General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Kiwis have got a good idea of what a fair go means—an attachment to the idea that no matter where you come from, no matter what your background, you will get the chance and the opportunity to get ahead and achieve your potential. But with this Government it is clearly not what you know; it is who you know. If we look at the front bench of the National Government it is definitely not what they know—we can see that from over here—but it is who they know. This is a Government governing in the interests of the few—the wealthy few.

Let us just take asset sales as one example. It is a huge transfer of wealth from the vast bulk of the population of New Zealand to those who can afford to pay—to those who have got the $1,000. It is a transfer from the panel beater in Waitakere—“Waitakere man”, if you like, or “Waitakere woman”—who has a stake in those assets today. That is being taken away by this National Government and handed to the share traders of Parnell. But, more than that, the loyalty scheme that is now in place means that the panel beater pays twice, because they are funding the costs of transferring the shares to the New Zealanders who can afford them. This process will widen the gap between the rich and the poor, which is something that this Government has no compunction about doing.

We all know that the beneficiaries of the asset sale programme are the banks and the consultants who are raking in millions of dollars to sell off what New Zealanders have built up over generations. They are the same consultants and contractors who are milking the public sector purse for all it is worth, because this Government thinks that the best way to say whether the public sector is working is to work out what the headcount is. Well, the Government departments are responding. They are reducing the headcount all right, and the money is going straight to consultants and contractors. It is spiralling out of control.

The National Government seems to have got its messages confused. When New Zealanders say they like the idea of looking out for their mates, they do not mean the National Government lining the pockets of its friends at the expense of hard-working men and women across New Zealand. Then, in a zero Budget, somehow or other the Government finds $40 million for private training establishments. Funding cuts in education, bigger class sizes, no allowances for postgraduate students, but $40 million for private education.

National says it wants to crack down on welfare. Well, how about starting with a crackdown on corporate welfare? This Government is governing in the interests of the few, and not the many. The stench of cronyism that pervades this Government is as strong as the smell of the brakes on Hekia Parata’s tyres as she reversed on class sizes.

Conflict of interest and cronyism is a long roll-call in this Government. Stephen McElrea, the Prime Minister’s electorate chair, who is on the board of New Zealand On Air, was interfering in decisions about programming straight before an election. There was a loan to MediaWorks from Steven Joyce, the man who knows a lot about that company—$43 million in that company just happens to allow DJ Key to spin his discs just before the election. Then we have got the appointment of Katherine Rich to the Health Promotion Agency. Katherine Rich is a highly capable person, but she has another job. She runs the Food and Grocery Council.

But it is more than that. There are two other members of the Health Promotion Agency, Lee Mathias and Jamie Simpson, who are, respectively, the electorate chairs of Sam Lotu-Iiga and Gerry Brownlee. You may well ask what qualification Gerry Brownlee’s electorate chair has to be on the Health Promotion Agency. Well, I can tell you what it is. He is an insurance broker. That is the qualification that he has got. It is jobs for the boys. We can go on. There is the ACC and Bronwyn Pullar saga, and the Skycity and pokies for legislation deal. This Government is full of cronyistic deals and conflicts of interest.

A key player in the ACC saga was Nick Smith, who now finds himself right in the middle of the latest bout of cronyism and conflicts of interest—the funding of the Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust. Let me say for the record that I want to acknowledge the great work of the many community groups that have been involved in the collaborative process down there. My concerns are not about them. My concerns are about a trust, launched at the National Party Bluegreens conference, chaired by a National MP, and directly funded by a National Minister, and about what that funding says about the transparency and accountability of this Government.

The Prime Minister wants to sweep this under the carpet. For him, the ends justify the means, no matter what. But our reputation as a country with a transparent Public Service must be jealously guarded.

I found the allegations of cronyism a bit rich, especially at times where I seem to be a one-person employment agency for former Labour MPs. But I want to start by acknowledging and paying tribute to Margaret Mahy, one of our great literary figures, who died on Monday. Her books were translated into a dozen languages, and I am very pleased to see that Joy Cowley and other writers are planning an hour-long tribute to her at the Frankfurt Book Fair in October, where New Zealand will be the country of honour.

Last weekend I went to the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra in Wellington, which performed Wagner’s Valkyrie in honour of another great New Zealander, Lloyd Morrison. Nothing more exposes the inaccuracy of headlines that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra could be axed than the fact that I sat through 5½ hours of Wagner on a Sunday afternoon. Every New Zealander should support and be proud of this institution, although, as Michael Cullen said to me yesterday, there will always be some people—

💬 Grant Robertson: Sir Michael.

—Sir Michael; I apologise—who say that orchestras are a waste of money and that there are some who say that the second violins should be abolished because they are an unnecessary duplication of services. I was very impressed by the singers at the concert, although the tenor could learn a thing or two from a certain member of this House, who I am not allowed to bring into the debate but whose musical virtuosity is known to and appreciated by us all, and I am not referring to Brendan Horan.

Last weekend we had a very successful National Party conference in Auckland. Spirits were high, and the protests were scant. Nothing makes left-wing protesters abandon their cause faster than light drizzle. The mood of the public was positive, and it is because this Government is getting things done for New Zealand. We are settling historical grievances with iwi, we are rebuilding Christchurch, we are improving infrastructure, we are paying down debt, and we are strengthening New Zealand’s capital markets. This will be a very busy 3 years for this Government, and we will deliver results for New Zealanders.

The Labour Party members have been very busy, as well, staring at their own navels. They have just finished a momentous review, not of how to grow the economy or make the tax system work better but of how much of a voting share Helen Kelly should have in picking potential Prime Ministers. I think they have settled on 20 percent. David Shearer has put in place a new organisational structure to cement his future as leader. Rather than plotting in the shadows and briefing TV3, Labour’s roll-call of leadership challengers will now have to write to the party’s governing board to initiate a spill, with the support of two-thirds of the caucus. Forward-thinking members like David Cunliffe will protest that his campaign website is a more 21st century way of signalling his intentions than old-fashioned letter writing, and Grant Robertson, that great internationalist currently temporarily resident in Wellington Central, probably thinks that a text from New York will suffice.

