General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. This is a Government in total disarray. There has never been a time in New Zealand’s political history when so many Government agencies have been out of control, and without leadership. The Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Government Communications Security Bureau are the examples just this week, and it starts at the top.

It starts at the top with the Prime Minister—the Prime Minister who says “I don’t know.”, “I can’t remember.”, “I’m not in a position to comment on that.”, and “Who knows? I crack jokes from time to time. I crack jokes about all kinds of important material.” Well, the message for John Key is this: New Zealanders want hope; they do not want Bob Hope. And that is what they are getting from this Prime Minister—he is cracking the jokes but not doing the job that New Zealanders expect of him.

His Government is in disarray, and it starts at the top of the Government Communications Security Bureau. We entrust in the Prime Minister, as the Minister who is in control of the Government Communications Security Bureau, the responsibility on behalf of all of us to look after the spy agencies, to look after our security, and yet this Minister—John Key—has no idea what is happening in his own agency. He has not been briefed. He does not know what is happening. That is the story he is asking New Zealanders to believe.

That is the story he wants New Zealanders to believe, but day by day his story unravels. Day by day he has to admit that he got it wrong. He said “It was not September; it was really February.” and “I am not going to be talking about Kim Dotcom in Hollywood. Oh, no, I am going to be talking about Kim Dotcom in Hollywood.” Mr Key’s story is unravelling day by day, and his lack of leadership, his lack of focus on these agencies, is going to come to this House again, and we will see it.

But it goes right across the National Party front bench. If the National Party had a Malcolm Tucker from The Thick of It, he would have a desk placed in Hekia Parata’s office. It would be there permanently as he tried to unravel what it is that she is telling this House. But what we know on this side of the House is that she has treated the people of Christchurch shabbily. That is what she has done. She has not gone down there and looked at these problems. She has not even got a proper assessment of each school. She has simply gone there with a one-size-fits-all solution, and that is disrespectful to the people of Christchurch. Her story unravels every day as well.

Then there is Paula Bennett and the Ministry of Social Development. The ministry was told about the weaknesses and vulnerabilities in its system, and it did nothing. It did absolutely nothing. In 2009 Paula Bennett told John Key that she would be closely monitoring everything that went on, and she completely failed to do that. She is overseeing an agency that is in disarray. We have had that, we have had ACC—this Government is letting New Zealanders down.

New Zealanders have a right to be disappointed in this Government, because John Key came into office and told New Zealanders: “I expect high standards from my Ministers.” That is what he told New Zealanders. Well, he, today, in his ministry, has a Minister in John Banks who has consistently misled New Zealanders and who has consistently misled the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister clings on to the political corpse that is John Banks to save his Government’s majority. Well, what he is doing is letting down the standards of ministerial behaviour and letting down New Zealanders. He is not upholding the standards he said he would, and he is not upholding the standards that New Zealanders would expect. He is now seen in the eyes of many New Zealanders as being the one thing that John Key always feared: just another politician. But he is worse than that. He has lowered the standards of ministerial accountability, and New Zealanders have every right to be disappointed in him.

The other thing that this Government is doing is overseeing a decline in the New Zealand economy. It is not even prepared to take its head out of the sand, to stop practising the ostrich economics that this Government seems to think are OK, to actually look at the loss of jobs around New Zealand and say to New Zealanders “We will be there with you.” Instead, it is prepared to sit on the sidelines of the economy, waiting for something to happen. Instead of doing what any good Government would do, which is to get in there, get its hands dirty, and help New Zealanders create jobs, the Government waits, and it sits on the sidelines. This is a Government in disarray, managing a decline. New Zealand can do better. Labour will have a better path for New Zealand than this.

I wonder whether Grant Robertson asked David Shearer: “Where’s the tape?”.

💬 Hon Member: No.

I think he did. I wonder whether he asked him in caucus: “Where’s the tape?”. I wonder why he asked the questions he did yesterday in the House designed to make David Shearer look stupid over the tape. There is one thing that has become very clear from watching those Opposition members, for that very small number of New Zealanders who bother doing it, which is that they are much more ambitious for themselves than they are for New Zealanders. There is absolutely no doubt about that, because this lazy, trite Opposition has almost nothing to contribute to the real debates. I am sure those members will debate for the next week, or month perhaps, among themselves whether the name of some guy who found the problem in the Work and Income computer was leaked or not leaked, because that is the stuff they like. That is the stuff they like. Was it leaked? Did Grant say to David, the right way round: “I support you.”?

Actually the big questions are being addressed by the Greens and New Zealand First. Should we be printing money? Well, the answer is no. Should we throw out the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act? Well, the answer is no, we should not. But at least they are putting up something substantial that is relevant to the concerns of every New Zealander—that is, their economic security. David Shearer is totally focused on the security cameras in a building most New Zealanders have never seen.

💬 Grant Robertson: He’s more focused on it than John Key is, and he’s meant to be the Minister.

Well, he was put there as Leader of the Opposition to be like John Key, and I just want to say this: David Shearer is no John Key, and I think everybody knows that. Everybody knows that.

