pointed out in speech after speech on the Budget, this Government has had to spend a huge amount of time and effort cleaning up the mess left by Ms Clark’s administration. In my arts portfolio I am dealing with an arts infrastructure that was neglected during Helen Clark’s term of office.

💬 Grant Robertson: That’s absolute rubbish. You know that’s not true.

Her negligence is simply a disgrace. The Historic Places Trust had to defer significant maintenance and critical repairs on some of our most important and precious heritage sites because of underfunding over the last decade. This year, Old St Paul’s alone faced deferred maintenance costs of $1 million, I say to Mr Robertson from Wellington Central. The Film Archive was also neglected by Helen Clark. The National Government is addressing those issues. Budget 2010 allocated $3 million to the Historic Places Trust for urgent deferred maintenance. The Film Archive also received a grant of $2 million to help preserve our cultural heritage in film. We know from headlines over the last few days just how important the work of the Film Archive is. Unlike Helen Clark, I am not interested in using the arts to make myself look good. I am happy for my results to speak for themselves. In fact, I have even heard it said—the luvvies are saying—I am a more competent Minister than Helen.

Working on all those initiatives has been a most satisfying experience, yet there are some in this place who are interested only in muckraking. Of course, I refer to Mr Hodgson. That amateur sleuth, that putative star of “CSI Dunedin North”, is finally reaching the end of his long, winding paper trail to nowhere. He exemplifies the previous Government’s inability to learn from its own mistakes. The so-called master strategist’s strategies backfire time and time again. He has been hot on the trail of the Prime Minister and the H-Fee conspiracy since 2008, searching high and low for clues to follow, only to arrive at the end of his mediocre career at the next election still clueless. At the 2008 election he tried to make up some sort of investment scam involving the Prime Minister. He and Helen Clark ordered Mike Williams off to Australia to dig dirt. I cannot remember many of the details, because it did not turn out very well—so much for the master strategy! I notice he has gone very quiet after his most recent flop. I have heard his latest efforts backfired so badly that Phil Goff has told him it is time to go, so Labour can give some union functionary like Carol Beaumont or Darien Fenton a safe seat in Dunedin.

So Mr Hodgson is going, and Labour is losing the man I once heard described as Labour’s assassin. In Opposition he has applied himself to picking over the details of the Government’s arrangements with what he probably fancies is a surgical-like precision, but it only reminds the rest of us that he is a vet. The final paper trail led to a Labour strategy for his colleagues. Attack campaigns are most effective when leavened by humour. That is certainly not advice Labour members have ever followed, unless the constant string of smears was always intended as comic relief. But the joke has been on them time and time again. Mr Hodgson’s career sums up, for me, the difference between Labour and National. We are interested in politics, ideas, and making this country great; Labour is only interested in smear.

The headline that greeted us yesterday, “Peace deal on beaches”, was worlds apart from a tumultuous period of our history. It is only right that as MP for Te Tai Tonga I mihi to the eight iwi of Te Tau Ihu who first sought declaration from the Maori Land Court that the foreshore and seabed within the Marlborough Sounds are Māori customary land. They had the precedent of the mid-1860s, when the Native Land Court accepted applications to determine title of customary land—land held by Māori in terms of tikanga Māori. In 1997 Judge Hingston ruled that the Maori Land Court had jurisdiction to consider whether foreshore and seabed are Māori customary land. His finding was appealed to the Māori Appellate Court, to the High Court, and then to the Court of Appeal. Exactly 7 years ago, on 19 June 2003, the Court of Appeal unanimously held that the Maori Land Court could determine the status of the foreshore and seabed under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.

The reaction of the then Prime Minister and the then Attorney-General was rapid beyond belief. The day after the Court of Appeal decision, Helen Clark informed the country that steps would “be taken to confirm absolute Crown title over the foreshore …”. She was instantly backed up by Margaret Wilson, who claimed that “Ownership of the foreshore and seabed had long been considered to lie with the Crown”, conveniently neglecting to say who, exactly, thought that way, other than themselves. From then on, peace would not prevail for 7 long years.

Within days of the Labour Government’s knee-jerk response, the movement was ready to act. Lawyer Moana Jackson spoke for us all when he said that the Government had denied Māori the right to a fair trial, and that it would create a festering sore. John Key reflected that concept just this week in addressing what he described as the weeping sore of the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act.

The Treaty Tribes Coalition—representing most of the North Island iwi, the Taranaki Māori Trust Board, and Ngāi Tahu—laid a complaint with the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, stating that the act of confiscating the foreshore extinguished Māori rights. The committee upheld the complaint, confirming that the legislation and the extinguishment were indeed racially discriminatory.

