General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. A thousand New Zealanders a week are travelling across the Tasman to Australia—1,000 a week. And that is despite that Government’s assurance when it came into office that that flow was going to be stemmed. Nothing has happened. In fact, 1,000 a week is a record for New Zealand. There have never been more people going across the Tasman to Australia and not coming back. Many of those people are our best and our brightest. The people whom we spend thousands and thousands of dollars educating are travelling to Australia to help Australia get richer. What we have in terms of hope for those people is a finance Minister from this Government delivering, we hear, a zero Budget. Well, I can tell you, a zero Budget means that there is zero more money coming. That means there is zero growth in the economy. That means there are zero more taxes coming. That means, inevitably, there are zero more ideas or any new ideas.

This is a zero Government, which is giving our young people zero hope, which is causing them to go across to Australia. Australia has grown at about 10 times what New Zealand has grown over the course of this Government’s term in office. Two percent growth on average compared with less than 5 percent—that is what the statistics show. If you have that sort of differential, inevitably—inevitably—you are going to get young people and everybody moving across from New Zealand to Australia. The result is that what we are getting back here—it has been lauded and boasted about by our finance Minister—is that we have a great place to invest in, except that this great place is based on low wages. So the Australian companies that want to come into New Zealand are coming here to take advantage of our low wage rates. Inevitably, what is happening is that our people are going over there for higher wage rates. And if Government members think there are not higher wage rates over there, then they have got another think coming.

The only one idea that the Government seems to have, which is inculcated in this Budget, is to sell our assets. Selling our assets is the only big idea that this Government has come up with. The only trouble is that nobody knows quite how big an idea it is, because the Prime Minister said a year ago that it was going to be $10 billion that we were going to get back from the selling of our precious power companies. And then it was $6.6 billion. And then it was $6 billion. And then it was, well, a guess, and not even a best guess at that. And that best guess has rubbed off on to the Minister for Social Development, because she guesses around about a billion dollars might be saved from her ministry, but she cannot quite tell us. So this entire Government is based on guesses.

Not only that, but our power companies return more than the cost of borrowing. They actually return more than we are going to sell them for. And what was the promise at the election? Well, the promise was about the mums and dads in New Zealand—the mums and dads. Gosh, that is a cutesy saying, is it not? What does that really mean? It means the people who have got money to invest in shares, which is not absolutely everybody, but is probably the people who got the benefit from the tax cut that this Government handed out last year. The mums and dads are going to be at the front of the queue, except that there is no guarantee in the legislation that they are going to be there—there is no guarantee at all. The foreign ownership would be a minority, but there is no guarantee that that is going to be the case either.

If we look at Contact Energy as one example, Contact Energy is owned by foreigners to the tune of around 66 percent. So two-thirds of our Contact Energy power company is owned by foreigners, but we have not got the courage to be able to say to New Zealanders—to follow through on the promise from last year, to follow through on the election promise—that mums and dads are going to be at the front of the queue. So here we have it: 1,000 people—1,000 people—are going from New Zealand across to Australia every week in record numbers.

It is quite something to sit on this side of the House and see the looks on the faces sitting around David Shearer. All you can see are three words going through all of the Labour members’ heads, and they are “should’ve been Cunliffe”—should have been Cunliffe. Quite frankly, if that is as good as it gets for Labour, then it is kind of embarrassing and kind of not as good as it could be—should have been Cunliffe; should have been Cunliffe.

Let us think about welfare reform, and let us talk about where welfare is at in this country. I am going to ask for the indulgence of the House right now, and I know this is going to be kind of shaky ground for a few. Let us imagine that Labour was in Government right now—

💬 Hon Members: No, no!

—I know, I know—and that it was actually looking at these teenagers who are not in employment or education or training, and looking at beneficiaries and what their needs were. What do you think Labour would be doing? Nothing—nothing! What do you think? Seriously, colleagues, what do you think—

💬 Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday you made a point of reminding us that we do not include you in debate. This member has included you quite a number of times. I do not think you would altogether agree with some of the ways that you have been included in some of the things she has said. I think perhaps you could bring her back to the Standing Orders of the House.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would discourage members from interrupting these short speeches, but senior members should be aware of the fact that they should not bring the Speaker into the debate.

I thank the member for the break, quite frankly, because it was nice to take a wee minute there and have a bit of a breath.

Quite frankly, if one thought about what Labour would be doing for beneficiaries, for the most disadvantaged in this country who need a hand, the answer is, quite simply, nothing—absolutely nothing. When we look at the current “neets” figures, it is those aged 20 to 24 who are actually worse off in this country. Who do you think was in Government when they were at school? Who do we think was actually in Government when they were at school, and who left them on the scrap heap of no achievement? It was the previous Labour Government.

