General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Tomorrow the Hon Bill English will deliver his fourth Budget, confirming that the National Government has a strong economic plan in very difficult international circumstances. Every night when New Zealanders turn on their television sets, each day when they pick up their newspapers, they see what is happening in Europe, they see what is happening in the United States, they see the G8 countries coming together, terribly worried about the situation economically throughout the world. They know that there is a problem out there. They know that they have to have a Government cognisant of that, with a plan to insulate New Zealand as much as possible against its worst effects. The only people in the country who do not seem to know that are the people who sit on what the Prime Minister has described as “Planet Labour”—the people in total denial about the circumstances that exist within the world and the opportunities that we must avail ourselves of if we are to get through difficult times.

We have on the other side of the House three books being put in front of us, three prescriptions for the economy from the three Davids: one from David Parker, one from David Cunliffe, and one from David Shearer. There are three books but no single gospel about what we might follow as a prescription going forward. David Parker wants to agree with Bill English about what to do. David Cunliffe wants to be a right-wing politician but has decided his best chances are to head to the left. And David Shearer simply does not know what to do until Grant Robertson tells him which way he should make a choice. That is no basis for any party to attack a Budget, the likes of which Bill English will deliver tomorrow, in the best interests of New Zealand.

So what do we hear from Labour? Firstly, on the revenue side it is constantly: “Don’t do that, don’t do that, don’t do that.” Nothing that is being proposed by this Government to increase revenue in this country has been supported by Labour—not one thing in 3½ years. I challenge anyone on that side to stand up today and lift their finger and say one thing—one thing—it has supported that will increase revenue in this country. There is not any—not one. But instead, we get this: “We want to spend more. We want to spend more on some dopey things like Radio New Zealand National. We want to spend more on KiwiRail. We want to spend more on the State services. We want to spend more on legal aid. We want to spend more on absolutely anything.” And any idea that we might put to try to get better value for services, better value for the money that the taxpayer spends, it is a no to that as well.

The worst denial from Labour is the denial of the huge economic impact of one of the worst disasters in the world in 2010-11, the Christchurch earthquake. It gives me no pleasure to see Labour members constantly carping about the way things are being done down there, and denying the fact that there are hard times, difficult times, and tough decisions that have to be made. If one were to extrapolate the earthquake event, there would be, effectively, five earthquakes over 3 on the Richter scale every day since 4 September. That is what people are dealing with down there. What they need is some certainty about how recovery is going to be carried out.

David Parker today stood up in the House and seemed to think that everything was OK because Canterbury has strong economic growth—stronger economic growth than the rest of the country. Well, off the base that we are working off there, that is great news, but it is certainly not an indication that all is well down there for residents in that part of the world. I think that what Labour is doing is denying the huge commitment that everybody down there—in their workplace, in their homes, in their community groups—has made to recovery. It is good news that we are getting that economic growth—15,000 homes down there have been repaired under the Earthquake Commission scheme so far, $3.1 billion has been paid out in insurance payments by the Earthquake Commission, 80 percent of unsafe buildings have been taken down, and now there is a clear march towards a central business district plan that will see that part of the city redeveloped in a way that makes it a unique place in New Zealand, if not in the South Pacific.

Tomorrow the Government will reaffirm its commitments to Christchurch in the Budget, and I welcome that. I say to Labour members that they should stop pointing out everything that is annoying to them as people on a planet where they have no idea of what is going on. They should get on the programme and start supporting a bigger recovery for Canterbury.

I actually find objectionable that reference to our members from Canterbury—that they are not pulling their weight and that they are not representing their communities. I can tell you that Clayton Cosgrove, Lianne Dalziel, Ruth Dyson, and Megan Woods have stood up, defended their communities, defended their electorates, and played the right role they should have played.

I can tell you that I sit in this House and the only thing you can hear from members on that side of the House is excuses about why this Government cannot get any growth going. They have to go back 4 years to Labour, which actually left them in a positive—in a surplus. It left you in a surplus—9 years of surplus followed by 3 years of record deficit—and we still get that same excuse trucked out over and over and over. When is that side going to actually stand up and produce a plan for getting this country going? They talk about “Planet Labour”; this is cloud-cuckoo-land National. I can guarantee that “Planet Labour” came from Moonbeam when she was last talking to the Prime Minister.

Tomorrow we will get a zero Budget. A zero Budget means zero growth. Zero growth means zero hope. And zero hope means 53,000 people go to Australia—that is the calculation. That is the calculation you need to be taking account of: 53,000 people, which is the biggest loss of New Zealand talent in our history. It has never been bigger. This is in complete contrast to what John Key promised in 2008. In 2008 that is not what he promised.

We have had the worst economic growth in 50 years—50 years. There has been no year since then when we have had worse economic growth. I cannot believe that this Government is standing up and saying to us that it is proud of the fact that it is producing a zero Budget. I know what is going to happen when the Olympics come along very soon. We are going to have John Key watching his television and saying: “Go on, New Zealand. Don’t worry about gold; just get ahead of Greece.” That is what the Government is going to be saying. That is where this Government is setting its sights. It is setting its sights at the bottom—at the bottom. This was supposed to be a party of aspiration. It is not about aspiration any more; it is actually just pointing at the bottom.

We have the worst growth in 50 years, we have got 53,000 people moving to Australia, we have got 50,000 more people unemployed, and we have got 50,000 more people on benefits. That is a successful Government? Give me a break! Those are the numbers that count. Those are the numbers that relate to real people, not this vague cloud-cuckoo-land National that Mr English is putting out there. A zero Budget equals zero growth equals zero hope equals 53,000 people going off to Australia.