Mr Shearer is a traditionalist. He has consolidated his position. He stands on the brink of greatness, at the threshold of ensuring his tenure as the longest-serving Leader of the Opposition in Labour Party history. Mr Robertson will also reach another great milestone—perhaps not the one he was after—and will be remembered as the longest-serving deputy leader. Mr Shearer may justify the odds to be known as one of the great tacticians of New Zealand politics. He has quietly outmanoeuvred Mr Robertson, who has stacked the party’s headquarters and parliamentary offices with his loyalists. But Mr Shearer has changed the rules of the game. I do not mean to say that Mr Robertson will never make it to the top job; in fact, he has often struck me as—

💬 Grant Robertson: He’s obsessed with me.

I am not obsessed with him. He has often struck me as the Gordon Brown of New Zealand’s social democracy. And I am not suggesting that Mr Shearer and Mr Robertson are not close. A number of media profiles that accompanied their ascent to the Labour leadership noted their similarities. They are very much the Noel and Liam Gallagher of the Labour Party. But there is no oasis for the Labour Party; it is all desert.

💬 Grant Robertson: What band are they from, Minister?

Oasis. As I said, there is no oasis for the Labour Party; it is all desert. It has been a week of triumph for Mr Shearer, out of the limelight, away from the glare of public attention, which he does leave to Mr Robertson. He has sorted out his legacy.

But how irrelevant it all seems when one compares that with the achievements of our great Prime Minister and his Government: on the one hand an inward-looking party, focusing on how to deal with party challengers, and on the other hand a party and a Government that are interested only in a brighter future for New Zealand.

E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Over the weekend Government Minister after Government Minister was rolled out at the National Party conference to attack the Greens. Either National members have nothing to say about their own economic achievement or they must be pretty scared of the support the Greens are getting, to have spent so much time at their conference attacking us—or maybe both are true. Although National likes to talk up its economic management, it has actually bungled its way through the past 4 years. Under its watch, debt has skyrocketed, and many New Zealanders have lost their jobs. National came into office with zero net Government debt, and it is now $40 billion—that is right, billion—in the hole. That is the biggest borrowing binge in New Zealand’s history.

We hear a lot of excuses from National about the difficult financial times, but what exactly has been National’s brilliant economic response? It decided to borrow $2 billion to give tax cuts to the rich, it is borrowing another $1.5 billion to subsidise polluters, and it is splurging $12 billion on economically irrational motorways. National oversaw 63,000 more Kiwis lose their jobs. Unemployment is increasing under National. National believes that GDP growth is the be-all and end-all, but it continually misses its Budget growth targets. Let us be clear about this: John Key has overseen the worst economic growth record in at least half a century.

What National is scared of is that the Green Party offers a serious alternative. Our smart Green economics plan is jobs rich, innovative, environmentally sustainable, New Zealand - owned, and long term. The UK’s biggest business lobby group, the Confederation of British Industry, has just released a report showing the billions of dollars that green growth can add to the economy. The director-general, John Cridland, said: “with the right policies in place, green business will be a major pillar of our future growth.” National certainly is not going for growth; its dirty, grey plan is jobs poor, derivative, environmentally destructive, foreign-owned, and short term.

John Key and Steven Joyce, who have ineptly stood by as 63,000 Kiwis have become unemployed, like to lecture us about the need for job-creating policies, but the truth—the fact—is that their policies have led to more unemployment, whereas our policies create more jobs than theirs. Investing in public transport is jobs rich. For every dollar invested in public transport, it creates twice as many jobs as every dollar spent on motorways. National is wasting $12 billion on uneconomic motorways that increase our dependency on imported oil and create very few jobs. The Greens will invest in a sustainable, smart transport system that gets us off our oil addiction and creates twice as many jobs as investing in motorways.

Sustainable, clean energy creates three times as many jobs—dollar for dollar—than investing in fossil fuels, which is this Government’s obsession. Not only is investing in sustainable energy the right thing to do for the climate and our future but it creates more jobs now. Twenty-thousand manufacturing jobs have disappeared under National, as the Reserve Bank’s myopic focus on inflation dooms us to a current account deficit. The Greens will grow the manufacturing sector by reforming monetary policy so that our manufacturers have a level playing field at home and overseas.

Bereft of ideas, National is selling assets to try to patch up its botched economic management. Its plan B is to deface our national parks and drill our oceans for fossil fuels. Mining employs just 5,500 people—that is it. You would have to increase the amount of mining fivefold just to replace the jobs that have been lost in manufacturing while this National Party has been in Government.

Tourism and agriculture employ 92,000 and 97,000 people, respectively. These industries depend on our “clean, green” brand and bring in nearly $40 billion in export revenue. The smart thing to do is to invest in these job-rich industries, rather than damage our brand to create a brief fossil fuel bonanza for foreign-owned companies. That is why the Greens back clean, sustainable farming, and why we back high-value, environmentally friendly tourism.

