General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Last week I had the privilege to represent the Government in India supporting and encouraging some wonderful New Zealand companies and entrepreneurs and some of our excellent educational institutions that are getting out there and selling their stuff, their innovation, and their Kiwi ingenuity to the world. It was the same in the US a few weeks ago, and it was the same when I had the opportunity to visit, around the country, regions like Hawke’s Bay, west Auckland, Palmerston North, and so on.

It is not easy for these companies. It is hard work. These people live out of suitcases, they get to know new markets, they deal with the heat, and they deal with the cold, but it is also the thrill of the challenge and succeeding in this most 21st century of pursuits—becoming successful in the global world. It is also about creating things that people value and then working with them to get them to markets, partnering up with people, obtaining capital, and making deals. It is challenging. We have always talked about moving up the value chain, but we are doing it. The euro and the US dollar are making it challenging, but our companies are succeeding. They are good at it, and organisations that the New Zealand taxpayer supports, like New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, Education New Zealand, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Tourism New Zealand, and the research sector are all assisting them in doing it. Our exports are up, due to a lot of hard work from some great Kiwi businesses, and jobs are growing. Our economy has grown in the last 12 months faster than most countries in the OECD.

But meanwhile back home, the Labour, Greens, New Zealand First Opposition are in a very dark space economically indeed. They are seeking to reintroduce 1970s-style fortress New Zealand economics, last seen when Mr Peters arrived in Parliament. They want to somehow strong-arm down the New Zealand dollar to decouple New Zealand from the global world. Leaving aside that it does not work, and that it has not worked in Switzerland and has not worked in Japan, and leaving aside that if it did work, it would cause massive cost of living increases for all New Zealanders, and never mind the depreciation of 20 percent of the New Zealand dollar as proposed by John Walley, Selwyn Pellett, and other fellow travellers of the Labour Party, which would put up the input costs of all New Zealand businesses, they want to go ahead and do it. They want to control the New Zealand dollar and somehow decouple us from the world.

They also want to control and prevent foreign investment in New Zealand. We had the frankly preposterous suggestion from Mr Cunliffe last week that Ministers should decide who owns Fisher and Paykel, not private shareholders. Well, if that actually was allowed to pass, she’d be a very sorry day for capital investment in this country indeed. In fact, we had a taste of that during the last decade when the sharemarket went sideways for all that time because of the strange policies of the previous Government.

They also want to halt immigration, even if it might help the rebuild in Christchurch—halt immigration, even if it helps the rebuild in Christchurch. They are going to say to the people of Christchurch: “Well, it would be really great for us to build these buildings, but we’re not going to bring anybody in from overseas to help do this.” Two of New Zealand’s leading newspapers have used the “x” word to describe that policy. They have said xenophobia is what we are talking about with that policy.

Meanwhile their friends in the Greens are out there trying to stop every opportunity to grow, with renewed vigour. They are opposed to oil exploration. They are opposed to new mines. They are opposed to dairy farming. They are opposed to convention centres. Together, imagine it: you would have the hapless Labour Party putting up the shutters to stop New Zealand being involved in the world and hiding from the world and saying the world is out there, but it is too scary; meanwhile, back at home you would have the Greens stopping everything from happening, and Mr Peters sitting there trying to work out which way the weathervane will run on any particular day. We cannot nor should we attempt to turn the clock back to the 1970s.

💬 Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Should he not be referring to the Rt Hon Winston Peters? [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have asked members not to interrupt 5-minute speeches. The way the member was being referred to was not disrespectful. He referred to him as Mr Peters. I think the member is technically absolutely correct, but I do not want 5-minute speeches being interrupted like that. The Hon Steven Joyce has 14 seconds remaining.

Fourteen seconds to go. We should not, nor can we attempt to, turn back to the 1970s. There is no mother England to buy every mutton leg we can grow. We live in a modern world. There are fantastic opportunities for New Zealand. We need to help our country become more competitive and support the companies that are getting out there and taking their chances and getting ahead.

I think that what has been demonstrated before us in this Parliament today is a Government that does not understand that the foundation of our economy is our environment. We have a Government that has launched a war on the New Zealand environment since it was re-elected. The first term of this Government was problematic enough, but to some degree it was responsive to public opinion. The second term of this Government has launched a war against the New Zealand environment, and, hence, against the New Zealand economy. Anyone who understands anything about the New Zealand economy understands that it is based on the environment.

The Prime Minister has said: “Well, we’re not environmental bandits.” Actually, Government members have become environmental bandits, under the influence particularly of Mr Joyce, who does not seem to understand that the environment is important, and who is involved in a war against it. The Oxford English Dictionary describes a “bandit” as a lawless, desperate marauder—something of a gangster. We now seem to have a Cabinet that is full of environmental bandits who are determined to wage war on the environment. Let us look at climate change. This Government, in spite of all the evidence showing that climate change is accelerating and the Arctic ice cap is melting more quickly, is weakening the emissions trading scheme to such a point that it is completely useless. It is also very supportive of digging up lignite and burning it, and burning coal, which, of course, will accelerate climate change.

