General Debate

I think the message is clear this afternoon. If anyone wants to witness how out of touch this Government is, they need merely watch the general debate on a Wednesday. When people tune in they will not hear a discussion about the $16 billion deficit. They will not hear the Government’s plan to deal with rising unemployment. They will not hear any discussion about inequality levels or the increasing cost of living. No, instead, they will hear Anne Tolley make jokes about postcards, they will hear Phil Heatley try to make jokes about hobbits, and then they will hear backbench open mike night via Simon Bridges. I have no idea what that was. I am sure the people who were watching, unfortunately, had no idea what that was.

I think there is a much bigger issue. I do not want to allow myself to be distracted by Mr Bridges’ speech. Instead, I would rather come back to the point that this week in the House we had an acknowledgment from the Minister of Labour that living on the minimum wage in this country is very, very difficult. In fact, she talked about the tight budget that many of those living on the minimum wage are experiencing. I would say, though, that the use of the term “tight budget” almost implies that there is some choice for householders, whereas the Hon Annette King talked about the stark choices people are making: fix a broken tooth or eat. Those are kinds of choices that Kiwis are currently making. That is not just a tight budget.

Living on the minimum wage has now become a lot harder under this Government. Not only are we seeing an increase in prices of almost 5 percent; we are seeing increases in ACC and in rent per week of almost 32 percent over the past 3 years.

For university students the cost of studying has increased by 16 percent. We see the impact of that on young people. Student hardship grants have increased by 423 percent over the past few years, and much of that increase is due to an increase in the cost of food for those students who are struggling to survive. So I ask the Minister of Labour this question: if she acknowledges that living on the minimum wage is hard, how hard will it be for a young person to live on a youth minimum wage? How hard will it be for a young person to live on less than what all Kiwis on the minimum wage are currently surviving on? The Government has acknowledged that it is considering the option of a youth minimum wage. This is apparently part of the Government’s cogent plan on jobs. I think it probably speaks more to the point that everything the Government has done thus far has not had the impact required to bring down record high levels of youth unemployment—now 27 percent.

Labour says that paying young people less is not the answer. In response we say that is a cop-out. It is an acknowledgment that the Government does not have the answers and does not have a plan to create jobs. The Government thinks its only option is to try to pay young people less in order to switch round the unemployment issue.

The Minister has openly stated that if we pay young people less, then employers might be more inclined to employ young people instead of, say, 30-year-olds, but that acknowledgment would potentially shift the unemployment issue from one age group to another. How does that overall help New Zealand and Kiwis who are out of jobs and looking for work? It does not. I would be happy for any Government member to explain to me how youth wage rates bring down unemployment across the board. I would be happy to hear any evidence whatsoever.

I have some evidence I would like to present to the Government. It is the cold hard fact that the lowest levels of youth unemployment were achieved under the last Labour Government, and it was after youth wage rates were abolished. Youth wage rates have absolutely nothing to do with youth unemployment. In fact, we have evidence from the Department of Labour that suggests there is no robust correlation between youth wage rates and youth unemployment. In fact, the 1990s, as members will well remember when National was last in Government, was the last time that youth unemployment was as high as it is now. We had youth wage rates. It is time the Government acknowledged that it is out of ideas, and that this measure will not help young people.

That last speech by Jacinda Ardern has shown us what is wrong with the Labour Opposition. It shows economic illiteracy: a borrow-and-spend mentality, taking other people’s money and sharing it around, and then telling New Zealanders they should be grateful and support Labour so it can keep doing it. In my speech I will show a few contrasts.

On the one hand we have a Government that has worked hard over 2½ years to focus on education so our children can get more and so their mothers and fathers can be assured they will have a better future. We have a Government that has taken the hard edges off the recession, that has focused on jobs, and that has been delivering for New Zealanders. We have a Government that is particularly looking at what more it needs to do with that forgotten generation of young people, who the last Government, over 9 years, thought could be made dependent and given welfare, and that that was OK. We have made New Zealanders safer in the streets and in their homes through a raft of legislation around law and order. On behalf of my constituents, I thank the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Police for the hard work they have done over 2½ years to make New Zealand a safer country, and to make sure that those who commit crimes and who harm people in our communities are held to account.