The truth is that National’s woeful record on jobs and job destruction is no accident. It is happy with high unemployment, because it helps drive wages down. The Greens will not put up with it.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order, Mr Speaker—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I intend raising a point of order myself. Before I call the next member I have allowed one Government member to read a speech in the general debate. Having been sucked into that, I had to allow a member of the Opposition to read a speech in the general debate. I am sorry for the rest of the speakers, but in the general debate this afternoon there will be no more read speeches. We have had enough of read speeches.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Your anticipation was brilliant.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the review of the Standing Orders Committee I distinctly recall the discussion and the agreed version of the report that was subsequently released. Although there is a preference for non-read speeches, it was made clear that any member could make—

Order! I am on my feet. The Speaker does not need a lecture on the Standing Orders Committee. The Speaker chaired it and remembers it very well. The exception is for highly technical speeches where Ministers are, for example, introducing a bill or delivering a speech on the second reading of a bill that may be a technical bill. But where a member is talking about party politics, the House does not have to suffer read speeches. Occasionally there is some merit where perhaps a very humorous speech has been written out to get the timing, and it can be quite amusing sometimes where a speech is carefully crafted. But speeches that just climb into party politics are neither necessarily carefully crafted nor need to be read by any member in this House, and we will not have any more this afternoon. The next speaker is the Hon Phil—

💬 Dr Kennedy Graham: Point of order, Mr Speaker—

I am still on my feet. I am warning the honourable member that this is a place for debate and we do not need to have speeches written outside of this House read in this House. Members are meant to come into this House and debate. This is the general debate. It is not a place to read positions of political parties; it is the general debate. The House deserves—unless, as I say, there are exceptional circumstances—for members to actually contribute to the general debate. That does not involve reading speeches. I stress that only the Speaker can raise this issue; members are not at liberty to raise points of order about their colleagues reading speeches.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I respect your individual recollection of what occurred in the Standing Orders Committee. That does not accord with my individual recollection of the discussion or the agreed consensus that emerged in the Standing Orders review. It is not the case that written speeches read out would be confined to ministerial speeches or technical speeches. There was some leeway given to individual judgment as to whether a speech would be read word for word or used by notes or given extempore. It was on that basis that the Green Party—

Order! Maybe it might be of assistance to the member for me to read the report of the Standing Orders Committee on this matter.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Do it from memory.

I will not attempt to do it from memory. Reading of speeches: “We also wish to reiterate that, where possible, members should not read speeches. The reading of speeches was precluded until 1996, and we wish to reassert this rule as a convention, rather than through an explicit amendment to the Standing Orders to this effect. The House is a forum for debate, and proceedings are enlivened when members participate and engage with each other, perhaps with the use of speaking notes to aid the memory. However, no member, other than the Speaker, may interrupt the member who is speaking to suggest a breach of this convention, and the Speaker may allow speeches to be read in some circumstances. Such circumstances may relate to the technical nature of the material under discussion, or the relative experience of the member concerned. There will, however, be occasions when it is not inappropriate for speeches to be read.”

I think that makes pretty clear what I have just put to the House, that the Speaker may accept the reading of speeches where there is technical material, detailed material, or occasionally where a very cleverly crafted speech is being delivered. I think all members can enjoy that from time to time. But a speech presenting a party’s position on political matters does not need to be read to this House, and I have said I acknowledge that the Hon Chris Finlayson read quite a carefully crafted speech, and on that basis there was no way I could have intervened in the case of the co-leader of the Green Party. I have allowed that to happen and all I am saying is that for the rest of the afternoon, unless I hear a particularly detailed matter being covered, I expect members to contribute to the general debate.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You would recall the very first words you read out in that paragraph, which says “where possible”. This accorded an element of individual discretionary judgment to the MP. It was on that basis that the Green Party agreed to the report. If you are going to interpret that paragraph to accord to yourself total discretion as to whether an MP, in his or her individual judgment, may wish to make the most boring speech in the annals of this Parliament, that is not for the Speaker to determine. If you wish to do that then the Green Party will revise its view of that report and disassociate itself from it.

I do recall the debate that occurred at the Standing Orders Committee. Some of us would have preferred the wording to be tighter. In fact, some of us promoted having it in the Standing Order as it had been previously. It was, in the end, a consensus of the committee. The wording went through without dissent. It had the two exceptions: it was the technical exception for Ministers, especially on first reading was the discussion, and, secondly, for inexperienced members. That member fulfils neither of those requirements, and I, therefore, totally support the Speaker’s ruling.

I thank the honourable member. I do not think we need to put further attention on this this afternoon. It is only for the good of the House that I raise the issue. I accept that I allowed one member to read his speech this afternoon, and that is why I wanted to make sure that on the other side of the House I did not preclude another member from reading his speech. But I want to encourage members for the rest of this general debate, which I would rather we got on with, to please enter into the spirit of the general debate.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not wish to pursue it beyond this, and this will be my last comment on it, but that is not the understanding on which I participated in—

Order! We are not going to debate this matter in the House now. [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. We are not going to debate this matter in the House now. The Speaker rules on all matters in this House, and if the member does not have confidence in the Speaker, there are certain procedures to follow in that regard. But the Speaker has ruled that, consistent with the findings of the Standing Orders Committee, there are occasions when speeches can be read, indeed. In fact, I remember on a recent occasion the member reading a particularly detailed speech, following his attendance at an international conference. I did not intervene in that case, because there was a lot of detail the member wanted to convey to the House. That is a judgment of the Speaker. In all matters, the Speaker rules in this House.

It is very interesting what is coming from the Green Party in that view, because what it does is highlight the points I made this afternoon. I want to tell members what my mother told me. She said: “Phil, young Phil, when you tell the truth, you never have to remember what you said.” I say to the Green Party that when you tell the truth, you do not have to read your speeches. You do not have to gather your lines—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! In saying “you do not have to do this”, and “you do not have to do that”, the member is referring to the Speaker. The member must use the appropriate part of speech, if he is going to attack another party.

I was quoting what my mother was saying to me, and she said: “Phil, when you”—Phil—“tell the truth, you don’t have to remember your lines. You don’t have to read your speeches. We don’t all have to stick to the same line.” The reality is that over at the Green Party they are way off beam when it comes to getting the facts out there.

There is something we love about Green Party members, and it is that they are untainted. They are holy, they are pure, and they are untainted. They are untainted by reality, they are untainted by experience, and they are untainted by the facts. I do not know why the Labour Party is so intent on climbing into bed with them. I find it interesting that the Labour Party and the Greens are so very much closer together.

