General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. There have been a few lessons this week, and one of them from the Government has been “If in doubt, make up a target.” That is absolutely what the Government has done, but be under no illusion: a target does not equal a plan. We have seen no better evidence of that coming out of not Mexico, not Greece, not Spain, but New Zealand. Over the past 4 years this is not the first time we have had a set of targets issued. In fact, let me, for the sake of the House, go through some of the plans and targets that this Government has produced before.

💬 Chris Hipkins: You’ve only got 5 minutes.

Harking back to 2010—I will keep it brief, Mr Hipkins; I know the list is long. Back in 2010 we had a six-point plan for securing a brighter future. In 2011 the Government revised that six-point plan and added 41 action points. That was the post-election action plan—keep up! Joyce and English then issued their own six-point plan for business growth. Just to recap, that is six plus six plus six. Nick Smith, not wanting to be a superstitious man, with the 666, then brought in an eight-point plan for local government. John Key, not wanting to be one-upped by Nick Smith, came up with his own 10-point plan recently. If anyone cares to add that up, that equals still no plan. The brighter future that this Government talked about? To date we still have not seen the outcome of any of those targets.

Let us reflect on some of the evidence of what has been generated. We were promised 4 percent growth. What did we get? Projections of 2.6 percent growth as a consequence of the last Budget. We were promised in the last Budget 170,000 jobs. That has been downgraded by 16,000 jobs. Unemployment, just to highlight what it was when this Government came in, was almost 18,000, and now the unemployment benefit recipient numbers are almost 50,000. National said that the value of goods exported would rise; it fell by 17 percent last year. What about wages? What about wages—the thing that makes a difference between whether New Zealanders stay in New Zealand or whether they look overseas? They are doing that in droves, and why? Wage growth will peak at 1.6 percent, and then it will decline. This is the brighter future we were promised, and I can tell you that the lights are out. Steven Joyce, Bill English, and John Key are fighting over a flashlight, desperately looking for targets in the dark, but all we see is an absolute epic fail.

In Labour we are all for accountability. We are all for aspiration, but targets without a plan are absolutely meaningless. Let us drill down into one or two of them—rheumatic fever, for instance. Of course we support trying to reduce rheumatic fever rates. But you cannot swab your way to reducing the true cause of rheumatic fever. What is that cause? Poverty. Poverty is one of the direct causes of rheumatic fever, via overcrowded housing, poor conditions, and cold, damp houses for children. And there are no targets for that. The Government’s plan is to put $12 million into swabbing. Will that reduce the incidence of group A streptococcus? It will not, and that is why as soon as that money is removed, unless poverty is addressed, rheumatic fever will skyrocket.

Let us look at welfare. The Government says it wants to reduce welfare dependency—those who have been on a benefit for 12 months or more—by 30 percent. But the Government has left a stark gap in between as to how it is going to achieve that. We looked at the numbers yesterday. Based on the numbers Labour had available to us at the time, because the Ministry of Social Development releases slightly sporadic numbers to us, we calculated that there would be significantly more on welfare for 12 months or more, even with the Government’s targets. After the Minister for Social Development tabled her figures yesterday, I did go back and look at them, and those numbers are revised down. But even with the Minister’s 30 percent target in place, the number on welfare will be higher than when Labour left office. This set of targets is about trying to be as good as Labour was when we were in Government. If you want to help kids, target poverty. If you want to fix welfare, fix the economy. That is a plan.

In the rudderless ship that they call “Labour Land”, as the Davids argue over who should wear the captain’s hat, the previous speaker, Jacinda Arden, is, of course, the chief purser, which is the best job she could do. As she whips around with her clipboard, desperately trying to get people’s signatures and thinking that that is actually public consultation, let us get to what the real business of the day is. She is someone who calls the targets of reducing child abuse, reducing the number of people on benefits, and making sure that we attack things like rheumatic fever and immunisation meaningless. I quote directly from that member, who said that the Government’s targets are “meaningless” and will fall over in a bit of weakness.

💬 Chris Hipkins: They are if you don’t put any action behind them.

Actually, Chris Hipkins can speak up, because he too actually turned round and said that these targets are pretty meaningless stuff. Well, if actually standing up and setting clear targets, putting a line in the sand, and holding the Public Service and ourselves to them is meaningless, then I proudly stand up here as someone who will not only be backing them but making sure that we do reach these targets.

This is serious stuff. When we hear David Parker calling these targets meaningless, I ask him to ask those children out there whether they think it is meaningless stuff. We have a pretty poor record of child abuse and neglect in this country, and since 2004 we have seen the numbers steadily increasing. Some will say that that is because we are targeting better, we are getting access to better information, and people feel that they can speak up. They feel that they can actually ring the police or ring Child, Youth and Family, and action will be taken—and that is right. But unless we put a clear target out there that we will hold ourselves to account on, that we will bring those numbers down, then we will continue to see the rise that we currently do. None of this stuff is easy, but for the Opposition to repeatedly say that it is meaningless I think is doing a disservice to those thousands of children who desperately need us.

