General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I begin by acknowledging the tragedy in Japan in the last week. The fact that our friends in Japan have had an earthquake, a tsunami, and a nuclear threat is one of those tragedies that many of us thought was not even an option when we had our own tragedy on 22 February this year. Despite this terrible time we know that the thoughts of the people of New Zealand and the world are with the people of Japan as they go through this terrible situation. It was bad enough having the earthquake, but then came the tsunami. We saw on various news reports images of houses and people who had been swept away by the tsunami—everything was just swept away in its path—but now they have this nuclear threat.

When we had our own tragedy on 22 February, Japan was one of the first countries to offer us assistance, and I can remember on 24 February, on the Thursday after the earthquake, seeing the Japanese urban search and rescue team coming down to the CTV building to help go through the rubble to see whether they could find anybody alive. I spoke with one of the doctors who were with the urban search and rescue team from Japan. Extraordinarily professional people were in that team, and they worked really hard, and they have now had to go back to Japan to respond to their own tragedy.

The aftershock on 22 February brought out the very best in our people, and I think that is something that we can be very proud of. It has also brought out the very best in our Christchurch-based members of Parliament across the House who, I note in the Press today, are still holding clinics and trying to do the best that they can to help their constituents. On a non-partisan basis I congratulate them on keeping on doing the job that they are paid to do and we expect them to do.

I would also like to make a comment about the fund-raising in New Zealand. Never has an Aucklander seen so many pro-Canterbury people and really dyed-in-the-wool Cantabrians as we have over this matter. We have had fund-raising from one end of the country to the other. We have had fund-raising all over the world by people who have been sending us help.

When I look at some of the very best of our people, I think back to 24 February when I met a young constable. He had been with the New Zealand Police for 6 months and his job was to take me around some of the places where there were dead people and where all sorts of work was going on. He had 6 months’ experience and I asked him how his house was. He said it was destroyed. It had gone back to the swamp. The area had been drained but it had gone back to a swamp. His house was covered in liquefaction and debris. He had a wife and young baby, and he said: “But we’re all right.”, so I asked him why he was all right. He told me that his wife had made good friends at Plunket and one of them had taken his family in. Rather than being home, or looking after his own property or his own family, he was at work—where we would expect him to be because he is a professional and he is one of our finest.

As we went around the central area of Christchurch in a marked police car, we were stopped by various people. They came to ask him for help. Some people asked him for water, so he popped the boot of the car and out came some water bottles for the people. We were asked for petrol, and he let them know where he thought the next open petrol station was. When we were at the chambers in Christchurch, where all the civil defence people were working, he was approached by a young girl who wanted an asthma inhaler. Her asthma inhaler was on the fifth floor of an apartment building down the road, and it was far too unsafe for her to go in there. He went off to look, and then he went and let her know where to find an asthma inhaler. I looked at that young man—members know how it is; we get a bit older and all policemen start to look so young—and I realised that nobody was asking the people in suits; they were asking the police officers. I would like to congratulate them on the most excellent work they have done through this terrible time. I thank all of our emergency services, our urban search and rescue people, and everybody else. They have done a marvellous job.

I begin by joining with the previous speaker, the Minister of Police, in acknowledging the suffering of the Japanese people following the 9.0 earthquake in Sendai, the devastating tsunami, and the current crisis with the nuclear facilities in Fukushima. A year ago today I was in Japan as a guest of Government in Tokyo and in the Yamaguchi prefecture, where my father had served in J-force to assist post-war reconstruction. I must say I feel, at a very personal level, the suffering of the Japanese people today. New Zealanders know what Japan is going through; Japan was with us in our suffering in Christchurch. We commend the decision of the Government to dispatch an urban search and rescue team to Japan to assist in their struggle.

All New Zealanders are still struggling with the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake, and Labour supports every effort to help them through that. We know that Government agencies, on behalf of all Kiwis, have played a remarkable and an honourable role in that relief effort. Beyond that, we have seen the best of New Zealanders over the last 3 weeks: the man who pumped the water out of his well on to the street so his neighbours could quench their thirst, neighbours helping neighbours, people providing food and services free of charge, relief centres, and search and rescue personnel. All of it proves that New Zealanders have a quiet strength in adversity and are prepared to do the hard yards to rebuild our city and our country.

Someone said to me that if we could only bottle that spirit of rebuilding Christchurch and use it to rebuild New Zealand, we would be better off. I join with that person in expressing that hope. But that is where it becomes difficult, unfortunately, because the reality is that even before the earthquake New Zealand was going backwards. Growth in the third quarter of last year was negative. Treasury and the Reserve Bank say that growth in the fourth quarter was zero or negative. Unemployment is at recent record levels and apparently rising again. Meantime, food prices and petrol prices are rising, and people have not had wage rises, or they got a puny 25c increase in the minimum wage.

All around the country, and not just in Christchurch, New Zealand families are in crisis. It is a crisis because they do not know how they will make ends meet. It is a crisis because they cannot put petrol in the car or food on the table. They face the devil’s choice between taking their kids to the doctor and putting the budget together for the groceries. At the same time, Government debt was blowing out and Government services were being compressed.

Why is all of that happening? The bottom line is that this Government does not have a strong, structural, and sustainable plan for turning the economy round. This is no time for petty point-scoring; I am not trying to do that. But I ask, on behalf of all New Zealanders, whether it is not time that we had a recovery and rebuild plan for our whole economy, as well as for the great city of Christchurch. If strong Government leadership is appropriate after a disaster, surely strong Government leadership is appropriate when our country is in the biggest economic crisis it has faced in decades.

The Government does not have a plan. Cutting more services from the Government simply puts more people out of work and undermines confidence. Failing to address the underlying imbalances in the property sector, in the savings gap, and in the investment gap simply means it takes longer to turn business round. When business lacks confidence because they do not know the plan, they cannot hire, and they are reluctant to invest. That means that people stay out of work and wages stay down.

