General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. As New Zealanders, we like to think that our country is the best place in the world to bring up children. We call New Zealand God’s own. We say things like: “The future of New Zealand is with our children.”, “Our children are our greatest assets.”, “Every child deserves a decent standard of living.”, “Every child should have the ability to reach their full potential.”, and “We value our children, and children matter.” How many times have we heard those words spoken in this House? I believe that all those statements are true, and I doubt that any member in the House does not believe they are true. But are they true for every child in this country? That is the question that we should be asking ourselves in this House.

Today we heard the compassionate and soft face of National! We heard Judith Collins answer a question about child poverty and she made it very clear National has no interest in what happens to children in this country. She has no interest in working across this House, in line with the request of Every Child Counts that parties in this House work together for the good of children. The organisation made that request in all sincerity to this House. Whom does Every Child Counts represent? It represents the major organisations in New Zealand that look after, and care for, children and families, from Barnardos and Plunket to kindergartens, iwi organisations, whānau organisations, and so on.

Every Child Counts is a major organisation, and it has pleaded with this House for us to form a cross-party group to work for the benefit of children. In good faith I took its request to the Prime Minister of this country, 1 year ago. He turned it down. I have that letter here and I will seek leave to table it later on. He turned it down and said he was not interested. He was not interested, and I have waited 1 year to see what this Government would do in terms of children in this country. I waited to see whether it would put children first and whether children would become a major focus of this Government’s expenditure and policy development.

Have we heard about children? As the Child Poverty Action Group said, children have become invisible in New Zealand. They are invisible to this Government. The Government will say it has done so much for children. It had an advertising campaign to stop parents from shaking babies. It has done so much for children that it finds it hard to write it on a postage stamp!

Well, the truth is New Zealand is not doing well for our children; we are not doing as well as comparable countries. We sit at the bottom third of the OECD rankings in terms of most child indicators. Many of our children in this country are left behind. Their early life experiences are harmful and ongoing. Many Māori and Pasifika children have poorer life chances than other children of the same age.

Contrary to Mrs Collins’ statements in this House, the Labour Government did make some progress on child poverty in this country. We made it with positive actions like Working for Families, which took 132,000 families out of poverty in this country. We brought in affordable primary health care to reduce the cost of going to the doctor. We restored income-related rents and introduced 20 free hours of early childhood education. And we reduced the number on the unemployment benefit to 22,000, compared with the 65,000 we have now, and that number is growing.

But I have to say that is not enough. As far as Labour is concerned, there is unfinished business when it comes to child poverty in this country. We ask the Government whether it will do something about it. It has had 2 years to address child poverty. We heard today that it will not make a commitment to reducing child poverty in this country. I need to tell those members opposite who sit on the front bench and make out that they care about children that child poverty in this country is growing yet again. The numbers are going up right now and they will continue to go up, as long as the Government continues to follow its current policies. I recently read Plunket’s annual report in which it stated: “You need to invest in the first 3 years of life.”

My challenge for the deputy leader of the Labour Party is to explain how petty regulations, passed by her Government, would help child poverty. How would banning products like Cuddly somehow help the children of New Zealand? The real issues facing our country are how we make living more affordable for families and how we secure jobs for New Zealand. I say to members opposite that one of the positive things we can do is to repeal some of the stupid regulations that were passed by the previous Labour Government. I knew that Labour had passed laws to ban types of light bulbs. I knew it had passed regulations to tell New Zealanders what size showerheads they were allowed to use. I knew it had passed laws that said people could not do DIY work on their own houses. Never in my wildest dreams did I expect that products like Surf, Persil, and Mr Muscle—to mention Rodney Hide; or Toilet Duck, to represent Mr Mallard; or Cuddly, to represent Parekura Horomia—would be banned. Never in my wildest dreams did I think Labour would be so stupid as to ban those sorts of products.

Members are chuckling. Let me just remind them of the real impact of those sorts of stupid policies. I am advised that that regulation would add $20 million a year—$20 million a year—to household grocery bills. How dare members opposite get up in this House and shed crocodile tears about the cost of living when they passed such silly regulations. It is even more serious than that. You see, the sort of regulation that would add those sorts of costs would put hundreds of New Zealanders out of work. No other country in the world has those regulations. How is the Unilever plant in Lower Hutt, which produces products like Surf and Persil, able to be internationally competitive with the sorts of stupid regulations that members opposite put into our law books? I ask Trevor Mallard, who is defending those rules, why he cares so little about those 330 jobs.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Drink it, Smith.