We have put a line in the sand and said that we will raise immunisation rates. I think the one on rheumatic fever is ambitious, to say the least, but it is one where I take my hat off to the Minister of Health, who is prepared to stand up and say that he will set an ambitious target and put every resource behind—

💬 Chris Hipkins: What’s the time frame?

Actually, the members on that side of the House should be ashamed of their own record in rheumatic fever. They did not put more money into helping those families who desperately needed it. The numbers were going up for some time, and we saw no action. This is one area where Labour members generally should hang their heads in shame at their poor record on rheumatic fever.

Let us talk about unemployment. We could have just said that we would reduce the number on the unemployment benefit, but that would have meant just taking off the benefit those who had been on it for a short time. What we needed to do was look at those who have been on the unemployment benefit for 12 months or longer. We also then turned round and said: “Let’s include those who are on the sickness benefit.” When you look at those numbers you see that it is pretty tough. Currently, you will see that 78,000 is the number of people on job seeker support who have been on it for 12 months or longer. Reducing that to 55,000 means a reduction of 30 percent. But more than 39,000 of them are on the sickness benefit. These are not people for whom it is easy to remove the barriers that are stopping them from getting into work. It will take a sustained approach to actually make sure that we are putting around them the support they need. To ignore them, as they were ignored under Labour, is a disservice. To see the number of people on the sickness benefit increase by 47 percent under Labour, at the supposedly best of times, when there were more jobs than people knew what to do with, is a disservice to those people.

💬 Grant Robertson: So we made people sicker? Is that what you’re saying, Paula?

Well, actually, they have not increased by the same number in the last 4 years. Look at the trends and look at what was happening. This Government will set clear targets and proudly stand up for them. To call them meaningless is absolutely a disservice to those children.

The animal manure and blatherskite of the National Government rolls on. We have had 4 years of government by slogan: closing the gap with Australia, a brighter future, and so on. We have had report after report after report. We have had working parties, task forces, and summits where there were more participants than jobs created. We have had photo opportunity after photo opportunity, and the doozy of them all was Anne Tolley standing on a crushed car in stiletto high heels. If it was not so serious, it would make a great comedy. It would not be called Gliding On, where you have the public servant in the grey buttoned-up cardy. It would be called “Glossing Over” or “Glamouring It Up”, led by John Key in his Versace suit.

We now have got what we are calling the “Gonna Government”. It is “gonna” do this, and it is “gonna” do that, and it is “gonna” do the other thing, but unfortunately it never gets round to doing anything. All we get is list after list after list of “gonna do’s”. In 2010 there was a six-point plan. In 2011 there was a revised six-point plan. In 2012 there was a revised revised six-point plan that then became a four-point plan. Then in March this year there was another six-point plan, and a week later there was an eight-point plan. Let us not forget the plan that had 106 targets. And now, this week, we have a 10-point plan. So we have tons of targets and tons of plans, and very, very little action. The Minister who has just spoken, the Minister for Social Development, should be ashamed of herself—4 years as a Minister and all she has got is a task force, a number of plans, some targets, and no action.

I have to say that I have got a 10-point argument for this Government as to why its 0800 Public Service will not work for New Zealanders. You see, it wants to provide public service through a telephone line. It does not provide an office. It does not provide a real person to talk to. It does not provide what the “Minister of Animal Manure” produced and said would be a “Smarter. Faster. Fairer.” service—Housing New Zealand Corporation’s 0800 number. What you do is you ring the number, and it rings, and it rings, and it rings, and then someone says: “Please hold.” In the case of Phil Goff’s secretary, 22 minutes later he finally got a voice. So you hold, and you hold, and you hold, and then you hang up, and then you give up. Because, you see, this is not a better, smarter, faster Public Service. It is a nonsense, and it has been proved to be a nonsense.

Here are 10 things that are wrong with this service. First of all, it was a bad idea, because there is nothing smarter, faster, or fairer about it. Secondly, it was poorly planned. There are not enough staff. So what did they do? They sacked 70, and re-employed an extra 69, and the numbers are going up. Thirdly, they told people not to call at peak time, but you wait 30 minutes on a Friday night. Fourthly, the maintenance workers were told to call the 0800 number—the very people who are meant to fix the houses wait, and wait, and wait to talk to somebody about fixing the house. Then they told all the social workers to join the queue on the 0800 number. If you wanted to get through and tell them about what was wrong, just wait, hang on, and you will finally get through. Then they were told that their calls would be answered faster—46 minutes is the record that I have heard. Then there is the number of unanswered calls, which has gone up for the second month in a row. It is up to 56,000 unanswered calls, costing hundreds and thousands of dollars to taxpayers because the calls are not answered. And then we have got the Housing New Zealand Corporation making it so difficult that not even the journalists can get the right answers out of them. Then they said it would save money. Well, it has cost over $90 million for the smarter, faster service so far, and nobody has got a better service. The final of the 10 points I wanted to make is that what is wrong with it is Phil Heatley, the Minister of Housing. He said it was going to be smarter, faster, and fairer. Well, I have to say that he might have been proud of saying that then, but he certainly is not proud of it now.