As Wilkinson and Pickett in The Spirit Level pointed out, we are all in this together. When we share the gains and share the pain we are all better off than if we have a society of haves and have-nots, where a few at the top do better and better and most in the middle and the bottom do worse. It is not sufficient to rely on a relationship with a few well-placed mates—the Mark Weldons, the Rob Fyfes, the Fonterras, the Telecoms, and the MediaWorks of the world—to fill the gap, because it does not make the difference.

Firstly, I add my voice to the voices of others in the House who have acknowledged the tragedy that has struck Japan—that they have potentially lost more then 10,000 people in this disaster is absolutely horrific. It has been incredibly difficult to come to terms with the number of lives we have lost in Canterbury, but we simply cannot comprehend the pain we would feel had we lost anywhere near the number of people that Japan has lost. Our thoughts and prayers are certainly with them as they go through a rebuilding stage, as well.

Whilst the eyes of the world are quite rightly focused on the volatile situation in Japan, we continue to forge ahead with the recovery and rebuilding of Christchurch. I congratulate—with some disappointment, I have to say—Auckland on getting the Canterbury Rugby World Cup 2011 games. It has just been announced. This will be a disappointment and an emotional blow for rugby-mad Cantabrians—and I am one of them—but at least now we can move on and look at the big and bigger picture of rebuilding Christchurch and Canterbury.

No one is disputing that rebuilding Christchurch, and indeed Canterbury, will be a long road and a difficult task. It will be many months before the central business district will be safe and secure enough for construction to begin. At this point we simply do not know how long it will take to return the city to the buzzing, vibrant metropolis that it was prior to the September and February quakes. I had an interesting walk—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure whether one is meant to do this immediately or at the end of a speech, so I thought I had better do it immediately in case I missed the chance. If the Minister was speaking from an official document when she spoke in respect of the Rugby World Cup, I require that document to be tabled. If it is just her speech notes, then, of course, I cannot.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: As I recollect the Standing Orders, if the Minister is quoting from a document that is just referring to an issue, there is no requirement at all. I will refer to the Minister to make sure that I am not getting this wrong. Was the Minister quoting from an official document?

No, I am referring to a 3 News breaking announcement.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is in order. That sorts the matter out.

As I was saying, I had an interesting walk around the central business district on Sunday with the urban search and rescue engineer. Although the devastation is horrific, there are some positives. It is interesting to see how the earthquake has affected ordinary lives. There are daily tasks that Cantabrians can no longer do. There are basic tasks that they cannot do, but there are also other simple tasks, and they are asking where the dentist is, where the hairdresser is, and where the shop where they used to do their shopping is. Those simple things will take a long time to heal.

But there are some positives, and I want to dwell a wee bit on the positives. Without doubt, there were some buildings that, as the engineer, probably professionally, said, “misbehaved”, but some others actually withstood the shakes and held up. I think we have to take some strength from the fact that some of those buildings had been earthquake-strengthened, and it was pleasing to see that the strengthening did work. Some buildings look OK, but they are not. Some buildings look bad, but they are OK. What is also interesting is the random nature of the damage. It is, I think, very difficult to comprehend. What we do know is that there is not a single person in this country who is not behind the people of Canterbury, and as a Cantabrian I thank the nation for that. People know that a thriving and successful Canterbury is crucial to New Zealand’s future. Cantabrians know it, and they are determined to reclaim their lives and their city.

Each day there is a constant reminder of how amazing our communities in New Zealand are, how strong they are, how resilient they are, and how generous they are. There are simply not enough superlatives to describe how highly I regard the volunteers who worked tirelessly for days and weeks on end. Despite the overwhelming chaos they were faced with, they just got on with it one step at a time, and they have been truly remarkable.

The Government has a mammoth task ahead of it to provide all the possible support it can to the Canterbury region. I believe that Friday’s memorial is an important event for the region. Huge numbers of people have not stopped even once to reflect on what has happened. They have not been able to, not when they can see how much is still to be done. This is true not only for the general public but also for our policemen, firefighters, doctors, nurses, civil defence staff, and many others.

The focus of this year must be on planning the way forward for Christchurch and for Canterbury, but Friday is about taking a step back and stopping to recognise the huge emotional impact the earthquake has had on all of us. It will be tough, but I strongly believe it will help. I also commend the cooperation between the schools; their effort is superb.

I, too, join with other colleagues to express my thoughts and sympathies to the people of Japan, who are facing the aftermath of the earthquake, the tsunami, and now the nuclear fallout from the explosions at the power plants and the resulting radiation. It is a time when people across the world are looking to provide support to the people of Japan as they deal with a crisis that I fear will be playing out for many, many years. Obviously, all members in the House will provide our support to whatever New Zealand can do.

I will add also to other colleagues’ comments about our ongoing support for the people of Christchurch and Canterbury. It is indeed very sad to learn this afternoon that the Rugby World Cup games will not be played in Christchurch this year. Just to clarify some of Minister Wilkinson’s comments before, I think the quarter-final games will be going to Auckland, but the pool games that Christchurch was to host will be spread to other venues. I hope that venues in the South Island are considered for those pool games in terms of the overall economic benefit that will come from them.

I note that it is a real shame that the Government, which has quite clearly been aware of this decision for some time now, has not been as upfront with the people of Canterbury as it may well have been. I think the performance we saw in the House today from Mr Joyce did not reflect well on the Government in terms of being upfront with the people of Canterbury, who deserve, given everything that they have been through, for the Government to take that upfront approach with them. I think that stands as a shame in this House today.

I refer today to a report undertaken by Regional Public Health in Wellington called Food Costs for Families. This report was produced just after the GST increase last year. Essentially, the report goes through and talks about what percentage of a family’s income they need to spend to create a healthy diet for their family, using the Otago University’s Food Cost Survey as the basis. Essentially, the paper states that New Zealanders, on average, spend about 16 percent of their income on food. There is international research to say that if people are spending 25 percent or more of their disposable income on food they can be moving into food stress, which is experienced by everybody who is spending more than 30 percent of their income on food.

