General Debate

Only three sleeps to go until the Labour Party conference, and I do not know who is more excited—us, or the Labour Party caucus—because on that day we are going to find out what is really going to be the future for the Labour Party, and I predict it is going to be very, very dismal. But these people are like kids waiting for Christmas. David Cunliffe cannot wait to unwrap the Christmas presents, Grant Robertson is already nibbling on the cake in the fridge, and of course, once again, Clayton Cosgrove is not going to get the present he wants because he is the one person who is not being named in the leadership speculation. I do not think it is any surprise that their party is saying that they are going to have to get their caucus to swear an oath of allegiance during leadership competitions. But I do not think there is a single oath that could bind David Cunliffe, because he is to loyalty what Taito Phillip Field was to honesty. So, quite frankly, I think these guys are in massive trouble. It is going to be a very interesting weekend.

But another very interesting factor this weekend is going to be the debate around the policy remits that the Labour Party is putting forward. We have heard a lot from these people today about job creation and their great laments about what they think is going on in the economy, but when David Parker spoke, the only idea we heard was a capital gains tax. That is their prescription for getting the New Zealand economy back on track. So they are focusing all their efforts on tearing each other apart in a fruitless, thankless leadership competition.

The guy I feel sorry for, frankly, is David Shearer, because David Shearer is a decent man. He is too good for these guys, quite frankly. He is a person who is doing his level best, but these guys just, quite frankly, do not appreciate a quality leader when they see him.

Eleven of these people were meeting with David Cunliffe last night. They were wandering around the members and guests’ dining room, looking for a place to plot. They very rarely go up there, so they did not actually know where they could find a private room. There they all were, all the lefties. They were just there from the meeting with Helen Clark. Jacinda Ardern was there, Parekura Horomia was there, Clayton Cosgrove was not invited because he is not in the Cunliffe camp, Sue Moroney was there, Ruth Dyson was there, and they were doing the numbers. They were circling around, working out how they were going to install the man whom they cannot stand as the leader of the Labour Party.

If you want to know the reality of it, you want to read the New Zealand Herald editorial today, because it says that David Shearer is a very decent man and that he has actually got a personality that appeals to New Zealanders, unlike some of the other leadership contenders. So these guys are really in a cleft stick there, because they have got a leader whom they do not support, who is fundamentally a decent man and a decent bloke. The only alternative for them is a guy they cannot stand. And who are they going to put in?

The fact is I do not think anyone over there has got the guts to stand up and take the leadership when it is on offer. I predict what will happen is that David Shearer will ride this through and continue as the leader of the Labour Party, because none of those people are going to seize their chance. That is what you have got to do in politics. Grant is all talk, but it will not happen.

If you are really worried, you should be, because when you read this list of Labour Party remits it is all about banning stuff and stopping jobs. So here we go. What are they going to do? They are going to nationalise any partially sold assets. That is going to be up for debate, so it will be interesting to see how they go on that. They are going to ban seabed mining for minerals, oil, and gas. They want to ban fracking. They are going to ban all coalmining. These are the basic ideas from the Labour Party base.

But there are some good things here, according to their base. They want a SuperGold card for transport, for under-21s, and, at the same time, they are going to lower the voting age to 16 and make Te Reo compulsory for everyone under 15. They are also going to bring back so-called healthy food in schools. They are going to ban companies that do not pay a so-called living wage from winning Government contracts. Well, that is going to be something that Clayton Cosgrove is really going to struggle to understand. So when you look at what we have got here—oh, what else have they got? Direct KiwiRail as to who must win its tenders, and raise the age of superannuation to 67 for everyone, except Māori.

So if those are the ideas that are coming out of the Labour Party base—

💬 Hon Member: No, they’re coming from your research unit.

—do you really think, when you mix that together with the Green prescription for printing money, that that is going to be a path for getting the New Zealand economy going? More important—

💬 Hon Member: Show us the bit of paper you’re reading from, Jonathan. I bet it’s not a Labour Party document.

No, that is not from the National Party research unit. These are your policy remits for debate and decision. There is not one idea in here for getting the economy going. If you look at the facts, National has got the economy going in the right direction—halve the deficit, back into surplus by 2014-15.

Taking political advice from “The Maestro” of Mt Albert is a bit like learning humour from Chris Finlayson. Chris Finlayson has so little to say about the National Party that he spent the whole of his speech talking about the Labour Party, and this member, the “Minister for Cigarettes”, the brain of Mt Albert, is content to bad-mouth Labour while Rome burns.