We hear a lot of noise from the left about those not in education, employment, or training, but when Labour members were in Government they did not actually perform for those young people who need it most. We saw a scattergun approach that actually made no difference when it came to the intensive support that some of these young people need. I say to my colleagues in the House that this Government will not do it. They may be hard decisions. They may not always be easy to make. Everyone may not like them. But we will most certainly make them, and we will stand up next to these young people.

We are seeing 16 and 17-year olds, year after year after year, left unable to achieve and without the opportunities they should be given. So we will be wrapping at least $148.8 million of support around them in the belief that we can turn round their opportunities and can see something brighter for them. And that is going to make a difference. Quite frankly, a light touch across thousands who do not need it has not been working, and it is time we turned our attention to actually doing the hard stuff.

Let us be clear. Welfare is having the biggest reforms that this country has seen for decades, and the Opposition spokesperson cannot even get a main question in the House on it, and when we actually have a question she gets one supplementary question and she stuffs that up. So that is how effective the Opposition is in this House at the moment. Quite frankly, someone needs to look at what they are doing and how they should do it.

Let us talk about the differences between the left and the right. Beneficiaries themselves have got to a stage where they are sick of the hand-wringing, the bleeding hearts, and the victimisation—the “poor them”—that comes continually from the left, and they want to see the right kind of ambition and the right kind of drive behind them. They will get the kind of support they need and deserve under this Government. Change is on its way, and we are already seeing the positive effects of it. Already, in the month of April we saw 2,000 fewer on benefits over that period. Let us put some perspective around it. In January 2010 there were 68,000 people on the unemployment benefit—that being the effect of the worst recession we had seen, with companies not being able to take on employees. Today we see 52,400 on the unemployment benefit. That number is coming down month after month after month, and it is making a big, big change for those people who need it most.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank God this day has finally come and we can stop wasting money on the most bizarre and ridiculous legal beat-up in modern times and start thinking about real justice and apologising to the Tūhoe nation. The decision means that the Urewera Four are now free to consider their future, and it is a piece of common sense on behalf of the Deputy Solicitor-General. It is an excellent decision. It is also well understood that the whole Terrorism Suppression Act debacle was based on 9/11 and was an appeasement policy to keep the United States happy. However, what Operation Eight has shown us is how dangerous it is to mix paranoia-based political policy and the racist undercurrents of a supposedly free, democratic State. All the critics of the Terrorism Suppression Act have the right to continue to say “I told you so.”, because in fact they said that the laws would be used against activists, particularly Māori, and that proved to be 100 percent correct. But what could not be proven was that the people involved in this case were in fact a criminal group. That failed.

It is very worrying that the Prime Minister has announced today—this morning, I understand—that there will be a review of the Terrorism Suppression Act. We are very concerned about that, because we hardly think it is going to improve it. We are very concerned that this flawed and horrible Act, which could not find these people guilty, could be made worse. The Green Party has never supported the Terrorism Suppression Act, and we do not support its review. We support its repeal, and we have been consistent on that. Repeal is the only solution to an unnecessary Act. We have plenty of laws for addressing crime and potential terrorism. We do not need the Terrorism Suppression Act, and we do not need a review of it. We need to repeal it, particularly given the fact that the Search and Surveillance Act came in and has provided sufficient Draconian powers for anybody’s liking. It means that the Solicitor-General’s call for a review of the Terrorism Suppression Act in 2007 was not followed through. But let us not review it; let us forget it. The Prime Minister should just accept the court’s reading and get on with it.

The far greater price for this debacle has been paid by Tūhoe and the whānau from Parihaka. History, it seems, repeats itself in the most extraordinary way. Apart from the cost of the trial, which is yet to be counted, and the terror at dawn, which cannot be forgotten, that occurred in Ruātoki, there are some other prices that are being paid and will continue to be paid by the increased surveillance culture in our society. I am speaking from personal experience. At the age of 15 the SIS started its file upon me. It was following a 15-year-old schoolgirl around Wellington, trying to find out why I was involved in student politics. Ever since that day we have seen a growth in a surveillance culture that is at best laughable and at worst oppressive. The year was 1968, when the SIS was following me around Wellington, and there was not even the excuse of a terrorist attack in New York to do that; there certainly was not.

But this surveillance culture has continued to focus on Māori tangata whenua activists. Why? Because we, the Pākehā-dominated State, know in our hearts that there is one culture in Aotearoa that has the most reason to be angry. That is there because of their dispossession, and it is connected to our privilege. Activists remind us of the inconvenient truths of how colonisation operates in a 21st century framework. That is why the creative flair of Tame Iti, his theatrical re-enactment of history, and his rituals of symbolic resistance are unwelcome and people do not want to see them. “Couldn’t he just put up and shut up?”, is their message to him. Let us remember what happens when we demonise the other, when we demonise people who do not agree with us, and decide that they must be watched. Even though they have never stolen a dollar from a pensioner or committed gross corporate fraud, they must be watched—people like myself, people like Tame Iti.