The survey shows that in Wellington a family with breadwinners on the minimum wage with two children will spend 34 percent of their income before rental payments, or 50 percent of their income after rental payments, on food. That puts them well above the international norms and well into the category of food stress. A beneficiary family with two children will be spending 52 percent of their income on food or 66 percent of their after-rent income in order to get a healthy diet. It goes up even more for a beneficiary family who is in private accommodation rather than in Housing New Zealand Corporation accommodation.

Those are the pressures on families out there today. Rising food costs and the rising impact of the increase on the rate of GST mean that these people are spending a far greater percentage of their income to get a healthy diet than they possibly can afford. The consequences of families not being able to provide healthy food at an affordable price are long term. They are long term for the individuals and the families concerned in terms of issues like obesity and poor nutrition, but they are also long term for the whole country. The economic and social costs of the outcomes for people with poor nutrition and poor health are enormous.

That is why this Government is being irresponsible and out of touch if it does not accept that people are facing enormous increases in their cost of living. The Government is out of touch when the Prime Minister says that it is a lifestyle choice to go to a food bank—it is not. The cost of living in this country and the cost of putting healthy food on the table is getting out of hand. Beneficiary families and families on the minimum wage—working families—are struggling to make ends meet. This Government is out of touch if it thinks that that is a lifestyle choice for those people. The cost of living is impacting right across the board. If I look only in the health sector I see that general practitioner fees are up 6.5 percent, and there are after-hours costs of over $100 for a child in Queenstown, $129 for an older child, and $139 for an adult. These kinds of costs are unacceptable. This Government is out of touch, and it needs to realise that the cost of living is going up.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, kia ora tātou katoa. Ko tāku noa ake, ko te whaiwhai haere i ngā kaikōrero i te ahiahi nei mō te aituā i tāwāhi, i Hapanihi, ka mutu, ka whai i tērā parekura nui i Ōtautahi, ka mutu, i Ahitereiria, nō reira koi nei te tangi o te ngākau mō te hunga kua ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi. Te āhua nei, koi nei wā tātou mahi i te rōanga o tēnei tau, he tangi ki wā tātou mate. Nō reira, waiho rātou kia moe, kia okioki.

I nanahi nei, hai te rā nei, āpōpō pea ko te take nui e kōrerohia ana i roto i te Whare Pāremata, ko te pire takutai moana hōu, anā, ko tērā kua whakairia e te Rōpū Nāhinara me te Pāti Māori ki mua i te aroaro o te motu. Kua tū ake ki te whakautu, ki te whakahē rānei i ētahi o ngā kōrero i kōrerohia inapō, nā runga i te hē rānei o ētahi o ngā kōrero i puta; me te kōre mārama rānei o ngā kōrero. Ko tā te rōpū e noho atu nei, te Rōpū ACT, e ai ki tāna, tētahi o ngā kaikōrero i reira, he tere rawa te akiakinga o tēnei pire i te Whare, ka mutu, e ai ki tā rātou, kua katia tēnei te kōrero i roto i te Whare Pāremata. Kai te kaha whakahē au i tērā kōrero. Kua whitu tau tēnei pire e kōrerohia ana, me kī, i hangaia kia eke ki tēnei o ngā taumata.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and greetings to us all. I join the speakers this afternoon to express my condolences in respect of the calamity overseas in Japan, following that huge disaster in Christchurch, and the one before that, in Australia. So the heart grieves here for those who cannot be seen again. It seems that this is all we are doing as this year unfolds, mourning our deaths. So leave them there to sleep and to rest.

The most important thing that was debated yesterday in the House, and is to continue today and tomorrow, perhaps, is the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill that National and the Māori Party have put before the nation. I rise to respond to or to rescind some of the comments that were made last night, because some were either made incorrectly or lacked clarity. According to one of the speakers of the ACT Party seated just along the way, this bill was rushed through the House. I strongly reject that assertion. This bill has been debated and in the making for 7 years to be where it is now.]

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is my understanding that this bill is the next order of business. I think this must be the classic case of anticipating a debate.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It is not fair to interrupt another member’s speech. The member knows that this is the general debate and members are at liberty to talk about almost anything they wish to. He is not anticipating a debate; he is choosing to speak in the general debate on a bill that is currently before the House. I am not aware that there is any Standing Order that forbids during the general debate any comments on other matters before the House. I stand corrected if I am wrong, but it is not my understanding—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I think you might be giving a correction soon.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well, we will see. In the meantime I will allow Te Ururoa Flavell to continue. If I am incorrect—and I will seek advice—I will apologise to the member.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker; whakahokia ngā meneti nei, whakahokia ki te tīmatanga. Hoi anō, kai te pai, kai te pai. Ka mutu, kia hoki rā anō ki taku kōrero—

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, rewind those minutes—take it back to the beginning. Never mind, it is fine, it is OK. Now let me go all the way back once again to my speech—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Kao, kao.

Kei te pai.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As long as the debate is extended we have no problem with it. I apologise to the member.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the member’s attempt to assist, but the member who is speaking has 3 minutes and 14 seconds remaining.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Pēnei tāku e kōrero nei, kua roa tēnei take e kōrerohia ana. E 5,975 ngā whakatakotoranga ā-tuhi i tae mai ki te Whare Pāremata. I haere te komiti ki te mata o te whenua, ki Kirikiriroa, ki Tāmaki-makau-rau, ki Whāngarei, ki Pōneke nei, ki Ōtautahi tonu. E ai ki tā Te Reo Motuhake o Te Tai Tokerau, 72 noa iho o taua kaute nō te Ao Māori, kotahi pai hēneti o ngā whakatakotoranga ā-tuhi nō te Ao Māori engari me pēnei rawa te whakamārama ake. E kaha ana te Pāti Māori ki te haere ki te mata o te whenua, kia toro atu te ringa ki te mata o te whenua, ki tēnā hāpori, i tae atu ki ngā huinga o te Kāhui Rangatira o te Motu, ka mutu, ko tae atu ki ngā hui e hia kē nei. Nō reira, koia tērā, ehara i te mea nō naia tonu nei tēnei take i puta mai i te kāpata, kāo.