So many acts of brave opposition and courageous protest have led to this day. No one can erase the memory of 40,000 New Zealanders marching on this Parliament calling all of us to account. But there are other unique events. Hauraki kaumātua Toko Rēnata Te Taniwha returned his Queen’s Service Medal as a protest against the Government’s handling of the issue. The Rātana movement made its first ever submission to Parliament, arguing that the foreshore and seabed legislation contributed to the legislative erosion of the Treaty. Some 3,946 submissions were presented to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee; 94 percent of them opposed the legislation.

Will peace be retained? The Māori Party campaigned to repeal the 2004 Act, and to restore due access to justice. On both counts, we have done well. But that does not mean the fight is over. Māori have the right to seek customary foreshore and seabed title, which would bring benefits similar to freehold title rights, including commercial development rights, and veto over other developments. Iwi and hapū are now able to claim customary title through the High Court or negotiations with the Crown. There is now an opportunity for universal recognition, mana tuku iho. That is significant. The Crown acknowledges the mana of iwi and hapū as enduring and inalienable. A line in the sand has been drawn. The 2004 Act will go down as appalling law.

Our rights to justice have been restored, but there is still much to watch over in the drafting of the legislation to ensure it expresses the Treaty relationship. We must see hapū rights protected alongside those of iwi. The legislation must set out the nature of the development, occupation, and usage rights that Māori will enjoy—the actual rights. We will be actively putting up the case for those whose relationships with the foreshore were affected by raupatu, fraudulent land transactions, or other breaches of the Treaty by the Crown to be recognised. Māori did not march just to repeal this discriminatory legislation; Māori marched for justice. We as the Māori Party will continue to do all that we can to ensure that justice is done.

This is my first opportunity to speak in the House since I was given the role of Labour’s spokesperson on the environment. I would like to begin my contribution by thanking and acknowledging all those members from across the House, and of course in my own party, who have been good enough to congratulate me on that new responsibility. I am looking forward to working in the portfolio.

When I spoke on the Budget in the last week Parliament sat before the adjournment, I said that it failed to mention the environment once, and that is a major omission. I also said that the Budget was a dangerous gamble, because it contains revenue assumptions that will not survive any further worsening of international economic conditions. But there is another major problem with the Budget, and with the economic policies that accompany it. Those policies mean that for fixed, low, and middle-income earners, everyday Kiwis, day-to-day living costs will rise steeply.

The National Government knows this, because it has tried to hide it by saying that no New Zealanders will be left worse off than they were before the Budget. But on this side of the House we can see through that, because once we do the maths, taking into account price rises, interest rate rises like the official cash rate rise yesterday, accident compensation levy rises, the emissions trading scheme’s effect on power and petrol price rises, and the GST increase, all at a time of nil wage growth, it is obvious that the very people who need and deserve help will not get it from this Government.

The Budget is not fair. Despite all the rhetoric, it is a Budget that simply caters to the few. It harms our many hard-working families. Let us look at where most of the money is going. Fully a third of the value of the tax cuts will go to the top 5 percent of the population in New Zealand, and fully 15 percent of the value of those tax cuts will go to the top 1 percent of income earners. How will the National Government fund that? It is doing two things, and they are both unfair and unwise.

First, it is borrowing to fund these tax cuts. There will be an extra $50 million of debt for all New Zealanders, just to give a big boost to the very best-off. That is just not sensible, and it is not fair to saddle ordinary, hard-working people with millions of dollars of debt to reward just an elite few. Borrowing to fund tax cuts is at best stupid, but when they are as inequitable as these tax cuts, it is also immoral. The Government knows this, because in the Minister’s Executive Summary in the Budget documents is found the following quote: “it would be irresponsible to saddle the next generation with further debt to pay for tax cuts now.”—even though that is exactly what the resulting legislation does.

The Budget is also unfair because the Government claims on the one hand not to leave anyone worse off, whereas in reality it has just hidden the many extra costs with which it will burden the majority of New Zealanders. The Budget will disadvantage those already struggling, and reward those who need the least help. Let us take the example of an average male worker who earns $50,000 a year. The Budget claims at face value that this worker will receive an extra $29 a week, leaving him $16 better off each week when the extra $13 a week in GST is taken into account. But in claiming that, the Government has ignored some very obvious factors—pointed out by Treasury—in order to create an illusion. The Government knows that this worker will not be better off. It knows that it is making him, and the many other workers like him, worse off.