Here is a good Public Service target: how about reducing the reoffending rate by 25 percent by 2017? What do you think about that? How is that for a target? This is just the kind of target that Labour would label as being meaningless. Well, I can tell you that the people who will feel safer in their homes do not think it is meaningless. Interestingly, Chris Hipkins also said that it is meaningless if you do not do anything to back it up. I absolutely agree with him: it is meaningless if you do nothing to back it up. Well, here is the good news. In the National Government we are doing a lot to back up the excellent target of reducing the number of prisoners by 600—600 less prisoners by 2017—

💬 Grant Robertson: That would be “fewer”.

—and 18,500 fewer victims of crime each year by 2017. How are we going to do that? How is the National Government going to do that—to reduce reoffending in our prisons? Well, I went to Rimutaka Prison last week. I spent time with a young prisoner in a workshop. Let me tell you about that young prisoner. He was a young man. He looked like he was in his early 20s.

💬 Shane Ardern: He wouldn’t have looked as young as Hipkins, though.

Well, Mr Hipkins knows a lot. Mr Hipkins thinks it is meaningless, but I disagree, actually, because I spoke to this young prisoner in Rimutaka Prison who was doing a New Zealand Qualifications Framework qualification inside Rimutaka Prison. Do you know what he was doing? He was doing a New Zealand Qualifications Framework course in bricklaying. He was building letterboxes, just like they build in Christchurch, and he was really proud of his work. I talked to him. He was enjoying the work. He was treated just like a trainee for the purposes of this course, not like a prisoner. He was enjoying having to be there at 8 o’clock in the morning until 4 o’clock in the afternoon. He enjoyed learning a trade. Do you know what he was really looking forward to, this prisoner? This prisoner was really looking forward to doing the next course, because the next course was even more challenging for him. He was looking forward to doing the next course in sheet metal work. That is another New Zealand Qualifications Framework course that that prisoner was looking forward to. Do you know what he was looking forward to after that? He was looking forward to finishing his time, getting back out into the community, and getting a job. If it that is walking the walk, then this Government is doing that.

We know very well why there is such a high reoffending rate, and that is because prisoners have got issues with literacy, prisoners have got issues with numeracy, and there is drug and alcohol dependence, which is well known as a factor for reoffending. So this Government is doing something about it. Not only are we setting excellent targets to keep our communities safer but we are doing something about it. For example, even remand prisoners, who may be in prison for only a short time, are now being offered interventions for alcohol and drug treatment.

I met another young man last week in my town. This young man was on a downward spiral. He had mental health issues, he certainly had drug and alcohol dependency issues, and he was increasingly getting into trouble with the police. We know where that young man may end up: the likelihood is there that he may end up in Milton prison on remand. Well, there in Milton prison that young man on remand is going to be offered drug and alcohol interventions. That young man on remand in Milton prison is going to be offered courses in literacy.

This is a Government that is committed to addressing the drivers of crime and reducing reoffending by 25 percent by 2017. And if that is not a worthy goal, then I invite the members opposite to tell me what is. In the last year prisoners gained recognised New Zealand Qualifications Framework qualifications. Eighty-five thousand credits were earned by prisoners in the prison system last year, including level 2 certificates—fantastic. If you have got a level 2 certificate in a trade then you are more likely to get a job. Guess how many of those were earned last year—over 700. That is a fantastic result.

My, how zealous they are when they do not know what is going on. That speech by Jacqui Dean was one of those defences based on flimflam, ballyhoo, and hype.

But the fact is I want to know why no one has been arrested for the fraud at the Te Roopu Whakaruruhau o ngā Wāhine Māori women’s refuge in Palmerston North. During December and January—the busiest time of the year—this refuge, which is funded by the taxpayers under Whānau Ora, and defended by the National Government and Tariana Turia, was actually shut, so any Māori woman in need had to go down the road to the other, non-Māori, refuge provider. That is No. 1. And the auditor’s report shows that this refuge was actually a family fund money-generating scheme. Five of the eight workers are direct family. Does that have a nepotistic ring about it to you? Five of the eight workers are direct family. It has been their gravy train.

Why have no charges been laid when the word “fraud” is screaming from the audit report? In fact, it has a subheading “Fraud”. The report is a damning indictment of the so-called providers set up by the unholy alliance between National and the Māori Party. This is more than shonky; this is a big fraud, and the victims are the taxpayers and the Māori people in genuine need, as always happens when this sort of thing goes on. Tens of millions of dollars are flowing into these so-called providers. The whole social welfare system is being privatised and handed to providers like the Māori women’s refuge in Palmerston North with that long Māori name.