I think that interjection states the difference between members of the Government and members of the Opposition. They somehow believe in their nanny State minds that we have to regulate absolutely every element of life to protect children. I have checked with the poison centre and I have checked with Safekids, the advocacy group—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Drink it now.

The pathetic interjection from Mr Mallard is for me to drink it. Is he saying that every single product on the supermarket shelves that might cause people harm has to have some special child-resistant packaging? That is what he is saying and that is what he put in the law books.

I say that common-sense New Zealanders know that that is a nonsense. They know that they do not do it in Australia. They know that they do not do it in the US. They know that they do not do it in the European Union. It is a classic example of the petty, nanny State regulations that drive New Zealanders mad. Nor does it make any environmental sense at all, as 30 million extra plastic bottles would go into the system each year—30 million extra plastic bottles—if we followed the regulations that Mr Mallard sat over. It is the issue that separates the common sense on this side of the House with the nanny State regulators who would push up the costs and who would put New Zealanders out of work while they run this country mad with red tape. Thankfully, this Government has the common sense to deregulate that sort of nonsense and apply a little common sense to the business of Government.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not rise to my feet during the middle of that speech out of courtesy to the Minister, but throughout that speech and especially towards the end of it the former Minister across the House, the Hon Trevor Mallard, was shouting out repeatedly: “Liar, liar, liar.” It is unacceptable in this House, and I expect the Hon Trevor Mallard to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I do not think that I need to hear further on the matter. In fact, he was not interjecting that. I was listening very carefully. I was not so happy with his interjections, but he was disputing what the Minister was saying. He definitely did not call the Minister a liar; he did not use the word “liar”. I listened very carefully to the interjections. But it is not helpful to the good order of the House to use that kind of language when interjecting. Neither is it to the good order of the House to use a member’s last name, which the member was also interjecting further with. I ask members to be a bit more reasonable. Had the member interjected what Chris Tremain suggested, then I would definitely ask the member to withdraw and apologise, but he did not actually say that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are right in part, but at the end of that speech Trevor Mallard called out: “He’s a liar.” When Chris Tremain was making his point, Annette King nodded her head. I certainly heard Trevor Mallard say that the Minister is a liar. I think you should ask Trevor Mallard whether that is what he said.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If members have taken objection, I will ask the honourable member. I did not hear him say that. I heard him say “It’s a lie, what the Minister is saying.”, but I did not hear him call the Minister a liar. I say to the honourable member—

I did.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I ask—

No, before you do, I say that the Standing Orders are very clear that members are required to take points of order on these matters at the time they occur, and no member did.

💬 Hon Rodney Hide: Speaking to the point of order—

No, I do not need further help on this. Members do not want to disrupt speeches, but that is no excuse. If the member actually called the Minister a liar—I did not hear it—I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I withdraw and apologise.

I thank the honourable member.

I seek leave to table a letter from the New Zealand Food and Grocery Council to me and the Minister for Regulatory Reform, Rodney Hide, dated 15 February, entitled “Regulatory tsunami warning”.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the next speaker, I apologise to the honourable member Chris Tremain for my not having heard the matter he objected to and doubting his point of order. I apologise to him.

I rise to address the issue of climate change and this Government’s failure to develop adequate national policy to combat it.

Climate change has slipped below the threshold of daily media focus, and that is the way that this Government seems to want it. The failure at Copenhagen to tackle the global threat head on has sent the international community into a state of collective catatonia. We see this in the lack of leadership from the UN, in the actions of national Governments around the world, and in the attitude of much of the public around the world.

The problem we have is that nature is not disposed to wait for humanity to iron itself out morally and get its political act together. The poor countries rail against us for historical responsibility and insufficient reduction targets. The rich countries fear the projected population growth among the poor and insist that they enter binding commitments before we sign on to medium-term cuts.

Humanity probably faces only two global threats: immolation through nuclear conflict, or suffocation through global warming. The first is the product of traditional enmity; the enemy was the other tribe or the other nation. Climate change is the product of a new enemy: us. We try to cut nuclear arsenals by changing the enemy’s behaviour; we are required to cut carbon emissions by changing our own behaviour. It is no surprise that we are not succeeding. Most Governments lack the political courage to convey the magnitude of the climate change threat to their peoples, and they lack the political insight to prescribe the required global and national policies that are necessary.

Before, during, and since Copenhagen the threat of serious unpredictable climate change has grown. Our scientists do not know when non-linear change might occur, but they warn that tipping points exist. If the precautionary principle is to mean anything, we must all move with speedy purpose and resolve. Translated politically, that means we must act not as an international community of States, but as a global community of peoples who are represented by Governments. If the difference seems vanishingly small, then we do well to act on it none the less, lest our prospects of survival prove to be the same.