The Minister of Finance, Bill English, has delivered a Budget that will get the New Zealand economy back on track. Labour members say they want to borrow more and more and more, and they tell New Zealanders that that is OK and not to worry about that. Well, New Zealanders know that that is not something that is good for them, and is not something that is possible. Bill English has delivered a Budget for us that will bring New Zealand back to surplus much sooner—2013 or 2014. The other thing that we have done is to get more from the Public Service. What that means for New Zealanders is that for every dollar of income tax they contribute, their Public Service is delivering more for them in terms of hospitals, schools, and public services across the board.

On the other side of the House what do we hear? We hear about Labour’s shonky economic policies and proposals. When Anne Tolley spoke earlier in this debate she was right: there is a huge amount of confusion amongst members opposite, and, sadly, most of that rests with the Leader of the Opposition, Phil Goff. Now, to his credit, when he became the Leader of the Opposition, soon after the last election, I think that Labour was right to have high hopes for him as Leader of the Opposition. Well, today standing here when we consider its high hopes for the Leader of the Opposition, Phil Goff, we see that the hope has gone. When one considers his economic policies, he might well be high from time to time, because they are crazy and they are disastrous for New Zealanders. Let us have a little look at this. What have we heard over the last few months of this year? We have heard lots of promises to spend, lots of policies that say Labour will do more for New Zealanders. But when Mr Goff is asked where the money will come from, he has no answer. From memory, it would be $12 billion or $13 billion of extra spending. We heard that he might scrap something in the area of defence, which is a one-off spend, but that $13 billion of additional recurrent spending, year upon year upon year, would have to be borrowed. New Zealanders see through that façade. They know it is not good for them, and they are awake to some of the false promises the Opposition is making to them.

I think I know what the problem could be. I have just worked it out. When Mr Goff first came to this Parliament I think I was 13 years of age. Simon Bridges was probably 7 years of age, and I guess the current member for Rimutaka, who will be the member for Rimutaka for probably only about 4 more months, was conceived about then. So what has happened in that intervening period? The last speaker from our side, Mr Bridges from Tauranga, talked about asset sales. There was a wonderful column in the newspaper just today from John Armstrong, a very astute writer in the New Zealand Herald: “Labour push against asset sales doomed to fail”. We have not heard a lot about that this week, but it is doomed to fail—a very astute reporter, that one. So what did Phil Goff do when he was in Government? Seventeen State-owned assets were sold—17 of them were sold. He sold more State-owned assets than any member of this House, to my knowledge. I say to New Zealanders listening, those who may hear of this afterwards, do not trust that Opposition.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the member’s speech. I ask you to reflect on whether his speech was a reflection on you, as a more senior member than Mr Goff, as to being around here too long.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: We are not going to carry on this nonsense. That was not a point of order.

There is a saying that until recently I would not have been confident using, and that is the phrase “It ain’t over until the fat lady sings”. But just as I am proud of my transformation, I am proud also to stand today to speak of the transformation that is occurring in Te Tai Tokerau as we cut down to the wire.

When the Māori Party re-entered Te Tai Tokerau over the last few months to listen, to learn, and to find out what the electorate needed, they told us they wanted someone who would focus on being their voice. They wanted someone who could build relationships, who would be proactive and positive. They wanted a representative who could make a constructive contribution. They wanted IWI: influence with integrity.

Few areas of New Zealand so desperately need that influence to be acted on as Te Tai Tokerau. The statistics scream out for such a focus: 49 percent of children were identified as being born in the most deprived areas. In 2010 the Northland rate for acute rheumatic fever was nearly three times the national rate. In fact, a study in Kaitāia found that one child in every 100 had evidence of heart damage caused by rheumatic fever. In some of the poorest areas of the region 40 percent of children were living in crowded households. In the past year more than 7,000 Northlanders have been given food parcels by social services. No member of Parliament, no matter what their affiliation, can listen to these statistics without being moved. But we must do more than simply talk about it and hope the problems will go away.