This is what the auditor’s report shows: first, the family paid their fines from public money; secondly, they overpaid themselves for leave; thirdly, they travelled overseas on the taxpayer; fourthly, they paid themselves bonuses—I hope Mr Sam Lotu-Iiga is listening to this, because it has got a ring about it, has it not—and, fifthly, they did not pay their GST for several years. The auditor advised the people running this refuge to check to see whether their asset still exists. This is an appalling case—all in the name of the National Government and the Māori Party deal.

The National Government and the Māori Party had better come up with an explanation, because every time you turn over the stone of Whānau Ora, out pops what? Something going wrong, because it was never based on any sound, fundamental analysis. They also need to spell out for the long-suffering taxpayers and the Māori people in genuine need why this fraud is allowed to happen.

We know the Government is using taxpayers’ money to buy the Māori Party—$174 million and rising. A whole industry has been spawned. Under the cloak of helping Māori in need, armies of providers are heading for the pork barrel, and there is no end to it under this Government. That is the party over there that campaigned on one law for all—for Kiwi, not iwi. It has hardly been in Government for a fourth year and what does it do? It heads down the path of ethnic rights, and separatism, and division, which it campaigned it would make sure it would never allow on its watch.

But this is worse: young Māori in need—in this case, women who need help—have been taken to the cleaners by a provider, and John Key was advised of this on 10 February this year. He got notice of it. What has he done? As usual, “Mr Spray and Walk Away” decided to do nothing, and hoped it would go away. Well, it will not—not while New Zealand First is here.

I can see why we have changes of members of Parliament from time to time. It is a healthy thing in a democracy. Can I say that it is interesting to note the tone that the Labour Party has taken in recent times, particularly coming from the senior whip—that in itself must be close to being an oxymoron, when you look at the youthful looks of the member who holds that position now—which is that the plan that the National Government has prepared for New Zealand going forward is meaningless. That is to say, according to the member, doing something about the appalling incidence of rheumatic fever in New Zealand is meaningless, doing something about the out-of-control crime rate that the National Government inherited from its predecessor is meaningless, and doing something about the unemployed targets and reducing unemployment is a meaningless thing.

It is interesting to draw a comparison between the assertions by the senior whip and those that were asserted towards me, I guess you could say, in a recent debate that took place in the House over, in the Opposition’s opinion, the release of a public asset. They were fuelled, of course, by his very learned colleague Andrew Little, and they were both proven to be wrong. I have not yet heard a single response from them. So I say to the member that when your integrity and your figures are challenged to that extent, then you really do not have a strong position to argue from when you start talking about things such as substantial Government policy targets.

I have heard a diatribe from the long-serving member the Hon Annette King on what she described as an “animal manure” combination of targets. It is interesting to note that that member dates right back to the 1980s Lange-Douglas Government, when interest rates actually peaked at 22 percent—22 percent. And those members would suggest that the interest rates today being brought forward by the current Government policy mix, which the last time I looked were in the low 5 percents, are somehow a negative position to find ourselves in.

So all of those who are listening to this debate today should just remind themselves of what happened the last time we had a Labour Government—and the time before that. Anyone who has a house mortgage in New Zealand, Labour is after you. Interest rates would rise again—absolutely—under a Labour Government. But that would not be the worst thing that would happen to you. A Labour Government would also tax you if you got any capital gain on that property. And Labour members all talk about that as being a way forward. The answer for Labour is the answer it has always had: borrow and hope; if it is still moving, tax it; and if it stops moving, subsidise it to get it moving again. Labour has never ever had a new plan.

By comparison, if you look at what is being offered by this side of the House in supporting vulnerable children and reducing long-term welfare dependency—measures and targets that are being compared year by year, are transparent, and are made available for people to test us by—it is almost a black and white contrast. A Labour Government would never do that.

Reducing crime rates by up to 15 percent is a very honourable goal, and so far the Government is on target to achieve that. Boosting skills and employment by ensuring that 85 percent of 18-year-olds will have National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2, or equivalent, by 2017—if that is a meaningless target, then what are the targets of our opponent? What is its policy? What would it do? What are its suggestions? What would it have done differently? In the 9 years that Labour held the Treasury benches, through some of the best economic times, all it did was put more and more barriers in front of the engine room of the economy—like more taxes and more regulation. Labour is without ideas and it is without policy.

I seek leave to table an email to the Prime Minister, dated 10 February 2012, alerting him to this issue, which the Minister for Social Development today denied any knowledge of.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection?

💬 Michael Woodhouse: Can the matter be clarified?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Did the members not understand? If the right honourable gentleman could please just describe the document again. I apologise to him.

This is the email I referred to in my speech as being an email alerting the Prime Minister to what was going on in respect of that Māori women’s refuge in Palmerston North.

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

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

The contribution made by the last member, Shane Ardern, with the inane attacks on the senior whip on this side and the Hon Annette King, reveal why that member is not a Minister and why younger MPs have been promoted before him.