Ka mutu, he aha ngā tino painga o roto i te pire? Kai te kōrerohia ā te ahiahi nei pea, āpōpō engari, ko tētahi mea kua puta, arā, ko tēnei, kua whai tēnei te tikanga i roto i ngā take ā-ture. He mea nui tērā ki a ngāi Māori tonu. Ka mutu, kua whai wāhi anō rā te kupu whānau i roto i ngā whiriwhiringa mō te pire, anā, kua whakawāteahia mai tēnei whakamārama mō te whānau, mō te iwi, mō te hapū i roto i te pire. Ko tēnei mea mō te manaakitanga, he take nui i roto i te Ao Māori. Kua eke tēnei mea te manaakitanga ki roto i tēnei o ngā pire. Āe, e tika ana. Ēhara i te mea i eke ō mātou wawata ki ngā taumata e tika ana. I kaha tohe mātou kia whakahokia ngā take nei ki roto i te Kōti Whenua Māori, māna tonu ngā take whakatau, ka mutu, e ai ki tā mātou kai reira ngā mātauranga hai wetewete i te hōhonutanga o ngā take ā-takutai moana ēngari, me te mea anō hoki he māmā noa iho te utu. He ngāwari ake te utu o te Kōti Whenua Māori, hoi anō, tua atu o tērā kāre mātou i tino toa i roto i tērā whiriwhiringa ēngari, kua whakaaetia mai e te Kāwanatanga, kua whakatahangia he pūtea hai āwhina i te hunga e hiahia ana ki te whakatakoto i tētahi kerēme ki mua i te aroaro o ngā kōti.

He nui ngā kōrero mō tēnei mea te muru whenua. Ko tā mātou ko te kī atu, ka tino kōkirihia tēnei take i tēnei pire, kia whakahokia te whenua Māori ki roto i ngā ringaringa o te iwi Māori. E kī ana ētahi, ko te “legalised confiscation” tētahi take e kōrerohia. Āe, ko tā mātou kī, me āta titiro ki tērā take. Ko tā mātou, ko te kī atu mēnā i murua te whenua i ngā tau kua hipa, ahakoa ā-ture, ā-public works, he aha rānei, e kore tērā e aukati i ngā huarahi katoa, kia hoki ngā iwi ki te kōti.

Ka mutu, me mihi ki a Te Aitanga-a-Hauiti, kua tae mai tētahi kōrero ki te kī, me anga whakamua, kaua e tatari. Kia ora tātou.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I alluded to before, this matter has been talked about for a long time. Five thousand nine hundred and seventy-five written submissions arrived at Parliament. The select committee travelled to Hamilton, Auckland, Whāngarei, Wellington, and Christchurch. The independent voice of Te Tai Tokerau has suggested that only 72 of that number were from the Māori people—just over 1 percent of the written submissions received; but let me explain it this way. The Māori Party, went hard out to visit the country, to extend the hand to that community and that, attended Iwi Leaders Forum conferences, and many, many meetings about the matter. So it is not as if this has just emerged from the cupboard—not at all.

What benefits are there in this bill? Perhaps these will be mentioned this afternoon or tomorrow, but one benefit is that Māori customary values and practices will permeate legislation—a matter of huge importance to all of Māoridom. The term “whānau” is incorporated throughout the bill, as are “hapū” and “iwi”. “Manaakitanga” is an important concept in Māoridom. It has been introduced in this bill, and rightly so. However, we were not successful in everything we advocated for. We argued strongly for cases relating to the foreshore to be taken to the Māori Land Court, arguing that the expertise to untangle complex and far-reaching issues is there. Moreover, the expenses involved in pursuing a claim at the Māori Land Court are considerably less. We did not win that one, but we did achieve confirmation that the Crown will provide funding for claimants.

There is much rhetoric about confiscation. We say that this bill advocates the return of Māori land to their people. Some say the issue in question here is “legalised confiscation”. Yes, we say that the issue must be addressed. To us, if land was confiscated years ago under legislation, be it for public works, or whatever, that should not impede tribes from going back to the courts.

Finally, I must acknowledge a message from Te Aitanga-a-Hauiti, which has just come to hand, saying: “Go forward—do not wait.” Greetings to us.]

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yes, it relates to the point of order I had previously; notwithstanding the fact that I had worked it out about a minute later, I thought it was probably appropriate and polite to let the member who was speaking finish. But I submit to you, Mr Speaker, that Standing Order 109 is absolutely clear, and if that is not clear enough, then pages 185 and 186 of McGee make it very clear, that unless you are of the judgment that a matter will not be got to, then it cannot be anticipated in earlier debate. I know that I have been told off by previous Speakers for anticipating debate during a general debate. Although we know that a general debate is wide-ranging, the fact that it is wide-ranging cannot overrule the Standing Orders, which make it clear that a member may not anticipate discussion of any general business—or, in this case, an order of the day. The bill is Government order of the day No. 1, and, unless you know something that I do not know, Mr Speaker, I am anticipating that we will get to that within the next hour.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: Speaking to the point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I do not think I need further assistance on the matter; I thank the honourable member. I accept the points the Hon Trevor Mallard is making—that specific debate around a matter on the Order Paper that is to come before the House later on should not be allowed. Indeed, Standing Order 109 precludes that. But I ask the member to reflect back on what Te Ururoa Flavell actually said. He said that matters were raised in the debate yesterday, and that he wished to comment on the issues that were talked about yesterday during debate in this House. That cannot be anticipating debate for today, because he was specifically referring to issues raised yesterday. Had he specifically said that he wanted to talk about—if I recollect correctly, the Committee was on Part 1—issues in “Part whatever”, which was still to come up in front of the Committee of the whole House, then I think the member’s point of order would have been valid. So there is nothing wrong with his point of order, at all; it is just that it is my assessment that the member was talking about issues that had been raised in debate yesterday. That cannot be anticipating debate, especially when the particular legislation the Committee is focused on is a part by part debate in the Committee of the whole House, and the member did not say that he wanted to talk about parts that are still to come up in the debate.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, this is without rancour and it is a “let us get the rules established” type of point of order. Still to come in the debate, obviously, is everything of substance other than Part 1, and we also have, from my understanding, a title clause and a commencement clause. I was listening to the member, and relying on the translation, but I could not identify anything he referred to that could not have been part of the bill. I accept that he was responding initially to the comments that Hone Harawira made yesterday, but the points of substance he was making actually referred to details in the bill, and the focus of the bill, to which we have not yet got. I think this ruling is, effectively, a rule change.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I realise that the member wants to clarify the Standing Order in this area, but I invite him to reflect on the whole development of the general debate, and of the origins of this Standing Order. He, being a longstanding member, will reflect that the general debate is a relatively recent innovation, and I think that around the general debate there is a lot of laxity, if you like, in terms of what members can address. But I think that the member speaking, when he got to his feet, said specifically that he wanted to cover issues, address issues, that had been raised in the debate yesterday, and as Speaker I cannot determine which part of the legislation he is referring to. Some of these issues, if they were covered yesterday, one presumes may be related to the preamble and to Part 1 of that relevant legislation. Certainly, nothing in Standing Order 109 prevents a member during this general debate from going over material that was covered yesterday.