There has been no taking into account the estimated 6 percent inflation that the country will face in the coming year—and that is not something that slips the mind too easily. If it has been omitted, it is safe to say that that omission is intentional. The reason the National Government has failed to take inflation into account in the information given to ordinary Kiwis, is that this would expose how an average worker would end up losing $19 a week, thanks to higher inflationary prices. That is just not fair. If we take into account increased accident compensation levies, costs to the worker if he has a student loan outstanding, early childhood education cost increases, higher power prices, and higher taxes on things like rent and tobacco, our average worker could, in reality, end up $30 a week worse off than he was before the Budget. And the worker will be getting worse off still, because as we saw last year we are in times of relatively low or nil real wage growth. I cannot for the life of me see what is fair or good about that.

The Budget and the propaganda surrounding it have been deceptive. I say this because the Government knows that what it is doing is wrong, and because it knows that taking from the many to give to the few cannot be morally justified. It is a Budget of broken promises, and it is one on which the Government will be judged.

What a terrible time it is at the moment for the Labour Party. Its caucus is divided and bleeding; we are seeing that in the public arena at the moment. Just this week Labour reshuffled a few familiar faces, and no doubt there will be more of those members standing in the House this afternoon to speak in the general debate. Labour still cannot reconnect with New Zealanders, and we are seeing that in Labour leader Phil Goff’s poor poll rating, which is static at around 6 percent. Mr Goff started last year with an apology to the Labour caucus for the way Labour lost touch when in Government. Then the “Axe the Tax” bus arrived. It came through my electorate. It stopped in Levin, and about six people met the bus there. Now we do not know where Labour stands on the GST increase because Phil Goff is saying that Labour is not sure whether it will repeal GST. But one thing is for sure: we know that tax will be going up if Labour ever gets on to the Treasury benches again.

We had the race speech from Phil Goff, and he still could not reconnect. It divided Labour’s caucus even more, and now we hear that Labour is against economic growth and our discussion document to do with mining. Labour is conflicted on this because it does not want to see New Zealanders be more prosperous and wealthier. Labour is conflicted because its members know that the Labour Party was founded on the West Coast, and West Coasters are very pro mining. No one is listening to Labour, because in essence it has no policy.

This great Budget was read by the Minister of Finance about 27 days ago, and it was particularly well received up and down the country. There is a real focus on infrastructure. We can think about what this Government will do with infrastructure. There will be seven roads of national significance up and down the country and around our major cities, where there are points of congestion. In my particular area, there is a proposal to have an expressway from Wellington Airport through to Levin, costing about $2.2 billion. There is an $11 billion programme for these seven roads of national significance up and down the country. It will lift productivity, boost growth, and reduce congestion. It will make those roads a lot safer. Lo and behold, Labour members are now out distancing themselves from the expressway through my electorate. They are saying that if they are ever lucky enough to get on to these Treasury benches, they will try to stop the expressway. I cannot believe that they will try to stop Transmission Gully, which is part of the expressway. Labour will be on the hustings in my electorate saying that it is against Transmission Gully. We know that in the 9 years Labour was in Government, it did very little. It wanted to leave it up to the regional leaders and the mayors to try to fund the deficit on Transmission Gully. Finally a Government has had the guts to come and say that we are going to build Transmission Gully. We will improve the productivity into our capital city.

That is not all we are doing. We are reforming the Resource Management Act. We are setting up an Environmental Protection Authority that will speed up consents. People will still be able to have their say, but we are trying to reduce red tape. We are investing significantly in rail, as well—$1.6 billion—to modernise and extend the network into Auckland with new stations and electrification. We will put $250 million into Wellington passenger rail for new Matangi trains, electrification, and double tracking right up into Waikanae, which is fantastic. There will be an investment of $250 million for the KiwiRail Turnaround Plan to make sure that KiwiRail is sustainable going forward. When one thinks about what the previous Labour Government did with its transport focus, which was purely political, one sees that it invested close to $1 billion in KiwiRail. Just before the election, lo and behold, an evaluation came out stating that KiwiRail was worth $400 million. That is a deficit of $600 million under the previous Labour Government for rail.

This Government is focusing on unclogging the arteries and getting our productive sector moving. The other important thing we are doing with infrastructure is the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband, at $1.5 billion. This fantastic 2010 Budget was well received by New Zealanders with the utmost pride.

I do not know about unclogging arteries, but I am sure we all had to unclog our ears after Mr Guy’s contribution. He talked about the importance of connecting with New Zealanders, and certainly on this side of the House we are connecting with New Zealanders every day who are concerned about the increase in the cost of living. We are connecting with New Zealanders every day who are seeing their power prices rise, and their rents and their rates going up. We are connecting with New Zealanders who are struggling with increased accident compensation charges. We are connecting with New Zealanders who know that this Budget will not deliver to them a better life. This Budget will not deliver to them a fairer New Zealand.