Let us look at the Ross Sea. This is a Government that has opposed attempts to protect the Ross Sea. It could not even get alongside the proposal from the United States, which was pretty modest. The proposal from New Zealand was even worse than the proposal from the United States, in terms of protecting one of the last great pristine seas.

Let us look at the Māui’s dolphin. There are only 55 Māui’s dolphins left. New Zealand is very likely to be one of the countries to drive a dolphin to extinction, yet repeatedly this Government has done very little about it—virtually nothing. New Zealand was the only country to vote against protection measures at the International Union for Conservation of Nature conference. How embarrassing that that was New Zealand’s legacy at that conference. We voted against the protection of marine mammals. When it comes to sea lions, this Government decided to allow 68 critically endangered sea lions to be killed, rather than having a safer squid fishery. So the Minister made a decision to kill 68 endangered sea lions, rather than protect them.

Let us look at deep-sea mining. We know because of Deepwater Horizon, which should have been a wake-up call for all of us, that there is no way to plug a hole at 2,000 metres under water, which is what the Government is proposing to do. The only thing that has worked overseas was a relief rig, which drilled a relief well. That was how they managed to solve the Deepwater Horizon problem. This Government is proposing to have deep-water drilling without relief rigs in place. That is grossly irresponsible.

Then we have seen in respect of fresh water that this is a Government that is subsidising the intensification of agriculture, which will drive the deterioration in freshwater quality. When we look overseas what we see is that people overseas buy our dairy products because they think New Zealand is clean, green, and safe. That is the foundation of our export economy, and this Government is determined to destroy that foundation with its attack on the natural environment. This Government needs to get its head in order, and realise that if it is truly committed to the long-term sustainability of the New Zealand economy, it needs to become committed to the long-term sustainability of the New Zealand environment, instead of waging a war on it. Whether you look at climate change, whether you look at what it is doing in the Ross Sea, whether you look at the Māui’s dolphins, or whether you look at sea lions, deep-sea mining, or fresh water—you could add to the list one issue after another—since the election, this Government has been attacking the environment.

My question is what is going on in Cabinet? Once we thought that maybe there were those in Cabinet who had some sympathy towards the environment—I guess we all hoped Nick Smith would do that. But in the current Cabinet there are no advocates for the New Zealand environment. All we have is decision after decision after decision attacking the New Zealand environment, so that future generations will inherit natural capital that will be degraded and, hence, undermine the long-term sustainability of our economy. Thank you.

The difference between us here on the Government benches and those sitting on the other side in Opposition is clear. It is very clear to us here in Parliament and it is very clear to the people out in our electorates. That lot, the previous Labour Government—and the Greens, who propped it up—had the very best of times. It enjoyed the very best of times. What did it do with all that success? It spent it.

💬 Scott Simpson: Squandered.

It squandered it—absolutely. When Labour left office, inflation was running at 5.1 percent. The export sector was not talking about growth. In fact, it was flatlining and it was struggling to survive. The back-office bureaucracy, the media teams, the public relations consultants, the policy wonks, and the “Wassup!” badge designers were all ballooning in numbers, and Treasury’s books showed decades of deficits as government spending and debt spiralled out of control. We were in recession. We were in a recession, the like of which this country had not seen since the 1930s. That is 80 years ago.

But under careful and steady management, this Government has turned those statistics round: steady increases in after-tax wages; inflation at 1 percent, not Labour’s 5 percent; mortgage rates at 5 percent, not Labour’s 11 percent; a top personal tax rate of 33 percent, not Labour’s 39 percent; and company tax at 28 percent, not Labour’s 30 percent. When Labour abolished the youth minimum wage in 2008, 9,000 young people lost their jobs—9,000 young people. Yet the Labour Opposition brayed like asses when we used dollars from Moroccan cooking classes for well-heeled adults to put extra dollars into education and training for those very same young people whom that previous Government had callously written out of employment.

The Taranaki region enjoys the highest regional growth in the country. It is the only region that has oil and gas production and it has had that for 100 years. It has 4,500 jobs directly involved in the oil and gas industry—4,500 jobs—and it has 1,500 jobs indirectly involved. The average wage is $80,000 a year.

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: How much?

It is $80,000. We envy Taranaki. It is known for its dairy industry, its tourism, and its oil and gas industry. I come from the East Coast. We are known for our sheep and beef farming, forestry, horticulture and viticulture, and tourism. Why can we not add oil and gas industry to that list? Why can we not? Well, this Government wants to.

Last week in the East Coast region just 64 jobs were notified to the Ministry of Social Development—20 more than at this time last year—but 3,637 job seekers were registered with the Ministry of Social Development in the region. Why would any of those job seekers not want to work in the oil and gas industry as cooks, carriers, truck drivers, plumbers, builders, or electricians, and maybe nurses, tea ladies, engineers, or managers?

There are 763 youth job seekers registered with the Ministry of Social Development in the East Coast region, down from 837 this time last year. So a big thanks to the schools, the tertiary providers, and the employers who have worked so hard for our young people, but some of them will have left. Some of them will have gone to Australia to get a job. So why cannot these young people work in the East Coast, in their own home town, in the oil and gas industry?