Why people will want to believe this Government is beyond me. They will not. When I go around the countryside and ask them what they think is going to be in the Budget for them, they say: “Well, nothing, actually.” They are not expecting anything. And they will not be disappointed. They will not be disappointed. That is one great thing about this Budget: people’s hopes are so low that they are never going to be disappointed with this Budget.

In Budget 2010 what did this Government promise? “In the end, this was a Budget about growth, a Budget about jobs, a Budget about the future of New Zealand,”. That was in 2010. In 2011, after the Government failed to meet its forecasts, it said: “the Budget is likely to see very strong growth in real wages for New Zealanders … very strong job growth; and a much stronger economic outlook for New Zealand.” It did not make that, either. And now in 2012, here we go again. This is what the prediction is: “The Budget documents will show we are likely to experience…reasonably”—aha—“robust levels of growth in 2013-14,”. It just keeps getting put out further and further.

This week the John Key - led Government will set down another chapter in the plan to balance the books in a timely way and to grow the New Zealand economy for a better future for our country. We know now, on the day before the Budget, that the Leader of the Opposition is so not on top of his game that there was not one idea from Mr Shearer as to how we could grow the economy, and not one idea from Mr Shearer as to how we could balance the Budget. I have an interesting challenge for members opposite. It is easy enough to talk about balancing the Budget, as one David might say, but the other David actually has to say how they would do it.

Over the adjournment all we have heard from Labour members is how to spend more and how to stop growth. Let me just recite a few of the commentaries from members of the Opposition on their plan to address the economic problems of New Zealand. We had Labour members come out and say why they oppose gas, petroleum, and mining exploration. They can whinge all they like about jobs in Australia. Why is it that they oppose every initiative by members on this side of the House to grow petroleum, to grow minerals?

We had an even more dopey idea from the Opposition over the adjournment. They wanted to grow the economy by freezing the number of dairy cows—freezing the number of dairy cows. Can some member opposite explain to me how you grow the economy, how the most important growing industry that this country has for the earning of export industries is going to grow, by capping the number of cows? I asked the library: if you had capped the number of cows over the last decade, what would that mean for jobs and exports? It would mean $8 billion less in exports, and it would mean 5,000 fewer jobs.

Do you know what else happened over the adjournment? Well, submissions were made public on King Salmon’s proposals to grow the aquaculture industry. This Government has got a plan to grow that industry up to be a billion-dollar industry and to employ another 8,000 people. Do you know what the Opposition said? On every single application for new marine space, the Opposition said: “No, no growth.” So Mr Shearer, I say to you: where is the growth coming from, when every Opposition commentary over the adjournment was to stop aquaculture growth, to stop marine development in terms of resources, and to stop the growth of the dairy industry?

What about the different views of the Davids? Mr David Parker says that Labour is going to balance the Budget by 2014-15. What a pity he did not talk to Mr Cunliffe, because Mr Cunliffe has said they need to take a stimulus approach, and that we should borrow more. What is more, I hear every member of the Labour Opposition promising more spending. Well, they have been promising more for housing and more for the police. We have got the broadcasting spokesperson promising another $25 million for TVNZ 7. Well, I have got a simple message for members opposite.

💬 Andrew Little: $5 billion from that former Minister; it’s hopeless.

I say to Mr Little that it is easy to say you are going to grow the economy, but you have to walk the talk. It is easy to say you are going to balance the Budget, but you have to walk the talk. The difference between members on this side of the House and members opposite is that there is a credible plan to balance the Budget. There is a credible plan to grow the economy.

Over there, on “Planet Labour”, they are disconnected. I ask Mr Little how more holidays and more paid parental leave balances the Budget or grows the economy, because that is what Mr Little has been talking about over the adjournment. The hope for New Zealand is with the John Key - led Government and is the next chapter in our story of how we balance the Budget in a reasonable time frame, how we grow the economy, and I just challenge members opposite—

Order! Before I call the next member, I did not want to interrupt the Hon Dr Nick Smith, but the level of interjection there was getting quite unreasonable. I have got to say to Andrew Little, towards the back of the Chamber there, that sustained jabbing and yelling across the House is not becoming of any member in this place. I think the House should behave with a little more dignity—a little more dignity.

I seek leave to table the results of a professional opinion poll survey of 18 May 2012, showing—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before the member says what it shows, I want to know the source of the document.

It is Fairfax, showing 87 percent of Cantabrians think the Government should do more for them about the earthquake.

Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. If we had a Green-led Government, we would have a very different Budget from the one we will get tomorrow from National.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the honourable member. Look, Eugenie Sage is down at the back of the Chamber. I just cannot hear her if that level of interjection carries on. It is just discourteous. We are better than that—we are better than that. We do not need to behave like a bunch of brats.

A Green Budget would be based on smart Green economics. It would recognise that a healthy economy depends upon a healthy environment, that we are nothing without the clean air, the water, the temperate climate, and the fertile soils that nature provides us with. A Budget from a Green-led Government would recognise that the word “economy” has its roots in the Greek word “oikonomos”. “Nomos” means manager or steward. A Green Budget would ensure that our oikonomos, or our economy, was based on an ethic of stewardship, or kaitiakitanga, for our dwelling place, these islands of Aotearoa, and our larger dwelling place, the planet itself.