Our professional negotiators are rearranging the deckchairs contemplating whether we shall have one or two legal agreements, and whether it will be next year, or 3 or 10 years from now. Our political leaders dampen our expectations with appeals to realism. We all suffer from cognitive dissonance. Every so often we see the magnitude and imminence of the threat, but it is simply too frightening to accept individually and politically, so we basically return to business and government as usual.

As the Minister made clear recently in question time, the state of play is the Copenhagen Accord, with voluntary commitments to national cuts. These are demonstrably inadequate to the science-based judgment of what is required to avert failure, but we pretend that it is a useful start to greater things. We are told that global emissions must peak within about 7 years, and we know that the accord is way, way short of achieving that, so we mumble about bigger cuts later and avoid looking into our children’s eyes.

Let us address some facts. To achieve a 2 degrees Celsius threshold, we must reduce our global carbon budget from 50 gigatonnes today to 36 by 2020, and to seven by 2050. The rich countries must cut from about 40 today to 11 by 2020 and to one by 2050. That is correct: we in the rich world must emit only one gigatonne in 2050, out of the seven emitted by the world that year. It is called contraction and convergence, and it is the only way humanity will successfully deal with climate change. That is when our moral and political standards merge at the global level. After 10 millennia, especially the past two centuries, it is the moment of truth.

For our part, New Zealand has to agree through treaty or by voluntary declaration in advance to cut our national emissions proportionately. That means we must cut from 78 million tonnes today to 56 million tonnes in 2020, down to 1.6 million in 2050. That is the scale of the challenge before New Zealand. It is as well that we face up to it now, not when it is too late.

I appreciate this opportunity to address the House. It would be fair to say that the National Government team, the MP team and certainly the team in Cabinet, are very, very positive about the progress that we have made in the last 2 years, while going through a very, very difficult time. In the area of my portfolio I could not be happier with the way that Housing New Zealand Corporation has managed its work during this recession. There has been more pressure on the State house waiting list and on the stock than we have seen for a couple of decades. Why? Because during the worldwide recession many, many families have come under pressure, either because of the loss of jobs or because of reduced hours being worked. Because of the difficulties in a worldwide recession, families have had to close their cheque books, and their ability to spend on simple items such as rent, mortgages, and those types of things has become quite difficult. During that time Housing New Zealand Corporation has managed to maintain the waiting list at a level that has been typical of the last decade. We have not seen the waiting list shoot up by 3,000 or anything like that; it has tended to oscillate at around the 10,000 mark.

I have to commend the corporation, because it has done this through a variety of means. One, of course, is the Options and Advice Service, which the National Government introduced. When people rock up to Housing New Zealand Corporation and say they need a State home, instead of the corporation writing down their names and putting them on the waiting list it now takes them through some options. One option is to remain where they are. The corporation asks whether it can help them to remain where they are, and outlines subsidies like the accommodation supplement. Another option is private rental—the possibility that they could rent privately. The corporation outlines subsidies for them to do that.

Another option, of course, is homeownership. Here is a good one; this will fascinate members. In the last 18 months about 400 people have walked into Housing New Zealand Corporation—so that members do not misunderstand this, I say thousands of people have walked into Housing New Zealand Corporation, but they have included 400 people in particular who would, under the previous Labour Government, have been put on the waiting list. Can members guess what those people did after talking to the Options and Advice Service? Members will not believe this: they went to buy a home. The previous Government would have put them on the waiting list. They got some advice, turned round on their heels, went out, and it was their intention to buy a home. The Labour Government would have put them on the waiting list. It is unbelievable. All that Housing New Zealand Corporation did was to ask them whether they were sure that they wanted to go on the waiting list. Those people asked whether there were other options, and the corporation said yes, there were options like staying where they were, and the corporation would help them; renting privately; renting with another community housing provider; or even buying a home. They said: “Oh, we could buy a home?”. We said that if they wanted to do that, we could even help them to do so.

The previous Labour Government would have told those people to go on the waiting list. They loved it for people like them to become welfare beneficiaries, because then they would become dependent on the great Labour Party and vote for it for the rest of their lives. Well, here is a crack-up: 400 people turned on their heels and decided that rather than going into a State house, they preferred to go and buy a home. Many of them, I understand, have pursued that.

For the very same reason we believe that it is worthwhile to look at the almost 70,000 houses that we now have under the corporation’s management, and to ask whether we are always housing the people who are most in need—because the answer is no. The reality is that when we have a couple in Māngere at this very moment who have a four-bedroom home, and who originally had one adult child and two dependent children—so that is five people in a four-bedroom house—but who now live alone with three spare bedrooms, those tenants could be matched to a one or two-bedroom home. We have another single mother with three children boarding with relatives in a garage in Māngere, and they should be in the home that has three spare bedrooms. That is why we are not ashamed to make this conversation public and have a debate on the issue.