Well, Labour is all about saying no. Labour says no to everything that is proposed that will provide those young people with jobs. Intensification of farming—Labour says no. Australian companies moving jobs to New Zealand—Labour says no. Ninety-day probation period for new employees—Labour says no. The new youth starting-out wage—Labour says no. To any of our labour market reforms, actually, Labour says no.

If the Minister who has just resumed her seat, the Minister of Police, wanted an idea as to how to retain Kiwis, the thousand a week who are leaving our shores—including 17,000 Kiwi technicians, tradespeople, and labourers—for Australia, she would do well to look at a thing called the Christchurch earthquake. We need 30,000 to 40,000 trade-trained, skilled people to rebuild the show. It is one of the world’s biggest training schemes, on our doorstep. We know that her Government put forward a paltry 42 million bucks in trade training, 80 percent of which is unused. We know that we have 84,000 young people not in work and not in training. This is a wonderful opportunity in Christchurch, not only to reconstruct our second-biggest city but also to deal with, and train, and get off the dole, 84,000 young people.

Yet what do we find out? We find out that the latest reports are that we are going to import 15,000—nearly half of the quota of trade-trained people whom we need. We are not going to train unemployed folk, as we could have done for the last 2 years. We are going to import 15,000 of them because the Government lacked the foresight 2 years ago to actually take those young people, train them, and turn them into productive human beings. They would be 2 years through a 3 to 4-year apprenticeship. They would have been highly skilled, highly productive, and would have aided and abetted the rebuilding of Christchurch. So if the Minister wants to look for an opportunity—and she is fond of quoting figures—she might look at the opportunity that the tragic earthquake presents, instead of importing folk. It is not xenophobic to say, as Gerry Brownlee committed to, Cantabrians first, Kiwis second, and the rest of the world third, when it comes to filling the capacity and the jobs that the earthquake has created. But, oh no. The xenophobic label is put on by a few short-sighted in the media and that Minister there.

We had a policy at the last election that was fiscally neutral. It was about taking the dole, giving it to the boss, the boss topping it up for 1 year, and the commitment is that that young person be trained. You either use the dole to have the person languish, or you give it to the boss for 1 year—same money, fiscally neutral. That is then turned into a commitment to trade train that person, through a thing called an apprenticeship, and allow that young person to contribute to the rebuild of Christchurch and take that person off the dole. We put that to Gerry Brownlee and others, and we reminded Gerry Brownlee of the deal—Cantabrians first, Kiwis second, the rest of the world, whom we will need, last—and he did nothing about it.

I fondly remember the last time—I was not a member of Parliament—and I did remind a former National Minister of Education at the time, who I think did not have the intellect, the smarts, or the capacity, when that education Minister, I think in 1992, repealed the 1983 Apprenticeship Act. The Minister did not have the intellectual rigour, the smarts, or the capacity perhaps—maybe that member does now—to realise the error of his ways. But, of course, we have got past that, have we not? So I say to that Minister over there that it might be time that she looked at what is happening as a result of the earthquake.

I went to a meeting of Ōuruhia School parents last night. They are fabulous parents. Their school is on the block. Apart from that, which my colleagues will deal with later, these were great parents who want a future for their kids. They believed in the sort of John Key brighter future. Some of them had teenagers who were looking for jobs and looking for a future. Some of them, I wager, are looking for trade training and want to get out there and contribute. But this Government does not have the foresight, like its predecessors, to take advantage of what is a tragedy, but also an opportunity to take those 84,000 young people, to trade train them, and to have them contribute in Canterbury to that recovery process. Seventeen thousand technicians and tradespeople have gone to Aussie—a thousand Kiwis a week—and that is the brighter future. Why would you stay here? You would stay here because there are opportunities, and the Christchurch recovery gives that opportunity. Let us hope that this Government does not repeat the stupidity of past National Ministers.

That speech from Clayton Cosgrove showed that he has learnt absolutely nothing from the rejection of him personally in Waimakariri, and the rejection of the Labour Party’s whingeing negativity in Christchurch. New Zealanders, and not just those in Canterbury, are looking for positive leadership, which they are getting from this Government.

You see, the most important challenge for our country today is how we navigate our way through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. This afternoon I want to quote what President Obama’s budget office adviser told the IMF last week. He said “… if you look across all the developed countries, there is only one country … which has [the right policy combination], which is New Zealand …”. What an extraordinary compliment for the effective governance of this John Key - Bill English - led Government, where in terms of economic policy we have ourselves in great shape.

Let me go through some of the vital signs of the New Zealand economy. Last week we had the inflation figure: 0.8 percent. That is the lowest level of inflation in 16 years. What was the inflation rate when we came to Government? It was 5.1 percent. What does that mean? That means ordinary New Zealand families struggling to keep up with the cost of groceries, with the cost of power bills, with the cost of their rates, and with all of those things that make a difference for ordinary New Zealanders. On inflation New Zealand is doing very, very well.