All I ask members is just to be mindful of the points that the Hon Trevor Mallard has made—that our Standing Orders do, as a matter of principle, preclude anticipating debate. Therefore, were the member to have been focused particularly on issues still to come up in the Committee of the whole House, then I would have had a serious concern about the matter. So I accept that the member’s point of order is well made and well founded, but I think that under these particular circumstances it would have been unreasonable of me to rule Te Ururoa Flavell’s speech out of order when, in his opinion, he was specifically referring to issues that had been covered yesterday, and therefore was not anticipating. Although I accept what the member is saying—that some of these issues may yet again come before the House during the third reading, and the title and commencement debates, etc.—I think it would be unreasonable for me to be too pedantic in that area. I think the general principle is important, but I think that the member was reasonable in referring to issues covered yesterday.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just one further point. I think you referred to the general debate as a relatively recent innovation. I think I can remember it being here since 1986. It might, in the time of Parliament, be something that is relatively recent, but I think that in our experience it is probably not, really.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have just been told by the Clerk of the House that it was 1984—forgive me; I obviously would rather think it was—

Oh, so Parliament has been around for a long time, so it is “relatively recently”.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I accept the honourable member’s correction there, and I stand corrected.

I want to begin by extending my thoughts and best wishes to the people of Japan who are enduring the worst calamity possible, with the major earthquake followed by a tsunami, and now a developing nuclear crisis.

In our own country, the aftershock in Christchurch on 22 February brought fresh sadness to the people of Canterbury. We got away with only property damage in the September earthquake, but the February earthquake was indeed a tragedy for the families and friends of those people who died in New Zealand and throughout the world, including some folk from Japan. Also, there was a sadness for all of the rest of us throughout New Zealand and further afield.

I want to pay tribute today to the Prime Minister, John Key, and his Ministers for their swift, decisive, effective, thoughtful, and compassionate response to this tragedy of ours. The job now is rebuilding Christchurch. Mayor Bob Parker and the Minister of Civil Defence, John Carter, have been absolutely tireless in their efforts to restore essential services to the people of Christchurch, because once we begin to deal with the shock, the grief, and the horror of what has happened to people, we then have to get down to the more mundane aspects of this tragedy and start thinking about, and acting on, the challenges of the practicalities of providing essential services.

A massive recovery operation is required, and the declaration of the extension of the state of national emergency ensures that the maximum possible coordination and cooperation between central and local government and between central and local resources will be most effective in response to this disaster. Essential infrastructure throughout Christchurch was absolutely devastated. Power services, reticulated water, and sanitation ceased for many, many people in Christchurch.

Life changed immediately for the people of Christchurch, who, as well as being traumatised and fearful of what happened and of the aftershocks still to come, were also coping, maybe for the first time in their lives, with having to deal with the very practical business of going about living, drinking, eating, going to work, and using essential services. So it is encouraging, and it is to the credit of all those involved, including those I have named, that the services are well on the way to being restored. The job is not done, obviously, and a lot of work still needs to be done in the short, medium, and long term, but there is a plan and many, many gains have been made.

Power has been restored to nearly 100 percent of customers, and that has been done by the power companies working tirelessly 24 hours a day, day and night, on restoring that essential service to customers.

Inside the central business district, the area that has been absolutely devastated, 50 percent of central business district customers have been reconnected. As we know, those services are fragile and fluctuating, and the system is still not secure. However, it has certainly made many gains. Approximately 95 percent of households on a mains water supply have now been reconnected, and I know that the lack of reticulated water—water still has to be boiled—has been of particular concern to people. They cannot cook, they cannot bathe, and they cannot wash their hands without water. I know that the connection of that service was the highest priority, and 95 percent of that has been achieved.

It is heartbreaking to see people in north-east Japan, who are reeling from the devastation of the earthquake and the tsunami, now living in fear of nuclear radiation. Japan, the only country to be attacked with nuclear bombs, with a huge loss of life, is now in the midst of another nuclear disaster. It puts in question the whole future of the nuclear industry. It may be the death knell of nuclear power not only in Japan but worldwide.

For the Greens this latest, tragic accident reinforces what we have long said: nuclear power is inherently dangerous. Nuclear technology is outside the limits of human safeguards. In a nuclear power plant there can be no guarantee that radiation will not be released as a result of a natural disaster or through human error. The danger of radiation release or a meltdown can be minimised, but it cannot be eliminated. When an accident occurs the consequences can be monumental.

There have been a series of nuclear accidents, leakages, and near misses in several countries since the big accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. In 1999 in Japan, two workers at the Tokaimura plant died from high radiation doses when a nuclear chain reaction began after safety regulations were violated. In 2004 five workers were killed in a steam explosion at Japan’s Mihama reactor. There has long been controversy over nuclear safety issues at Britain’s Sellafield nuclear plant.