The Prime Minister is leading a Government that is relentlessly focused on the economy, and the performance of the New Zealand economy, by international standards, has been very good. I was going to say pretty good, but as more other developed economies trend towards recession, the New Zealand economy is maintaining 2 to 3 percent growth. That is providing higher after-tax incomes for New Zealand families. It has provided more opportunities for New Zealanders to get jobs. It has provided the opportunity to maintain and improve public services under the leadership of the outstanding Ministers that were attacked today by the Opposition. That is in sharp contrast to what is happening in virtually every developed economy around the world—including, I might say, Australia, where large-scale public sector redundancies, falling house prices, and growing unemployment are now what is happening in the economy that has in recent years served us so well as an engine of growth.

We will stay relentlessly focused on economic opportunity and on creating jobs. The Government has published three or four documents so far, with several to come, which outline in great detail the numerous ways in which we are attending to the one decision that makes a difference to economic growth, and that is the decision made in a workplace by a business, its management, and staff, to grow. Until they decide to employ another person, there is not another job. So we owe a debt of thanks to all those businesses and workplaces, which through the most difficult economic times in a generation have continued to grow, and have continued to pay the wages, and to provide a living for families. That has made it easier for the Government to continue its programme of support for businesses, through the largest research and development investment that New Zealand has ever had; for families, through the most income support New Zealand has ever delivered to families; and for public services, which, at the same time as going through tough times and radical change, are offering the highest level of services and satisfaction that New Zealanders have ever expressed.

So Mr Shearer is no John Key? Well, maybe Bill English is right, because I do not know Mr Shearer to be full of bulldust, I do not understand him to be racked with amnesia, and I do not understand him to be a “spray and walk away” merchant.

Who knew about Kim Dotcom? Well, that man who just sat down did, Bill English, and he sought to not disclose a public disclosure matter. The Hon Jonathan Coleman, the then Minister of Immigration, got Dotcom here in the first place. The Hon Maurice Williamson, the Minister for Land Information, approved the Chrisco deal of sale to Kim Dotcom. Simon Power, the then Associate Minister of Finance and Minister of Justice, declined Dotcom’s purchase of the Chrisco mansion, and got Williamson to do a U-turn.

Who else knew? John Banks knew—well, he did know back then. The New Zealand Police, the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand, and hundreds of others all knew about Dotcom. And we have seen the backtracking from the Prime Minister. First he said he was told about Dotcom the night before the raid. That was demonstrably false. He knew in February this year about the Government Communications Security Bureau involvement in the Dotcom case. We know that he was briefed by the bureau in February on three separate occasions. But things are heating up. The information we are getting in is getting us closer and closer to the Prime Minister.

In April 2011 Simon Power was in a bit of a pickle about Dotcom’s Overseas Investment Office application. Although his colleague Maurice Williamson had rubber-stamped the document, as Maurice always does, Power was not so sure. He wanted further advice, and on 18 July Power declined Dotcom’s application and phoned the Prime Minister to tell him—except that the Prime Minister has no recollection. Why would Power call the Prime Minister’s office to relay that information to him, if it did not get to him? More importantly, what happened on 17 April 2011 and 18 July 2011? Well, we have found out, from a written question, that on 13 June 2011 Simon Power met the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister claimed in his reply to that written question—in his answer, that is—“no record, no recollection”. Yet today, when asked “can he assure the House that Mr Power did not raise the subject of Kim Dotcom at that 13 June 2011 meeting?”, he said yes. One of those answers is palpably, demonstrably false.

Is this man’s memory improving with age? He could not remember about the June 2011 meeting and answer, and today leapt to his feet to give an assurance. Frankly, that will not do. He is caught out again. We have already got two apologies from him, and here will come the third one. I hope that this time we are not delayed weeks and weeks and weeks on the most demonstrable, apparent deceit, and, in my view, a breach of the privileges of this House and a contempt of Parliament—all in one.

His answer today cannot be correct. He said that there was no such conversation between Mr Power and himself. But he could not remember when he, on record, read it out in the House. He cannot remember the Tranz Rail shares. He cannot remember the winery that he did not have a stake in. He cannot remember the BMWs that he was involved in. “Don’t know, can’t remember”—these are the words that will be the legacy of this Prime Minister, and they will come back to haunt him, because the good news is, Mr Brownlee, that there is lots more to come. If the Government even dreamt that this is going to go away, if it even dreamt that the issue is going to go away, it should wake up and apologise now.

Well, that last speech by Winston Peters really did read like the opening chapter in a Jeffrey Archer novel: complete fiction based upon the member’s own loose grasp of facts, in his own case, throughout his own political career. There is no one in this House who is more condemned by amnesia than that member over there.

We have had a very interesting week so far in Parliament. Last week we saw the Opposition parties’ David Shearer, Winston Peters, and Russel Norman cosy up on a bench—oh, I am sorry, David Shearer and Russel Norman were cosying up; Winston Peters was an arm’s length away—showing the nation what an alternative coalition might look like and claiming that there is a job crisis in this country. So having gone out there and spruiked all this up, what did they do when they came into the House this week? They went back on to the old stuff of Mr Dotcom, the Government Communications Security Bureau, and everything else that is completely irrelevant to the daily lives of New Zealanders.