For 4½ years the police have tried to justify the raids on Ruātoki, and they have failed to do that. They have failed in a succession of court battles. It is time for us to absolutely understand the lessons. We celebrate the common sense of the decision today and we say to Tūhoe: “You are owed an apology. Don’t hold your breath, but kia kaha on behalf of the Green Party.”

I must say, I get a revelation every day in this place, and it was particularly so today when I heard Catherine Delahunty say that the SIS was observing her at the age of 15. It was 6 years later when it threw attention on me, but I am sure I have not had the long history that she has. It dropped me after 3 months.

The announcement by the Prime Minister and the Associate Minister of Health this morning that $12 million extra will go towards preventing rheumatic fever was a very, very welcome announcement. It was welcome for our children, and it was welcome for public health and health promotion in New Zealand. What is really interesting about this is that I have a little graph on the incidence of rheumatic fever in New Zealand between 1997 and 2010. During that time the peaks of rheumatic fever were in 2000, 2001, 2003, and, again, in 2007 and 2008—right during the tenure of the Labour Government. It talked about it, but it did absolutely nothing. So it was extremely welcome to hear the announcement this morning that the already committed $12 million in Budget 2011 not only has been increased but has been increased by $12 million for Budget 2012.

What we know is that this programme for preventing rheumatic fever—which is a particular indictment on New Zealand, given that it is a Third World disease—under the National Government is being rolled out in Northland, in South Auckland, in the Bay of Plenty, in the Lakes District, in Tai Rāwhiti, in Hawke’s Bay, and in Porirua. It is targeting at least 35,000 children who are particularly vulnerable—

💬 Phil Twyford: What about the cause, though? Poverty.

—but there is a much, much wider number than that. To Mr Twyford I say that the Labour Government during its tenure did absolutely nothing but talk. I think the National Government can be extremely proud that over the last 4 years, despite the difficult economic situation, an extra $1.5 billion has been committed to health, and there will be more announced in the Budget. The National Government has been determined to keep up the services and the workforce in public health.

I want to talk about the workforce for a second. That is another thing. Annette King over there went on and on about the health workforce in New Zealand—in fact, she announced 42 different workforce reports during her tenure—and there were fewer doctors and nurses. During the last 4 years, since 2008, there have been 800 extra doctors in our district health boards, and 2,000 extra nurses in our district health boards. What could Annette King do? All she could do was announce workforce reports, and the numbers became lower and lower.

During the last 4 years we have seen record results in elective surgery—something like 27,000 extra cases being done over the last 3½ years, and we are expecting 4,000 extra elective surgeries done year on year. It is, again, an extraordinary indictment on that Government that during its tenure it increased the health budget from $6 billion to $12 billion, with, really, no extra increase in elective surgery.

But what is an outstanding achievement over the last 4 years is the increase in immunisation that we have seen. In 2008, after that long, long tenure of the Labour Government, only 73 percent of 2-year-olds were immunised.

Two weeks out from a Budget, and we have not had one contribution from the National Government on the economy or explaining why it is that its tax revenue is $1.5 billion down. We hear Paula Bennett, the Minister for Social Development, talking about welfare reform, which is another case of the Government ignoring the big issues. Within 4 years we spend 20 times the unemployment benefit on superannuation. We spend more on superannuation than we spend on the total of Vote Education—that is, more than primary, secondary, preschool, tertiary, and trade training. For the Minister to lecture us about welfare reform, when she ignores what is the big issue, shows how irrelevant she is to the big issues in this land. Then we hear her saying, at the end of her contribution, that unemployment has come down from—I think the figures she was using were 68,000 at its peak to 54,000. But 1,000 people a week are leaving to Australia—1,000 people a week. That is 14 weeks of the departures to Australia, in the figures that she claims credit for.

We are not hearing from the Government about the economy, because it has nothing positive to talk about. A zero budget—or near to it—which we are contemplating, is what happens when your economy is not thriving, and that is why National is not talking about that. There are two recent quotes I want to read out. Sunday Star-Times, 29 April: “The Government is fast shredding its credibility as a sound manager of the economy. Each expedient deal it strikes erodes its integrity and its political capital.” New Zealand Management magazine, in March, said this—

💬 Michael Woodhouse: What does Labour think?

What’s this?

💬 Michael Woodhouse: What does Labour think?

We think it is right. It said “Key seems to have a strong personal following. He could probably sell his vision if he had one and if he believed it was truly worth pursuing. The fact that he doesn’t suggests a leadership strategy based more on expedience than inspiration.”