The Labour Party said we could not clarify labour laws in order for The Hobbit films to be made in New Zealand. The Labour Party hates the hobbits. The Labour Party said we cannot upgrade roads of national significance. In fact, it said “We’re not going to upgrade the road north of Auckland to Whangarei.” It hates Whangarei people. The Labour Party said that foreigners cannot invest in New Zealand. The irony of that, of course, is that the Labour Party says it believes in ethnic diversity. It says “Will people of different ethnic backgrounds please vote for us—but do not spend your cash in New Zealand.” The Labour Party said we cannot deliver better public services with fewer bureaucrats. It said it is against irrigation in the South Island—and the Labour Party is against oil and gas exploration, as well.

I would like to present to the House this map here, because the Labour Party apparently is against the almost $1 billion in royalties and company taxes that we collect each year. This map here shows the areas in blue that we have recently released for block offers across New Zealand—the areas in blue. We are very proud of this. We hope exploration companies will come here, they will find another Māui gasfield, and New Zealand will be able to get a little bit of a boost to its local economy. What this map also tells you, as the Labour Party rails against oil and gas exploration, is that the areas in yellow are what the Labour Party released for exploration over the last decade. [Interruption] Over the last decade the Labour Party released those areas in yellow for exploration.

The reason why that is fascinating is that that great statesman of this House, whom we all love and know, said this at the time about the release of the Great South Basin area under Labour Party rule: “Assuming exploration success, the country stands to earn significant revenue from royalties and taxes flowing from this investment, and it will assist in ensuring security of energy supply.” That great statesman David Parker, the then Minister of Energy, was very enthusiastic about exploring in the Great South Basin. Do you know what? He did it naked. David Parker was naked, because there was no exclusive economic zone legislation in the Great South Basin when he promoted that—no regulation out there, at all. The Labour Party believed you could have oil and gas exploration in the Great South Basin without regulation. It turns its back on that now, because it wants to be greener than green.

Of course, the Labour Party also has forgotten about the Māui gasfield, and all it has done for 220,000 consumers in the North Island, with New Zealand - made gas. I do not know why the Labour Party is against such successes. I do not know why it does not support anything for this country.

I will just straighten my speech notes here, which have technical details on them. This Government believes it can contract out accountability. It has privatised corrections, it has privatised energy generation, and last week it pushed through a bill that is going to privatise many of our social welfare services—

💬 David Bennett: What did Winston do?

—and, what is worse, the Minister actually promises us there is even more. There is even more, Mr Bennett. Look forward to it. New Zealand First believes that the New Zealand public is actually starting to wake up to what the real agenda of this Government is. The aim of this Government is to keep its population in a state of apathy around the economy, with the continual references to “There is no alternative. We must do this.”, but at the same time it is going to privatise the State by stealth. We can see that in almost every piece of legislation that is coming through this House, but nowhere is it more disturbing than in the field of education.

I am talking about charter schools, and I am talking about the privatisation of the State education system, creating an industry for profit, not for our children, not for academic outcomes, and not for our communities. No, no, no—this is an industry for profit, and those two words prominently appear in the supply and confidence agreement between this Government and the ACT Party. At the moment it is called charter schools, but officials quite rightly pointed out in a Cabinet paper, way back in February, at the beginning of this year, that we already have charter schools here in New Zealand. Every single State school has a charter, so it has recommended that as early as possible the working group come up with another name. It has also recommended that a bit of money be put into actually promoting and putting a bit of spin on this, so that the New Zealand public think that it is a great idea that their hard-earned taxpayer education dollars are given to people who are going to make a profit off it.

The fact that the Government is going to drop the first two of these schools into South Auckland and Christchurch in its own disturbing little way makes it worse. So this name is up for grabs. We have got some names. We can all put them in a bucket. Let us put some forward and add them to those of the working party group. How about: “Fleece the Taxpayer of Their Education Dollar Schools”. How about that? Shall we chuck that into the pot, and see whether that—or, what do we say: “We run it up a flagpole and see if anybody salutes.” Is that how you say it, Mr Bennett? What about “Another of John Banks’ Stupid Ideas Schools”? How would that go? Shall we try that? We need to get another name, because we already have charter schools. Actually—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I think she needs to read it.

None of this is written down, Mr Henare. Some of us actually can create it on the spot, Mr Henare. These are notes, Mr Henare.

If ever there was a sign that this was a stupid idea, surely it was the flashing sign above Mr John Banks’ head that this idea came out of an ACT Party meeting that was held in a telephone box. I mean, that is how many people basically voted for, and participated in, the ACT Party, yet this was the idea. Or was it? This is interesting; I want to quote here, and I will just consult my notes. I am quoting here: “At a meeting between Mr Banks and a group of education officials, Mr Banks was quoted as saying: ‘I have outsourced all thinking.’ ” Now, we would suggest—

💬 David Bennett: You had to read that?

I wanted to make sure I got it right, because it is hard to believe that somebody would say that. But we would suggest that Mr Banks actually outsourced his thinking some time before. We would suggest that it is a shame that Mr Banks did not outsource his memory, because it would be nice if somebody else could remember whose helicopter he was on. But he was referring to charter schools and the working group.

Mr Banks and Mr Key are attempting to sell this charter schools idea, as I said, to the New Zealand public as a silver bullet. This is the silver bullet for the tail end of our education system. As I say, they are going to pop it into South Auckland and into Christchurch. Mr Key has gone on record as saying: “This is to provide choice.” Choice! These are the same words the Bush administration used to actually stop central government investment into the American education system. There are some very interesting parallels, particularly as our Minister of Education seems to be going to the United States to do some professional development on it.