I have got to say that this side of the House is delighted to look at the question sheet every day and see that the Labour Party, the New Zealand First Party, and the Green Party have once again failed New Zealanders by choosing to look at all of the beltway stuff that makes very little difference to New Zealanders’ lives. We had Mr Grant Robertson come into the House today, and in his speech in his contribution to this debate, first up, was he talking about jobs? Was he talking about the difficulties that people have in their daily lives? No, he was talking about the Government Communications Security Bureau and saying what a terrible situation has developed around it. This is the first member of Parliament I have ever seen stand up and take a point of order asking the Speaker to stop the member giving the answer from giving the answer because the answer did not suit his narrative. That was what we got from him yesterday—completely irrelevant—and now, today, another attempt to try to push along this Jeffrey Archer - type novel that these guys are collectively writing.

I heard Mr Robertson also say that the Minister of Education has failed people in Christchurch with the education plan. That is typical of the Labour Party. There are 9,500 spare spaces in schools in Christchurch, there are 4,500 students off the rolls in Christchurch, and the Labour Party says: “Do nothing. Just leave it all. Just put up with it.”—just have shonky facilities for these children in their learning opportunities going forward, and ignore what is a very, very big challenge. I am sorry if some of the members and their mates feel that that does not represent them, but that is what Mr Robertson had to say in the House today.

What I can say is that in Christchurch, yes, there is disappointment about this and, yes, there is disappointment that there were ever the earthquake events in the first place. But there is also a deep realism about the need to make good decisions so that we get a solid recovery, and our young people and our children’s learning are central to that.

I go back to that job summit those members had last week, trying to create the idea that there is a crisis. The media, sadly, always want to cover a story about some job losses somewhere, but just look at the record. Since this Government came to office—in fact, just in the last 2 years—60,000 more New Zealanders have found jobs in New Zealand. There are 60,000 more jobs net in the workforce than there were 2 years ago. There have been 13,000 jobs created through the 90-day trial. Labour said no to that, but it created 13,000 new jobs. There are 1,000 new jobs on the Waterview Connection motorway, which is part of a whole programme of roads of national significance creating jobs throughout the country. Labour is saying no to that, as well.

There are 350 jobs in the expansion of the Marsden Point refinery, which is a big infrastructure project. We can look forward to that being replicated in other parts of the country through different projects. There are 400 jobs at the IBM centre at Unitec, 500 construction jobs at the Methanex plant in Taranaki, and 1,500 jobs at Fonterra’s new dairy plant at Darfield in Canterbury. These are real jobs for New Zealanders who need them, real opportunities for New Zealanders who need them, and they occur only because we have a growing economy.

New Zealanders look every night at the news and they see what is happening around the rest of the world.

I seek leave to table a profile of the Diplomatic Protection Squad, which explains the relationship between the Diplomatic Protection Squad and the VIP protection squad mentioned today—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Could the member just indicate to the House the source?

The source is the New Zealand Police News, page 34, March 2010. It sets out what the various people in the police-associated—

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.

At a time when 160,000 people have gone to Australia, when youth unemployment is approaching 20 percent, and when we have got the second-highest current account deficit in the world after Greece—and next year it is projected by the IMF to be the worst in the world—we have got the Government members saying that they are managing the economy well. Well, I have got news for them: they are not, and I know why. It is because they are beset with scandal after scandal. Their own problems are diverting them from the job of looking after New Zealanders through proper government. We have got non-primary manufacturing in decline, and the Government denies there is a problem there. We have got job losses from the north to the south, and the Government denies they are there. Mr Brownlee just quoted job statistics that include every job of an hour long. Those statistics are a complete misrepresentation of what is happening in New Zealand.

What are the scandals? Well, of course, the most recent one is Kim Dotcom. At the start of the year it was the teapot tapes. Does anyone remember that? John Key and John Banks getting caught out at a public meeting, being recorded, complaining to the police, using the police against the media in the election, and then miraculously dropping that because it was going to be embarrassing for the Prime Minister and John Banks to stand up in court. Then we had the ACC. We had the Bronwyn Pullar affair, followed by the resignation of the Minister for ACC and the forced resignation of the chair and the board. Then we had the Budget. In this year’s Budget, the centrepiece was to improve student outcomes with larger class sizes. Does anyone remember that? There have been so many scandals since that that one almost fades into obscurity. What a clanger. Now we have got the Ministry of Social Development. In the middle of it we had John Banks, who asked for donations, received envelopes with donations in them, made sure they were banked in Queenstown, thanked the people who gave them, and then signed a declaration that the donations were anonymous. We know what a farce that is, and we have got the Prime Minister trying to pretend that that was in order.

In terms of the economy, what is happening? Well, we had mining in national parks, and now the centrepiece for this 3-year triennium is the sale of State-owned assets. We had “shares plus” off on Monday; now we have got some shares reserved for iwi on Wednesday. What a shambles. No wonder the economy is not doing what it should. In terms of Mr Dotcom and the Government Communications Security Bureau and Mr Key’s role, well what did he say? He said he did not know anything about it until 17 September. These are all facts that are now proven. Then he said he was briefed on them on 29 February but could not remember, but accepts that he was. Then Labour sources revealed via David Shearer that on the same day, John Key spoke to the staff in the cafeteria. What did John Key do initially? He denied it, and then under further questioning from Patrick Gower he said that he remembers that he did—recovered memory.