What the other side needs to know is that simply setting targets without a plan makes those targets unachievable, and calling something a plan does not make it so. My colleague the Hon Phil Goff was correct when he described this Government, in earlier Budget debate speeches, as being deceptive—as a deceitful Government. How does one describe a consistent pattern of making promises that it has no intention whatsoever to deliver on? This Government deliberately deceived the country by promising a brighter future that it knew full well it would not be able to deliver for all New Zealanders. Instead, that brighter future was simply for a select few, for its big-business and wealthy mates, and not for working New Zealanders.

To be fair, the deception, I believe, starts from the very top. It is probably aided and abetted by other Ministers, but no doubt is started by John Key, Steven Joyce, and Bill English. Perhaps the only Minister who, I believe, does not involve himself in this is the Hon Maurice Williamson, but I do not know. In fact, if we look at the list, the National Party in 2010 announced a six-point plan for securing a brighter future. In late 2011 it presented a revised six-point plan, this time with 41 actions. As I said, simply having targets without a plan will not make those targets achievable. Key’s state of the nation speech in early January this year presented a revision of the revised six-point plan. In March this year Steven Joyce and Bill English announced, again, a six-point plan. A week later in March, Nick Smith announced and released an eight-point plan. Now we have John Key’s 10-point plan, which looks like a list of the greatest hits compiled from other lists, and probably looks more like Britney Spears than the Beatles. The point is that simply setting out these targets, without a plan, is not going to achieve anything, and simply calling something a plan does not make it a plan, at all.

I want to say that the disappointing thing for many of our communities today is that the Government promised 170,000 jobs in last year’s Budget. Where has that gone? Has that been achieved? No, that was not achieved—not one iota whatsoever. Today 160,000 people are unemployed, and that is a 51 percent increase under National in the number of unemployed people. Twenty thousand more people aged 15 to 24 years of age are no longer in education, employment, or training. That has been an increase since December 2008—since John Key came into power. We now have 87,000 young people not in education, employment, or training. We have got 2,500 public sector workers who have lost their jobs since this Government came into power, and this Government continues to force Government departments to do more and more for less and less. Things will worsen with a billion-dollar slashing in Government departments as a result of this Budget.

Youth unemployment is costing us $900 million each year, according to the New Zealand Institute. There are 36,775 more people on the benefit now than there were when the Minister on that side, Paula Bennett, took office. There will still be more people on the unemployment benefit after the welfare reforms have been implemented than when she took office. The number of children living in benefit-dependent households has increased from 199,000 in June 2008 to 232,616 in December 2011. Two in five poor children were from households where at least one adult was in full-time employment or was self-employed. The Community Max scheme failed to get people into real jobs, and in one case spent $317,000 on a pumpkin patch.

It is a pleasure for me to speak in today’s general debate. I just want to thank the last speaker, Su’a William Sio, because he is using Government resources well; he is using the Labour parliamentary research unit well. Well done for reading all those statistics from Labour’s research unit. It is a pleasure because the Government’s priorities are about delivering better, more effective, and productive public services. We want to ensure that we are delivering results in the areas that matter to New Zealanders. We make no apology for having high expectations of the public services that the Government provides.

The Opposition does not believe in standards—education or otherwise. The Opposition does not believe in high expectations. It does not believe that caring for New Zealanders is a priority. It thinks that caring for New Zealanders is meaningless. New Zealanders want to know that they can rely on the public services that they need and use on a day-to-day basis. They want services that are reliable, services that are safe, affordable and sustainable into the future. That is why this 10-point plan is about measuring the quality of those services and holding the Government to account, which that Opposition clearly is not doing.

So why are we making these changes? Well, we inherited a Public Service that was growing at an unacceptable rate, and there was no clear direction in terms of expectation or results. When you look at the Ministry of Health, which the Hon Annette King oversaw for 9 long years—

💬 Hon Annette King: No.

It was 9 years, and she was part of the administration that looked over it. Spending in health doubled over those 9 years. What happened? The outcomes went down; outcomes actually deteriorated. I pity the people of Wellington who are going to get this woman as their next mayor. She will be the next Mayor of Wellington, and she could not run the Ministry of Health. Well, the situation is common across Government departments. Common across Government departments is the profligate spending of the last Labour Government.

New Zealanders deserve high-quality services that deliver better results for their families, their kids, and their communities. New Zealanders want to be assured that public sector spending is wise and within budget. Mr Speaker, you know that more than anyone, as the Speaker and as a parliamentarian with vast experience in this House, on select committees, and as a Minister. You know that the public sector makes up one quarter of our economy and it has a huge influence over society and over our economic performance. That is why better public services are critical to our future in this country. We all know that those agencies need to perform better, and there are different ways to work to deliver greater value and better results in those Government departments.