This Budget is a tax swindle. This Budget is taking away from the many to give to the few. It is quite clear that the National Government is prepared to borrow for tax cuts; well, that is fine. But if we are going to borrow money, should we not be borrowing it to invest in our future? What could be more important to our future than early childhood education?

💬 Paul Quinn: You made this speech yesterday!

I will make this point everywhere in New Zealand if the costs of early childhood education are going up. Mr Quinn does not think that is important. I challenge Mr Quinn to go to any early childhood education centre in New Zealand and face up to the fact that the priority for his Government is tax cuts for the wealthy, instead of quality early childhood education. That is the choice this National Government has made. It has prioritised tax cuts for the wealthy over quality accessible early childhood education. Every member on that side of the House needs to go to early childhood education centres around the country and face up to the parents and to the families who will now be paying $50 a week more in bills, and that is on top of GST. If a person in Wellington who is on a low income tries to take a bus into town, he or she will find that there is a 50c increase in the cost. There is GST on everything, such as power bills. I received my power bill in my letterbox the other day, along with a letter from my power company, which said that my power bill will be going up. Well, I have been lucky enough to get a tax cut. What about the people who have not been so lucky? That letter tells everyone in Wellington the reason for the increase; it is the Government. The letter actually said that it is the Government that is the cause of the increase. The Government is the cause of the increase in the cost of living because it has produced an unfair Budget.

I cannot finish my contribution today without referring to Mr Finlayson’s words earlier on about the arts community. Mr Finlayson has clearly been looking in the mirror rather a lot for his feedback, when it comes to the arts community. Every person I meet in the arts community knows that in the 1990s it was the National Government that undid all of the work in the arts and we needed a cultural recovery package. Every single person in the arts community knows what Helen Clark did for arts in New Zealand. If I can paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen from a vice-presidential debate, I say to Mr Finlayson that I know Helen Clark and he is no Helen Clark.

The Labour Party believes in a balanced economy. We believe in the importance of investing in jobs, investing in sustainable jobs, and investing in high-tech jobs. We believe in making sure that there is a future for all New Zealanders. We know that we will succeed in keeping New Zealanders in this country only if we invest in jobs. This is not about tax cuts. If we want people to stay in New Zealand and not go to Australia, it is about improving wages. It is about making sure that we invest in skills and in training, and in developing our economy so that it is sustainable for the future. That is how we will be able to deliver good, proper, social programmes. It will not come from a short-term approach that is driven by tax cuts for the few and price rises for the many. That is what we are seeing in this country. We are seeing time and time again from National an erosion of democracy, a taking away of people’s rights in Auckland and in Canterbury at the same time as the Government is not focused on the issues that matter for New Zealand.

Members on that side of the House are focused on making personal attacks, such as the personal attacks from Mr Finlayson. I say to Mr Finlayson that that is not how to connect with New Zealanders. Connecting with New Zealanders is having the realisation that that member’s Government is putting up the cost of living for every single hard-working family in New Zealand. Mr Finlayson might not care about power prices going up by a few dollars and he might not care about early childhood education cuts, but he needs to know that real New Zealanders care. Real New Zealanders know that his Government is making sure that their lives are getting harder, and we will challenge this Government every day in this House on that.

I will start by commenting on what the previous speaker, Grant Robertson, said. Mr Robertson said that Labour is connecting with New Zealanders. I ask Mr Robertson why, if Labour is connecting with New Zealanders, Phil Goff is on 6 percent in the polls and John Key is on 70 percent. If Labour is connecting with New Zealanders, I ask why Mr Chris Carter is being chased by the media down the stairs of Parliament House. If Labour is connecting with New Zealanders, I ask why the Labour Party is engaging in a rebranding competition to call itself funky, retro, and sober. The truth is that the Labour Party is not connecting with New Zealanders; it is National that is focused on policy and on delivering for areas like Auckland.

I will touch on some of the key policies that we are delivering, particularly in the area of Auckland. If we fast forward 20 to 40 years, we will see that the role of the Government is not only to deliver to the people now but also to deliver to the New Zealanders who will come after us. We must ensure that Auckland has a quality of life that makes it not only the fifth-best city in the world but also, one day, the best city in the world. That is why I am very proud to stand here and be confident that we have delivered a system of local government in Auckland that will enable us to finally deliver the infrastructure it needs. We recently passed legislation that delivers a system of local governance that will enable us to compete successfully with Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane for both people and investment. There is a very good Queen song that reminds me of our reform in local government—and I know that Mr Speaker likes to sing:

One dream, one soul, one prize, one goal

One golden glance of what should be

It’s a kind of magic

The waiting seems eternity

The day will dawn of sanity

It’s a kind of magic.