We had sources claiming that he had spoken to people in the cafeteria. Again, John Key initially denied it and now he says he cannot rule it out. Now he actually admits it happens. Then we said there was a camera there, and they denied it. Now they admit they hunted for a camera and they found a camera on a tripod. Now they admit they have got print photos that were taken—single-shot photos. All of this was previously denied by John Key and somehow the National Party says that reflects poorly on David Shearer. What a nonsense! There is only one person that reflects poorly on, and that is John Key. Duncan Garner asked whether there was a camera on a tripod, and then finally the Prime Minister admits that there was. We have got the other allegations made by Winston Peters today that have not been properly answered.

Scandal after scandal, all year long, and in the meantime we have got Bill English not even understanding his own statistics that outside of primary manufacturing we do have a serious decline in the face of the world’s worst current account deficit. How will we plug that big hole in New Zealand’s account? There was a $10 billion loss in our current account last year. It is projected to get worse—second only to Greece this year and worst in the world next year. Job losses—160,000 people off to Australia. The Deputy Prime Minister stood up and said “Oh, it’s going to get better.” Well, it will, eventually, after 160,000 people have left. That is more than the total population of Dunedin and Invercargill combined, and 40 percent of them are between the ages of 18 and 30. Of course, eventually, there will not be that many people left to leave. This Government is in a shambles and our economy is suffering.

It would seem to me that all the Opposition members are worried about—and I disagree with the Hon Gerry Brownlee; I do not think it is Jeffrey Archer; I think it is the forensic novels they are into at the moment—is what is hidden where. They have forgotten where the tape is, but they are worried about who said what to whom, and when. So it is Tess Gerritsen, Kathy Reichs, or Patricia Cornwell they have been reading, instead of going out and asking New Zealanders: “What matters to you, New Zealanders?”.

I can answer that question for Opposition members. If you want to know what matters to New Zealanders, it is their take-home pay, it is their mortgage rate, it is their interest rates, and it is whether they have got a job. But guess what? This Government is concentrating on that, not on what was leaked to whom or what is happening on what day or the next. New Zealanders want to know that this Government has a programme of action, and it is about growing the economy. Because, guess what? Governments do not create jobs. Governments create the environment for jobs to happen in, and that is what this Government is doing.

Our plan is to deliver a more competitive and productive economy, a robust economy, which means more jobs for New Zealanders—real jobs that are sustainable. Already the Hon Gerry Brownlee has listed a whole lot of new jobs, and in my own patch of Rangitata we had an announcement just in this last week of 75 to 80 new jobs. Salmon processing is happening here in New Zealand, instead of overseas. You will not hear anyone in my electorate saying that that is not a good deal.

What other good deals have we got going on here? In the last month 5,230 people left a benefit. But that is not what Opposition members would have happen. They certainly do not want to see that. We have got GDP figures for the June quarter at 0.6 percent and annual growth of 2.6 percent. It is the same as Australia, and better than most. But we do not hear the Opposition celebrating that either, do we? What we have got at the moment is the lowest inflation rate since 1999. Does anyone hear Opposition members talking about that?

Interest rates are at their lowest for 45 years. What does that mean to New Zealanders? New Zealanders care about those interest rates, because if an individual has a mortgage of $200,000, what that means is $200 a week more in their pocket. That does matter to New Zealanders, and the Opposition could not give a—whatever.

We have heard about lots of new jobs, but the problem that we have to face at the moment is that every time the Government talks about how to create the environment for new jobs, Opposition members say “No, we don’t want you to do that.” They have totally, all the time, opposed everything we have tried to do, such as reform of the Resource Management Act, and the 90-day trial, which has created a whole lot of new jobs for New Zealanders.

The additional programmes of action we put in place over the recession period have kept people getting something on their CV, like Job Ops and Community Max. They have kept those people occupied, and have been very, very successful during that time. There are many, many companies that are going to be taking on New Zealanders, such as Xero, and Orion Health. The International Convention Centre, when it is being built, will employ heaps of new people. Woolworths, and Heinz Australia are coming back to New Zealand. There are new jobs here in New Zealand. We have got jobs happening all over the place.

But Labour members do not want intensification and development of agriculture—of course not. They do not want more irrigation, because that might actually mean more jobs. Labour members would prefer to see people kept on benefits. Just remember, right now, what are they talking about? They are definitely not talking about vulnerable children, are they? No, they are not. They do not want public sector reform. Actually, they do not want any of our labour market reforms. They are not that interested in the $1.5 billion we have put into ultra-fast broadband and what that will do for New Zealand. Remember, they are not that keen on The Hobbit either—3,000 jobs were created over The Hobbit.