The Māori Party has taken this analysis very seriously. We have taken immediate and comprehensive action to address both the long-term nature of poverty and the specific priorities for education, health, and social services in the region. Last December I wrote to every member of this House asking for their support in addressing child poverty. Today at the Māori Affairs Committee the Aotearoa Equality Group tabled our request for an inquiry to place on record our united concern for the pervasive disparities and poor outcomes being experienced by Māori children.

Just over a month ago my colleague Tariana Turia announced that the Government would prioritise $12 million of investment into addressing and preventing rheumatic fever—an announcement that Ngāpuhi general practitioner Dr Lance O’Sullivan hailed as worthy of our greatest support.

We have also worked to wrap support around whānau though the enormous investment made through Whānau Ora. Three incredible collectives of Māori providers have been revitalised through Whānau Ora to support whānau across their region. The Te Tai Tokerau Whānau Ora collective includes Whakawhiti Ora Pai, Te Hauora o Te Hiku o Te Ika, Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa, Ngāti Hine Health Trust, and Kia Ora Ngāti Wai. Another seven providers are brought together in Te Hau Āwhiowhio o Ōtāngarei, and another seven in Te Pū o te Wheke.

The Minister of Māori Affairs has supported Whānau Ora with complementary initiatives such as Ōranga Whānau. By virtue of the Kaitoko Whānau programme in Kaitāia, Te Korowai Aroha trust has helped 53 whānau access social assistance services. Also approximately 75 rōpū in the region have accessed the Māra Kai gardening programme to equip and establish gardens at marae, at kura, at kōhanga, and, importantly, at home.

Te Tai Tokerau homes have benefited directly from the 6,000 homes insulated as a result of the Māori Party negotiating a 100 percent subsidy for housing insulation for those with community services cards. Some 638 rangatahi in Northland and another 247 rangatahi in Auckland have benefited from Community Max positions, which provide an entry point into longer-term employment options. We are particularly proud of the heavy investment we have made in education, with support for literacy programmes and more funding for kura kaupapa Māori, for transport to school, and for programmes such as Te Kotahitanga that support Māori success in education. Over $100 million was earmarked for Māori education in the Budget and $73 million for kura kaupapa.

I was fascinated by a tête-à-tête that took place a couple of weeks ago between Mr Mallard and Heather Roy over the costs of running our democracy, in response to Mrs Roy’s criticism of Labour’s outrageous filibustering on members’ day. She estimated that that nonsense was costing the taxpayer about $453,000 per hour. Mr Mallard replied that silly Heather Roy could not do the maths, and that her maths was predicated on the assumption that Parliament had sat longer than it would have otherwise. He said she needed to brief her intern on the difference between average and marginal costs.

Well, I am a chartered accountant, so I know a bit about marginal costs. If one picks up a textbook, one finds it will say something about the costs attributable to the next unit of production. Here is the problem: on members’ day nothing is being produced—absolutely nothing. So Heather Roy’s maths was absolutely accurate, and half a million dollars per hour is being wasted, every single hour. The cost of the Te Tai Tokerau by-election, which the Labour Party heavily criticised, is being wasted by its members every single hour of members’ day. It is like that Yes, Minister episode. Remember the empty hospital? It had all the staff, the administrators, and the doctors, but it did not have any patients. Well, this Parliament every second Wednesday has the members, the security guards, the clerks, and the Hansard staff, but we are not producing a single thing.

We have also heard about the total stunt that Phil Goff’s member’s bill on asset sales is. Mr Bridges has already quoted the excellent article by John Armstrong about Namibia having more chance of winning the Rugby World Cup than that bill has of being enacted. But John Armstrong also said that even if Labour became the Government, that bill could not pass. It is framed up as entrenching legislation, which requires 75 percent of the House’s support, so the Labour members know that it cannot pass even if they become the Government. It is a stunt. It would be silly if it were not for the fact that members’ day is a very important part of our parliamentary process, where those outside the executive get to debate and raise the legislation and bills that are important to them and their constituents. I thought that Labour’s backbenchers would be pretty annoyed at the way in which that was going, except that we have not had a member’s bill ballot this year. I went back to November 2010, the last ballot that we had. There were 25 bills in that ballot. Do members know how many there were from Labour?