We have got disappointing books in New Zealand, because we have got disappointing growth figures in the economy. Yes, New Zealand will limp back to surplus in 2014-15. Virtually anyone in charge of the Treasury benches would have got back to surplus by 2014-15, including Labour. Indeed, we produced the most detailed fiscals that have ever been produced by an Opposition party at the time of the last election to show that. The difference between what we would have done and what National is doing is that we would have addressed the underlying problems in the economy. We would have started to cause people to invest in the economy based on the profitability of their business investment, rather than on the tax effectiveness of what they were doing. We would have discouraged property speculation. We would have encouraged exports. We would have improved the wealth of New Zealand, over time, through improved savings—three times the additional savings from what we were proposing to KiwiSaver, compared with what National did. Those are not our figures; those are the figures from the Savings Working Group.

Those are the sorts of things that New Zealand needs to grow our economy. We are not getting them from National. As a consequence the outlook for New Zealand is dire. Our net indebtedness to the world grows every year, as a consequence of our exports not covering the cost of our interest and our imports. Every year that current account deficit is bridged by more borrowing from overseas and the sale of our assets. That is the driver of New Zealand’s poor economic outlook: it is our current account deficit. This Government is not rebalancing the economy. That is why the commentators are saying that this Government is bereft of decent leadership on the economy. That is why 1,000 people a week are leaving—1,000 a week. Keep that up for 2 years, and you have lost the equivalent of the population of Dunedin. We need decent Government procurement. We need to do what Australia does. Australia has just had a Budget. Not only does it balance but Australia is increasing its provision for families with children. It is increasing the amount that it can pay to people who are on a benefit, because it has growth in its economy.

It is an honour to take this opportunity in the general debate to contribute and to thank the Minister for Social Development, Paula Bennett. She is not here right now, but I thank the Minister for her courage, her conviction, and her commitment to this country by bringing these welfare reforms to the House.

I have one issue with Miss Bennett, though. I have one issue. She said it should have been Cunliffe. I look over there and I say: “It’s gonna be Robertson.” It has got to be Robertson. That is the look on his face, and no matter what anyone says, Mr Robertson and his henchman, Mr Mallard, are preparing the coup. Mr Parker—yes, he could be your deputy. He could be the deputy for Mr Robertson, but we all know that the left of the Labour Party is planning a clandestine dinner, if not a barbecue, in the next few weeks.

Mr Parker said that we have not brought the big issues to this House this afternoon. Well, Mr Parker, may I just say that if long-term welfare dependency and trapping people in lives of limited choices, poverty, and poor outcomes is not a big issue in this country, then I say to please come and visit an electorate, because I do not think that Mr Parker, as a list MP, quite understands what is going on out in middle New Zealand. I have seen this not only in my electorate but in my family. I have seen long-term dependency hurt people whom I love and care for, and that is why I support the reforms of this Minister and I support the Prime Minister.

So what does it mean? We will be putting people who want to work, and who should work, back into work. I hear all the claims from across the Chamber that there are no jobs. Well, I looked on the internet just before I came to this Chamber, and as at 1.30 p.m. TradeMe had 11,195 jobs, 9,640 of which are full-time roles. SEEK had 16,046.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: iPredict had Grant Robertson as the next leader.

Mr Bridges said Grant Robertson is going to be the next leader on iPredict, so he has been doing his research too. So please do not tell me that there are no jobs out in our communities. The Labour Party needs to do a bit of research, get out, and find out what is actually going on in our electorates.

Getting back to Budget 2012, which Mr Parker asked about, this Government is going to invest $287.5 million over the next 4 years into welfare. That is over and above—over and above—what has already been allocated. It is about investing in our people. So what are we doing? We are putting parenting services in place. We are putting budgeting services in place. We are having mentors to help the young and help the unemployed and those on benefits to get back into work. The Minister was quite correct when she asked what Labour would do. What would Labour do? The big, fat answer to that is a big zero. It would not do anything. It wants to leave these poor people to suffer and be vulnerable over a long period of time.

I commend the Minister. I support these reforms. I look forward to these reforms saving, over the next 4 years, $1 billion worth of taxpayers’ money. That is why we are doing it. We are here to help the people of New Zealand. We are here to get this country back on an economic track of fiscal responsibility and fiscal competence. This National Government is delivering the promises to New Zealanders.

New Zealand First has got news for Sam Lotu-Iiga and his nervous backbench mates, and it is all bad. The end is nigh. Let me tell you, he might talk about Maungakiekie like that, but if he went back to his electorate properly and asked them out there in, particularly, the Samoan community, the Pacific Island community, and the Māori community who live within his electorate, then the news for him is really bad. It just demonstrates the old mantra of Nazi Germany: “If you want to tell a lie, make it the biggest one possible, and you have got more chance of it being believed”.