Labour members are also very much against our emissions trading scheme. What they would do is penalise households and businesses by having a far more onerous emissions trading scheme. They are not interested in local government reform. They should get out there and ask the people who are ratepayers whether they are interested in local government reform. Listen to the people of New Zealand, Opposition members, and you might actually get a clear story, without having to rely on your forensic novels.

They are not the slightest bit interested in what we will do with the money from the State-owned enterprise mixed-ownership model. In their view they would be better to take that off New Zealanders and not raise it in that way. I rest my case. It is forensics for the Opposition, and it is real live action for the Government.

We had the Deputy Prime Minister talking about economic security. But what National fails to understand is that if you want economic security, you need environmental security. On “Planet Key” you have a very hostile Government, in terms of the environment. On “Planet Key” you have lots of golf courses. But on “Planet Key” the rivers are either identified for giant irrigation schemes, like the mega-expensive, mega-risky Ruataniwha Water Storage scheme, which the Government Ministers are trying to foist on Hawke’s Bay. It is trying to encourage the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to burden its ratepayers with an $88 million debt for that scheme. Those rivers would either be identified for irrigation, hydro generation, or they would be dirty. On “Planet Key” wild nature is not to be valued for its own sake. It is not valued as a place where you can spend time with friends and family. On “Planet Key” wild nature is something that you encourage large corporates to exploit, whether that is through risky deep-sea oil drilling, digging coalmines on conservation land, or manipulating our rivers, reducing their flows, and increasing the pollution burden.

Mr Brownlee talked about the Darfield dairy plant—Fonterra’s new dairy processing plant. There will be jobs at that plant, but they will be at the expense of the Waimakariri River and Rākaia River. They will be at the expense of the water quality in our aquifers, which people depend on for drinking.

On “Planet Key”, the Minister for the Environment does not even bother to issue a press release about the ministry’s latest report on recreational water-quality, about whether our beaches and rivers are fit for recreation and summer time swimming. That is because the news is bad. So the Government simply lets the ministry upload it quietly to its website and bury it. But at least the ministry is honest when it says in those river report cards: “There are many freshwater swimming spots which should be avoided.” The Green Party analysed that data. Of 160 river sites that were monitored for recreational water-quality nationwide, 52 percent of those sites were unsafe for swimming because the water quality was graded “poor” or “very poor”, and another 28 percent were graded only “fair”, so there was a risk of illness. The National Ministers do not care about that.

We promote our country as 100 percent pure and 100 percent Middle Earth. But to swim in our rivers, which is the birthright of Kiwi kids—you cannot do it in the majority of the rivers that the Ministry for the Environment monitored. Kids cannot drop off a tree, into a pool, without the risk of getting sick. Only 20 percent of our rivers that are monitored by the Ministry for the Environment for recreation make the grade. That is appalling, and that is because the National Government regards nature as something to exploit for irrigation and dairying development. That is because National is missing in action when it comes to strong policies and sensible policies to clean up our rivers. It is just missing in action. If we want clean, fishable, swimmable rivers, we need to get serious about controlling the land uses that cause that pollution run-off.

In Rotorua the regional council has recognised that we need to phase out dairying in the Lake Rotorua catchment, but National refuses to recognise that there are other rivers, other lakes, where that needs to happen. National will throw a few million dollars at Te Waihora, Lake Ellesmere, and expect that to clean up the lake, but it will do nothing about encouraging regulation of land uses in the catchment of that lake to improve water quality.

We have not had any national standards to prevent stock having access to rivers and streams. We have got a toothless National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011, which means that regional councils can avoid adopting clean water standards until 2030. We have got no national standards that set limits for pollutants in waterways and set some clear standards for clean water. This Government is missing in action as far as clean water and clean rivers are concerned. We have got no national standards on nutrient limits. Yet when we have got a regional council and an Environment Court, which, on plans like the One Plan in the Manawatū, seek to put in place rules that will control intensive dairy and sheep farming, and will seek to protect water quality by having riparian planting rules, what does the Government do? It makes sure that the Department of Conservation is not involved in defending the Environment Court decision at the High Court. It leaves it to non-profit organisations like Fish and Game.

The Green Party member there, Eugenie Sage, has just attacked the basic industries of New Zealand—the farming industries, which provide the backbone of this country and pay for those members to sit in their cushy seats and tell the world how it would operate in some kind of dream fantasyland that does not exist.

The real world out there is a world where this country has to earn its way and pay its way. We do that in a balanced way as much as possible, unlike the Green Party that can sit there and lecture this country—the economic strength of this country—and do it in a quite unproductive and sad way. I heard that the members from the Hawke’s Bay were very much upset at the comments made by the Green Party there—not understanding the wider implications of what this Government is doing for the best interests of New Zealand going forward.

When you look at this Parliament and this Opposition, the Labour Party is in crisis. It has no policy. It has no people standing up and putting any direction forward. It does not have a leader of any consequence, but that is good for us. We are quite happy to keep David Shearer there. The Labour Party does not know what it is doing in this Parliament. It has to go around and talk about petty issues that make no difference to people’s lives. People out there are smart. The people of New Zealand are smart. What do they want? Do they want low interest rates? Yes, they do. Do they want a country and a Government that is going to keep inflation rates low? Yes, they do. Do they want a Government and a country that is going to get into Budget surplus? Yes, they do. Do they want a country and a Government that is going to provide as much employment as it can in these most difficult times? Yes, they do. And what are they getting? They are getting a Government that is delivering all those things.