Meridian Energy’s decision to drop its plans to dam the Mōkihinui this week was some very good news when we need it, when we are looking at a zero Budget. It was a tribute to the thousands of New Zealanders who care about wild nature and about our rivers. They spoke up for the Mōkihinui as a dwelling place for threatened species like tuna, the long-finned eel, and whio, the blue duck, and as a place to fish, kayak, walk, and tramp. The Mōkihinui dam would have drowned more than 200 hectares of conservation land, flooding the largest area of public land since the Manapōuri scheme. That people had to mobilise to protect the Mōkihinui and the public conservation estate, given the abundant scientific evidence about its outstanding landscape and ecological and recreational values, shows what is wrong with the Government’s economic policy. That is that virtually nothing is off limits to National’s “sell it, dig it, drill it, mine it, irrigate it” agenda, and its short-term thinking of getting the cash now and letting someone else take care of the environment and take care of our future.

The Mōkihinui is our seventh most important river, in terms of its biodiversity values, out of over 4,700 rivers. It should have been obvious to Meridian Energy from the start that one of our top 10 rivers was no place for a dam, particularly when Landcare Research had said that there was no way that you could offset the drowning and flooding of 200 hectares of conservation land through a land exchange.

The Mōkihinui debate should close the door on any more dams on our wild or braided rivers. Such dams are economically and environmentally unsound. We need a clear direction in Meridian Energy’s statement of intent that its energy generation should be sustainable and should recognise and provide for our nationally important rivers such as the Mōkihinui. We need a sound environmental strategy as part of our economic policy. We have a network of national parks and reserves; we need a national network of permanently protected rivers. A Green Budget would include the funding and policy direction to secure permanent protection for a representative network of our rivers. A Green Budget would not weaken water conservation orders, as this Government has done in Canterbury to expedite irrigation and hydro development.

National’s Budget is likely to involve a further assault on our rivers through subsidies for irrigation and intensive agriculture. Emboldened by the prospect of the revenue generated from the sale of our assets, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is now contemplating a $250 million mega-impact mega-dam proposal, and that is because the Government is handing out subsidies for intensive agriculture. The previous speaker the Hon Dr Nick Smith fails to recognise that if you subsidise intensive agriculture, if you do not cap cow numbers in sensitive catchments like the Waituna Lagoon and Lake Ellesmere, you will be throwing good money after bad by trying to clean up those catchments when you are not dealing with the source of the problem.

A Green Budget would put a fair charge on the commercial use of water in order to generate revenue to invest in more sustainable land and water management to restore wetlands and to protect riparian areas—to fence them off. And we would invest more in environmental research. A fair charge for the commercial use of water would ensure that intensive dairying does not freeload on the environment, as it currently does. It would have to take those environmental impacts into account.

We saw the landmark recommendations of the Land and Water Forum last week—proposals for a suite of environmental standards to set clear bottom lines. We will be looking at the Budget tomorrow to see whether there is investment—

The good news for the previous speaker, Eugenie Sage, is that under a National Government we can have both. We can have sustainable development as well as look after our environment. But that is not what I want to talk about today, because I have a far more important message for the House, and that is that this National Government is proud—proud—of its record on tackling crime. We have a Minister who backs the police. We have a Minister who backs corrections. This National Government is proud that we put victims as the focus of the rights of the justice system.

What were we left with by the previous Labour Government? I will tell you what we were left with. We were left with a criminal justice system in utter disarray. It lacked accountability and lacked any focus at all on the victims of crime. We have put that right. What were we left with by the previous Labour Government? A critical shortage of prison beds. What were we left with by the previous Labour Government? Gangs and organised crime that were growing in strength, and the Government of the day was losing the fight against P. We had a Government of the day that released violent criminals on parole, and the legal aid budget was completely blowing out. Violent crime was up 47 percent under the stewardship of the previous Government in the previous decade. Do you know that under the term of the previous Government only one law and order policy was released, and that was—guess what—to form a committee?

Well, I can tell you that things are different under this National Government. In the first 4 years of this National Government we have clamped down on gangs. We have clamped down on organised crime and we are winning the war against methamphetamine. We have toughened bail sentences and we have abolished parole for the worst violent criminals, which, by the way, the Labour Party has vowed to repeal. We have put more police on the streets for New Zealanders, and we have given those police better tools to do their work.

You know, under this Government reported crime is down in the past 2 years, and reported crime is at the lowest level since 1982. We have seized more than $30 million worth of P in 2012, and $40 million of criminal proceeds, and that is just to date. That brings me to this year’s Budget and the huge goals that we have set ourselves, because we believe that New Zealanders deserve to feel safe in their homes and their communities.

I believe that this Government puts people first. So that is why I am so proud of the announcements that our Minister of Police made for the Budget. Sixty-five million dollars will be prioritised in operating expenditure over the next 4 years. What will that do? We know that two-thirds of prisoners have addiction problems. We know that up to 90 percent cannot read or cannot write well. We think we should do something about that. Therefore, we are going to increase investment in alcohol and drug treatment. We are going to increase investment in education and skills training. We want to reduce the likelihood of reoffending and increase the likelihood of successful reintegration into New Zealand society.

This Government understands that addressing the drivers of crime and that involving whānau and involving communities in rehabilitation and reintegration is the way forward for New Zealanders. If we can help prisoners make a positive contribution to society on their release, then we will have fewer crimes, we will have fewer victims, and we will have safer communities. Thank you.

I am going, later in this contribution, to respond to some of Dr Nick Smith’s comments, but before then I think it is salutary to reflect on the fact that this Government keeps making promises that its management of the economy will deliver—it will deliver growth, jobs, and higher incomes—but it is not working, and it has not worked. The Government keeps rolling out these same promises. It is time for New Zealand to stop talking about what National says it is going to do, and start talking about what National is actually doing and what it is not achieving.

Tomorrow it is going to roll out the same promises. David Shearer has already read out some of the repetitive promises that have never been kept by the Prime Minister, John Key. I am going to make reference to some of the similar statements by the Minister of Finance, because there are so many of them. They are legion.