It is evident that the Government is starting to worry, because time after time in the House today every question was about what Labour is doing. Time after time in the House today every member on the Government side talked only about what Labour has done or is doing, not about what they are doing. They are worried about the messages that are not resonating out there with the public.

We can take Nick Smith, for example; his whole contribution was just about child-resistant caps on bottles. We cannot buy Listerine today without a child-resistant cap; we cannot buy Janola today without a child-resistant cap. It is not about packaging, per se; it is about ensuring that our kids are safe from some of the harshest household substances in our homes. Usually, those substances are in the bottom cupboard under the sink by the washing machine, or under the kitchen sink. Labour wanted to ensure that everyday families could keep their kids safe by having child-resistant caps on those substances. Anything more than that is pure fabrication by the Minister for the Environment, and should be left as that.

We know that when we put children at the centre of our thinking, it is about making the types of changes that can make a real difference in everyday homes to Kiwis around New Zealand. We know that New Zealanders are excited about the message that our deputy leader gave to the annual conference. She said that we will unreservedly ensure that children are at the centre of our policy framework. More important, children will be at the centre of the actions that we will take in moving forward if we should be elected in the 2012 election.

We build on a foundation that has really supported children: affordable general practitioner visits, free health care for under-sixes, and affordable health care visits where, when mum takes baby to the doctor, she pays $10 or nothing for her child. That is set to change under National, and families are worried about that. We know that families who are on fixed and low incomes have actually had a better deal under Labour with income-related rentals, but that is set to change under National. Working for Families has helped low and modest income families who are partly working and want to get ahead. That scheme has helped but is probably set to be changed under National. The 20 free hours’ early childhood education policy was brought in by Labour, and that is set to change under National—but there will be more about that later.

Most important, certainly for the families that I represent, during the time that Labour was in Government Māori unemployment dropped from 19 percent to 6 percent. We believe in work for families. Jobs were there, and our families were working. But I ask Minister Collins where the jobs are now. She got up in the House today and said the best type of support for families is work, but where are the jobs? She could not answer that question. Minister Heatley got up in the House and said all those things that are happening in State houses, but we know that out in our communities there are not enough State houses in some areas. In Thames, for example, they tell us that there are not enough State houses, and families there have to go on to market-related rentals. The average cost of a three-bedroom home is $280 to $320 a week, and those houses have a holiday clause. Those families have to get out in December, and they can possibly go back in about February, because those private landlords will get more from renting out their homes in that way, so they will just let the tenants go. They do not care whether those tenants have a home.

Key things are happening out in our communities under this Government that will put children at risk. But we know that we have to invest in the early years. We understand that more and more Kiwi families are making the decision to come home and bring up their children, because they want to bring up their children in New Zealand, but they are not supported by the current changes that this type of Government is making.

I visited He Taonga te Mokopuna, which is a teen parent unit. Labour was very proud of supporting young people who found themselves pregnant at a young age, and who wanted to continue in education. We knew that supporting them to continue their education would make a real difference. We introduced a young parent allowance that would help them, helping their children to be at a childcare centre while the young parents learnt. We are starting to see young parents actually graduate from tertiary education with the support of the types of policies that Labour brought in. But all of that is set to change under National, and those members are harping on about things that make very little difference.

I think that that member Nanaia Mahuta has forgotten, with all of those policies that she talked about, that Labour was thrown out of office in 2008, so I do not know where the fresh thinking is coming from.

The National-led Government has so many initiatives to talk about that I am spoilt for choice. I thought that I would pick one that is really exciting: I welcome members to 128C Preston Road, Ōtara; the most stunning three-bedroom, first-home buyers’ dream home. I wish that when I was looking for my first home this stunning three-bedroom home had been available. Last Friday it was such a pleasure for me, Dr Cam Calder, and Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi to support two of our hard-working, innovative Ministers, the Hon Maurice Williamson and the Hon Phil Heatley.

Under this National-led Government, we do not impose things in passing laws. Dr Nick Smith demonstrated the ridiculousness of rules that were always imposed by Labour. Labour always thinks that it knows best for New Zealanders; that is why it was turfed out in 2008. For a difference, look at this stunning sitting room in this three-bedroom home, which cost only $168,000 to build. That was the result of the National-led Government’s initiative called the Simple House Acceptable Solution.