One place, one council, one mayor, one plan—finally, for Auckland, it’s a kind of magic. Opposition members were all over the place in terms of their position, but history will show that one regional entity will finally deliver positive change in Auckland.

With over 2 million people expected to be living in Auckland by 2050, we need to make sure that we have the housing to support them. I will touch on the rotting homes situation that we have in Auckland. The previous Labour Government failed to deliver for many New Zealanders who have suffered through having rotting homes. I am very proud that I can tell members that in the Auckland City area over 2,000 people will possibly be eligible to have their houses finally fixed. We are very proud of that as a Government. We are also delivering in transport for Auckland, with over $2.8 billion going into Auckland transport. I know that Mr Twyford is smiling there on the back row because he knows how much money we are spending in Auckland in terms of transport. That transport is reflected in local projects like the Victoria Park tunnel in central Auckland. It is reflected in the huge amount of money that we are spending on rail, including over $500 million for rail electrification and $500 million for electric trains.

We are also investing in people, which is reflected in tax cuts. Members opposite have said today that we are not investing in some of our most disadvantaged people. Labour members say that our policies are for the rich. Well, I can tell members that, within my electorate, I am confident that nearly 19,000 people who are on incomes between $14,000 and $48,000 are getting a tax cut under our Government, from 21 percent to 17.5 percent. That is not about delivering for the rich; those people need that cash to get through in these times. Under National, we are connecting with New Zealanders. We are delivering on policies for areas like Auckland, and those policies are transformational in terms of Auckland’s local governance. They are fixing historical problems like the leaky homes issue. People’s houses have been rotting for a very long time, but that issue was ignored under the previous Labour Government. We are delivering in terms of infrastructure spending on transport, and we are delivering to ensure that New Zealanders have a fairer tax system. I am very proud that we are delivering for areas like Auckland to ensure that people there have a better quality of life. This Government is connecting with New Zealanders, and that is why we are doing so well. I am proud to be part of a National Government.

I rise to draw the attention of the House to the quite extraordinary breakthrough that came out of the review conference at the International Criminal Court in Kampala last Saturday. At that conference the States parties agreed, against all expectations, to adopt aggression as a justiciable crime in international law. There are many caveats entered into the agreement and there is a considerable time delay before it becomes justiciable, but the fact that agreement has been reached on this most critical of all issues of international law is nothing short of remarkable. I believe that it will come to be seen as the most important advance in international peace and security since 1945, when the United Nations Charter was adopted.

The meeting agreed that aggression would become a crime under the Rome Statute once a decision has been made by a two-thirds majority of the 111 States parties. This decision will be made only after January 2017, but if 7 years ahead seems far away, we would do well to recall that work towards making aggression a crime has been ongoing since 1920—exactly 90 years ago. In that historical light, 7 years is a fleeting period. The definition of the crime and its associated elements have been agreed on, and the most intractable issue of all, the relationship between the court and the UN Security Council, has been sorted. In short, the council may determine an act of aggression, as it is empowered to do under the Charter, and refer such a case to the court for investigation and possible prosecution. This will apply to any country, whether or not it is a member of the court. Even in the event that the Security Council does not make such a determination, the International Criminal Court prosecutor may investigate a case of aggression, provided a pre-trial chamber gives the green light. In such a case, however, he may proceed only against those countries that are members of the court and that have accepted the jurisdiction of the court over the crime. Notwithstanding these shortcomings, the fact that agreement was reached on aggression is little short of astounding. We can now foresee the day when aggression will become a crime in international law.

This House will recall the member’s bill that I submitted last year: the International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill. My bill was debated in August and September and it was voted down on its first reading, although not by a large majority—only 64 to 58. It could have become law. The aim of that bill as described at the time was to put into domestic law a provision that would have had the same effect in New Zealand as the emerging international law now in the International Criminal Court will have. It would have criminalised in New Zealand law aggression by a New Zealand leader if he or she illegally committed our armed forces overseas.

The Government’s opposition to that bill rested on the complaint that it would have rendered this country’s foreign policy subject to a Security Council veto, preventing New Zealand forces from collaborating with others in a humanitarian intervention of the Kosovo type. That reasoning was simply wrong. The responsibility to protect doctrine, as was made clear by the UN Secretary-General in his seminal report of 2004, is always subject to a Security Council veto. As we predicted last September, the day has come when the New Zealand Government will be obliged to fall into line and agree with the notion of aggression becoming a crime. The fact that it is adopted by the International Criminal Court does not absolve New Zealand of responsibility to make aggression a crime in domestic law. Indeed, it will not only be obliged to implement aggression as a crime in our domestic law; it will acknowledge that our domestic courts are expected to prosecute in the first instance before such a matter is referred to the international court in the Hague. So when the time comes for the Government to implement the international agreement making aggression a crime, it will effectively be doing what it was invited to do last year and found disingenuous reasons for not proceeding. I wish the Government well in assisting the court to hasten the day when this occurs.