💬 Chris Auchinvole: None.

One. There was one bill from a Labour member in the last member’s bill ballot that we had. Do members know whose bill that was? It was Darren Hughes’ bill on transport, so who knows where that is? Labour is so keen to represent its constituency that its members cannot come up with a single bill, except one that is a stunt. They know it is a stunt. That is how half a million dollars an hour is being wasted on every single members’ day.

What are the Labour members doing if they are not actively participating in our democracy? Well, they are alienating themselves from just about every sector. We have certainly heard about the farmers. I did not think that the Labour members would go and slap the Rātana Church, which has been very loyal to Labour for a long time. The public tell me that they are sick and tired of the same old rhetoric: “There is no plan.”, and “Where are the jobs?”. The public know; they are getting to it. They understand how hard things are, and they understand that this Government does have a plan.

The Government’s plan involves a providing a taxation system that works and rewards effort. The plan is also about having an education and skills training plan. It is about fostering free trade and innovation in science. It is about investing in infrastructure, and billions of dollars are going into infrastructure, not the least of which is in the South Island and in Canterbury. It includes putting a lid on Government spending. This Government makes no apologies for the fact that there are opportunities to continue to constrain spending and for expecting a lot more to come out from a little more going in. And the Government’s plan is about reducing compliance costs to business. One does not need to be a mathematician to work out that if nominal GDP growth of 8 percent is achieved, that will produce a minimum of 200,000 jobs in this economy. Those members ask where the jobs will come from. Well, it is pretty obvious: they will come from a growing economy. They will not come from bureaucrats and the public sector. We might have to increase the number of jobs by 172,000 in order to offset the very small reduction in public sector workers that has taken place. I am extremely pleased to put those plans and policies up against Labour’s any day of the week.

What a relief to hear at least one member on the other side of the House talk about his own party for a change, instead of spending the entire 5 minutes talking about the Labour Party. I am very, very interested, actually; it makes me wonder why those members are so concerned about the Labour Party. Why do they want to talk about us all the time? I know that Mr Woodhouse will not like me saying this, but I think it demonstrates that those members have nothing good to say about themselves, and no plan for the future. Labour will give everybody a fair go and make everybody pay their fair share. I am very proud to say that Labour has a solid promise to raise the minimum wage to $15 by the end of its first year in Government. That is a solid promise. So do not say that we do not have policies. We will do better by low and middle income people who are struggling to make ends meet.

Let me talk about what an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour will mean. It will mean that over 229,000 workers will get a lift in their pay, if they work full-time, of almost $80 a week. Labour’s tax-free threshold adds a further $10 a week. The people who will benefit from this are not just young workers; they are women, Māori, Pasifika, and those up in Northland, in Te Tai Tokerau, who are struggling to make ends meet. There would be an economy-wide increase in wages of $518 million. That is an economic plan.

We all know that National’s changes have not helped anybody. They have not helped unemployment, they have not helped wages, and they have not helped those on the lowest wages, as the Minister of Labour admitted today and yesterday. But, of course, that Minister of Labour did not want the minimum wage to go up from $12 an hour last year. She actually rejected the proposition that it should go up at all, but was rolled. Then she wanted to keep it at $12 an hour. This year the advice was that the minimum wage could go up to $13.50 with a negligible impact on jobs. She rejected that as well; she ignored that advice. John Key’s Government is making life tougher for working people when things were already hard. National did it the last time it was in Government, and New Zealand went backwards in wages, productivity, skills development, and job creation. Now it is at it again.

But New Zealanders are not stupid. They are moving across the Tasman in droves—in greater numbers than ever before—because they have worked out that this Government has no answers. People are not stupid. They can see that Australia has a minimum wage of NZ$20 an hour, and that differential is a problem for this Government and this country. Those workers getting on the planes are not just the highly skilled; they are also the unskilled, because they can do better across the Ditch. Those workers cannot make a living in this country, because this Government is miserable with the minimum wage and has no plan to provide them with decent jobs.