In the Budget last year the Minister of Finance promised “growth is forecast to reach 4% next year and the economy is forecast to create 170,000 new jobs over the next four years.” Was that achieved? No, that was not achieved. And that promise was made after the two major earthquakes in Christchurch, and 3 years after the global financial crisis. Then he says in the pre-election fiscal update—of course, this is in advance of the election; National was trying to gild the lily there—“At present, export prices are high, business confidence remains firm and the Rugby World Cup has provided some temporary support for consumption and for services exports.” The pre-election fiscal update had some promises as to growth in the economy and the debt track. Those forecasts, did they come true? No, they did not either.

Then, on page 2 of the Budget Executive Summary last year, he had the heading “Achieving Higher and More Sustainable Growth”. I cannot believe the gall of that statement. After already 3 years’ oversight of poor economic growth National said we were achieving high and more sustainable growth. Instead, we have had growth that turns out to be less than forecast. Over the period of National’s Government, it has been the worst of the last 50 years. Then, in the Budget speech, he said that the economy has “in prospect the strongest growth for a decade”—another promise that is not being kept. Then he said that the previous year’s Budget supported jobs and economic growth. Well, if that is right, why did we not get jobs and economic growth, instead of people going to Australia for jobs, and insufficient economic growth here?

Then he said: “New Zealand’s growth rate is accelerating,”. But did it? No, it did not. Then he said it was “expected to accelerate in the second half of 2011 and through 2012”. Has it? No. Then he said the underlying growth was anticipated alongside Christchurch’s rebuilding—i.e., there would be growth not just in Christchurch but elsewhere. Has there been? No. Then he says the “recovery in activity is now expected from mid-2011”—explaining further delays—“with economic growth rising to 1.8% in the year March 2012”. Did it? No. Then he said it would peak at 4 percent in the year to March 2013. Will it? No.

This Government’s promises on growth are not worth the paper they are written on. The problem is that National’s big economic initiatives have been the Job Summit, which produced a cycleway, and mining in national parks, which it abandoned. Then it would not agree on any step to close the wage gap with Australia, but had some promise that it would cause a step change in the economy, which has never happened, and then, smarting because of criticisms that it had no plan to grow the economy, it came up with this ridiculous idea of selling off the State-owned enterprises, which increases the Government deficit by $100 million per annum. As we have often said, changing who owns what already exists does nothing to grow the economy. You do not get any more exports.

The economy is not growing. Our export sector earns too little, because we are narrow based. We have not got enough savings. Tax incentives go to the wrong place. Tough decisions are needed on all of these issues, and National will not make any of them. So even if National limps back to surplus in 2014-15—and I think it will; we would too—it will not cure our fundamental problems, because it has not rebalanced the economy. We need growth in jobs, in exports, and in GDP per capita, and on these measures National has failed.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, kia ora tātau katoa. I te tuatahi, kātahi au ka hoki mai i te wā kāinga i te ekenga o Te Poukai o te Kīngitanga ki runga o Pātea, nō reira, ka mihi ki a koe ki Te Kāhui Ariki, Nanaia, ko koe tērā te kanohi o Te Kīngitanga, me mihi rā ki a koe nā runga i tērā āhuatanga, te hononga o Te Arawa ki a Tainui.

Te wiki kua hipa ake, me kī, i puta ētahi ki te whai ao, ki te ao mārama. Kai te kōrero au mō te āhuatanga o te hunga i noho nei i te kore mahi, i te kore moni, arā, ko ngā kaimahi o roto i ngā whare patu mīti o roto o AFFCO. Ko te hunga e taupatupatu nei, e tohe nei ki a Talley’s kia whiwhi i ētahi moni, ā, ka mutu, kia hoki ki te mahi. Kai te kōrero au mō te hunga e noho nei i roto i te kore mahi mō ngā rā 85 pea. Kai te kōrero au mō te kotahi mano tāngata i panaia, i puta rānei nā runga i te tohe ki a Talley’s, mai, me kī, i Te Tai Tokerau ki roto o Moerewa, ki roto o Manawatū, ki Horotiu ki Waikato, ki roto o Ngāti Kahungunu ki te Wairoa, ki roto i a au anō ki roto o Tapuika ki Te Puke. Ko rātou katoa e noho nei i te kore mahi, te kore moni. Me te aroha ki a rātau.

I te wiki kua hipa i haere atu au ki a rātau ki te kōrero, ki te tuku i ētahi paku āwhina, ka mutu, i te Rāhoroi kua hipa ake, i tae atu ētahi o mātau, ko Brendan Horan tētahi, ko Andrew Little tētahi i haere ki te hīkoi i ngā tiriti o Te Puke ki te whakairi i te haki, me kī, ki te tautoko i a rātau. Ko te aroha ki a rātau, nā te kore moni mō te rua marama, toru marama. Pēhea e taea ai e tātau te mārama ki te uauatanga o te noho kore moni, kore taea te whāngai i ngā tamariki, te hoko pata me te parāoa, ērā ahuatanga katoa. Me te kī anō hoki, nō nā tata nei i tae atu taku kaimahi ki roto o Te Puke. I rongo ia i ngā kōrero o te uauatanga o te noho o te hunga, e noho mai rā ki reira. Arā, kua panaia ētahi i ō rātou whare, me kī, kua puta te kōrero a ētahi o ngā kamupene hiko, me kī, ka wetohia te hiko ki tēnā whare, ki tēnā whare. Nō reira, ko rātau te hunga i rongo nei i te uauatanga, ka mutu, ko te rangirua, ko te āwangawanga o te ngākau. Me tē kī anō hoki, ehara i te mea e tino ngāwari mai ai ngā tari o te Kāwanatanga ki ētahi o rātau.