But I suggest that we might be being a bit unfair to Mr Banks and the ACT Party. Perhaps we are crediting them with an idea that actually was not theirs. Let us look at the employment of the Secretary for Education, Lesley Longstone. She was actually appointed in June 2011. That was well before the November election. That was well before any supply and confidence agreement, and she has actually been hired at $160,000 more than the person who had the job before her, Karen Sewell, a New Zealander. Her previous position was actually as a director-general of infrastructure and funding in the United Kingdom from September 2010, where she was responsible for delivering free schools. This is privatising, and it is wrong.

At the risk of sounding sycophantic, I want to reflect on the National Party’s annual conference, and in particular—[Interruption] Never, never really, but I understand the risk. I want to talk about Phil Heatley’s speech to the party faithful at the conference in Auckland on Saturday, because I think that it was one of the best speeches I have heard one of our Ministers do, and, in particular, it was about the opportunities for oil and gas exploration in this country. He told the party faithful a story about a province in this country; a province that can successfully marry dairying, tourism, and oil and gas exploration completely comfortably, and has done so for decades. That province—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Lucy Lawless would know that.

That is right; Lucy Lawless would know exactly where that is, because that is the province of Taranaki and the city of New Plymouth. I think it stands out as the model for what can be done when environmental risks are managed and when there is a comfortable coalescence with all of those things—dairying, tourism, and oil and gas. The numbers around Taranaki are quite compelling. Where New Zealand’s GDP per capita is at around $46,000, Taranaki’s GDP per capita is at around $88,000. Oil and gas is a significant contributor to the increase over the national average.

There is another province in this great country of ours, and it has dairying, and it has great tourism, and it may—just may, subject to further exploration—have some fantastic oil and gas fields not far off its shores.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Canterbury?

That is the province of Otago—close, Mr Brownlee, but not quite. In fact, though, it is at the south end of the Canterbury Basin, I think they call it.

I am particularly concerned to ensure that city leaders in Dunedin are unequivocal about their support, that as long as environmental risk can be managed, that resource should be exploited. So I was a little concerned to read in this morning’s Otago Daily Times that the Dunedin City Council, fracturing into two camps, has narrowly decided to join calls for a moratorium on fracking. Never mind that there is no fracking going on in Otago, never mind that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has not yet completed her inquiry into the risks of fracking, and certainly never mind that there was no community consultation before the council passed this motion. It is important, because I think, as a city leader, that it is time to stand up and say this: as long as the environmental risks can be managed, Dunedin must promote, must lead, and welcome the Anadarkos and the Shell Todds who have the exploration licences and head out off the shore at Karitane and down at Nugget Point, and explore those fields that Mr Heatley pointed out.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Not Nugget Point!

Yes, Nugget Point; yes, marine reserve, that is right. It will be comfortably coalescing, I am sure, with the environment down there, and the tourism opportunities, and the dairying opportunities in South Otago. The three can coalesce, because the city actually contributed to a multi-party economic development strategy that said: “Dunedin will be one of the world’s great small cities. It will be known as a confident, competitive knowledge centre,”. It then goes on to talk about things like business vitality, a compelling destination, a magnet for skills and talent, and so on. When I was a child—

💬 Dr David Clark: How about Hillside?

When I was a child—I will come to that, Dr Clark—25 percent of the companies listed on the New Zealand Stock Exchange had their head offices in Dunedin. In the late 1970s and early 1980s there was a flight north and across the Tasman. That 25 percent—that is right, go and have a look at the numbers—the Donaghys, the Fisher and Paykels, the Shacklocks, and the McLeods all had their head offices in Dunedin. I cannot stand by and look the people of Dunedin in the eye and say that it is sad what has happened to Hillside, that they cannot compete with larger and more technologically adept companies internationally, and then turn round and say that we are equivocal about oil and gas exploration. I cannot do it. So I stand up today, and I say, as a city leader, that I support those companies coming in. They had expertise in mining, and deep-water mining in particular, and I think that this would be great for the city. I call on other leaders to do the same, and in particular, the Dunedin City Council.

I am very glad the National Party members are talking about their so-called glorious Nuremberg-like rally that happened on the weekend. The Prime Minister came out of that, triumphant in his own mind that the National Party faithful—of course, all of whom who could—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a completely unacceptable reference that was made by that member. He should be made to withdraw and apologise for it. You cannot use words that relate to that particular regime in this House in other contexts, and it should not be used in the context of this debate when it is reference to another party as well.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think—

I withdraw and apologise if any offence was given. I just say this for the record: I think the member has got it completely wrong, but I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Had the member referred to something to do with a Nazi-style conference, that would have been out of order. I am loath to all the time keep ruling words out of order. I appreciate the member’s preparedness to withdraw it, but I think we have just got to be careful to not be ruling words out endlessly over the years.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: It is not the words; it is the reference he made.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member should not be interjecting, although I understand the depth of feeling around some of these issues. The reference is made through words. I thank the member for withdrawing his comment, and let us let it lie at that. I appreciate that. I thank the member.

With no link to that, I think the member has gone troppo, but we will not go there.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not helpful.

He had a bad day yesterday. We have it now in writing from a High Court judge confirming what everybody knows in Canterbury and around the place, that Gerry Brownlee is incompetent, and we now have the papers to prove it. But let us go back to the great rally of the National Party conference. Out of that came the Prime Minister, and he announced a loyalty scheme as part of one of the biggest wealth transfers in our history—which I suspect we will look back on it as—from those who cannot afford it to those who can. He came into this House with a loyalty scheme that is an admission of defeat, because if the Prime Minister felt, as he has trumpeted, as Gerry Brownlee has, and as all the National Party members have, that these shares in our assets will be retained almost ad infinitum in the future by ordinary Kiwi mums and dads, then the question remains why you need a loyalty scheme, and why that loyalty scheme will be paid on the back of all those who cannot afford the $1,000 to $2,000 parcels.