Let us take interest rates. Interest rates affect the capacity for businesses to invest and to create jobs, and they impact on the costs of every single New Zealand family that is aspiring for that Kiwi dream of being able to own their own home. The interest rate right now is 5.3 percent. That is the lowest—the lowest—interest rate in 40 years. And how does it compare with the interest rate when we became the Government? It was over double that. It was at 11 percent. I know members opposite do not understand how important low interest rates are to businesses and households. We do. It matters. We are delivering.

Then let us look at a figure like economic growth. What an extraordinary result, given all that is going on globally, for the economy to have grown by 2.6 percent in the last 12 months. I look around the world—Britain, Greece, Spain, Italy—extraordinary economic collapse, extreme hardship, and millions of people going into unemployment. Here in New Zealand we have had our economy growing for 13 straight quarters. Let us just look back again to 2008. Do you know that in 2008, in those three quarters of March, June, and October, it was not that we had economic growth; our economy had negative growth and it was going backwards.

Let us look at one of the big issues: government debt. When we came into Government, Treasury said we had a decade of deficits. The debt was going to blow out to 70 percent of GDP, and yet, as was noted at the IMF last week, New Zealand is one of only three developed countries that is going to have a balanced budget in the year 2015. I again give credit to Bill English and the team for being able to deliver that sort of result.

I will mention another positive figure. Over the last year New Zealanders’ debt servicing costs have dropped by $4 billion and New Zealand households have saved more in the last year than they have in 20 years. Every New Zealander knows at heart that we need to improve our savings. That is an extraordinarily positive outcome. It is just one of many vital signs that show that this Government is on top of its game and that the economic management—the big issue—we are getting right. I just challenge members opposite to stop the negativity.

Interest rates in New Zealand are four times that of the USA, the UK, the EU, and Japan, and Nick Smith made that claim! But, mind you, he made a claim that he advised Dame Margaret Bazley of a legal fund when she was in charge of the parliamentary pecuniary interests, except Margaret Bazley denied it, and yet he wants to come back and be a Minister when he told Parliament something that was demonstrably not true. Look at the Hansard. It is all there.

Yesterday, of course, the Māori Council won the right to take its case on State asset sales and water rights to the High Court—just one tragic milestone along the road to separate development, apartheid, and assets divided up on the basis of race. How, under a National Party that campaigned on “Kiwi not iwi”—

💬 Hon Member: That’s right.

It did, did it not? National campaigned on “Kiwi not iwi”. How, therefore, has it come to this? What has New Zealand done to deserve this appalling Government? What manner of Government is it that would plough on with its misguided asset sales programme in the face of all the damage it is doing?

There is no sound economic rationale, and it gets worse. The whole process has been botched, so inept and so shambolic that it is now further undermining New Zealand’s social cohesion, and it is racism that the Government is encouraging. This very privative campaign—inevitable to see that happen. A cynical person might even suggest that this Government intended to have that effect, as people overlooked the nation’s interest and scrambled for their share of the spoils. Why did the Government not foresee the discord its sales programme would generate? It was spending $120 million on consultants to give it advice. Surely, one consultant said that. So many trails and twists and no coherence.

Does anyone remember “shares plus”? Well, last week it was iwi shares that were on offer, coming out of nowhere. So now the proceeds of the asset sales programme—unquantified, of course—are going to pay off debt, pay for schools, pay for hospitals, and now we learn out of left field that they will also be contributing to Treaty settlements. How many times can the same money get spent? Where is this all going to end? Who knows? Those members do not. They just blunder along—ad hoc, shoot from the hip, chaotic, make it up as you go along—despite the serious damage that has been inflicted on our country by this issue.

How petty and small-minded some people are becoming, including the Prime Minister. In response to Rahui Katene of the Māori Council on the question of the right to go to court, this is what Mr Key said: “… hardly a victory when you get the judge to agree to … your case.” So there you have it again: just “Spray and Walk Away”. A classic Key one-liner—dismissive, flippant, sneering.

What is clear is that the issue will fester and create future dispute and discord. How many now think that the country is being held to ransom by certain Māori interests that want to exploit the situation to their own advantage? For those who want to undermine our social cohesion, this Government’s asset sales programme has been a gift. It has put Māori against other New Zealanders, Māori against Māori, and iwi against iwi. What a mess. What a way to run a country. And what a tragedy for New Zealand that someone behind that court case is saying: “When the water passes over our land or rohe, the proprietorship right is with us.” Which part of the water? The foundation, the middle part, the end part, or whatever runs out to sea?

What a tragedy for New Zealand. But the polls say—and this is the only good news in this speech—that we will soon have to address this issue and set it to rights.

I am very pleased to stand to speak about economic growth and development, particularly in the province that I represent, which is Taranaki. I have heard today, prior to coming to the House, a statement that criticism is not an agenda. The more that that lot over the other side of the House criticise, the more they have got nothing to say.

Last month I was invited to speak at a function in New Plymouth—the city in which I live. It was hosted by a social justice group. An officer from the Ministry of Social Development was one of the panellists, and he informed the delegates that there were 280 people in the city of New Plymouth who were receiving a benefit because they were not employed—in a city of 50,000 people. If you look at Taranaki as a whole, with a population of 110,000, unemployment in that region has shrunk by 35 percent since September 2010. Industry is flourishing, opportunities are increasing, and employment is growing. So while they say no, Taranaki is saying yes, and we are flourishing.