The Department of Building and Housing put the initiative together to ensure that people who want to build their first home can look at the requirements, get the instructions about structural strength and durability, and know what should be done to satisfy those requirements, for a finish that will reflect the requirement for durability and flexibility to meet changes. All those requirements are contained in this first-home package. Guess what? The best thing is that for a very long time people complained about waiting for months, if not years, for building consents, but this initiative reduces the consent process to days. We are talking about days, not weeks.

The day when we were at the house, we were standing at the beautiful courtyard and looking into that three-bedroom home, which is now so affordable for the first-home buyer. It can be built by anybody, anywhere in New Zealand. It can be built on any land, in any style. All they have to do is satisfy this very simple initiative, called the Simple House Acceptable Solution. That is the style of National. We want to make homes that can be built faster and be more affordable. More than that, we want to make homes that are stunning and that have flexibility. Future so-called cheap housing is actually a dream for anybody. This house alone—I am sure Dr Cam Calder, who was there with me last Friday, would agree—will transform people’s images of cheap housing.

I think that lots of people now will rush in. Wait until next summer, when this house will be up for auction. Some very lucky couple will be able to say: “Wow, that’s the type of Government that I can support, because it turns young people’s dream homes into a reality.” Anybody would be proud to own this home, to bring up their children and enjoy barbecues, which are coming up in summertime. Think about what this is doing to the Ōtara suburb. I am so proud of Ōtara and Manukau because this is the type of contemporary thinking they need.

That was the Minister of Women’s Affairs, who did not once mention this Government’s track record on women’s affairs. Is it any wonder? The Government has gone backwards so fast on women’s issues that she could not even clock it. The way a Government spends its money shows its priorities, even in recessionary times. That is why it is shameful that the largest cut has been to early childhood education. That cut shows that the Government does not care about this nation’s children. It showed us as much when Nick Smith, at question time, gloated about taking away child-resistant caps so that young children may not be safe. They will be able to get into the laundry detergent in the wash houses of the very houses that Pansy Wong just spoke about.

The public is starting to ask what this Government has against children. They have noticed that when the funding cuts came, they hit the very youngest, most vulnerable children in our community, who are those aged under 5. It was the cuts to early childhood education that showed what a low priority children are to this National Government. That is despite what all the research says. All the research tells us that it is early childhood education, in the years from birth to 6 that really makes the difference to life outcomes from there on in. That is where the investment should go. Even the Prime Minister’s own science adviser, Sir Peter Gluckman, told the Prime Minister this. That is where the investment should go, but the Prime Minister has allowed funding cuts to early childhood education in the years from birth to 6 years of age. That shows a lack of priority for children.

Then the Government set up a task force. After making funding cuts, the Minister decided to overhaul the whole early childhood education sector. I can tell members that I have just been to a conference this very morning, here in Wellington, and the early childhood education sector is up in arms. It was not consulted at all about the review, it had no say over the membership of the review, and it is very concerned that there does not appear to be anyone on the review panel who has any experience of working in early childhood education, at all. It is chaired by one Michael Mintrom. I am very worried about what I read about Mr Mintrom. He does not come from the early childhood education sector so we do not know a great deal about him. In the year 2000 he wrote a book called Policy Entrepreneurs and School Choice. The premise of that book is “Understanding how policy ideas catch on, even when their workability remains in doubt.” What does that tell us about where this task force is headed? “Understanding how policy ideas catch on, even when their workability remains in doubt.”, is the type of comment that causes the sector grave concern over what this task force may well come out with. It represents yet another broken promise from National.

I do not know whether members opposite have recently dug out the National Party’s policy on early childhood education at the last election. Almost every promise in that document has been broken already. The first thing National promised was that it would enhance 20 hours’ early childhood education by keeping the existing subsidies and fee controls. Yet Anne Tolley told us just yesterday that she has scrapped two of the subsidies that supported 20 hours’ free early childhood education. She admitted that yesterday in Parliament. That promise has been broken. Then National went on to say that it would reduce staff ratios. That is what it promised going into the last election, but because of Anne Tolley’s and John Key’s funding cuts to early childhood education, staff are being sacked from that sector. That means that children are in environments that have fewer adults and fewer staff who are involved in early childhood education. That reduces quality and reduces staff ratios. It is yet another National Party broken election promise on early childhood education.

Families are feeling very betrayed. They believed National when it said that it would leave early childhood education alone. It clearly has not done that. National has broken its promises to those families because it does not prioritise children. I was shocked, because another broken promise from National—and I was in the room—was when Every Child Counts asked for a cross-parliamentary group to support children.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Huri noa i tō tātou Whare. I am delighted to stand and speak about how the National-led Government’s aspirational programme is having effect and being embraced by the good people of the Mana electorate. I am determined to bring an even stronger voice for the Mana electorate in the John Key Government, and I am absolutely determined to sound out the full story of the Mana electorate.