The Prime Minister then came into the House yesterday, from my memory—I note this for the press gallery, because when we would get up in the House from time to time when we were in Government, the press gallery, as were the then Opposition, were at pains to ask us to provide detail around costings and other things—he got up and was asked for detail around the loyalty scheme. Zero; he had not thought it through. He was asked for a costing around the loyalty scheme. Zero; he did not have the numbers. Then he decided to criticise this side of the House for references to an authoritative Treasury report, from his own Government department, but could not put a dollar figure on the costings, a dollar figure on the impact, no detail, and no reference at all. There are those in the media who would term that, perhaps, as “policy on the hoof”. That term, I think, is too light for this.

The Prime Minister on radio called me a fool for references I made around State-owned enterprises. Well, I say this to the Prime Minister: only a fool would swap revenue-generating assets making around 18 percent for debt-servicing costs of around 5 percent, and every Kiwi who can balance their housekeeping and make the budget work every day has worked that out. The fool is the Prime Minister. The fool is the Prime Minister, because the Prime Minister has tried to say benevolently to people who already own the assets that they can buy those assets back for a second time—for a second time, because we know that they already own them. Then he said to them that those who do buy in, those who can afford $1,000 or $2,000—and if they can, ordinary Kiwis, I suspect, will pay off 20 percent of the credit card rather than invest in this—will get a loyalty bonus. Those who cannot afford it get nothing.

Then, of course, we have the issue of possible Māori tribal and iwi challenges. Yet the Prime Minister and his ilk go ahead, bludgeon this through—bludgeon an initial public offering through under the worst market conditions you can possibly have and under the potential threat of legal action. I ask how that will be resolved. That will be resolved, of course, in the tried and true way of the Prime Minister making a deal. I suspect that it will be resolved through a share allocation. So we have a bonus share allocation. Kiwis are so loyal that they do not need it, but the Prime Minister has thrown it in. By the way, that bonus matures—hey presto—in about 3 years’ time. When is that, colleagues? Just after the next election. I ask National, given that it has not made up its mind on much, whether it will guarantee that that bonus issue, that loyalty scheme, will mature prior to the next election—prior to the next election, say, in 2½ years’ time. That is a bribe and a con, designed simply so the Prime Minister can say that all Kiwis are in—until they get the windfall bonus in the lead-up to an election, and then we know Kiwis will be out, and foreign investors will be the ones who are in.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I am really interested in young people, and at a recent motivation event I heard the principle of “Be. Do. Get.” The principle behind that is the idea that intrinsically you are worth value, but unless you “do”, you do not get the results that you deserve. The National Government understands that all too well. Contrary to what Mr Cosgrove said, we are an intelligent Government, we are working hard, and we are action-packed. You will hear from my other colleagues the activities that we are involved in. But what we understand is that it is OK to be the Government, but you have to “do” if you want to get the future that New Zealanders need, want, and deserve.

As the MP for Christchurch Central, to me the most important commitment this Government has made is to support the rebuild and the recovery of Christchurch and Canterbury, and this Government is 100 percent behind that. Those of you who have visited Canterbury or Christchurch will know that we are totally focused on the earthquake recovery. In fact, I do not know what we did or what we talked about before the earthquakes. We worked together really well to manage the disaster, and we are working together well to manage the recovery. But things are still tough. There are still difficult, challenging issues out there, but we are making progress. We are focusing on fixing homes because we want everybody safe and warm. We have worked on resettling people who had totally damaged properties, and 5,000 of the 7,000-ish who have been in the red zone have now signed their documents and are ready to move on. We have also repaired 20,000 houses. That is a little bit bigger than the size of Timaru. There are still 30,000 houses in that process, but we have also put accommodation villages there so people can move out of their houses, move into that accommodation, and then move back into their houses when they are finished. The good news is that Fletcher EQR—that is, the earthquake recovery people—are telling us that they are completing 100 a day.

We are getting very good at demolition. We have demolished about 1,200 commercial buildings in the centre city, with another 200 to go. That might sound negative, but in actual fact it is really positive. You cannot rebuild until those buildings are down. And we are rebuilding fast, as well. The stadium was up in 100 days. The new out-patients department at Christchurch Hospital was up in 150 days. And our new library has just opened this week. So we are trying to fix communities. It is actually horrifying the number of public and community buildings that are being repaired or coming down. We are also fixing infrastructure: the roads, the pipes, the sewers—things that you cannot see too much, but things that are incredibly important. I have some statistics here: 41,000 square metres of roading, 1,500 kilometres of water network assessed, and 45 kilometres repaired. Overall, there are 200 projects going on in Christchurch worth over $920 million. So if you get the feeling that there are roadworks going on in every street in town, you are probably right.

But it is not just building infrastructure that is important; we also need to focus on the health and well-being of Cantabrians. I really want to congratulate the health professionals in Christchurch, who under very difficult circumstances with really broken facilities have delivered first-class health. What is more, they are now dealing with the normal winter ills in the city as well. In terms of well-being, I think Cantabrians are amazing. They are resilient, they are positive, and they are working hard to rebuild our city. Our economy is growing, new businesses are opening and old businesses reopening every day, unemployment is down, and there are people actually moving to Christchurch to be part of the rebuilding. We are very pleased with the local plans that are under way, and we are looking forward to the central Christchurch blueprint, which will be announced next Monday. I have absolutely no doubt that Cantabrians can and will rebuild a better, stronger, and more environmentally friendly and beautiful city. Thank you.

It is very clear that this Government has a propensity to appoint its friends in order to advance its own interests. It does not matter whether it is Brian Neeson, Ken Shirley, Ravi Musuku, Georgina te Heuheu, Sir Wira Gardiner, Wayne Mapp, Jenny Shipley, Steven McElrea, Judy Kirk, Don Brash, Richard Griffin, or Richard Long, and I could go on with an assortment of former members of Parliament, electorate chairpeople, failed candidates for the National Party, or old staffers. This Government continues to appoint people it prefers in order to advance its own interests.