The biggest reason for Taranaki’s success is the responsible and active utilisation of the resources that surround us. And those resources are specifically, as you know, the wealth that we walk on and the wealth that is deeper under our feet. We utilise those resources in responsible and careful ways.

New Zealanders are receiving the benefit of a pro-business, pro-growth Government that is not selling out on our environmental obligations. The exclusive economic zone closes the environmental regulatory gap that existed while those on the other side of this House did nothing when they were in a position to do something.

The oil and gas sector in Taranaki, as we have heard from the Hon Anne Tolley, is a world-class industry applying cutting-edge technology and proprietary intellectual property. This has had an amazing flow-on effect not only into the industries and businesses in the region but also into the wider community. That particular field of endeavour and business is one of the cornerstones of our economy. It generates 17 percent of our GDP. More important, it contributes to the capability and the capacity within a number of industries that exist in our region. The exports that come—in 2009 $1.9 billion in export value from this industry, and 17.5 million barrels of oil—all of these are facts, but they translate into jobs and into an environment of world-class expertise, developing technology, and developing practices that maintain and protect our environment.

One of the great things about Taranaki, if you have been there, Mr Speaker, and I am sure you have, is the pristine environment in which we live, the clear air, and the beautiful mountain streams—all of these things that we hold in high value. I know that many members of this House have been there. So it is in our interests and, of course, the interests of all New Zealanders that we maintain all of those environmental standards that have come to deliver a great province and a great environment for us.

I have to say that it is nearly laughable that members of the Green Party try to poke and jab the industry in Taranaki and the regulators of that industry, and all the time are trying to throw spanners in the works to say that what is happening is below par. If you have ever read in the papers that come from our region the accusation and then the response from the regulators, it is actually poetry in motion. If Mr Hughes, in particular, were to go there, he would try to throw his spin ball, and the Taranaki Regional Council, in particular, the regulators there, have answers for every one of his accusations and his allegations of impropriety. We have a tremendous group of regulators there. Recently we heard that we have had some responses from the Taranaki Regional Council that indeed stand up to its great credibility.

Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I want to touch on the theme raised by my colleague Dr Russel Norman on the extreme anti-environment ideology we are seeing from the National Party this term in Government. I want to look at just one example, which is the Ross Sea, because here we have environmental bandits in Cabinet literally acting not in our interest and actively damaging our economic interest, our environmental interest, and our community interest. They say they care about the environment like the Ross Sea, but what we know is the way they are acting—the way they are acting like environmental bandits—is akin to a hypocritical fashion.

The Ross Sea, or the last ocean, as it is known, is the last intact marine ecosystem left on Earth. This beautiful wild place is described by the journal Science as the place least impacted by human hand on the planet. Unlike most places on the planet, the top predator is still there. This is the last ocean because it is the last place where man’s impact is being felt, but it is also the last place we are going on our relentless push to catch more fish. But we have an opportunity to change it, to protect it, because right now in Hobart the Commission for the Convention on Antarctic Marine Living Resources is meeting to discuss how we protect all the waters in Antarctica, but this, for New Zealand, is the most precious part, what has been described as the last ocean.

What we have, however, is that after more than a year of negotiations on a joint proposal with the United States Government, we see those bandits in Cabinet urging the Minister of Foreign Affairs to walk out of the joint US proposal, and now New Zealand has tabled its own proposal. It is a proposal in which McCully has literally drawn a line round the main fishing grounds and created a marine reserve only on paper. It is a marine reserve where the areas where we do not impact—where we do not exploit—are left entirely within the marine reserve, but those areas where we do exploit are left out. It looks big on paper—it is a paper sanctuary—but what it lacks in effectiveness it makes up for and compensates in size.

Basically what we see is those bandits in Cabinet protecting the fishing interests, not protecting this pristine, beautiful place, the last ocean. We see the Government swallowing hook, line, and sinker the spin we see from the fishing industry. What we know is that we are protecting very narrow fishing interests—a handful of fishing boats, some contracted to other nations. We are talking about 0.17 percent, or a fifth of 1 percent, as the catch landed in the Ross Sea by New Zealand boats, compared with our larger catch. We are talking about around 1 percent of our fisheries exports, but what we are doing is damaging our brand. By looking out for protecting these narrow fishing interests we are actually letting down all of our fishing exports.

💬 Jonathan Young: From Shane Jones.

Mr Young, we are letting down all $1.5 billion of our fishing exports. We know already that US supermarkets like Safeway are boycotting New Zealand - caught Ross Sea toothfish.

It is bizarre that we would even walk out of a joint US proposal. I thought this Government would want to go the Commission for the Convention on Antarctic Marine Living Resources with a joint New Zealand proposal. It is one of our aims to work closer with the United States Government, if you look at the New Zealand Government’s spin. What we know is that we are also damaging the chance of an outcome now that we have got three proposals on the table: the New Zealand weak one, the US proposal, and also the better Antarctic Ocean Alliance.