We have had access to Ministers, which is one of the features of being in Government. I have been able to have Dr Nick Smith, for instance, visit the Mana electorate and celebrate the memorandum of understanding that has been drawn up by the Porirua City Council, the Greater Wellington Regional Council, and 12 other agencies, all of whom are committed to restoring the water quality of the Porirua Harbour and the Pāuatahanui inlet. This work anticipates the report of the Land and Water Forum, and Dr Smith was absolutely delighted to see the forward-thinking leadership of the people who are in local government in the Mana electorate.

The Minister of Housing, the Hon Phil Heatley, has visited Mana. It was an opportunity for him to see and focus on the work and challenges that lie ahead of us because of the considerable deferred maintenance from the time of the previous Government, and it shows the importance that we have placed on, for instance, the makeover of Hampshire Street in Porirua East and the refurbishment of Flora Street.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Has the member ever been there?

The member has indeed been there, more times than that member has had breakfast. He has seen the Flora Street refurbishment. He has announced the opening of the Gateway Housing programme, in collaboration with Habitat for Humanity, on Beauzami Crescent, which is in Waitangirua, I say for that member’s edification.

Yesterday the Minister of Police, Judith Collins, visited. We took the unprecedented opportunity of thanking the volunteers in the community police bases, which have flourished under this National-led Government. We visited the community police base in Tītahi Bay, we went to Cannons Creek, and we went across to Whitby and down to Mana. It was a veritable Cook’s tour of the Mana electorate, where every day volunteers commit some time to looking after their community—reflecting our Government’s focus and emphasis on community safety—and where police are part of the community. That was clearly shown to us.

Let me tell members that the Kapiti-Mana policing area has the lowest crime rate in the Wellington region. This is contrary to the stereotypes that those more negative commentators wish to perpetuate, so much so that I will just tell the House a true story. A community constable was late getting to the meeting yesterday afternoon, because in the course of his duties he had been chasing an escaped criminal. Having caught the criminal and taken him down the Porirua police station, he found that the criminal had a record of over 160 convictions. The constable asked him what he was doing there, because he was not a usual resident of the Porirua area. His reply, which was absolutely reflective of the Porirua area, was: “I have moved to Porirua because it is safer.” That was from a felon with a conviction sheet of over 160 convictions. He moved to Porirua because it is safer there.

During the course of the past few weeks, I also had the opportunity to have the Prime Minister visit, from Raumati in the north—for those members who are not familiar with the Mana electorate—to Linden in the south. Throughout the course of these visits he had people coming up to him, saying what a wonderful economic management programme this Government has in place, whether it is Lembas Café in Raumati South, which won a Wellington on a Plate title, or whether—[Interruption] Members opposite may wish to deride this, but I am speaking about real people, rather than about the theory of invective that usually flows from the other side of the House. Whether it is Trudy at the wonderful Cafe Vella in Plimmerton, or Belinda at the equally fabulous Peppermill Delicatessen in central Porirua, all of these women in business—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: The people in Cannons Creek go to cafes all the time, don’t they?

HEKIA PARATA:—are backing themselves, I say to Mr Lees-Galloway, because they are enthused and encouraged by this Government’s programme.

I had the opportunity on Sunday to visit some friends and relatives, and to talk with Kris Fa’afoi and church leaders in Cannons Creek. I am surprised by what the previous speaker, Hekia Parata, just said, because after meeting church leaders and families, I can say to this House with much confidence that many working families there are suffering under this Government. Many families there are suffering under the tax switch; many working families there are suffering because of the lack of jobs, and the lack of having a plan, at all, by this Government.

The majority of those who are hurting under this Government and its particular policies are the children of Mana. It is the desire of every family that I met in Mana on Sunday to have the best for their children. They want the best opportunities in education and in health, and I have no doubt that that dream is shared by people up and down this country—our children are the future leaders of this nation. But I have said to those families that under this National Government we will have to fight for that dream if we want it to come true.

The next Labour Government, under Phil Goff and Annette King, will put children at the centre of policy in health, education, housing, and social development. We have to put children at the centre of those policies if we are to achieve the dream for our children and for future generations. But as I said to the people of Mana, with their help we have to fight for it if we want to achieve it. We will not achieve it under this Government, so we have to fight for it if we want children to be the centre of our education policy. We have to fight for it if we want our children to be strong and healthy in the future. New Zealanders have to fight for it, because under this Government we will never achieve any of these dreams or aspirations.