Safety problems exist not only in nuclear power plants but also in the transport and storage of nuclear waste, which amounts to about a quarter of a million tonnes a year. There is simply no way to store such waste safely so that it will not affect future generations as it leaches into waterways, the sea, or the atmosphere as a result of earth movement or earthquakes. There is no guarantee that future generations will even know where the waste is stored.

Then we have the danger of the products of the nuclear industry, enriched uranium and plutonium, being used to make nuclear weapons, or the radioactive material itself being used to make what are known as “dirty bombs”. The end of the nuclear power industry would enhance the possibilities for nuclear disarmament.

In some countries politicians argue that they need nuclear power plants to produce enough electricity. However, the truth is that nuclear power is an expensive and short-term alternative to renewable sources of energy. There is nowhere in the world where nuclear power plants are not subsidised by Governments, collectively, to the tune of billions of dollars. Nuclear power is a short-term energy solution. As the International Energy Agency said in 2008, if all the planned new reactors come on stream, the known reserves of uranium, 5.5 million tonnes, will be gone by 2050—in less than 40 years.

Instead of subsidising nuclear power plants, Governments should be investing in research on renewables and allowing for subsidies for renewable energy, as well as encouraging energy saving. That would be cost-effective, sustainable, and safe for people and the environment.

The latest nuclear disaster in Japan makes me so glad that our country is nuclear-free, and I pay tribute to the many thousands of New Zealanders whose active campaigning from 1960 to 1985 made us so. I pay particular tribute to the Campaign Half Million petitioners in the 1970s, who knocked on the head plans to have a nuclear power plant in New Zealand.

However, we should not sit back. Our Government should be taking our nuclear-free message to the world, campaigning at the UN and elsewhere for a phase-out of nuclear power plants and for the promotion of renewable forms of energy. We should join hands with the antinuclear campaigners in Japan, who are using this opportunity not only to help those who are currently in danger and potentially dying but also to push for a transition away from nuclear power. The Greens Japan have inspired an Asia-Pacific Green Network statement calling for all countries in our region to “suspend all operations, constructions and plans for nuclear plants” pending a regional hearing on the safety, social, environmental, and economic issues involved. We owe it to those now suffering from nuclear radiation in Japan to take such protective steps.

When New Zealanders have the chance to look back and reflect on the misfortune that struck Christchurch last month and think about the immediate event, the rescue efforts, the recovery efforts, and now the beginning of the reconstruction, they will take a lot of confidence and a lot of satisfaction from the way that their Government has responded—by that I mean government in the broadest possible sense. Obviously it has not been perfect in every instance; in a situation like that it never can be. But I think everybody will agree that it has been pretty jolly good and that large numbers of New Zealanders have got in behind the effort, broken their backs, and done everything they possibly can. That will continue.

I want to devote the time I have in my short speech to talk about the education system in Christchurch, its response, and the challenges that lie before it. Right across the broad aspect of life people are having to adapt, and it is no different for the children who go to school, their parents, and their teachers. But the way that everybody has moved to get the schooling system, the education system generally, back in operation has been impressive. I understand that by the end of this week 143 Christchurch schools will have been reopened, which is 88 percent of schools, and 234 early childhood education centres will have reopened, which is 69 percent of all centres. Canterbury University is getting up and running. Imaginative exchange programmes have been put in place for students to study at five other New Zealand universities, and some students have had the opportunity to go to Adelaide. Christchurch Polytechnic is getting under way, as is Lincoln University, and a large number of the private training establishments.

Christchurch City, in an education and schooling sense, is getting under way and gradually getting back to normal. It will not be easy. One of the most impressive things happening is the sharing of school resources. That is going to be an interesting innovation. It may turn out to be quite an educational experiment from which we will learn a lot, and it may have potential for other areas in New Zealand. I certainly will be watching the outcome of that sharing very, very closely. There is the Papanui High School/Shirley Boys High School arrangement: Papanui High School operates in the morning; Shirley Boys High School operates in the afternoon. Shirley Boys High School, of course, was one of the most seriously damaged schools in the city and is a school that has a great record of service, and of educating boys in that particular part of the town.

I noted with interest a comment in the media this morning by the principal of Shirley Boys High School in which he said it would be unrealistic to expect most pupils would catch up on everything they had missed. I am not sure about that, but I am confident every effort will be made to ensure the students in Christchurch schools who have lost education will be able to catch up. I am quite excited to hear some of the suggestions made about the possibilities of extra tutorials, school during the holidays, Saturday classes, and bringing in volunteers and retired teachers to help. I have every confidence that where schools decide to go the extra mile for their youngsters, whether it be Saturday classes, evening classes, or holiday classes, teachers will step up and do the job, because that is what schoolteachers do. As a former school principal and teacher myself I encourage Canterbury teachers to do that. Teachers belong to a profession with a long history of service, and when needed—and Mr Davis opposite will concur, I think, with what I am saying—and when called upon they will step up. In anticipation of that, I thank them for their effort.

I join with the House in expressing my sadness and condolences for the people of Japan, who have faced a horrific earthquake, an unbelievable tsunami, and now a nuclear threat the likes of which we have not seen since 1986 with Chernobyl. It is just unbelievable horror. All we can do is try to pass on our support to the Japanese people, send whatever help we can, fundraise for those people, and give the Japanese families in New Zealand whatever support we can provide.

Of course, we have our own ongoing disaster to contend with in Christchurch. I acknowledge that life has not returned to normal for most people, and that there is a way to go. As we said in the House last week when we were debating the Canterbury Earthquake Commemoration Day Bill, which gives a day off on Friday, Labour will stand with the Government and the people of Christchurch to help them get through this.

I note also that yesterday 220 workers lost their jobs at Canterbury Spinners. Sadly, that is in addition to some job losses that have happened already. There will be more. There is a call out today for the Government to provide a clearer direction about what support redundant workers are entitled to, and I ask the Minister of Labour to look at that—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: They’re employed by an international firm.