Look, this Government is not going to survive 3 years. It will not make it until the next election, and this is why. It is totally dysfunctional—totally dislocated. I will give you an example. Yesterday the Minister for Social Development—who, as Sam Lotu-Iiga said, is not here to defend any longer, and I understand why, and that is because she has cut and run—announced a policy, and her key coalition partner, the Māori Party, and the Associate Minister for Social Development Tariana Turia immediately attacked it, took it to pieces, and said: “From me and my colleagues in the Māori Party, on this issue, the answer is no.” That means that they are not going to vote for the Budget, surely, in a few days’ time. You cannot say no to the media—you cannot go and say that Sam Lotu-Iiga is talking drivel—and then walk into the same hall and vote with the Government. It is that simple.

The Māori Party wants the taxpayers to fund some iwi breeding programme. That is what Tariana Turia said. She said “… it’s insulting to tell anybody about how many tamariki”—that is, children—“they should have.” Mr Lotu-Iiga, you and your colleagues, what do you think of that statement? Because this is the party you are hugging whilst you are making dramatic mistakes. He wants to talk about jobs. Last week in Dunedin, there came a supermarket that wanted new workers. It advertised for 100 workers. How many applied? Thirteen hundred, most of whom would be beneficiaries. Your Minister—sorry, the Minister said—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It is the third time.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS:—that there is all this work available. Well, I am saying that is demonstrable nonsense. There is not work available, and those 1,300 people, 1,200 of whom missed out on a job, are evidence of that.

Then you have got this: the foreshore and seabed. Yesterday it was announced that there were 24 claims, and at Mōtītī off the coast of the Bay of Plenty—three hapū, a small island—all three claims are for the same foreshore and seabed. Now who told this country that there was a disaster coming? There is nothing as antiseptic or sterile as the phrase “I told you so”, but we did. And those members decided to ignore it. You see, National, which campaigned on the slogan “Kiwi not iwi”, is now for iwi and no Kiwi—now it is for iwi and no Kiwi. So, here we come, the Māori Party was on TV last night attacking Mr Finlayson, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and saying: “No, no, all these claimants are right.” I tell you, the National Government is not going to make it through to 2014. It is so dysfunctional, and one more hiccup and it is goodnight, nurse—or, in this case, boys.

You see, you go from the Māori Party, which says one thing in the House and different things on the marae, and it will be called to account shortly on the Budget debate. But then you have got the ACT Party. If you go from the Māori Party to the ACT Party, it is not a pretty sight. It is not a pretty sight. The leader of the ACT Party has the worst case of amnesia in the history of this Parliament. He cannot remember helicopter rides, cannot remember being hugged by a big bear of a man, cannot remember anonymous donations—45 of them—and cannot remember banquets. And what does the Prime Minister say? He said: “Well, I asked him whether he broke the law, and he said no, and I accept him.” I asked: “Did you break the law, John?”, and he said: “No, and I accept that.”

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

I ask you this question: how can John Key be judge and jury in his own case? Well, it is a humbug. The cup of tea in Epsom was not a good idea. I reckon the holiday home in Hawaii and the knighthood he will give himself is looking pretty good, but I tell you who the most dysfunctional person is right now. It is the Prime Minister, who was all things to all men, but he is just “Mr Spray and Walk Away”.

It gives me great pleasure to speak in the general debate this afternoon. Shortly we will have Budget 2012, and that will show that we have a steady and sure path back to surplus by 2014-15. It is so important we return to surplus. We are one of the most indebted countries in the world. We need to pay our bills, we need to get back to surplus, and we need a buffer for the next global impact when it comes—not if, but when, it comes, as it surely will. The Budget will have a balanced approach, very similar to the previous Budgets of this Government. There will be entitlements to welfare and superannuation, but we will be investing more in health, education, and law and order.

I want to spend some time talking about the health sector, and I congratulate our Minister of Health, the Hon Tony Ryall, on his focus and his belief in the health system. It has paid off. The Hon Tony Ryall is very determined to increase productivity in our hospitals, and today, by chance, there was a report from the New Zealand Herald, where researchers from Victoria University—independent research—has confirmed that over the last 3 years hospital productivity has increased by between 3 and 5 percent. That does not surprise me one bit. This is evidence-based research. It does not surprise me one bit, because we have had a Minister who has believed in the health system and who has got around the sector, talked to people, and made some minor reforms, and it is working.

We have had huge inroads in the increase in elective surgery—a staggering 27,000 more procedures than were done in 2008—and record levels of immunisation. Immunisation for 2-year-olds has gone from 73 percent under Labour to 92 percent under National. It is phenomenal, the improvement. We have now set a new and ambitious target of 95 percent of all 8-month-olds to be fully immunised by the end of 2014, and I am confident we will achieve that target.

We have had huge progress in cancer treatment waiting times. In my first term of Parliament we had women going to Australia for radiotherapy. We had blowouts of waiting times for radiation. There were blowouts everywhere in the cancer waiting journey. That has changed. We have now the gold standard of a 4-week waiting time for radiotherapy. That is phenomenal. People probably said that it could not be done, but we did it. The Minister has done it; our district health boards have done it. They have delivered. Shortly that 4-week waiting time will be extended to chemotherapy waiting times, and I am very pleased to see that.