There is one particular appointment that I want to speak about with some real seriousness, because it goes to just what the Government is trying to achieve with its appointments. One of the people in the last manifestation of the National caucus whom I admired a great deal was Katherine Rich. She is a woman of ability and principle, and I admired her a great deal. She, in fact, led the National caucus on some issues, such as the section 59 debate, when she refused to be whipped and follow the party line, and made sure that we got better legislation than was in place. This is a person of principle, Katherine Rich, and she is the head of the Food and Grocery Council. So why has the Government appointed her to the Health Promotion Agency? There is clearly a conflict of interest.

The food and beverage industry is a $15 billion industry, and the Food and Grocery Council’s own objective is “To promote, oppose, or move for the recision of any legislation, regulations, by-laws, or policy affecting the interests of members.”, and I quote that from the objectives of the New Zealand Food and Grocery Council. My very great fear is that they have deliberately created this conflict of interest for a woman of ability because they wish to have some mitigating influence on the work of the Health Promotion Agency. What is the objective of the Health Promotion Agency? Well, the Health Promotion Agency, it says, “must lead and support activities for the following purposes: (a) promoting health and … encouraging health lifestyles: (b) preventing disease, illness, and injury: (c) enabling environments that support health and … healthy lifestyles:”. The Food and Grocery Council has campaigned against the mandatory inclusion of folic acid in bread, it has campaigned against the reduction of salt and sugar in food, and it has campaigned in favour of liberal trading policies for alcohol.

So my distinct suspicion is that this Government has cynically appointed this woman of ability so that it can mitigate messages that should come out of the Health Promotion Agency, so that nobody could ever accuse it of being nanny State, and so that it can reassure its friends in the food and grocery industry that it still has their interests at heart. “Do not worry, we will not let any of that namby-pamby health promotion stuff get away on us. We will make sure that we do not do anything that affects the sale of your sugary products, or your salt-laden products, or your products that do not inspire health or healthy living in any New Zealander.”

My very deep concern is that National’s cronyism not only sacrifices some of its best people but also is used in the interests of the industries that support it. In this particular case, its cronyism is used against the interests of the health and well-being of New Zealanders. This is one conflict of interest that this Government is using deliberately for its own purposes, and it needs to reflect seriously on that issue. Thank you.

Today we were very privileged in this House to have the presence of the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, a man who has made a huge commitment to his country and is a leader of his region. He has, I guess, had to eat a few bitter pills in his time to actually deliver what he wants to see for his country going forward. But that is a true leader: somebody who knows what their country wants, who is willing to do what is needed for their country, and who has the presence and ability to deliver that over time. We wish him the best in those endeavours. Just like the New Zealand National Party is a party that has the best interests of New Zealand at heart, that is making the right choices for New Zealand, and that is willing and able to go through the tough times to make those choices a reality and to make this country good and great. We are lucky to have the leadership of this country in the hands of National at this time.

The Labour Party has no plan. It attacks personalities. That last speech from the Hon Maryan Street was very disappointing in the way that it tried to attack a personality, rather than to go and to look at the real future of New Zealand and to put a plan out there. It is very divisive politics that you see from the Opposition. It tries to prey on the fears of individuals, it tries to prey on those who are weak, and it tries to make something out of nothing so that it can actually go out there and be seen as the saviour of all when it is not the saviour at all. It is not the saviour. It does not believe in New Zealanders or in this country. It believes only in itself and in the grand conspiracy theories that you see from parties like the New Zealand First Party in this House this afternoon, whereas on the National Government side, we know what we need to do. We need to have a balanced economy; an economy that has the fundamentals right; an economy that invests in those very strong principles of education, infrastructure, and development—

💬 Denis O’Rourke: An economy that widens the gap between rich and poor.

—an economy that looks after people in need; and an economy that delivers for all. And when we hear members across there trying to yell out things from the Opposition benches, they do not look at what is actually required for New Zealand. We hear this in regard to the mixed-ownership model. The Opposition and Grant Robertson started off today saying it is a transfer of wealth. That is what he is saying. Well, it is not a transfer of wealth. The people who will potentially buy those assets through the shareholdings are actually sending money to the Government for those shares. The Government will benefit from that investment; that investment then will be used to deliver more public services for all New Zealanders. If anything, the transfer of wealth is from those who are willing to invest, to the Government to deliver for all New Zealanders. That is what is really going to happen, rather than a transfer of wealth, as the Labour Party seeks to assert in this House.

I thought we had a very good speech today from Chris Finlayson, though. It was an excellent speech, and it followed his excellent debate at the National Party conference. He spoke about the change in how the leadership of the Labour Party is determined and said that it has inevitably meant that Mr Shearer has got a prolonged stage of leadership of the Labour Party, which is good news for National, and it is good news for New Zealand because Mr Shearer will not achieve his goal of being Prime Minister. That will mean that National has more opportunity at the next election with him as the Labour Party leader.

When you look at the Green Party, though, it is very disappointing what it is doing in this House and in the public eye. The Green Party should be a party that talks about the real issues. The Green Party is a party that should look at the truth and deliver that in this House. The Green Party does not do that. The Green Party is a party at odds with its coalition favourites, the Labour Party. They naturally will be at odds, because the Labour Party does not want to lose votes to the Greens and the Greens want to take votes off the Labour Party. That is a marriage that cannot last. There will be some divisive fighting between those two parties in the next 2 years as they fight over the same territory. The Labour Party has one advantage over the Green Party, and it is that it tells the truth more often than the Green Party—not that much more, but it does sometimes. That is one thing that the Green Party needs to invest in if it seriously wants votes.