They are employed by a national firm that is still operating so there is some lack of clarity about—[Interruption] They are Australian owned—is that right? There is definitely a lack of clarity, and the workers are very concerned about signing up for individual entitlement because they may have to pay it back if it is incorrectly allocated to them.

Today I will talk about another group of people who are not doing so well in our country. Although it is important that we give our attention to Christchurch, a large group of people in our country rely on the State to set their wages: workers on the minimum wage. They are the poorest paid workers in the country and they are struggling because the Government has put the interests of big business ahead of those people and their families. In a couple of weeks’ time, on 1 April, their pay will go up by 25c an hour. The Minister was told by her own department that a 25c an hour increase was not an increase in real terms. Under her miserly 25c an hour, 53,000 workers will get an increase of—actually—nothing.

We want to see the minimum wage increase to $15 an hour at the earliest opportunity. If that had been the increase this year, half a billion dollars could have been put into the economy this year. That has to be good for everyone. However, we do not have high expectations for this Government, because when it comes to minimum wage workers it is so out of touch with ordinary Kiwi families who are struggling to make ends meet. I do not think it knows how to consider their needs.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Are you going to pay for it? Who’s going to pay for it? Shane Jones? I don’t think so.

There was an alternative that goes past the arguments that the Hon Tau Henare is yelling out across the House. The Minister could have opted for another 50c an hour, taking the minimum wage to $13.50 an hour. Her own department’s advice was that this increase would put $76 million in the pockets of 108,000 workers and would have had negligible impact on total employment. Her own department’s advice showed that increasing the minimum wage to $13.50 an hour would have a negligible impact on employment; in fact, no jobs would be lost and there would be a marginal reduction in the number of newly available positions in the labour market.

That $76 million would have been pumped into the economy, because we all know that minimum wage workers and low-paid workers spend whatever they earn. That $76 million would have helped them cope with rising petrol costs and increases in rent and food prices. They would have had that money to take their kids to the general practitioner. That little bit of extra money might have helped them deal with the increasing costs in early childhood education. Maybe it would have been enough to cover the increases in car registration this year, help pay the power bill, or perhaps help pay the phone bill next month rather than just be cut off. These families would have had a little bit extra to cope with, but the truth is that the increase to the weekly minimum wage will not pay for even a block of cheese or a litre of milk.

On Friday night I was listening to the news as I drove home, and I heard the devastation in Japan unfolding. I must say that when I went to bed it was with dread, as I wondered what on earth we would wake up to. The magnitude 9 earthquake off north-eastern Japan and the resulting tsunami, and now the nuclear threat, have caused widespread devastation, with thousands of Japanese having lost their lives and many more thousands missing. Three Fridays ago I was in Auckland and met with some of the Japanese urban search and rescue team who had come to assist us in Christchurch. So it is hard to believe that by this Friday it will be our New Zealand urban search and rescue team that will be assisting Japan, and returning their favour.

But I want to focus just on Christchurch. It is fair to say that this crisis has united the nation. Rebuilding Christchurch will clearly be this Government’s main focus this year, which it quite rightly should be. I am particularly proud of the leadership that John Key, our Prime Minister, has demonstrated in supporting those who are in such desperate need. It will be a long and complex task. It will not be a simple process. It will be about rebuilding Christchurch, literally brick by brick.

This is a Government that has responded very rapidly and very fully to the needs of those in Christchurch, so I am somewhat staggered that an Opposition speaker took this opportunity to talk about the minimum wage when there are people in Christchurch who are desperate for housing and for social infrastructure. Those members are talking about $76 million. Where do they think it will come from? Does it grow on trees in their world? Well, in Christchurch we are more interested in rebuilding and getting people’s lives back to basics.

Let us look at this Government, which is clearly in touch with what the people in Christchurch need, and at the wraparound social assistance package we have provided. It has provided for both employees and employers—both sides of the puzzle. The Christchurch Earthquake Employment Support Package has paid out more than $72 million to businesses, sole traders, and employees. Earthquake support subsidy payments have been made to nearly 8,000 employers, covering over 41,000 staff and over 9,000 sole traders. Job loss cover has been provided to 4,900 individuals. Then there is the $12 million that has been distributed through civil defence emergency payments to cover things like food, clothing, and housing. We have eight recovery assistance centres open, and some of them are in the very hardest-hit suburbs. These centres provide a one-stop shop where people can sort out all sorts of emergency payments, issues with housing, get counselling, or simply stop for a chat. There are also six mobile Work and Income vans supporting individuals who are in need in Christchurch.

If we look at businesses, we are pleased to see that some of them have already opted out of the Government’s earthquake support package. They received the desperate support they needed for a short time, and now that they are back on their feet they are able to continue. We have provided employers with much-needed certainty during this very uncertain time by supporting them in paying their employees’ wages. There will be further support, which will be announced shortly.

It is fair to say that the Christchurch earthquake was this country’s darkest day, but it was followed by some of our very finest moments. Every day heroes emerged, whether they were the Student Volunteer Army, the Farmy Army, or people in our electorates up and down New Zealand. It will, of course, be a sombre day on Friday when the national memorial service is held in Christchurch, but it will give the country an opportunity to mourn the great loss of life. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi: “Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.” We have seen this indomitable will in Christchurch and in Japan.

Like other members in this House my heart goes out to the people of Japan and also to our own people in Canterbury. I think that everybody in this House has done their bit to try to assist them, and I particularly acknowledge the Christchurch MPs from all parties, who have been working so hard.

I do, however, find it somewhat distasteful that the last speaker thinks it is not OK for members of this House to comment on other important social matters that affect our country. We cannot have that. We are a House of Representatives. It does not mean that we do not care about those issues if we raise other issues of concern.