There is something about having targets. It sets the mind and focuses the mind. The district health boards have welcomed the targets, which are published quarterly, and you will see that it has lifted the game. There are variable results—some are good in some areas; others not so good—but over time everyone has stepped up. It is not threatening; it has been a challenge, and it has improved productivity in our system.

A new tool kit has been released by the Minister to district health boards to help improve productivity, and do you know what? It is not rocket science; it is about sharing great ideas, supporting colleagues, and improving the system. It is about simple things like improving theatre scheduling or post-op surgery to get people back on their feet quicker. It is sharing good ideas amongst the district health boards. That is one part of the tool kit. Let us face it: greater work satisfaction and better results are all part of colleagues sharing information, supporting each other. You get greater outputs, and it has been shown.

I am particularly pleased with the Prime Minister’s youth mental health package, funded by Vote Health to the tune of $33 million over the next 4 years. This includes $10 million for school-based services, which really means now that there will be a nurse in every decile 3 secondary school, in addition to the nurses who are already in decile 1 and decile 2 schools. This will cover 157 secondary schools, and 56,000 young people will be catered for. I think that is a fantastic start. It is about putting $2.7 million going into e-therapy, particularly for young people who are not ready for a face-to-face consultation or help, and that e-therapy, the new way of media, will be one way of connecting with those young people. It is about putting $11.3 million into expanding primary care for youth.

Rheumatic fever announcements recently—fantastic. Look, it is a Third World disease; we should not have it in New Zealand. Labour did nothing for 9 years, and last year we had some announcements. I am delighted with this package. Thank you.

I want to make a couple of comments to members who have spoken this afternoon. To Paul Hutchison, an old boy of the same school as me, I just want to say one thing: get your electorate to pay its bills. It is absolutely shocking, as an old boy of Onslow College—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has referred to other people saying “get your”. The member cannot use that part of speech in debate. He knows well enough.

I say to Paul Hutchison: he should get his electorate to pay his bills. That would be a good thing to do. And a bit of advice for the relatively new member Sam Lotu-Iiga, and that is that when Michael Woodhouse suggests that it would be inappropriate to go to Pūhoi to go to a seminar run by Simon Lusk, then it would be a good idea not to go. He defied the whip and he went to that seminar, along with Mark Mitchell and Louise Upston.

It must cause a little bit of a relationship problem in the whips’ seats when the House has, when the whips have, and when National has one whip saying “Don’t go.” and the other whip turning up. And there was the other member, whom we do not expect to know any better, because he is, as we say, the poor man’s Paul Quinn. Jami-Lee Ross was the other member who apparently went to that. We do not expect him to understand, but he turned up as well.

Today has been an interesting day in terms of quotations on the promiscuity of New Zealand women. Mr Speaker, I know that you were given some advice in this area yesterday, but today we heard from the leader of the Conservative Party, the person whom John Key is trying to get into bed, I might say—

💬 Grant Robertson: So to speak.

Well, who knows? Rachel Smalley, I think, summed it up pretty well today: “Why is it only New Zealand women who’ve become promiscuous? Has the country been overwhelmed by rampant lesbians?” I think that just about sums up the line that should be taken on the potential coalition partner, the group that John Key has been trying to get alongside.

Today has also been interesting. Today, I think, has been the first occasion when I have ever heard a Minister for Social Development prefer a Stuff poll over the household labour force survey for accuracy on employment statistics. It is just amazing that we have a Minister who has an enormous amount of resources available to her, and what she says is: “I’ll ignore every official statistic, the thing that we spent millions of dollars collecting, and we’ll decide the policy of the country based on a Stuff poll.” Well, that just about says it all, and that is one of the reasons, I am sure, why 1,000 New Zealanders are leaving every week, permanently, to go to Australia. Those people cannot see any hope from this Government whatsoever.

I think all of us know such people. In my own electorate, we have the Lomaxes. You cannot get more Hutt Valley and Wainuiōmata than the Lomax family. The Lomax family are not going over to play rugby league temporarily—because a number of them have, but they have always come back. You know, they have gone over, they have performed brilliantly, and they have come back to New Zealand.

💬 Grant Robertson: Didn’t one of them break your arm?

Arnold. He is still here, unfortunately. I do not want to say too much more about Arnold and his serious tackles, because I might get another one.

Why are they going? They are going because growth under the National Government led by John Key is the worst we have had in New Zealand for 50 years at least—the worst growth we have had in New Zealand for at least 50 years—and it could well be, because people are working their way back through the statistics, the worst since the Great Depression. I just want to say that I do not blame people for going to Australia, because this Government is not giving them hope. The only good thing is that the stench of corruption means that this Government is going.