I will begin by wishing my daughter Isabel a happy 10th birthday. I also congratulate the All Whites. I do not think that this has been mentioned in the House today, but I offer my congratulations to the All Whites for the magnificent result in Rustenburg early this morning. Like a huge number of other New Zealanders, I watched the game with a sense of pride at their gutsy performance. Late in the game, at 1 nil down, I was thinking that it was a pretty good effort against one of the comparative giants of world football, and then I was dancing around the room, like probably half of New Zealand in bars and lounges all around the country, when young Winston Reid hit the equaliser. So, I say well done to the All Whites and good luck for their future pool games.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Give them a knighthood!

Now there is an idea. Maybe a gong is in the offing. If they lift the trophy it will definitely come.

I think the performance of the All Whites is something of a metaphor for my Government’s aspirations for this country. It is a team that is not flush with resources or talent compared with the sometimes massive wealth that some of the countries it is playing against have. The combined salaries of the Italian team probably match the gross national product of a small Pacific nation. But are the All Whites envious? Do they accept defeat before they even go out on to the field? They are not and they do not. They do not even consider that they are punching above their weight. They firmly believe that they have earned their right to be on that stage, and good on them. They are an inspiration to us all. I think that the economic well-being of New Zealand is pretty similar. We are not flush with wealth or resources, but the Government is not prepared to accept that this is as good as it gets. It has asked New Zealanders to tighten their belts, and they are not on their own in that respect.

The Government also has to control costs while improving services. I do not think there is a better example of that than in the health sector to show what is possible when we clearly set out expectations and empower clinical staff to make the changes needed and to deliver those improvements. The results have been amazing: 12,000 more elective surgeries, shorter waits in emergency departments, and faster access to cancer services. The Minister of Health and I were at Dunedin Hospital last week and we heard from the clinical services leader of radiology, Dr Ben Wilson. He described how his department was able to reduce waiting times for non-urgent CT scans from 57 weeks to just 9 weeks. There had been no huge investment in resources and no great wailing and gnashing of teeth, just a careful look at the process and how productivity could be improved—and one that involved the staff in the process. We were at Dunedin Hospital so that the Minister could give neonatologists, paediatricians, nurses, and mental health staff the news that they have waited years and years to get—that is, that this Government understood the need to upgrade and expand the neonatal intensive care unit and upgrade the children’s ward and the in-patient mental health ward.

I have been working hard on that issue on behalf of the people of Otago since coming into Parliament. It was out of personal experience from having my daughter in the neonatal intensive care unit for a few days after she was born. Thankfully she is well now and thriving, but those few days there gave me an insight into the fantastic work those staff do, and the incredibly cramped and difficult conditions they have had to put up with. The need was identified a long, long time ago. I had surgery as a child and stayed in the ward that is now the acute psych ward, and that was over 30 years ago. It appears that not a single thing has been done to that building in all that time. So I am delighted that the merits of that project have finally been understood by my Government and that it was prepared to invest in Dunedin’s future.

There is a quid pro quo to that, and those financial challenges at the Southern District Health Board are certainly very real. But if Dr Wilson and the radiology department are anything to go by, it is possible to do a lot more with a little more. I think that is the challenge that should be laid down for all of the public sector. Despite Ms Dyson’s rantings about cuts, what she says simply is not true. Vote Health has gone up in a recession. New Zealand’s total Government spending has gone up, which is in marked contrast to what is happening in the public sector around the world. In Ireland there have been 15 percent pay cuts. In Spain there has been a 5 percent pay cut. Billions need to be cut from the National Health Service budget. I cannot say it any better than that great doyenne of democracy, Margaret Thatcher, when she said that the trouble with socialism is that sooner or later one runs out of other people’s money. Frankly, I cannot say it any better than that.

We know that National is in trouble when it starts quoting Margaret Thatcher in defence of democracy. The Budget was a swindle. It showed that New Zealanders were conned at the last election into voting for a Government that had no intention at all of delivering on the promises it had made to people. John Key, Bill English, and all the National Party people went up and down the country and said to people: “You can have these big fat tax cuts. We will not cut any public spending, we will not increase borrowing, and everything will stay the same. We will not sell any State assets.”, and they did not intend to keep any of those promises. National has delivered tax cuts that it has then taken away again through increases in GST and in the cost of living. New Zealanders are worse off.