Contrary to popular opinion, more than half of all workers covered by the minimum wage are older than 24. So it is not just about young workers trying to get into work. It affects good people. It affects our school support staff. It affects our caregivers—those who look after older people—our home-care workers, and our hospital and school service staff, among thousands and thousands. Let us talk about what a minimum wage earner actually takes home each week. If they work full-time—and many of them do not—they earn $447 a week after tax. That is before reductions for KiwiSaver, student loans, if they have one, or ACC. John Key’s cleaner in this Parliament is paid $13.10 an hour. I bet that no one, particularly the Minister of Labour, asked her advice about whether increasing the minimum wage beyond $13 was a good idea. I do not understand how anyone expects people to live on $447 a week. That is what a full-time worker gets on the minimum wage. I do happen to know that Kate Wilkinson has not been anywhere near her cleaners or the Prime Minister’s cleaners, because if she bothered to talk to them she would know that her decisions are making life even tougher.

We have certainly heard Labour’s plan now. It will put an extra $500 million of costs on employers into the economy—$500 million extra costs on employers. What would that do? It is quite simple, really. Essentially, it would reduce the productive capacity of the economy. This is the choice New Zealand is really faced with at the moment: the economic plan. We heard one part of Labour’s economic plan: add costs into the economy. Labour members actually think that that is a plan. They think a sympathy approach to the economy will do it. I have to say that that is simply a cynical and bankrupt attempt to grow the economy.

This is what Labour’s plan seemingly is. First of all, Labour would increase the minimum wage, which would mean $500 million extra against employers. Second, Labour would increase borrowing. Third, Labour would increase departmental expenditure. Just about every spokesperson across the House has made some promise or other to increase departmental expenditure. Labour is against efficiency. It is against broadband, even. It will have the opportunity later today, no doubt, to decide whether to vote for that infrastructure investment or against it. I apprehend, based on the debate that I have heard so far, that Labour will vote against it. It is against broadband, it is against infrastructure, and it is against irrigation. It consistently opposes the plans to expand irrigation in the Canterbury region.

What other things is Labour against? It is against the sale of State-owned enterprises. Yesterday, when I was listening to the debate, Labour’s core argument was that New Zealanders already own those assets. That is a complete misunderstanding of what it is about. We could have said that about a Polish shipyard. The people already owned the Polish shipyard. What did the Polish people do? They decided, in common with every Eastern European citizen, that their already owning it was not the way to prosperity. In fact, the way to prosperity was to actually have a personal share in that business. Our mixed-ownership model will build the capacity of the New Zealand Exchange and give New Zealanders, including KiwiSaver account holders, the opportunity to directly own, and to have a personal stake in, the economy of New Zealand. They will personally see the gains. It is well known—and Labour should know this; at least Mr Mallard knows this—that having some private sector ownership increases efficiency and increases effectiveness. Of course, it enables the Government to invest against borrowing.

We have already heard about what Labour sold when it was in office in 1989. Would Labour members seriously suggest today that New Zealand taxpayers should own Telecom? Would they seriously suggest today that it would be a good idea to have a network of State hotels? Would they seriously suggest today that we should have a rural bank finance banking system? Would they seriously suggest today that it would be a really good idea for the Government to own New Zealand Steel? That is the space they are in now. They are now in the space of saying that anything that is publicly owned must always remain in public ownership, 100 percent. The reason for that is that we already own it. To Labour members, that is the complete answer. It is a mantra for them. Yet from their own evidence, based on their record—including Mr Mallard—they know that there are some situations where it is better, frankly, to have private sector ownership. Most of us would agree that that balance already exists with Air New Zealand, and we can see the advantages of that. That is why National is going to go out to the public with that plan.

Another issue I want to raise is science and innovation. There was the big speech at the Labour Party conference, where Sir Paul Callaghan, well known and well regarded for his ideas on innovation, who wrote an excellent book called Wool to Weta, was present. And what did Labour members do? They said they would bring back a $160 million tax credit. What will they fund that with? The bringing-in of the emissions trading scheme 2 years earlier than planned for farmers. That is a zero-sum game. Labour has no plan.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.