We will be very sorry to lose you, Mr Mallard, after a wonderful discourse on the significant issues facing the country today; I think we heard about rampant lesbians, trips to Pūhoi, and we discussed old school mates. Mr Parker said that on this side of the House we were refusing to engage in the big issues, and yet the discussion has centred on health and welfare. If these are not big issues in the forefront of everybody’s mind in New Zealand today, I do not know what are.

This is a principled and pragmatic Government, a Government that keeps its promises. In the face of global uncertainty it is crucial that we are fiscally prudent custodians of the public purse, that we create a more productive economy, and that we develop new markets. I want to pay credit to our Minister of Trade, the Hon Tim Groser, who has been pivotal in exploring new markets and negotiating new free-trade agreements around the world, which can only be in New Zealand’s interest as we work towards creating 40 percent of our GDP from exports. We have committed to rebuilding Christchurch—it is a significant contributor to our GDP—and, of course, we are demanding more effective, more efficient, high-quality public services.

We are on track to be back in the black in 2014-15. That does not sound very sexy, but why is it important? It is important because once we get back to surplus, we can start repaying debt. This is no small achievement in the face of the difficult conditions that this economy has been facing in the last 3½ years. It has come about only through disciplined fiscal policy by this Government—a willingness to make trade-offs.

We have a plan to rebuild the economy. We have a plan to strengthen the economy and strengthen our country. We are sticking to it, and it is working. If you want to see what happens when there is no plan, you need only to look across the water to Europe, to Greece. The two major parties were able to garner only a fraction of the votes. There is a patchwork of small parties from a rainbow of colours, if you like, from the rabid left to the ultra right. At the time of speaking, at this stage nobody has been able to form a Government. There is every possibility that there is likely to be another election and, of course, there is a possibility too that Greece may, in fact, be evicted from the eurozone.

We are a Government that keeps its promises. We keep our promises. In the case of health care—better, sooner, and more convenient health care—we promise and we are delivering. Health services are a public service dear to the heart of every New Zealander. Every New Zealander demands better health services. In fact, we have spent $1.5 billion more—in the face of these difficult financial circumstances—on our health service over 3 years. We are growing and protecting our public health service during these tough times. I have to say that as the National Party member based in the vibrant and diverse electorate of Manurewa, I am very, very proud of what we are achieving.

It was a huge shock to me when we came into power to realise the ravages that rheumatic fever was making in many of our communities. We have heard about Porirua, Hawke’s Bay, the far north, the lakes area, but particularly in the communities that I work in and I am seeing every week—Clendon, Weymouth, Finlayson Park, and Roscommon—these are areas in Manurewa where a huge problem exists with rheumatic fever. What are we doing about it? We have rolled out a pilot scheme in Wiri Central School. I went along there last year, visited the school, spoke to the principal, and saw where the school nurses work. This will be the pilot that will inform the roll-out of other programmes in other schools around New Zealand, but particularly in the area where I am based.

There is a particular spot on Queen Street in Auckland—or at least there used to be—where a bunch of smiling young people with clipboards accost those who are going past and invite them to participate in a personality test. I watched for a while and the people they approach are invariably those who are alone who look perhaps a little vulnerable, or who are perhaps, in particular, Māori and Pacific Island people. Strangely enough, those who take the personality test invariably find that the solution to the problems with their personality lies somehow in the Church of Scientology.

More recently, viewers of Māori Television will have seen advertisements for a drug-free world. School pupils—some 230,000 of them—have received leaflets from Drug-Free Ambassadors. There is a group of bereaved family members of people who have killed themselves who have been befriended by a group called the Citizens Commission on Human Rights. The Foundation for a Drug-Free World, the Drug-Free Ambassadors, and the Citizens Commission for Human Rights are all fronts for the Church of Scientology, as is Criminon, as is Narconon, as is RehabilitateNZ, as is the World Literacy Crusade, and many others. I am not a person with a religious belief myself, but I do not object to churches providing social services, provided that the church connection is transparent and that the service is not a front for recruiting into the church. It seems to me that the Church of Scientology fails on both those fronts.

As many people will know, scientology was invented by the science fiction author L Ron Hubbard. There is a lot of dispute about some of the basic facts, but at its heart is the quote from Mr Hubbard at an authors’ conference in 1948: “Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars the best way would be to start his own religion.” Mr Hubbard’s religion has an evil, intergalactic overlord named Xenu, who solved an overpopulation crisis by rounding up aliens, transporting them to Earth, and killing them in extinct volcanoes with hydrogen bombs. The souls of those aliens then came to haunt human beings, and they are called thetans. The way that the distorted thinking that results from being haunted in this way can be resolved is actually by an expensive process involving audit by a senior Scientologist. In fact, the Church of Scientology came 4 years after the science of Dianetics, also invented by Mr Hubbard—a science of mental health that he described to his publisher as one with tremendous promotional and sales potential.