Ko Work and Income tētahi, kāre i tino āro mai ki ō rātau paku hiahia ki te āwhina ēngari, waimaria i te mea, i reira, me kī, te Minita mō ngā Take Māori, a Pita Sharples. Ko ia tērā i tuku i tētahi reta ki ngā kaikōrero o ngā iwi katoa o te motu, me te kī atu, ā, kia whakakotahi nei rātau i a rātau anō. E ai ki tāku e mōhio nei, i tono ia i ngā reta katoa ki ngā kaikōrero, ka mutu, i tono ia i ētahi o ngā kaimahi o Te Puni Kōkiri ki te āwhina, me kī, ki te noho hei kaitakawaenga i waenganui i ngā tari me te hunga i rongo nei i te uauatanga, me te ūniana. E ai ki ngā kōrero, 75 paihēneti o te hunga i roto i ngā wāhi nei, he Māori, nō reira, e tika ana kia whakakotahi nei a Māori, kia taea e rātau te āwhina i taua hunga. Ko tāku mihi, me kī, ki ngā toa, ki ngā whānau, ki ngā iwi, ki ngā koporeihana i tuku koha ki te āwhina i tērā hunga huri noa te motu. I ngā tāone pakupaku, i tuku ētahi i te kai, i ētahi atu i te moni hei āwhina i a rātau i roto i ngā uauatanga o te rā.

Me mihi anō hoki, me kī, ki ngā kaikorero o ngā iwi, ngā mea pēnei i a Ken Mair o roto o Whanganui, a Sonny Tau o roto o Ngāpuhi, Ngāhiwi Tōmoana o roto o Ngāti Kahungunu, tae atu ki a Mark Solomon, ki a Tuku Morgan. Ko rātau te hunga i kōkiri i te take ēngari, ko te mihi nui, whakaharahara ki a Ken Mair, te tangata pakupaku nei o roto o Whanganui. Ahakoa tōna pakupaku, kātahi te tangata mō te tohe, ē, me te kī anō hoki, i eke panuku, i eke Tangaroa. Ka mutu, ko ia te mea i tino āki i te ūniana kia āro mai ki ngā hiahia o te hunga kore mahi. Nō reira, ka nui te mihi ki a rātau.

Kātahi anō tātau ka kite i te whakakorikori o Te Ao Māori i a ia anō, kia panapana i ētahi kamupene pēnei i tēnei ki te kī atu, anei tātau, anei Te Ao Māori kia tūpato kaua e haere poka noa, kaua e mahi i roto i ngā āhautanga pōhēhē nei. No reira, ko tāku mihi, he mihi ki te iwi Māori tonu i kawe nei i tēnei kaupapa, ka mutu, Whānau Ora ka puta te kōrero āpōpō, kia eke, eke panuku, eke Tangaroa, haramai te toki o haumi e, hui e, tāiki e.

[Thank you Mr Speaker, and greetings to us all. In the first instance, I have just returned from the Māori King Movement’s Te Poukai celebration back home at Pātea and, as a consequence, acknowledge you, Nanaia, as a representative of the King Movement. Under that circumstance it is fitting that I recognise Te Arawa’s connection to Tainui.

In the week just past, let us say that some people have seen the light of day and enlightenment. I am referring of course to the situation where some people remain jobless, moneyless, namely workers in AFFCO freezing works, the ones in dispute with Talley’s over pay conditions and a resolution to return to work eventually. I am talking about those who have been without work for 85 days perhaps, the 1,000 sacked or those who went out in support over the Talley’s dispute, from Moerewa in the North to Manawatū, Horotiu in the Waikato, among Ngāti Kahungunu at Wairoa, and in my very own region among Tapuika at Te Puke, shall we say. All of them remain out of work and out of pocket. I pity them.

Last week I visited and spoke to them and offered a little, then last Saturday some of us—Brendan Horan was one, as well as Andrew Little—walked the streets in Te Puke to hold up the flag, shall we say, and to support them. Being without money for 3 or 4 months is a sad situation. How can we comprehend the difficulty of being without money, the inability to feed the children, to buy butter, bread, and all those things? I should add as well that a staff member of mine was in Te Puke recently as well and heard about the difficulties experienced by those living there. Some have been evicted from their homes. Let us say, some electricity companies have put out the word that individual homes will have their power supply cut off. So, they are the ones in great difficulty, and at the end of it all they are bewildered and stressed out. I should add that it does not help if some Government department bureaucrats are not so forthcoming in their support as well.

Work and Income showed no concern at all about their needs for a little help, but fortunately the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Dr Pita Sharples—how should I put it—was there. He wrote to the spokesperson of every tribe in the nation, asking them to pull themselves together and to work as a collective, shall I say. To my knowledge, he sent all spokespersons a letter and furthermore directed Te Puni Kōkiri to send staff to help work with families and to liaise with departments, with those in difficulties and even the union. According to accounts, 75 percent of those in these places are Māori. So it is apt that Māoridom should come together collectively, so that they can help those in dire need. Let us say, I really acknowledge the bold—the families, the tribes, the incorporations—who gifted to the cause to help those in need throughout the nation. In the smaller towns, some gave food while others gave money to help them through the difficulties of the day.