But I want to clear up one thing. What we know is—not the extremism we hear from members like Shane Jones—none of those three proposals is going to ban fishing. None of those three proposals is reducing the toothfish quota.

The fact is that New Zealand once upon a time was a world leader in protecting the continent, the land and the ice of Antarctica, but we are failing to protect our oceans. The Government describes it as a well-managed fishery. Well, it might be in comparison to our poorly managed fisheries around New Zealand waters or what we see in other countries, but the fact is that we still know so little about this toothfish, yet we want to remove an entire 50 percent of its population. We still have not found a toothfish egg, larvae, or an under 4-year-old juvenile. This place is under ice for 9 months of the year. We just do not have accurate information to make these decisions.

We have to ask ourselves why we are going to the ends of the world to catch the fish. What happened to the rest of the fish that was in all the world’s oceans? The fact is we have eaten them. We have eaten the fish and now we have to go right to the limits of endurance technology, to the frontiers of the world, to the last ocean.

The Government says we are down there to protect it from pirates. The same argument was used in England in the age of the slavery debates—that they should keep participating in an improper practice to help somewhat improve the standards. If that was the argument, why are we not going to Somalia? The fact is that if we were going to reduce piracy, the best way we could do it is by having no fishing boats down there so that we would know where the fishermen are.

The fact is that Labour does not have a position, it has got only slogans. The Government is out there protecting fishing interests. We can protect the last ocean.

Tena koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. I wanted to take an opportunity to talk on the kōhanga reo report released earlier this week. I feel a bit of a hypocrite doing so in English rather than Māori, bearing in mind the relationship between kōhanga reo and Te Reo Māori, but, be that as it may, I let that sit here.

The survival and the strength of Te Reo Māori has been an issue at the forefront of decades of devotion and advocacy—protest after protest, hīkoi after hīkoi, submission after submission, report after report. In the 1986 report on Te Reo Māori claim, and then in the 2011 Ko Aotearoa Tēnei report on the Wai 262 claim, we were warned that the likelihood of the terminal decline threatening the very survival of Te Reo Māori was imminent. In speaking to the Waitangi Tribunal in 1985, Sir James Hēnare cast the Māori language predicament in stark terms. What he said was: “Ko te reo te mauri o te mana Māori.”—the language is the life force of the mana Māori. He continued: “If the language dies, as some predict, what do we have left to us? Then, I ask our people who are we?”.

Those are pretty important statements—provocative statements, some might suggest. The founders of the kaupapa kōhanga reo responded to that challenge, creating a movement that was never intended to be about only early childhood education but also encompassed te reo Māori, tikanga Māori, and, of course, whānau development.

Last week the tribunal stated that without Te Reo Māori me ngā tikanga Māori, Māori would not survive, and that the two are basically inextricably linked. The Waitangi Tribunal has now confirmed that the trust’s claim was well founded, that the Crown has breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and that kōhanga reo have suffered severe prejudice as a result of the actions of the Crown and omissions by the Crown. It went on further to suggest that unless kōhanga reo are supported and specific enrolment targets are achieved, Te Reo Māori will indeed die. We are talking about something pretty serious, and therefore we hope that the report will be taken seriously.

Although the tribunal recommendations and findings are not binding on the Crown—that is another debate, and it has been raised on a number of occasions—the report does put on record the problems that the kōhanga reo and the trust have encountered, and lays the foundation for setting things right into the future. The Crown is now on notice that it must take especially vigorous action to protect Te Reo Māori through kōhanga reo. That is the challenge that the Māori Party is prepared also to keep a watching brief on, to ensure that something does come out of that report.

I want to encourage all members of this House to read the report Matua Rautia for the excellent history it provides of the unique and, indeed, internationally renowned impact of the kōhanga reo movement. It traces back in time to the days of Kara Puketapu from here, the successes of the Tū Tangata scheme, and the 1979 hui kaumātua held at Waiwhetū, where it was agreed that urgent action was needed to take control of the future destiny of the language and to plan for its survival. Out of te Wānanga Whakatauira in 1981 was established a working party chaired by Sir James Hēnare and comprising, amongst others, Lady Tilly Reedy, Ruka Broughton, Sir Mōnita Delamere, and Archdeacon Kīngi Īhaka, some of whom have now passed away. Out of this group emerged the origins of the kōhanga reo strategy.

If I could just read how Dame Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi described it, she said: “Dr Tamate Reedy, Deputy Secretary at the time, then came up with the idea of full immersion. The idea was that the language should be learned in the same way a child learns a language, in the context of a home environment. Thus the concept that developed was that the language should be ‘caught’ rather than ‘taught’ in those early years.” The rest, of course, is history. It is our history.

The tribunal challenges us, then, to consider that whānau have the right to choose kōhanga reo as a viable path, a cultural path to preserve and promote Te Reo Māori me ngā tikanga. It asks the Crown to reprioritise spending on Te Reo Māori and to provide urgent funding for property maintenance and upgrades, to avoid exposing, it says, the 3,000 mokopuna tamariki to the possibility of losing their buildings. The report reminds us that the Crown cannot put in regulations that are one-size-fits-all, and that kōhanga reo should not be assessed by the Education Review Office in a way that undermines the kaupapa. It encourages the Crown to promote and uphold the policy in a way that will respect the kaupapa and allow kōhanga reo to flourish. We hope that that is what the Crown actually does.