So why is it a problem? It is a problem because in addition to the repugnance of deceiving, exploiting, and often brainwashing and fleecing the vulnerable and desperate, the Church of Scientology has also a very strong opposition to the use of medicines and psychiatry. Its drug-free programmes are smokescreens for this anti-psychiatry agenda. Members of Parliament will have received this DVD from, in fact, the Church of Scientology in the guise of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights. It is called Dead Wrong: How Psychiatric Drugs Can Kill Your Child.

It is evil to try to persuade people with a mental illness to avoid proper health professional services and the treatment that they need. What is especially concerning is that these programmes are now increasingly being funded by taxpayers’ money through the Community Organisations Grants Scheme and other community grants schemes. A number of these front organisations are registered with the Charities Commission, and there is increasing evidence that they are being funded. I say to the Minister of Internal Affairs, please follow through with the investigation promised by the department back in February. The New Zealand public is owed that.

One of the most interesting things for me as a new member in this House is the constant, daily discovery of new information. What I have learnt this afternoon about the Church of Scientology has added to the sum total of my general knowledge immensely, so I would like to thank the Green member Mr Hague for his very interesting presentation on the Church of Scientology.

But as I rise to speak this afternoon I am thinking, really, about the Coromandel electorate and the very good hard-working people of the Coromandel, who are, by and large, small-business people running enterprises of varying shapes, forms, and sizes. Most of them know that in order to be successful in their business—whether it be a farm, a retail business, horticulture, aquaculture, fishing, or whatever—you really need a very good plan and you need good budgetary responsibility. You need that especially when times are tough.

It is no different for a Government. In the past 3 years National has delivered on its plan to put the economy back on a sound footing, based on more savings, more exports, and more productivity. We are determined to have less debt, to reduce housing speculation, and to make sure that Government spending is sustainable. These are the sorts of things that the good business people of Coromandel want in a Government. They are the sorts of things that they voted for last November. At the same time as we have been focusing on those matters over the last 3 years, we have protected the most vulnerable and taken the sharpest edges off the recession for families and for businesses.

National’s responsible management means that the Government’s books are set to be back in surplus by the year 2014-15, and that will be the first time since the global financial crisis hit the world economy. Returning to surplus means that we can start, as a nation, reducing debt, and that will be no small achievement. It has taken a disciplined fiscal policy and management to make that happen. We have a plan to rebuild and strengthen New Zealand’s economy, we have stuck to it, and it is working.

In just over a fortnight on 24 May the very good Minister of Finance, Bill English, will be delivering his Budget. It will be a Budget that will reflect our four priorities for this term of Government. Members opposite probably need a little bit of a reminder about what those four priorities are. The first—and most important, I guess—is that we should be responsibly managing the Government’s finances, building—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have seen the rules in respect of reading one’s speech. I am not trying to say that that should be enforced, in the way—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The right honourable member cannot interrupt another member’s speech over an issue of whether or not that member is reading a speech. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 47/1. [Interruption] Order! Only the Speaker can decide—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. Only the Speaker can decide whether or not a member should be reading a speech. I must say, I think the general debate has improved enormously. I think we have not had members reading speeches in recent times, and I think that has been a great improvement. I just alert all members to the need not to read these short general debate speeches, but I had not perceived that to be a problem on this occasion.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not doing this to interrupt, but I think maybe we could work on the person who is drafting these speeches to get the word “you” out of them.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Neither do I want to see members’ speeches interrupted when they use the word “you”. All members should be aware—and the honourable member did correct himself—not to use the third person when referring to other members. It becomes particularly bad when members get accusatory across the House and are saying “you” or “you did this”, and that is what I want to eliminate, if possible. I apologise to the member for his speech being interrupted.

It is with pleasure that I continue to rise and speak about the Government’s plan for our economy—a good four-point plan that is going to ensure that the economy is on a sound and robust footing for future generations. That is the message that the people of Coromandel want to hear. That is what they voted for at the last election. They voted for responsible management of the Government’s finances, and that is what we have delivered on. They voted for the building of a more productive and competitive economy, and that is what they voted for last November. That is part of our plan. They voted for the delivering of better public services.

In the Budget, in a fortnight’s time, those will be measures that will be introduced and will be addressed by Bill English. The rebuilding of Christchurch is a hugely important facet and aspect of this Budget that we will be hearing about in just a fortnight’s time. I am sure that the Government will announce a package that will show that the most vulnerable in our society are further protected.

A group who are very vulnerable are young people who are on welfare. We want to make sure that those people do not spend their lives scrap-heaped because of welfare dependency, stuck there in a trap of poverty and despair that they cannot move away from. So I will be very happy to support the Budget’s initiatives that will see that we will be targeting young people who are on the benefits, because we know that young people who get on to benefits at a young age tend to stay there. They stay there far too long, and that is not good for them, it is not good for the nation, and it is certainly not good for our community and for our society.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.