I want to commend the Prime Minister for setting up 10 challenging results for the public sector to achieve—10 measurable results. Underneath each result you get some specific, measurable targets that will be achieved over the next 5 years. We will report on those regularly. It is about holding this Government to account. We are prepared for that level of accountability. Each target will have five themes, and the Prime Minister has appointed senior Ministers to oversee those achievable results.

What is it about? It is about reducing long-term welfare dependence. I have stood in this House over the last couple of months and talked about the welfare reforms that we are bringing through this House. Later this year we will bring in some more welfare reforms, because $20 million a year on welfare spending is unacceptable—sorry, $20 million a day on welfare spending is unacceptable. Twelve percent of our working-age population is on a benefit. So we are going to do something about that. The programmes that we are implementing are about caring for those people, giving them parenting programmes, having budgeting services, and having mentors available to help people who are in need to get off welfare and into work. Jobseeker support will be introduced by July 2013, and we are aiming to break the cycle of long-term dependence through these welfare reforms.

Before I finish I just want to mention another goal that is extremely worthy and one close to my heart. Ninety-eight percent of children starting school will have participated in early childhood education by the year 2016. I will repeat that, in case the guys over there do not listen. Ninety-eight percent of children will be participating in early childhood education. We know that that enables children to go to primary school confident, ready for school, and engaging in learning. Thank you.

Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. Just after that contribution from that member, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, I note that the Government talks of targets. It talks of targets with deadlines a couple of elections down the line. At least they are not as bad as the Government’s climate change targets, which are not until 2050. But I am not here to talk about climate change. I am here to talk about the Government’s failure to protect our lands and our oceans. The Green Party this week revealed that the Government has been funding an aeromagnetic survey over Te Wai Pounamu’s south-west coast of New Zealand World Heritage - listed site. We are talking about Mount Cook, Mount Aspiring, and Fiordland.

We heard from the Prime Minister yesterday. He made the pledge to New Zealand: “I can give you an assurance there will be no mining on World Heritage sites.” The Government says: “Well, look, we’re there just to take a bit of a look.” But saying he is there just for a look is like asking a kid to count some lollies and asking him not to eat them. It is like going to the doctor for a headache and getting a CAT scan. It is like breaking and entering, and saying you were just going to have a look to see what was inside the house. We know the plan is to have a look, then try to get access to those minerals. But Kiwis will not have a bar of it. Kiwis love their environment. They want to protect it. What the Government has to do now, if it is going to make this pledge, is put those World Heritage - listed areas into schedule 4. We did see the Government admirably back down from mining schedule 4 areas, in the face of massive public support from Kiwis for protecting the environment they love.

We should not stop there, though. We should also add those World Heritage - listed recommended sites. Take the Kermadec Islands—an island chain just north of New Zealand. This is something that the Department of Conservation has made a priority candidate for World Heritage listing. I cannot believe this Government is not acting to protect the marine reserve. It would be the second-largest in the world. The Government could actually look like good guys on the environment just once in its term. The Government should also be including those World Heritage - listed recommended sites.

But what the Government has instead is a permit for mining of the hydrothermal vents in this area, by the Kermadecs, which in fact is what is called a benthic protection area, developed in 2008 by the then Labour Government. These benthic protection areas prohibit bottom trawling and dredging, but under the benthic protection area regime set up by Labour it would be quite possible to literally strip mine these hydrothermal vents—you know, the black smokers at the bottom of the ocean. They were discovered worldwide only in 1977, yet companies are trying to strip mine them to get the metals at the bottom of the ocean. It shows how weak our World Heritage - listed sites are if the Government is going to do aeromagnetic surveys. It shows how weak our benthic protection area sites are if you can mine the hydrothermal vents.

But then take the Chathams—the Chatham Rise. Chatham Rock Phosphate has a permit, given by this Government in 2010, to mine 80 percent of the benthic protection area. What it does is basically have a dredge suck up the seafloor, take out the phosphate, and shoot all the stuff back. This week the Green Party revealed that the Government has given this permit to this company to do this prospecting. A benthic protection area is meant to prohibit dredging. This company, in its own literature, describes it as dredging the seafloor. So I think it is illegal. I think it highlights the sham sanctuary nature of these benthic protection areas if the Government is going to allow it.

But, worse than that, the Green Party this week has also revealed that this Government has given 10 permits for oil, gas, and mining off the coast of New Zealand in marine mammal sanctuaries. These sanctuaries were created to protect our endangered Māui’s dolphin, Hector’s dolphin, and the New Zealand sea lion. But this Government says it is OK to be mining for oil, gas, or minerals in 10 of these areas. It is simply outrageous. These marine mammal sanctuaries are simply a sham, if we are going to allow these rigs and mines to go ahead. These animals like the Maui’s dolphin—there are only 55 left—are on the cusp of extinction, yet the Government is sitting on its hands and not protecting them as it should be.