The last time the Nats were in Government, in 1990 to 1999 under Jim Bolger and Jenny Shipley, the period was marked by industrial unrest and by the widening divide of inequality. The children of that period suffered under the same failed economic right-wing policies that this Government is now bringing up again. Wages were driven down and unemployment reached unprecedented highs during that particular period.

Labour in its last term in Government worked extremely hard to ensure that we regained some of the losses suffered under that National Government. Working for Families helped to reduce child poverty. We had affordable primary health care so that our children who had been unhealthy under that previous National Government could access a doctor and go to the hospital when that was required. Labour restored income-related rents. Under that National Government, people were kicked out of their homes and the housing stock was left unsupported. Labour introduced 20-hours’ free early childhood education and we reduced unemployment. But all the gain that was made in 9 years we have lost in only 2 years under John Key’s National Government. We have lost it, and the inequality gap continues to widen.

Industrial unrest is what we saw at Labour weekend. Unemployment is increasing, and the children of our ordinary families up and down the country continue to suffer under this Government. This is not a family-friendly Government; it is not a child-friendly Government. Under this Government, failed right-wing economic policies are widening the gap, so we are losing. Our families, the people of Mana, and the people up and down this country will have to fight if we are going to regain ground and put children at the centre of policies.

If we want to achieve the dreams of our children, our future leaders, we will have to fight to get a Labour Government in office. I know that the people of Mana will bring Kris Fa’afoi back as their MP, because they will fight for it.

I heard only a few weeks ago from one of New Zealand’s leading children’s organisations that the former, failed Labour Government, under its Working for Families policy, failed thousands of New Zealand children.

But there is good news. Health is better, sooner, and more convenient. We notched up yet another success last Friday with the opening of Waiuku Health Plus, a primary integrated medical health centre, by the Minister of Health and me in the excellent Hunua electorate, which is, by chance, the very electorate that I am privileged to represent. It is yet another sign of the significant gains to health services under the National Government. Firstly, I congratulate Dr Mark Eustace, his wife, Jo, the many medical staff and other colleagues, and the developer. They were prepared to put in their own personal capital, take risks, and develop one of the finest integrated centres I have seen anywhere in the world. It will be the lifeline of this rural community for many, many years to come. The facilities include doctors’ surgeries, specialist facilities, physiotherapists, pharmacy facilities, even a hypnotherapist, and much, much more. This is a magnificently designed building that will serve the primary-care needs of that rural community, and it will be replicated throughout the country over the years to come.

The point I want to make is that this was done with a sympathetic district health board in a climate in which the public health system and the Minister of Health collaborated with the private system, unlike a phenomenon I recall from some years ago when Helen Clark, the then Labour Prime Minister, refused to turn up to the opening of the futuristic and excellent Ascot Integrated Hospital, because she said she did not believe in a private health system. What a dreadful indictment!

It is no coincidence that the Waiuku doctors had wanted to carry out a public-private partnership on the site of the old Franklin Memorial Hospital 5, 6, or 7 years ago. But at that time, under the climate of a Labour Government, they were literally obstructed. There was nothing they could do. Instead, they took the initiative into their own hands. They were prepared to take the risks and they have built this very forward-looking, excellent community facility that will serve the community for so long. The National Government will encourage this exercising of choice for the people of New Zealand.

The recent passage of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill was historic in that all submitters agreed to it, as did all parties—even the Labour Party. This means that New Zealand health services will be not be subject to the electoral swings that have occurred vastly over the last 20 or 30 years. An insightful National Government has brought in well-crafted legislation, and that legislation ensures that we run an efficient, effective health service in which every health dollar counts, which is something that the former Minister of Health the Hon Annette King failed to do in the health system, which was reflected by the Labour Government’s doubling the amount of money spent for no extra services.

The other thing that the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill will do is ensure that back-office bureaucracy is minimised and the resources moved to the front line, which is something that will be more and more prevalent under this excellent National Government.

For the past 15 years New Zealand has been slipping slowly—some people would say, not so slowly—into economic difficulty; some might even say that it is headed towards chaos. This has happened over the past 15 years because both Labour and National have been prepared to compromise any principles they claim to have. We have seen a preparedness to write a cheque for whatever demands the latest focus-group puts out there. The worst case of this was probably at the 2005 election when Labour was re-elected, probably thanks to interest-free student loans. That did the trick. This year it is putting up the idea that it would take GST off some items of food. That is why New Zealand is in economic difficulty. I must say that it is not helped by a National Government that says: “These things are sacred. We will not touch the interest-free student loans.”, even when it knows it is madness; “We will not look at the age of retirement of 65.”, when it knows that the big issue that will confront New Zealand over the next 10 or 20 years is the clash between young and old, as the young start to say that they are either leaving this country, or they are not prepared to pay for the benefits at the current level. The National Government will not touch Working for Families and it will not even look at the issue of privatisation, even if it means higher productivity.