E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. The speech from the last speaker, “Mr Ardern”, talked about telling the truth. I will tell the truth about what this Government is doing with our natural assets as well as our State-owned assets. Just as it is selling off our State-owned energy companies, the Government is selling off and trading away our natural assets, and I am talking to two particular proposals in Te Wāhipounamu - South West New Zealand World Heritage Area. It is Riverstone Holdings’ proposed monorail and Milford Dart’s proposed tunnel between Glenorchy and the Hollyford. I am very pleased the Minister of Conservation is here, because she recently received some of the concerns of the people of Te Ānau that that proposal for the tunnel would completely undermine tourism in the area. It would take people away from visiting Te Ānau.

These two proposals are proposed for one of our most distinctive and special natural areas: the wilds of Fiordland, of Snowdon Forest. They are both part of Te Wāhipounamu - South West New Zealand World Heritage Area. It is one of only 188 areas that are recognised by Unesco for their outstanding value to all humankind.

Earlier this year I walked through the Kiwi Burn and the Ūpukerora valleys, where the monorail is proposed to go. The trees and the forest in those valleys—it is red beech forest. There are some very beautiful trees; some very old trees that are potentially hundreds and hundreds of years old. The monorail would create a 200 metre wide, 30 kilometre long scar through the Snowdon Forest. By the Department of Conservation’s own estimates it would destroy 20,000 trees, which would have to be logged and cleared to create the corridor for the monorail.

Riverstone Holdings is targeting conservation land because, of course, it is much cheaper to socialise its costs by using public conservation land for free or for a modest concession, rather than buying private land for its proposed monorail. Yet the Department of Conservation is supposed to be managing these areas for the preservation and protection of the natural resources that are there. It is the habitat of threatened species like kākā, kākāriki, and the long-tailed bat, yet Riverstone Holdings proposes putting people in these sealed tin cans to send them swishing through the landscape. How will that increase their appreciation of what a New Zealand forest is like? By cutting the journey between Queenstown and Te Ānau and missing out that beautiful section round the lake, where the road is in the shadow of the Remarkables and you are looking out across Lake Wakatipu, how will that increase people’s appreciation of New Zealand?

It goes through an area that at the moment is perfect for families and novice trampers because it is close to the Mavora Lakes. Sensible tourism operators, people whom the Green Party supports and who are establishing the Save Fiordland Society, see that the future of that industry is based on getting people into the outdoors and encouraging them to see what nature is really like, not just to have them speeding through the landscape in a sealed tin can. Those operators are part of the Save Fiordland Society. Those people are banding together to mobilise public opinion against these two very destructive, high-impact proposals.

We have not had a good record from this Minister. She presided over the freeholding of part of what was to be part of Craigieburn Forest Park, and allowed it to be traded and sold off to the Porters Ski Area development. Mr Michael Slee, who was the director of development for the Porters Ski Area proposal, is also involved in the monorail proposal. Once they had their concessions from the Minister, what happened? Blackfish, which was involved in putting forward Porters Ski Area, was onsold to four Russian multimillionaires. Given the large amount of capital that is required for both the tunnel and the monorail, what would we see here? We would see overseas corporates that might benefit from the jobs and the consultancy contracts involved in constructing the monorail and the tunnel, but these would be overseas-owned companies destroying New Zealand nature in return for their dividends going offshore.

People are mobilising to stop these proposals in order to protect the outstanding values of the South West New Zealand World Heritage Area, because they recognise that this is conservation land.

Sat sri akaal. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am starting my contribution by greeting you in the Māori language, because this is the week when we are acknowledging the Māori language. If we want to keep our culture alive we need to stick to our language, and that is very important. English is not my first language, and you had a little debate today that debaters should not read their speeches. I read my speech because of this House’s prestige. I do not want to get stuck somewhere. That is why I prepare my notes, my thoughts, so that I can keep reading them. Mr Speaker, I hope you will excuse me if I read in between my speech some of my notes. I am not used to debating without my notes.

When we migrants come to this country, we bring a lot of dreams in mind. We have got a lot of energy for the hard work that we are ready to do, and we are sure we will succeed with the hard work and support of our families. I am proud to be part of this National Government, which provides the tools for businesses to grow in this country. Less red tape-ism, better infrastructure, and better facilities are the success tools for businesses to grow. I am sure everyone from the small and medium-sized businesses will agree with me that the National Government is supporting them.

I am proud of this National-led Government, which gave this country its first ethnic MP, Pansy Wong. I am also proud of this Government, which gave us Pansy Wong as the first Cabinet Minister from an ethnic background. I am proud to be part of this team and I hope this Government will keep on working in this direction.

I would like to quote Mahatma Gandhi, who said: “Men often become what they believe themselves to be. If I believe I cannot do something, it makes me incapable of doing it. But when I believe I can, then I acquire the ability to do it even if I didn’t have it in the beginning.” It is very important that the businesses, which are run with a lot of hard work and the support of the families, succeed over here. What every business that starts needs is a great idea to start with, resources and capital to succeed, a workforce that can help it to produce its production, and, lastly, infrastructure so that it can sell its product not only in this country but also overseas. The Government for its part is supporting facilities and multiple initiatives, because it is our sincere wish to see that everyone living in New Zealand should succeed.

We are also involved in a number of initiatives that facilitate the growth of ethnic businesses. The forums organised by the ethnic affairs ministry are directed to help them to succeed over here. The recent forum organised by the ethnic affairs ministry about the African community was very successful. There the Minister for Ethnic Affairs, the Hon Judith Collins, said that New Zealand’s African community brings with it a great deal of energy and experience to our shores, and we are able to use that experience and energy in the development of this country.

I feel that organising such events is a wonderful way to empower individuals and communities. It makes them feel welcome and says to them: “We are there to support you while you are integrating into New Zealand.” It provides migrants coming to New Zealand with a sense that now they belong to New Zealand, and their efforts towards building the New Zealand economy will be well supported.

I would like to finish by saying another quote by Mahatma Gandhi: “As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world … as being able to remake ourselves.” This, I believe, is the story of most migrants. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.