On the other side of the Table—on the other side of the Table—they will not even talk about those issues. They will not talk about the economics of New Zealand. They will not talk about our vulnerable children. They will not talk about jobs or growth, because if they could get a growth rate of 2.6 percent for a year, they would be loving it. When we came into Government, the country was in recession—a recession started by the Labour Party before the rest of the world.

The Green Party has actually gone out there last week and put a plan out. And we must commend it for that. But it is a plan that will never work. They want to print money—print money! They say the dollar is too high. Well, the dollar is high because that is a reflection of a good Government doing good economic policy in this country. The way the dollar will go down is if you ever got a Labour-Green Government in, the dollar will crash, because that will be the international market saying it has no confidence in the economic plans of those parties. That is what happened last time the Labour Party got in, did it not? The Labour Party got in last time, and the dollar went down to 40 cents. That is because of its economic mismanagement, which the market knew would happen.

We have had to pick those pieces up and turn it round. It has taken 3 or 4 years to do that, in the world’s biggest recession since the Great Depression, and in that time we have had to rebuild our second-biggest city, but we have still done it. We have rebuilt this country and got it back on track.

The New Zealand First Party—it comes into this Parliament, and it has got only one type of campaign, and that is the conspiracy theory campaign. There has been a conspiracy theory in New Zealand for 30 years, under the New Zealand First Party. Everybody has got something to hide. New Zealand First members should be in Eastern Europe, in the middle of Communism. That would have suited them, because that was what they grew up understanding and thinking that that is how government works.

Well, government is not a conspiracy. Government is an open book. What you see here is what you get, and it is in the best interests of New Zealand. The New Zealand First Party needs to stop looking for a conspiracy, because the people do not vote for conspiracy politics. They vote for real politics. Real politics in Hamilton means that we are building an expressway that is creating jobs in our city, because we are getting the right transport options for our city. In Hamilton we are building the broadband network before the rest of the country—providing real jobs for our city. In Hamilton we have industrial growth, and we see that through Government departments wanting to come to Hamilton, like the Earthquake Commission coming and providing 150 new jobs in Hamilton. This Government has delivered, is delivering, and will continue to deliver good economic results for New Zealand going forward, and that is in the best interests of all our people.

Not only is this Government in disarray, many of its Ministers have lost their way. We had Bill English lead off the debate for the Government. One minute he is saying that “shares plus” is not a goer; today he is saying “Well, it could be an option.” The real question for New Zealanders is whether New Zealanders want assets sold. No, they do not. Gerry Brownlee was the next speaker. He proposes that it is important to consult with Cantabrians around the reorganisation and renewal of Christchurch, but what does he do? Drag the chain on residential zoning and close Christchurch schools. What is the question for Cantabrians? Do they want schools closed in Christchurch? No, they do not. Then we had Jo Goodhew. She is the Minister of Women’s Affairs, for those of you who do not know, who voted against paid parental leave. But the real question for women throughout New Zealand is whether they want a Government that will not support the extension of paid parental leave. No, they do not. This Government is steering a train wreck to disaster and leading the country in a direction that will not benefit the great majority of New Zealanders.

But I specifically want to focus on two other Ministers, because they are guiding the most important portfolio that will support the future generation of our country, and they are Minister Parata and Minister Foss. We need to be thinking about the way in which their actions are critically affecting a number of children and the direction of education, and impacting on teachers throughout the country. Their performance has been an absolute shambles—bungle after bungle after bungle. The education portfolio is in a mess. First, we had larger class sizes being proposed in favour of teacher quality. Now that is off the table—both larger class sizes and now teacher quality. We had also the idea of putting ropey national standards on the database, even though the Minister acknowledged the fact, and the Prime Minister supported it, that this data was ropey. It is all “It is OK, let us put it on the database, it should work itself out.” And then we got league tables—league tables with a very inaccurate and skewed picture of what was happening, the good work that was happening, within our schools. There was a consultation document down in Christchurch saying to that community “We want to engage with you. We are concerned about the renewal and opportunities for people in Christchurch. Give us your feedback. We will take on board what you say.” What do they do? Steamroll their way through reforms, sweeping reforms, that will see closures of schools and mergers that are not supported by the community. In fact, the community is throwing its hands up in despair and saying “What is the data that led you to think that these sweeping reforms will be good for our kids and good for our community?”. That is not proper consultation and it is shameful.

I want to come back to something that Jo Goodhew raised, actually. She said that on the minds of many New Zealanders—what they are really worried about—is their take-home pay. Well, I would have to agree with that. So the question to that Government is what it is doing with regards to teachers’ take-home pay. What is it doing to fix Novopay, the teachers’ pay system—

💬 Hon Craig Foss: It’s gone up under National.