National has increased borrowing and it is cutting public services, and, of course, it is lining up State assets and the family silverware for a fire sale. We know that that is coming next. National members just cannot get the terminology right. Bill English is just itching to hock off Kiwibank and New Zealand Post, but John Key knows that that does not poll well. He is saying: “Bill, you are spoiling my photo opportunities. Don’t keep talking about the plan to sell everything. You are spoiling it all for me. Just wait until after the next election.” John Key does not want to be Prime Minister for all that long anyway; he will then hand it over to Bill English and he can hock everything off. But they will not get as far as that, because New Zealanders are wising up to the fact that this Government does not mean what it says. It is all about smiling and waving for the cameras without putting any thought into what it is actually doing, which is massively increasing the cost of living for all New Zealanders.

New Zealanders are financially worse off under this National Government. What are the people in my electorate facing? The old people in Rimutaka face increases in costs for home help. Home-help hours have been slashed under this National Government.

I will talk about health care in particular and the impacts of National’s health cuts. I know that Tony Ryall calls them changes, but let us be clear about what Tony Ryall means by changes—he means cuts. National’s cuts to health care in my electorate in particular will impact on a health care provider called Piki Te Ora. It is a low-cost health provider in Pōmare, one of the lower socio-economic areas in my electorate. It has had $300,000 cut from its budget for the next year—$300,000 has been cut from its budget.

That primary health organisation is in the poorest community in the Hutt Valley, and, what is more, it spends all its money on front-line health services. Tony Ryall’s administration has cut $300,000 from a front-line health service in the poorest part of my electorate. I think that is absolutely disgraceful. I guess that is what Tony Ryall meant by saying that he was focusing on the front line. He was going to focus on the front line with his razor and they were the people he was going to cut. He knows that they do not vote for National anyway, so he does not care about them.

Tony Ryall is quite willing to put the boot into the people who rely on that health service, but we will all pay. We will all pay for those cuts to health services because when those people cannot afford to go to the doctor, they will get sick and will have more serious, long-term illnesses, and we will all pay. We will pay because there will be more queues at accident and emergency clinics because people could not afford to go to the doctor. We will all pay when they end up in a hospital ward with more serious health conditions because they could not afford to go to the doctor. Tony Ryall, the man who promised to focus on front-line health services, has taken $300,000 out of the health service in my electorate.

What else is National doing to the people in my electorate? There will be no night classes in the entire Hutt Valley this year. They are well and truly gone. They are gone altogether. There is no after-hours health service left anywhere in the Hutt Valley under this National Government, which promised to focus on the front line. People in the Hutt Valley had better hope that they get sick only during working hours, because there is now no after-hours health clinic anywhere in the Hutt Valley.

People in my electorate work in the Public Service. Thousands of jobs have been cut from the Public Service. Despite the fact that the National Government said that it would not make any cuts to the Public Service, thousands of jobs have gone, and the people in my electorate suffer as a result of that.

Elderly people are suffering, the working people are suffering, and the children are suffering. Thousands and thousands of young children in my electorate are suffering because of the cuts that the National Government has made to early childhood education. It is a disgrace.

I am proud to be part of a Government that, despite members on the other side of the House being so aggravated about this, is delivering on its promises. I will talk specifically about delivering on our promises in relation to infrastructure. I will not talk about Budget 2010 providing $177 million for new school property, and I will not talk about the $69.3 million that has gone into providing more prison beds. Instead, I will talk about the infrastructure spending that is creating jobs in my electorate—yes, it is creating jobs in the Taupō electorate—through energy generation, transmission lines, and roads.

I will start by talking about the geothermal power stations in Taupō. They are absolutely taking off. The recent one that was launched by the Prime Minister was the Nga Awa Purua geothermal power station, which is a great project. It is a joint iwi project with a $430 million budget. It is a joint-venture partnership with the Tauhara North No. 2 Trust. For the benefit of the technical people out there, it has the largest single-shaft geothermal turbine in the world. More important, it will provide electricity for 140,000 homes. When I talk to people in Taupō about what that means for their community, they tell me it is about the number of people who have been gainfully employed in the construction of infrastructure. But that is not all. Mighty River Power has started work on its Nga Tamariki geothermal project, and on 1 July Contact Energy is opening the Te Mihi geothermal power station.

Of course, once we have generated electricity, we need to get it to the homes that need it. That is why there has been a significant investment in transmission lines. If we look at two of the projects in my electorate alone—part of $3.3 billion worth of spending on the grid upgrade—we see that the Wairakei Ring will be completed by 2013 at a cost of $98 million, and the North Island grid upgrade, involving 186 kilometres of lines, will be completed by 2012 at a cost of $824 million.