This is part of our valuable “clean, green” brand in New Zealand. If we are going to see species become extinct, if we are not going to act on marine reserves, if we are going to allow these sham marine mammal sanctuaries, these sham benthic protection areas, and these World Heritage sites where we will just have a look and then mine down the line, it is going to be damaging to that “clean, green” brand. That brand is estimated at over $20 billion for our gross domestic product. This is the way forward for our economy. This is how we leverage high-value products, where New Zealanders actually earn more from our products in those high-value markets. We are on a race to nowhere if we are trying to compete with other producers simply on a commodities basis, and simply to try to see who can trash their environment faster than other countries. We need real protection.

I guess before I start my speech, with a name like Goldsmith I suppose I must make the point I was not at all impressed by the comments yesterday from Megan Woods on the other side of the House. It sometimes makes you think that the Labour Party is a party of haters. If anyone does not agree with it, every now and then the bile comes out, and I do not think that was the appropriate way to be talking in this House.

On the weekend I had the opportunity to be an MC for a fund-raiser for my local school, Remuera Intermediate. It is a great school—well led. Under the decile system, it has to raise its own funds. The parent teacher association is doing a great job of raising money, and it had the idea of getting the children to contribute in such a way as doing a painting. The teachers helped them. They put on an auction to see what sort of money we could raise. We thought we might get $100 a painting or maybe $200. In the end, the result was we raised $26,000 as the parents dug deep. Those children at the local school where I send my kids are blessed. The parents are involved, they are supportive, they are active, and they are determined that their children will succeed.

Since strong families are the key to that success, I want to pay tribute today to the many New Zealanders, the mums and dads, who are on school boards and parent teacher associations around the country, putting in a huge amount of time and effort, and that is so important. Most schools in most communities are active, and most parents are active in their schools, encouraging their kids. But the reality is that unfortunately not all children have that advantage in life, and there are many children in this country who do not have much support from their parents. Their parents are not around, or they do not care, and they do not encourage their children in their education. The Government cannot force mums and dads to care about their kids, and it cannot force them to take an interest, but we can and we must do everything we can to help those children who do not have strong support. Governments across both sides of this House have poured in resources for decades, without, to be frank, much improvement at the end of the scale where achievement has not occurred. The previous Government poured large resources in, thick and fast, through the 2000s, but had no real clear plan and certainly no fundamental rethink about what we were doing.

This Government has taken a different approach, under the leadership of John Key. It is open to a new set of ideas and willing to rethink, to step beyond the slogans and the easy answers of just pouring more and more money into the problems, and to think genuinely about what works and what does not. So in education, Hekia Parata, working closely with Bill English and the rest of the team, has set the Better Public Services targets in education about boosting skills and employment, and I am very pleased to be part of a Government that is finally setting some clear sets of achievements.

So we are looking to ensure that 85 percent of 18-year-olds will have National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 by 2017, and that is a very difficult target and one that we will do everything we can to achieve. We will also ensure that 55 percent of 25 to 34-year-olds have qualifications at level 4 or above. And why is it important to set these targets? Well, we can keep on drifting, we can keep on pouring resources in, but at the end of the day you have to ask “Is it working or is it not working?”, and these targets that we are setting here will really put the heat under the Ministry of Education and all those involved, to make sure that what we are doing actually works.

Another one of those 10 targets that we are focused on and announced in the last little while is supporting vulnerable children to ensure that 98 percent of children starting school in 2016 have participated in early childhood education. If we can achieve 98 percent, we will be making a huge difference to this country and to the next generation.

So that is what we are on about. Delivering better public services within tight financial constraints is National’s priority for this term. It is part of our plan for building a brighter future. That is the sort of stuff that we will be looking at. We want to ensure that we are delivering results in areas that matter to you and to the people of New Zealand and their families, while at the same time ensuring that our public services are more productive and efficient. We make no apology for having high expectations of the public services that we provide. We want New Zealanders to know that they can rely on public services that they need, and that those services will make the difference to their lives, because we have high expectations. Thank you very much.

Namaste, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for giving me the call today. And bula vinaka. This is a “we’re gonna do something” Government. Now it is official, because instead of doing those important things now, Government members are saying that they are “gonna” do them, and they are “gonna” do them not now but in the future. They are not going to do them in this term of Government. They are not going to do them in their next term of Government. They are actually going to do them in the term of Government after that. So its targets are for 2017.

I asked Sam Lotu-Iiga where the targets are for the housing problems in Glen Innes now, in his electorate. There are none—none. Those are the problems of today. And my friend Su’a William Sio is absolutely right: no amount of target setting is a substitute for solid action, solid programmes, and solid changes now. This should be seen for what it is: the latest list of targets. My colleagues have already told the House about so much target setting this Government has done, and this latest one is really a bit like running up the white flag—we have given up, so we will just come up with a few more targets.

This is quite pathetic. Government members have been good at spin. What they have now realised is that the polling out there is telling them that what they have been saying is not washing any more. And they are a bit worried, so now the only method they know is to come up with more targets. That has been the only constant in the performance of the last 4 years.