Oh, it is the first word today in the House from Associate Minister of Education Foss, who is overseeing that particular process. It is not doing well at all. Four years it has taken from the time that the business case was lodged before the Minister, approved, and the $25 million paid, to develop a database that is not working. Minister, you should fix it. It is absolute rubbish to say in this House that it is fixed, because even today, after the fourth cycle of the Novopay pay round, members in this House—I suspect some of your own members—are raising concerns about the fact that Novopay is a mess and it is not being fixed.

Let us look at some of the issues. Waiting times for pay staff to report the types of deficiencies in the system are over an hour—unbelievable. It is over an hour to wait for someone to get on the other end of the phone to then say: “We can’t help you, go on to the website and report.” What else have we heard? We have heard that the data input system is inadequate to be able to properly account for the work that teachers are doing to be able to be paid the correct amount. Teachers deserve to be paid the correct amount for the time that they have spent within schools.

💬 Grant Robertson: The fourth pay cycle.

Yes, this is the fourth pay cycle. Reliever teachers in particular are feeling the brunt of a pay system that is not working. It is simply not good enough for them now, after the fourth pay cycle, to be saying that they have not been paid arrears for three pay cycles ago, which is when the system switchover was happening.

Ask any person in any street in any town in New Zealand what is the single most important thing to them. It is the economy; it is jobs.

💬 Grant Robertson: Where are they then?

Interesting, Mr Robertson, because in question time yesterday and today I was waiting. I was waiting for the question from the Opposition members about jobs. They had this manufacturing jobs crisis last week, but there was not one question in the House. It was interesting, because actually I think that was more of a photo opportunity, and given the number of people who attended you could have taken that photo in a phone box.

Instead, this side of the House is focusing on what matters to New Zealanders, to hard-working New Zealanders who are doing their bit. Every speaker on this side of the House has spoken about growing the economy and has spoken about jobs. I do not want to repeat the wonderful facts and figures about what this Government has produced in that space. I want to turn my attention instead to the fantastic work that is being done in the area of welfare reform, because this Government is ambitious for New Zealand. I want to read you a quote: “We are actually trying to do something about the cycle of disadvantage that children of single parents on welfare dependency experience. The evidence is that those children have fewer opportunities in life if their parent continues on welfare payment and does not get an opportunity to connect to work.” So this quote—is it from the Children’s Commissioner’s expert panel? No, it is not. Is it from the Minister for Social Development or the Minister for Economic Development or the Minister of Finance? No. This is a direct quote from the Labor Government in Australia and its leader of the Senate. It is introducing welfare reforms that go way further than what we are doing here in New Zealand.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Read it again. Read it again.

Yes, it is quite interesting. We are actually trying to do something about the cycle of disadvantage that children of single parents on welfare dependency experience. So our Minister Paula Bennett is making gutsy decisions. We are doing the reforms that that side of the House did not deal to when it had the opportunity. As a result, there are 10,400—[Interruption]—no, listen to the facts—fewer New Zealanders on welfare. Join the dots.

💬 Hon Annette King: Oh, yeah!

I have just quoted you. I am quoting your partner party in Australia—and I thought actually that the two Labour parties were very close—about the fact that welfare is not the answer in terms of lifting children and families up, but work is. That is why Labor is putting full-time work requirements on sole parents when their youngest child is 8. It is not the Liberals; it is the Labor Party.

I am really proud of the results that this side of the House is achieving in Government: 2,300 more people who were on the domestic purposes benefit took up part-time work, and 13,000 people went off the domestic purposes benefit into work. Those are results we should be proud of, because that side of the House is quite quick to talk about child poverty. What is the path out of poverty? It is work. But, no, that side of the House is not willing to deal with the tough questions. Its counterparts in Australia are; they are doing it. If we look at the evidence, the evidence suggests that the most effective way to achieve long-term, sustained reduction in child poverty is to address its causes directly. That is what the Government is doing.

I am really proud of the record that this Government has in welfare reform. We have tackled the tough issues and we will continue to tackle the tough issues, because that is what is important to the hard-working New Zealanders whom we represent. We are in touch with them, we are asking them, and we are listening to them. That is why we are clear that it is work, not welfare, that provides a brighter future.

This Government, which came in with such ambition, such aspiration, and such promise, is turning into a profound disappointment for the people of New Zealand. If there is anything that characterises the second term of this Government, it is disappointment. We have children living in poverty. We have 270,000 children living in poverty, and we have a Government that has no interest in addressing the causes of the illnesses and diseases that come from poverty, such as housing or wages or jobs, but proceeds with targets that are now becoming meaningless in the health sector. Children living in poverty are at a 1.4 times higher risk of dying in childhood than children in higher-income households. Children living in poverty are more likely to die of sudden unexpected death in infancy than their peers. They are three times more likely to be sick. They are at least 1.5 times more likely to be hospitalised than their peers. They are likely to be hospitalised at 5.6 times higher a rate than those in wealthier areas for injuries from assault, neglect, or maltreatment. They are more likely to have poor outcomes in adulthood, including higher risk of heart disease, alcohol and drug addiction, and worse oral health by the time they are 26.