The fact is that we as a nation are borrowing $250 million a week, or $13 billion a year. For a family of four, we are borrowing about $240 a week. We have had a situation where over the last 11 years this country has increased Government expenditure out of all proportion to what is reasonable. We have seen a situation whereby Government spending per person under Labour increased over 9 years by $5,500 in real terms, and in 2 years under National it has increased by $1,500 in real terms. Government spending has increased by $7,000 per person in real terms, or by $525 a week for a family of four.

We might well ask what we as a nation get for that increased spending of $7,000 per person, or $525 a week for a family of four. Do all children receive a decent education as a result of this massive increase in public spending? No. Do most people retire with enough money to live in comfort in this country? No. Does everyone receive health treatment when they need it? We have increased public expenditure by $7,000 per person, or by $525 a week for a family of four. Do they get health treatment when they need it? No. Have we eradicated poverty? No. On the very goals that the welfare State has sought to achieve, no one in this country can genuinely argue that we have succeeded. Even the modern-day proponents of the welfare State, be it National, Labour, the Greens, or the Māori Party know deep down that it has failed. But they think they have the solution, that all we need to do is increase spending; but increasing Government spending by $7,000 per person in real terms over 11 years has not done it—maybe $10,000 will! The fact is that National and Labour should apologise to the people of this country. They do not really care. The only thing they care about is re-election.

What a privilege it is to be a small part in the John Key - led National Government. To some extent, I go along with some of the things that the previous speaker, Sir Roger Douglas, has said, because he is right. Actually, the National Government does have a $13 billion deficit this year.

We are borrowing $256 million a week, I think, to keep things going and to ensure entitlements, and does it not just show the lie in Labour politics when those members come into this House and talk about all the cuts and the cutbacks? We are keeping things going. We are a centrist Government, which is doing the right things at the right moments in this country’s economy. [Interruption] Many people say such very rude things about Trevor Mallard, but I do not mind him. I saw an uncommon act of humanity when Sir Roger Douglas tipped over his glass of water—Trevor Mallard went over and did something about it. I like that; that is the sort of thing I expect a National MP to do, but it was very good of him to do that.

I will talk about the tax cuts, because I have not had the chance in this House since 1 October to talk about them, and now we know that they are bedded in. The remarkable thing—again, something that shows the lie in Labour politics—is how well the tax cuts have worked. Despite all the scaremongering by Labour, I am not getting emails any more from people complaining about GST, because they are seeing the very real impact the tax cuts are having across the board for them. People are seeing the money in their pockets. They are feeling it. They are very, very happy about the tax cuts.

I am not an economist; I am the first to admit that. But I know that when we have $2 billion in GST rises and we have $4 billion going out in tax cuts across the board, that means that 73 percent of Kiwis have a top marginal tax rate of 17.5 percent. That has to be good, not just for fat cats but for all Kiwis on all incomes. We have done a very good thing there.

In electorates like Tauranga, Ōtaki, and Hutt South, which Trevor Mallard represents, where there are significant populations of elderly people, the news is best for them. Over the last couple of years an average married couple on superannuation, with a home, has had $100 extra. They have had an additional $40 in compensation with the tax cuts, so they are substantially better off.

One does not need to be an economist to know that there is more cash in people’s pockets as a result of what National has done. One does not need to be an economist to know that with inflation at 1.5 percent, things are going pretty well in terms of prices staying where they are. After-tax wages are much higher than they have been in the last 5 or 6 years, I think, under Labour, and Labour members do not like it. There has been real after-tax wage growth. It is not miracle stuff.

Slowly but surely we are putting things in place. We are putting the incentives in place. We have lowered taxes. We are increasing the infrastructure spend, with all the efficiency that that brings. We are bringing better, smarter public services, moving things to the front line. We are reforming the regulations. We are bringing in education and skills in a way that Trevor Mallard, frankly—I know he tried his best—could not do. We are encouraging business innovation and trade in this country. I repeat what I said when I started: it really is a privilege to be part of this National-led Government—

💬 Stuart Nash: You said “a small part”.

Yes, a small part—small in stature—but, nevertheless, I am privileged to have a part in this Government, led by John Key, as we do a lot of good in this country.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.