💬 Dr David Clark: And they spin faster and faster. Going to get to orbit.

And they spin out of orbit. Absolutely! My colleague Mr Clark is right. They are going to spin out of orbit any minute now.

The National Government is in its fourth year. In respect of anything that is not going right, National members are very good at asking what the Labour Government did over 9 years. Well, I would say to every member of that side that they have been in Government for 4 years, and if these things are so important—and they are; many of these areas that the Government is talking about are important, and they are important now—why are they not doing anything about those things now? They have had 4 years to make substantial changes. They have had 4 years to address the real problems. But, no, they have not. They have not made an iota of difference. In fact, what they have done is apply their spin, and now we and the public out there know that this Government does not have a plan. The targets are not a plan.

So the response of Government members has been to borrow like mad—and they have been borrowing like mad. Of course, what they have done is use large amounts of that to repay their tax cuts that they gave to the rich. And they have failed to create an environment where more jobs can be created. That is a failure. There are no targets in that area. Of the 170,000 jobs forecast, only 20,000-odd jobs have been created so far. So it is a failure. The current policies are a failure. The current targets are a failure. What is the answer? Develop more targets for three Governments from now.

They have also started this unrelenting campaign against the most vulnerable in our society: the poor. That is what they are doing. They talk about it in flash terms, but it is an unrelenting campaign against the poor. The poorly housed, those who are unemployed, those who are ACC claimants—those are just some of them. And they do all of this under the guise of welfare dependency. They must go to bed praying for welfare dependency. They have made it their badge of honour. Welfare dependency is a term that that side has created as if it is some kind of sin to actually call on welfare when you need it.

When businesses needed it to the tune of $1.7 billion in respect of South Canterbury Finance, that was not dependency. Oh no. When the finance companies failed, bail them out. That was not dependency. Other such things happened, but when the poor need assistance, that is welfare dependency, we are going to have more targets, and we will get them out of this false sense of security. And when they talk about getting the State to be more efficient, it is just cuts.

So this Government has really made a mess of all of this. It does not have a plan. Its investment approach is not to invest in people; it just talks about it. Much of what it has done is quite destructive, and now it has given up because it is not talking about what it is going to do in this term of Government, not what—

Wo hen hao. It is a privilege to be given the opportunity to speak in today’s general debate. Earlier today I spoke on the Appropriation Bill and reiterated National’s responsible management of the economy and our goal of returning the Government’s books to surplus by 2014-15. Returning to surplus means we can start reducing debt. National’s balanced handling of the economy means we can rebuild and strengthen the country so that New Zealanders can have a brighter future.

Already New Zealanders are reaping the benefits of this economic plan that invests in their future. Budget 2012 is precisely about this and more, particularly delivering better public services. My colleagues before me spoke about the primary set of challenging results for the public sector to achieve over the next 5 years. They include reducing long-term welfare dependency, supporting vulnerable children, boosting skills and employment, reducing crime, and improving interaction with government. These are all good goals, as the New Zealand public will be able to judge how well the general public services are performing under National.

As a member of the Health Committee I meet many people from the health sector. These people should be commended for their hard work in an invaluable public service. We want New Zealanders to know that they can rely on a first-class health service when they need it. That is why investing in better front-line health services is a priority for National. Despite difficult financial conditions, over the next 4 years we will commit almost $1.5 billion extra to our public health sector. This will help deliver more operations and shorter waiting-times.

To ensure that our health service remains productive and efficient, the National-led Government has set challenging targets for the health services to achieve over the next 5 years. One of them is ensuring that our children are fully protected from childhood diseases such as measles. We will be increasing infant immunisation rates and reducing the incidence of rheumatic fever. These are very important targets to focus on. As a father of two girls I am fully aware how precious children are. Protecting them from preventable infectious diseases so that they can grow into productive adults is very important.

The National-led Government has worked hard to achieve the immunisation rate of 92.8 percent of 2-year-olds. Under Labour that figure was just 73 percent. But we want to do more. We want to get that figure to 95 percent of all 8-month-olds fully immunised, as scheduled, by 2017. It is an achievable target, which we will be working hard on. We are also aiming to reduce the incidence of rheumatic fever by two-thirds by 2017. Not only is rheumatic fever a serious and life-threatening disease but also it can create significant health costs of up $40 million a year. Again, we are working hard to get to our goal.

National is delivering on turning round a public health service that was in crisis under Labour. Our commitment to ensuring that New Zealanders have access to better, sooner front-line health services continues. Our success speaks volumes. We are spending over $14 billion this year on health, the most ever. Under National there are 27,000 extra people getting elective surgery every year. Our emergency departments are treating patients faster. There are more smokers quitting, and shorter waits for cancer patients. We also have 800 more doctors and 2,000 more nurses. Just last week the fourth intake of the Government’s Voluntary Bonding Scheme opened for new applicants. This is a very good scheme, as in return newly qualified doctors, nurses, and midwives start their careers in hard—

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.