Between 2007 and 2010 the increase in children admitted to hospital with socioeconomically sensitive conditions—that is, things that are transferable, like infectious skin diseases and respiratory illnesses—was 4,800 admissions per year. It increased by 4,800 per year, compared with the 3 years previously. And let us have a look at some of the Māori and Pacific Island statistics. Māori babies are five times more likely to die from sudden unexplained death in infancy than New Zealand Pākehā babies. Māori and Pasifika mothers are more likely to have stillbirths and neonatal deaths, compared with New Zealand Pākehā. Pasifika children and young adults from birth to 24 are nearly 50 times more likely than Pākehā children to be admitted to hospital with acute rheumatic fever. These are not the statistics of a Government that has aspirations or ambition for its people. These are the statistics of a Government that is a disappointment.

We have a “Minister of Illness”, not a Minister of Health. We have New Zealanders who are disappointed across the board in the way this Government has been performing in the health sector, despite the set piece song-and-dance routines that the Minister likes to give in the House. We have people from west Auckland to Porirua who are disappointed that funding for their Healthy Eating - Healthy Action programmes has been cut and that they are no longer able to provide those services, unless they do it through volunteer labour, for those who are most at risk of obesity, diabetes, and chronic illness.

This Government is a disappointment to 120,000 type 2 diabetics in the process of changing blood glucose meters. Twenty thousand type 1 diabetics, and particularly the parents of children with type 1 diabetes, are disappointed in the way the Government has handled, proposed, and overseen the change to blood glucose meters. There are 507 recipients of the Johnson and Johnson DePuy hip replacement device who are disappointed that there will be no inquiry, as Australia saw fit to have. There are 106 recipients of the Smith and Nephew hip replacement device who are disappointed that there will be no inquiry into that either. The Government resists inquiries and resists any examination of anything that might be going wrong in the health system, and in the meantime one gets very disappointed people and health consumers in New Zealand.

There are 790-plus pharmacists who are disappointed that they have been bullied into a contract that does not have any prices in it post 1 February next year. That is no way to run a very essential health service in our pharmacies. We have a very disappointed Pacific Island diabetes support worker out in Porirua, whom Kris Faafoi knows, who now has to retrain elderly Pacific Island people with diabetes in how to read their new blood glucose meters. The time that that is taking brought that woman to tears. We have 48 percent of nurses who were surveyed say that the pressure they are under at the moment caused them so much moral distress that they wanted to give up nursing. Those people are disappointed.

The disappointing legacy of this Government’s efforts in health is not a brighter future but a blighted future for the children of the poor.

Sat sri akaal, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this general debate. New Zealand has, and continues to be, a resilient economy. This is clearly visible when one considers a number of economic indicators. Despite the uncertain global outlook, these economic indicators have shown positive signs.

Some of us love to talk about Australia. I have the pleasure of sharing that our GDP growth for the June 2012 quarter was 0.6 percent. This was equivalent to Australia, one of the really resilient economies during the global financial crisis. Our GDP growth figure is far ahead of many developed economies. Another testament to how productivity under this Government is working is our annual growth figures. New Zealand’s analysed growth stands at 2.6 percent. This is the highest rate since 2007, before the domestic recession and global financial crisis. In addition, our rate of inflation is the lowest in the past 12 years.

Pragmatic steps by the National Government have ensured that interest rates are at the lowest level for the last 45 years, and this results in direct savings for homeowners and new home buyers. By our estimations, a household with a $200,000 mortgage stands to save $200 a week. Our Government is ambitious, yes, but realistic in goals. Our ambition is to build a more productive and more globally competitive economy, with the creation of high-paying jobs at the core of the ambition. To ensure that, we walk the talk. I am pleased to share that we have created almost 57,000 jobs over the past 2 years. Here I would like to mention one of my colleagues, the hard-working member of Parliament for Maungakiekie, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. He mentioned to me the other day that a new outlet of The Warehouse in his electorate has created a couple of hundred jobs there. In the next few days there will be the opening of a couple of Countdown stores on the North Shore. This will also help to create another couple of hundred jobs.

The private sector is playing its role; the Government is playing its role. We are investing a lot of money in infrastructure, which is helping in creating jobs. The National Party, under the very able leadership of the Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance, has facilitated this job creation by cutting company and personal tax across the board. We have reformed the Resource Management Act and are investing a lot of money into infrastructure.

Business depends on capital. To expand the operations, of course, capital translates into access to liquid cash, and access to raw material and resources, along with a skilled workforce and infrastructure, which is reliable electricity, broadband, transport networks, and other infrastructure facilities. This is one kind of support that the National Government has provided to our businesses. Our exports have increased significantly over the last few years. Recently I was in Sri Lanka, where we went to visit the Fonterra facility. They mentioned that they are importing almost $350 million worth of raw materials from New Zealand, which is quite significant for our country.

Although we on this side of the House are trying to do positive work, the result is betterment for everyone. We humbly accept that some people are better off, although some may struggle. However, we remain optimistic that with a prudent plan we can get New Zealand to a situation where no one struggles. To address the issue of inequality, we are increasing the war disablement pension and surviving spouses pension by 5 percent from 1 April 2013. Before I conclude, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, the Hon Nathan Guy, on considering this. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.