Infrastructure is very important in keeping jobs in my electorate. Let me look at roads. The National Government has identified roads of national significance, because we recognise that it is important to get this country moving. We believe in building for the recovery. I want to use the example of the Waikato Expressway and, in my electorate, the Cambridge Bypass. That road has been talked about since the 1960s, but finally, under this Government, we have a commitment to build it, construct it, and finish it within 10 years. We will give it money, unlike others in the House, and it will occur. It is 11 kilometres long. The East Taupo Arterial highway is estimated to have had direct employees, in the construction phase, of over 200. That has cushioned the effects of the recession. It is creating jobs, which are vital in our economy. I am very, very confident that the infrastructure projects up and down New Zealand will provide us with a brighter future. Let us look again at the East Taupo Arterial highway. It is 16 kilometres long, including a very complex engineering feat over the Waikato River and over a Contact Energy power station. If members are ever in the district, they must look at this project.

These infrastructure projects are really important. Whether they are in electricity generation and transmission, roads, rail, prisons, hospitals, or schools, we are building them. Those members opposite sit there and they are all very quiet now, because they realise that we are actually delivering on our promises. We are building infrastructure, we are creating jobs, and, more important, this John Key-led Government is building the economic recovery.

I would like to wish happy birthday to Isabella Woodhouse as well; my two turn 10 next week.

We have a responsibility as members of Parliament to talk about the things that make an impact on people’s lives, and to try to make a difference to them for the better. I genuinely believe that most members here have a set of beliefs and standards that have brought them here, and that they are here to make a difference. It is how to make the difference that sets us apart, not the motivations nor the characters of members of Parliament. Right now, despite what people might read or see in the media, the important things are the cost of living and people making ends meet; whether families have jobs they can depend on that will be here in the short term; and whether the income people have, from jobs or from superannuation, will be enough to pay their everyday bills, let alone the unexpected ones. If they are unemployed, it is that they can also make ends meet and have the opportunity to get a job. It is getting through the winter and being able to pay their electricity bills and having a decent house to live in that keeps them warm and dry.

I have been having a lot of conversations recently with people in my electorate about the recent Budget and what impact it will have on their lives. I have been scratching my head at the so-called polls that support it, because I have not found anyone who thinks he or she will be better off. For instance, I had a discussion a couple a weeks ago with a woman in her 30s in my electorate in Dunedin who runs her own beautician business. Her husband is a self-employed builder and they have two little kids in early childhood education 3 days a week. They have calculated that their tax cut will be easily absorbed by rising prices through GST. GST price hikes will hurt them, not only personally but also in their businesses. They are both worried about having to increase the GST on prices in their businesses, and they know that it will not be popular with clients.

But one of their biggest worries is what will happen to the cost of childcare for their children. The woman I spoke to said she has only recently returned to work, and that that was necessary because of the need for two incomes to pay the mortgage. She is very happy with the early childhood education her kids are receiving and she knows that if childcare prices go up or if the centre cannot afford to offer 20 hours’ free early childhood education, then she will have to give up her job. She feels she is between a rock and a hard place, and she does not know what the Government is trying to achieve. She asked me: “Do they want me to stay at home and not work? Do they not agree with early childhood education or are they trying to keep families like us from getting ahead? Do they want us to end up having to sell our home because we can’t afford to pay it off? Why are they giving us a tax cut when we are being slugged in so many other ways by rising costs? Will my mortgage interest rate go up next year, as well as inflation rates rise?”. Those are all really good questions. She knows that inflation of nearly 6 percent will destroy most of the tax cuts. People will not be compensated for the GST rise.

Where are all these people who are going to be better off? In the last few days in Dunedin we heard that Contact Energy will raise its electricity prices by almost 10 percent next month. I do not know how many members on the other side of the House have heard the term “fuel poverty”, but it is a recognised term for people whose fuel bills—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s very cold in Dunedin.

—that is right; it is very cold in Dunedin at the moment. It is a recognised term for people whose fuel bills are more than 10 percent of their income. In New Zealand, a conservative estimate is that 14 percent of households, and possibly more people, are living in fuel poverty because they cannot afford to heat their houses. During winter in Dunedin South, my electorate, electricity bills are commonly $200 a month for the poorest people and up to $400 a month for many families, which is unsustainable. A 10 percent increase is ridiculous in the current environment.

Let me tell members what Gerry Brownlee’s response was to Contact Energy’s announcement. He said: “Shop around. Change power companies.” What a great response by the Government! It is even more interesting given that just a couple of weeks ago John Key actually admitted that National’s version of the emissions trading scheme would add 5 percent to household power bills. I got a letter from Contact Energy a few days ago, telling me about pending price rises that might impact some of my constituents.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.