I acknowledge the tribal spokespersons as well, like these ones: Ken Mair of Whanganui, Sonny Tau of Ngāpuhi, Ngāhiwi Tōmoana of Ngāti Kahungunu, as well as Mark Solomon and Tuku Morgan. They were the ones who brokered the matter, but big ups to the wonderful Ken Mair, this little fellow from within Whanganui. He might be small in stature but what a negotiator in disputes. Let us say this: there will always be a great outcome when he is involved. Eventually, he was the one who really urged the union to heed the needs of the unemployed. So I have great admiration for them.

It is the first time we have witnessed Māoridom prompt itself as a collective and marshal companies like these together and say to them: “Here we are, here is Māoridom, be cautious, don’t cut around and create uncertainty.” So my acknowledgment is really to the Māori people who took up this matter themselves. The statement eventually will be made tomorrow about Whānau Ora, which is this: we have surmounted the dangers of the ocean, the realm of Tangaroa, we have arrived. Take up the adze, gather together, let it be done.]

We have heard about the saga at AFFCO, which begs the question: when the National Government seeks to lurch the industrial relations law of this country to the right, will the Māori Party support it or not? It is one thing to have fine sentiments, but the real nub of the matter is whether, when that law comes before this House, the Māori Party will be for it or not.

You see, Mr Key came to power offering the country a brighter future. He kept on saying that he was aspirational, that his glass was always half full. He made promise after promise after promise, and barely one has he kept. Today it was very insightful that he would not answer the question as to what the current growth rate is. He knows that it is 1.1 percent. It is not the 4 percent that was promised, but he tried to evade even that plain fact. A bit like the way that Columbus discovered America, he has now rediscovered the PIGS—Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain—and that is the reason that the economy is going bad in New Zealand.

This is amazing. This was all known back in 2008, because the real facts can be found—in terms of who is to blame—in a very little, tight article on today’s front page of the Dominion Post. There is a man 73 years of age, a Hamilton retiree, who said this: “It must never be forgotten that the prime cause of current money problems was an international money crisis originating overseas prior to 2008.” That is a money crisis that the Prime Minister of this country should know lots about, because his company, his business, Merrill Lynch, was at the centre of it. It and others brought the Western economy to its very knees, and he has the audacity to walk into this House and blame the PIGS and not the companies for which he used to work. And that is the way he has run this country ever since. Every forecast has been wrong, but his style is to parcel up a political derivative and shove it down the road, for some other person to pick up the responsibility and the guilt.

The only person keeping this country going right now is a woman called Julia Gillard. She is keeping this country going at the moment. There are 52,000 people a year heading off, a massive number every day. What are they saying? That it was 53,462 in 1 year. That is 146 people a day exiting this country—gone for ever.

We are within 24 hours of Budget day, and we are a country that needs to have a Budget that understands some fundamental things. We are an export-dependent nation. The Budget should reflect that. There should be assistance for exporters. We are an export-dependent nation. We cannot go on with an inflated dollar that the IMF has said is up to 20 percent inflated.

💬 Brendan Horan: Who can live like that?

Who can live like that? Well, no one can, and that is why so many farmers, despite high commodity prices, are in financial trouble. We need a Budget that understands that jobs come from exports, and research and development, and some smart new products that the hands-off boys over there will never try, like incentives for new market discovery—

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: Spend, spend, spend.

—incentives for research and development, and incentives to go offshore and bring money back to “Family New Zealand”. And as for the Minister of Police talking about what she is going to do, well, with the greatest of respect, the first thing she is doing is cutting front-line police. Apparently, having fewer police on the front line means it will be more effective.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: Why don’t you read?

I can read, unlike that member, who has got no academic qualifications, whatsoever—none whatsoever. That is how she got the job of Minister of Education. The most unqualified person became the Minister of Education in a National Government. Unbelievable!

We want poverty addressed, and we do not want any more stupid Rogernomics, “Ruthanomics”, and hands off when it comes to running this economy. Look, the National Government is out of ideas, it is out of excuses, it is out of luck, and, sure enough, it is going to be soon out of office. New Zealand will have a brighter future; that is a fact. But that is going to happen only when National and its cling-ons on the starboard bow are gone from this House. Here are the facts. Those members stand in the House every day saying: “Trust us. We know how to run the economy.” Debt is up by 700 percent, right? Debt is now $50 billion - plus and rising to, what, $75 billion. But there they are. When anybody asks them what sort of economic management is that—

If Winston Peters thinks that by attacking this Government on law and order he is on to a winner, well, he is absolutely wrong, because the police force in this country is in the best shape it has ever been, with 600 police officers put on to the front line in the past 3 years. There are 300 in Counties-Manukau alone, an area of significant under-investment by the last Labour Government. As an MP from the Counties-Manukau area, I want to stand up, wave our flag, and say that we say thank you to the National Government for putting more police on the street in Counties-Manukau.

Tomorrow we will see the fourth Budget from the Hon Bill English, the Minister of Finance for the National-led Government. I want to say that it is a bit rich for Labour members to be talking about Greece when they talk about our Budget, because the only people who know about more debt, more taxing, and more spending are Labour members. Labour does not believe in getting back to surplus. It does not believe in keeping debt below 30 percent of GDP. Those are core goals that National campaigned on, core goals that we believe in, and the goals that the people of New Zealand elected us to deliver on. So when the Labour members want to talk about Greece they should look at their own policies, because Labour’s economic policy would fit in very well with Europe’s. We would be drowning in a mountain of debt if we had a Labour Government right now.

I want to talk about jobs, because at the heart of any Budget should be jobs. Labour members do not want to hear it, but 60,000 jobs have been created in the past 2 years. There is growth in New Zealand: the economy has grown in nine out of the past 10 quarters. Those are results you cannot complain about. We have had an economic crisis worldwide. We have got countries that are going down the drain on the other side of the world, and New Zealand is doing well. New Zealand is doing well, with more jobs coming into place. We are doing well, seeing growth in the economy in nine of the past 10 quarters. The labour force is at the second-highest level it has ever been in this country, and in the past quarter 18,000 more New Zealanders showed confidence in the economy and entered the labour force.