Ministers and former Ministers have sat opposite today and kidded themselves that they are doing a good job. What we are here talking about today is opportunity lost, particularly opportunity lost in relation to jobs, to skills, and to education, and particularly in relation to the opportunity that Christchurch afforded us.

The Government’s 2011 Budget—a pre-election Budget, when the Government was full of verve and wanting to court the vote—talked about Christchurch, the rebuild, and the opportunity that was afforded there. Minister Joyce told us: “The government is committed to ensuring that people in Canterbury have the chance to build their skills, so they can contribute to the rebuild of their city. This extra funding will ensure they have that opportunity,”. Well, that has been a monumental fail.

Let me take you through that 2011 Budget package, and let me tell you about opportunity lost, a Government that lacks vision, and a Government that is failing its people. It was heralded that $42 million of extra funding was allocated to train our young people with the skills needed to rebuild Christchurch. We were going to train them up. Well, what has happened? This is a Government that has managed to spend only $8 million of that money. It has managed to train only 654 people with that money—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: How many?

—654 of our young people, of the 84,000 young New Zealanders not in education, employment, or training. This is a Government that has managed to shift only 654 of them, despite having money in the Budget. Instead, what has it done? It has cribbed $28.4 million from other places in the tertiary education budget. It was meant to do this to create 3,000 places using baseline funding, but it has failed even in this. It has managed only 1,626 placements within this. It has failed on this, and it has failed to deliver.

Not only did Budget 2011 promise training opportunities in terms of the Skills for Canterbury package but it also promised that it was going to get our young people off the dole, into work, and into training. The Government—pre-election and courting the vote—accordingly allocated $1.5 million to shift 650 of our young people off the dole and into education and training. Well, that is a failure—yet another failure by this Government. It has managed to spend only $740,000, less than half of its allocated money.

But more abysmally, and where it is failing our young people, is that it has managed to shift only 262 people from the dole and into work or training associated with the rebuild of Canterbury. It has not met its targets, and it is failing our young people. Meanwhile, 84,000 of our young New Zealanders continue to languish, not in education, employment, or training. We are still waiting for the opportunities. We are still waiting for the Government to actually come up with and do something meaningful to address this problem of 84,000 of our young people.

Christchurch offers the Government that opportunity, and we are disappointed that it is not taking that opportunity. We are still waiting for the Government to actually do something in terms of the infrastructure rebuild of Canterbury. On the day that it announced its “firm proposals” for the closure of Christchurch schools, it was also meant to be launching an employment package around the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team and the infrastructure rebuild, but this has disappeared, and we on this side of the House would like to know where it is.

In terms of the relationships with industry, there is just a whole lot of talk—all good in theory, but a failure. The much-vaunted relationships with industry—well, let me tell you. The relationship with Hawkins Construction has resulted in 75 young people getting into training or employment—75—and 26 with Fletcher Building. That is not good enough. This is a Government that needs to do something about offering real opportunity to our young people.

I am very proud to be a member of this John Key - led Government. I think we have a shared vision and a plan to support New Zealanders through these troubled economic times. We believe in helping New Zealanders make the best of their opportunities. We recognise personal responsibilities, and we also believe very strongly that people need to be rewarded for their hard work and their enterprise. These are values that I believe in, and these are values that underpin what is driving our plan to help the New Zealand economy. Let us look at some of the business investment initiatives that lead to new jobs—specific measures, including the 90-day trial period and reducing company tax to 28 percent. We have reduced ACC levies and saved $600 million a year with that measure alone. We have also removed 170 unnecessary and excessive regulations because we are not about red tape. We are not about binding up business and holding back the economy, unlike the Opposition. Most of these measures are completely lost on the Opposition. Those members have had their crack at it and they have failed dismally. We are not about to be sidetracked or distracted by the braying of the opposing forces.

I think that one of the things that has worked most successfully in the past year has been the efforts that we have made—and the Hon Paula Bennett in particular is to be congratulated on this—in getting people off benefits and back into work. That is vital. It is vital for themselves, for their self-esteem and their mana, and also for the future of their family economy and the wider economy as well. These are vital things. What have we done to help people back into work, particularly our young people? What have we done specifically? In the Youth Opportunities package alone there is $152 million, which includes 4,000 places in Job Ops. In the past 2 years, in net terms, something like 60,000 more New Zealanders have been put into work. Our unemployment forecast is definitely forecast to fall. This has all been possible because the economy has grown. It has grown by 2.6 percent in the year to June. Our annual growth forecast is between 2 percent and 3 percent over the next 4 years. That is a lot better than other developed countries are doing at the moment. The after-tax average wage is up by 20 percent from when Labour’s time ended in 2008. We now have—and this is a particularly good thing—the lowest inflation rate since 1999, which means that the cost of living is increasing at its lowest rate in 12 years. This is all good, and this is going to support jobs.