I add my voice and say that I believe we are going backwards. New Zealand is becoming a more unfair society. Inequality is growing. It is becoming a worse place to bring up our children. That is not the New Zealand I want, and I do not think it is the New Zealand that most New Zealanders want. The Government is out of touch with the reality facing most New Zealanders, particularly low and middle income New Zealanders. That reality sees New Zealanders facing petrol price rises and rental increases. Especially in Auckland, where I work, the rental increases are just phenomenal. They are also facing power price increases, increases in early childhood education fees, significant increases in the cost of food, increases in ACC levies—the list goes on and on. People are facing ever-rising costs, and it is hurting them; it is hurting them very badly. I think members opposite are completely out of touch with that. They obviously are not talking to low and middle income New Zealanders who really are struggling. We can see it in people’s faces when they talk to us about what the latest petrol price rise means for them, for example. The reality of the increasing cost of living is very serious.

When we look at the other side of the ledger, the income side, we see that prices are rising far faster than wages. Real wages went backwards by 3.4 percent in the year to June 2010, and 100,000 more people are now living on benefits, which was not made as a lifestyle choice. The 25c per hour increase in the minimum wage is pathetic and insulting, as my colleague Darien Fenton said. It will just not cut it for people who are reliant on the minimum wage. That is $10 gross per week for a worker who works 40 hours a week, in terms of extra income. That is not enough to buy an extra litre of milk per day or a block of cheese per week for their families. For those who are interested, the article by Michael Parker in today’s New Zealand Herald headlined “Stop kowtowing to unfair prices”, on the issue of milk prices, is very interesting.

But the issue is about more than figures; it is about people who are struggling. What we have seen in this country is more money for a very few people, and a lot less money for many others. That puts pressure on families, on women who are trying to balance the family budget, and on children who are living in poverty in this country. For those members who have not bothered to read the Salvation Army report Stalled, one in five children in New Zealand is living in poverty. That is not the country I want to live in. Schools are having to provide lunches and they are having to provide breakfasts. More and more families, low and middle income families, have to seek food parcels. People do so with a sense of shame. They do not do it as a lifestyle choice, like the Prime Minister suggested. By November 2010 the Salvation Army had encountered 19,000 new households seeking help. In the Maungakiekie electorate that I work in, my electorate office has seen an increasing number of cases where the cost of living is severely impacting on families, and that is having a negative effect on children. This is an issue for the present and for the future.

The significant issues are, firstly, the price of housing, and, secondly, the constantly escalating food prices. I refer to the mother of three who lost her job and received no redundancy, but she had a medium level of debt. She was reduced to seeking handouts of food in order to get by. She fed her children before she had anything to eat.

Before I call the next honourable member, I take this opportunity to remind all members in the House that members can use certain descriptors, but they cannot claim to be an electorate member when they are a list member. I alert members to that. It is becoming an increasing problem that I am having to deal with, and I will have to deal with it. Members cannot refer to themselves as being a member for an electorate when they are not.

The first I heard about the Japanese earthquake was when I was sitting with a group of young professional Koreans at our monthly gathering in Auckland. As people do when we get together, we were talking about everyday life, and on that particular occasion we were discussing the experiences of some of the young people who had travelled to Christchurch and seen the devastation there.

It was via the social network of Twitter that I heard there was an earthquake in Japan. I did not take much notice as I know that Japan has regular tremors. Then my son rang me to say that there was a disaster in Japan. He said he was recording it, and there was slight panic in his voice. I had no idea of the enormity of the disaster. When I got home I sat in front of the television, my eyes glued to the screen and mouth wide open in utter disbelief at the sheer force and speed of the magnitude 9 earthquake and subsequent tsunami that had struck Japan. The imagery of cars stuck on roofs and boats on top of houses and factories will remain with me for a long, long time. My heart goes out to the people of Japan. I take this opportunity to pay my respects to the people, the victims and the families, in Japanese: Konkai no oujishin ya outsunami de, kaimetsuteki na, higai ni awareta, nihon no, katagata ni, kokoro yori okuyami, o moushiagetai tou, omoimasu. Ka tangi ahau.

The Japanese disaster does not in any way diminish the effects of our own earthquake in Christchurch. We have all been affected. Most of us have family or friends who have lost loved ones in Christchurch. I personally have friends on the missing list from the CTV site. I have a girlfriend who ran a Japanese restaurant in the middle of the Christchurch central business district who was trapped and had to be rescued. I also have friends whose house was, as they said, completely munted. It was days before we could get hold of them. It was frustrating not being able to call them. We did not know whether they were alive or dead, whether they were hurt. That kind of grief and that kind of anxiety we all have felt. It is a devastating time for all, but particularly for the people in Christchurch and the wider Canterbury area who have lived through the disaster and the rescue efforts, and now are living through the recovery, the clean-up, and the rebuild of the Garden City.

I was in Christchurch a week after the earthquake, as our senior whip was, cleaning up. I was very, very impressed that he had driven his ute down to Christchurch to put his muscles to work. I, too, headed out to lend a hand in New Brighton, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Christchurch Korean community, headed by the president of its society, Kevin Park, for their hard work. On the day I was in New Brighton at least 50 to 60 Korean young men and women had rolled up their sleeves to go and help in the areas most affected. Their own homes were cracked, were affected by the earthquake, yet they were out there cleaning up the silt. Korean churches were providing lunches for these volunteers. I found out today that, as Chris said, in the area where he was working other Korean young men and women were volunteering their time and their energy to help people. It did not matter whether they were Koreans; they were out there helping others.

One of the things I will most remember about this earthquake is that on the day I was using my very limited muscle strength to shovel silt I was going to help a Korean father who had lost two children, a 24-year-old and a 21-year-old, who had been studying at the CTV building. As I was walking out to the car park I saw an elderly gentleman, probably in his 80s, who was devastated and frustrated that someone had driven past his house at more than 5 kilometres an hour. He had made up a sign saying 5 kilometres; it was the only thing he could control in his life. All I could do was ask “Can I please give you a hug?”, and he cried. I felt I had done something good.

To all the workers who have done the job in Christchurch, I pay my respects. I thank the Prime Minister for the leadership that he has shown throughout this disaster, which has been one of the biggest this country has faced.

I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct my speech.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for the member to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

I said in my speech that I work in the Maungakiekie electorate. I then went on to refer to an electorate office. I should have said my out-of-Parliament office.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: With that personal explanation the matter must rest there.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.