But let us talk about “Planet Labour” and its planet of no jobs. Labour does not support jobs. We know Labour members do not support jobs, because they have opposed every job creation opportunity that this country has seen recently. Labour members do not support the convention centre. They do not support 1,000 jobs being created during its construction. They do not support the 800 New Zealanders who would have a job if that convention centre went ahead—800 people working every year; 800 people off the welfare queue and into work. They oppose jobs coming to New Zealand from Australia. They have had their finance spokesperson stand up and say in the media that they do not want jobs coming here from Australia. They insulted people who work in manufacturing jobs. They insulted the 23,000 businesses in New Zealand that are manufacturing businesses, and they told those people that their jobs were not good enough. When jobs are coming to this country, we should be celebrating that. We should be celebrating the employers and the businesses that are showing confidence in New Zealand by bringing their jobs here, but all we got from the other side was more saying no, more saying they do not want jobs, and more of “Planet Labour” opposing jobs for New Zealanders.

The Labour Party also opposed the 90-day trial for workers. Why did the Labour members oppose that? Because their union mates did not like it. But what do we know from that? We know that 13,000 people are saying thank you for that policy, because they have jobs based on employers being able to employ them after that policy was implemented. The Labour members are also opposing our starting-out wages proposal. The starting-out wage will see more young New Zealanders be able to enter the workforce, and more young New Zealanders have the benefit of work and have the lifestyle change that working actually brings.

National’s plan is for more jobs. National’s plan is for a welfare system that is focused on work. National’s plan is for an education system that is focused on better-quality teaching, so more young New Zealanders are better equipped to get jobs in the future. That is our plan; we are standing by it. We do not support the proposals that are being put forward by members on the other side, because they are anti-jobs, they are for more taxing and more spending, and that is absolutely wrong.

New Zealanders will not be waiting for National’s fourth Budget tomorrow. They expect a zero Budget, which means National has a zero plan, which means there has been zero growth in jobs, because unemployment has gone up. That means zero outcomes for hard-working New Zealanders, and that is what they are expecting tomorrow—no surprises on that front.

But if we translate that zero Budget, that zero plan, and that zero outcome for Kiwis in education, what do we see? We see Treasury-led policy in one of the most important portfolios that that Government is presiding over: $43 million in savings under National by moving towards larger class sizes and capping teachers at the current levels. If that is National’s solution to grow the economy and the future of our citizens, we will not have a bit of it. Parents all over the country are worried about their children starting school and going into larger class sizes.

The Minister of Education confirmed time after time in questions in the House that her ambition in education is driven by Treasury, not by evidence-based policy that is proven to show educational outcomes for all learners, and, in particular, our most vulnerable learners. That is the type of education policy coming out of National. We should not confuse her ambition with her ability to deliver to all Kiwi kids, who deserve the very best in education. Her ambition is thwarted by her ability to deliver on that front, and we will challenge her time and time again in this House. Why? Because she said very clearly that trade-offs are being made. Trade-offs are being made between class sizes and teacher quality.

Parents who are listening to that Minister answering questions on those issues are concerned. Members on this side of the House are receiving emails, in fact, on that very matter. We believe that it should not be a question of trade-offs in education but a combination of measures that will improve learning opportunities for all our children, and—yes, indeed—our most vulnerable and challenged and disadvantaged learners across this country. We do not want any child to miss out and we do not want any child to be left behind.

But do not take my word for it. I have got a newsletter that was produced just on Monday from Willowbank School. You know, this is a big thing for a school to put out information in its newsletter informing its parents about the impact of National’s changes. The Minister in the House today said that an extra one or two kids in a class will not make a fundamental difference, but here is what Willowbank School said to its parents: “Class sizes for year 2 and 3 will increase, increasing the number of children for reading, writing, and mathematics groups, or increasing the actual number of groups a teacher would need to see in a day. This decreases the amount of time a teacher is able to spend with individual children, particularly if there are more children in the class requiring extra learning or behavioural support.”

The early development of literacy and mathematics is crucial if curriculum expectations are to be achieved. The Minister’s ambitions should not be confused with her ability to deliver, so that every child is able to achieve in education. All our young children deserve the very best start in school. Establishing a good relationship with their teacher, and a teacher who has enough time for one-on-one engagement, really does matter. Labour backs all our children getting the best start at school; National does not. It has got a zero plan with zero outcomes for children in education, which means many will miss out. Many will be left behind.

But, again, do not take my word for it. I have got an email from a person in Whangarei, a principal, and he said: “It’s being blatantly dishonest to the public to infer that a few extra kids in a class won’t make much difference. You know as well as I do that your kids will hurt. It’s the very groups that you say you care about, those needing extra help, those falling behind, including many of our own children, who you say you are fighting for.” That is from someone in Whangarei, Minister. You have that letter.

There is also one from someone in Westport, down in the south. They are saying: “We too fear for the future provision of our most vulnerable students in relation to the most recent education policy announcement by that Minister.” But, again, do not take my word for it, listen to those people who are experts in the—

We have heard a few stones thrown around the glasshouse today: no plan, no plan. It is funny, because the three Davids do not seem to put one forward themselves—but no great surprise to the New Zealand public there. This National Government went to the electorate in 2011 with a programme to put this economy on a sound footing. National was re-elected because the New Zealand taxpayers, the New Zealand public, trust us to do the best by them to achieve just that.