But we are certainly not leaving it to chance, nor are we going into loopy, mad Green ideas à la Zimbabwe to print money and shut down opportunities for jobs and stall the economy. If printing money was the recipe, then that country would be successful. It is not. Printing money increases the money supply, so that increases inflation. It would make the very people whom the Opposition is purporting to help suffer more difficulty because everything would go up in price, from the price of petrol to the price of groceries. The poor would be the hardest hit. But the Greens and Labour are determined to talk New Zealand down, and to promote a bunch of ideas that are in vogue only in the sorts of countries that have run out of all other options.

We have not run out of options. We have a plan and we are sticking to it. As I have said in the past in this sort of situation, standing up in a general debate, it is a very good plan and I support it because economic growth produces jobs, and that is what we are allowing to happen. But do not just take our word for it. Peter Orzag—as my colleague the Hon Nick Smith referred to recently in his call today—has singled out New Zealand as the only country that has provided the right balance of stimulus for the economy, by reducing the deficit in the medium term. This is high praise indeed from someone who has been looking carefully at our measures and looking carefully at what we are able to do.

I think when it comes to New Zealand’s economic performance, for me on the North Shore I look at what has happened with infrastructure and with the broadband rolling out. I can see that people in my area, in my electorate of North Shore, are delighted with that. I was just looking for some tangible information that I had about this because I have had several letters from my constituents about the growing of the economy, and in particular how the broadband has helped. In days gone by, when North Shore Hospital was not in such fettle, there were real issues about people in corridors and people not getting the level of care that they required. With the broadband roll-out, it is now possible to upload and send a file of a sick child within 3 seconds to Starship. These are the kinds of measures that are making a phenomenal difference. That is why in these tough economic times we are continuing to invest in them.

As far as the Opposition is concerned, though, it would want to borrow to pay for reducing things like the retirement age. It wants to lower it to 60 years old for many workers. What is that going to do? Borrowing again to pay for the Auckland rail loop—failed policies.

I want to begin by acknowledging that families in Christchurch have been through an emotional roller coaster since they struggled to get to the schools where their children were on 22 February last year. I want to acknowledge all of those teachers and principals who stood alongside those children until their parents could make it there. They guaranteed the children one thing for those parents: they would be kept safe and sound until they arrived at the school. Of course, it is the memory of that care and, indeed, the memory of how well the schools have provided both a stable environment and a sense of normality for these children that has left the communities with a sense of absolute obligation and respect for the teachers and for the schools, in terms of how they have supported their communities. That is why these communities are absolutely despairing of the Minister of Education’s shake-up in education.

We have already debated in the House how this was handled by the Government. It was appalling. There could be no worse way of actually diminishing the respect for both the schools and the situation in Christchurch, with people suffering from the ongoing effect of aftershocks, even minor ones—I think one last night woke people up again. It is just a constant reminder of the difficulties that people face. Then we ended up with this sudden announcement. With the impact on principals and boards of trustees who were brought to a meeting, with no idea what was about to be announced, and the way they were treated, how their schools found out, and then how their communities found out, it really has been the worst handled of all of the earthquake-related announcements that this Government has been responsible for, and it has been responsible for some pretty serious ones.

This is not how one empowers communities after a disempowering event. Sir Peter Gluckman, who writes as the Chief Science Advisor for the Prime Minister, said this is not the way that one ensures that communities can recover from the consequences of the disaster. We have got a man-made disaster on our own hands now as a result of the way the Government is treating the response to education.

But I do want to acknowledge that the Minister, according to the Press this morning, has written to the 38 schools that are now earmarked for closure or merger to say, at last, that she will want to talk to them, that she would like to hear from them, and that she will listen to them. I want to hold her to that account. I will be holding her to that account, as will every member of the Opposition in this House, because it is absolutely imperative that she restores the damage that she has done by fixing the problem. Those schools that have asked for an extension of time must be granted an extension of time. It should not be a question of whether they can persuade her or not, or that she will just consider it, as she said in the House yesterday; she must agree to the extension of time. It is simply untenable that schools and their communities that struggle under the circumstances in Christchurch have got term 4 to respond to the proposal to close or merge their schools. That is 7 December this year. That simply is not good enough.

The schools I have talked to have asked for an extension to the end of term 1, which is April 2013. That says to me that the schools are reasonable. They are willing and reasonable to listen to the Minister’s call for change. In fact, they want to see change. They know that things cannot go back to the way they were. But when I read in the paper that at the same time she said that she understood how difficult the changes were for Christchurch, but given the extent of the damage and the population movement the sector simply could not be returned to how it was, I just want to say that that adds insult to injury.

Every single school is willing to have the conversation about the future of education. They have shown willing in terms of the care and support they have given those children in difficult circumstances. They want to build back better. They want to make sure that they are responsive to the needs of their community. That is why they all engaged openly in the conversation around the education recovery plan. The previous Minister of Education made it absolutely clear that that process was not about places or services; it was about the principles of what education could provide and would provide for the future of Christchurch. And yet we have suddenly had it turned into specific places and services. We have had specific options determined by the Minister, and I want to say that there is no way on earth that a Labour Government would allow that to happen.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.