This Budget will reflect four of our key priorities: responsibly managing the Government’s finances; building a more productive and competitive economy; delivering better public services; and, of course, rebuilding and supporting our friends, family, and community in Christchurch.

But a key plank of this Government’s priorities has been welfare reform—welfare reform—because welfare in this country has become a welfare trap and there has been a disgraceful programme by the previous Labour Government that has seen us in a position where some 350,000 people are trapped in that predicament. So what does it mean? It means that the New Zealand taxpayer has to find $7.6 billion a year—$22 million a day—for those 351,000 people, 13 percent of the working population of New Zealand. And 220,000 children are living in homes that are benefit-dependent. We can, and must, and will do better.

I am internalising a very complicated situation in my head. I am doing this because Labour Party members and some of their colleagues across the floor oppose every change that this Government tries to put in place. They oppose everything that we are trying to do to ensure that we have more to go around, to achieve what this country is capable of. They say that there are no jobs. Yet we have heard the Prime Minister tell us today that there are more people in employment now than ever before in the history of this country. Labour members will ask where the jobs are. Yet they will oppose every effort—every single effort—by this Government to grow our economy and the platform from which jobs are created. They will oppose every single effort from this Government. They oppose welfare reform, but they also oppose every effort from us to curb spending so that we can support our most vulnerable to get back on their feet.

This is the same Labour Party that squandered the good years. Let us have a look at that in some detail. The number of people on the sickness benefit under Labour increased by 51 percent, and the number on the invalids benefit increased by some 47 percent. This was a huge migration from the unemployment benefit—figures that the Labour members trumpet—because so many were moving on to the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit. We also saw an 8.5 percent rise in the number of people on the domestic purposes benefit. So I guess if Labour members are opposing welfare reform on that basis, then we are pretty much on the right track. That is the conclusion that I arrive at.

This Government is committed to welfare reform. That is what Kiwis want, that is what Kiwis expect, and that is what Kiwis need. This Budget will see around $287.5 million over the next 4 years for investing in, and improving, our welfare system and for supporting New Zealanders to get ahead. There will be $80 million over 4 years going into childhood education; $55.1 million over 4 years towards 155 Work and Income staff, who will be dedicated to supporting job seekers; and, very important, $148 million - plus over 4 years to support the most vulnerable youth who are at this stage on a collision course with an adult benefit.

What will this all mean? This will mean that there will be more people in work and fewer people on welfare. This will mean that over the next 4 years you will see $1 billion worth of savings to the New Zealand taxpayer. This will mean that there are more reasons for Kiwis to see that this National-led Government is delivering for them, and for New Zealand.

I am predicting that tomorrow’s Budget will deliver much hardship for many sectors of our community. In the last 3½ years over 5,000 jobs have gone from the Public Service. Jobs have been cut, and jobs have simply not been filled. The Government may call this efficiency, but what it is, is a massive reduction in the services that New Zealanders expect, and we can list them: cuts to biosecurity services, which put our primary production exports industry at risk; cuts to embassies, which put our international reputation at risk; and replacing real people with call centres at Housing New Zealand Corporation and tax centres. What happens when those jobs are cut? We know that our Public Service staff are working harder than ever before. Last year a survey of women in the Public Service showed that around 2.5 million hours of extra work were completed by those women. It was not paid for. That amounts to $54.5 million worth or 1,360 full-time jobs that were all gifted for free to the State.

Tomorrow’s Budget is likely to result in more job cuts. This is a false economy. Cutting jobs means a reduction in taxes. It means less spent in the economy too. In last year’s Budget we also saw a reduction in the amount of money that was allocated to the community and voluntary sector. It dropped by around $11 million. How this reduction plays out for the social service providers is that they get squeezed to supply more for less. The not-for-profit sector frequently picks up the slack when the Government pulls back from providing those services directly. We already know that community organisations deliver amazing value. For every dollar they get from the Government they provide at least $5 more. At the Christian Council of Social Services conference last month, we heard from the Minister of Finance that the Government does not really care how those services are provided, as long as they are cheap. We also heard from the deputy chief executive of the family and community services group that it wants to deal with big players—cheap is good and large-scale providers are better. So how do you keep it cheap? You keep the wages low. On average, workers in the community and voluntary sector earn around 15 percent less than those in the general job market earn. We recently heard that there is a discrepancy between what caregivers in the public sector earn compared with those in the private sector, which amounts to discrimination—but, hey, it is cheap. Cheap is not good enough. It is not good for the economy, it is not good for public services, it is not good for communities, and it is certainly not good for families.

Today over 60 organisations have formed a broad coalition to launch the Living Wage campaign. These organisations are at the coalface of the impact of the Government’s austerity moves, and they are calling for a decent standard of living for all workers. Forty hours a week on the minimum wage brings in $540 per week before tax, and workers earning this are usually subsidised by the Government with Working for Families. That means employers are being subsidised to keep wages low. But, even then, thousands of families are struggling to cover the basics like housing, food, electricity, transport, and school costs, and many are working several low-paid jobs, up to 70 hours a week, to make ends meet. The difference between the minimum wage and a living wage is that one is really stressful and people are just getting by while the other is about getting by with dignity. It is about the ability to provide for your children, to provide for their children, and to provide for their families to contribute to our communities. This Government and our Government agencies will be called upon to pay a living wage, and not just for those who are directly employed, either, but for those who are contracted to provide services, such as cleaners, security guards, caregivers, and the community and voluntary sector. Lifting pay rates in New Zealand for our lowest paid workers will reduce inequality and poverty, and we need to do that or face the fact that we are condemning New Zealand to becoming a society of the haves and have-nots.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.