New Zealand is burning. Jobs are burning. Manufacturing is burning. Thousands of New Zealanders are leaving, and the ostrich economists on the other side pretend nothing is wrong. This is not about them or about us. This is about New Zealanders who cannot pay the bills, who cannot support their families, who cannot find a job. As Jacinda Ardern pointed out, they are the thousands upon thousands who have queued up for jobs at supermarkets and fast-food chains because that is all that they could find. And what does this Government say to those New Zealanders? “You are lazy. You are not trying hard enough.” Which one of the 2,700 Kiwis queuing for 100 supermarket jobs was lazy? The 2,600 who were back in the queue? Do not insult New Zealanders, members. Do not insult their hard work. Do not insult the belief of those who are still in New Zealand that there might be a future.

Unemployment is at 7.3 percent. That is the worst in 13 years. It is the worst since the last time Bill English was the Minister of Finance. It is up 74 percent since National took office. John Key promised 170,000 new jobs. What have we got? We have got 175,000 more unemployed—175,000 people looking for work. The jobless rate is up 65 percent. Underemployment, people who are just making do with part-time work, is up nearly 40 percent. The number of people on the dole is up—wait for it—116 percent.

Is it the rest of the world’s fault, as National has said? Well, it really cannot be, because the increase in New Zealand’s unemployment has been one and a half times that of the rest of the OECD. So it cannot be the rest of the world dragging us down; we are dragging them down.

Just this morning the retail trade figures showed again that grocery spending—the basics—is down 60 million bucks in a quarter, or nearly 8 percent. People cannot feed their families, and National is content to make bad jokes about members of this House. No wonder the public is losing confidence in the institution of Parliament, sadly, and certainly New Zealanders are increasingly disappointed in this Government.

So what is the bigger problem? Is it inflation that is below the target range, or is it unemployment that is through the roof? And, if it is inflation, why will those members not modernise a monetary policy framework that was written last century and flies in the face of the global financial crisis? Why are they happy to subsidise agriculture, like through irrigation subsidies, and wipe out the emissions trading scheme, giving farmers a free ride and pollution subsidies, while jobs burn, manufacturing closes, and thousands of New Zealanders are leaving?

We are here on this side of the House, we are here together as a team, because we are not prepared to draw down the curtain on New Zealand. We are not prepared to give up on our country. That is what brings us to work every day, and the difference between this Government’s “vision” and ours is stark. Its vision is a dumb economy vision of basic pastoral agriculture, open-cast mining, and fat cat bankers, while ordinary New Zealanders are fleeing from their country, cannot feed their families, and cannot find a job. New Zealand wants a smart, green economy with the jobs of the future that pay good wages and build smart products and services that people will pay the world for. We have got nothing against agriculture—it is our backbone—but it is not enough, and just milking a few more cows or mining a bit more coal is not going to change the fundamental decline of our economy.

These are serious issues for serious times. They are not a laughing matter. There are real people hurting, and it is the future of our country on the line.

Sometimes it is the little things that happen around here in Parliament that tell us about what is really going down here, and so it was last night when Government members grabbed a bite to eat in the members’ dining room. It was like watching the great Messiah gather with the disciples for that Last Supper.

It begins with David Cunliffe confidently strolling in at 6.30, smiling like the Cheshire cat, in search of his cabal of close colleagues. He realises he is in the wrong place but, as one to never admit the errors of mere mortals, makes quiet conversation and exits through the next door with conspiracy all over his face. Not a minute passes, and in come Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins in search of Mr Cunliffe. We politely give them directions and advise them that we are signed-up members of the “Nats for Shearer” club. They guiltily slink off through the door. Next scurry in Darien Fenton and Phil Twyford. They are much more sheepish in seeking out their messiah, but we, again, helpfully direct them to the correct room. Clare Curran, Ross Robertson, and Parekura Horomia are the next group of lost disciples, although going by their looks I would be a little bit worried that one of them is, indeed, the Judas.

So what are we to make of these goings on? The first is that Labour cannot even organise a proper coup without the help of National MPs. One would not trust those members to organise a booze-up in a brewery, let alone a change of leadership. How can Labour members pretend they are capable of running the country when they cannot even run themselves? The second is that the end is nigh for Mr Shearer. The question now is only a matter of when, not if. The third is that the battle for the soul of the Labour Party is between the “ABC” club—the old guard, like David Parker and Trevor Mallard—and the new, young disciples of David Cunliffe, like Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins. The fourth is this: this weekend’s Labour conference is going to be all about just one thing: leadership, or, rather, the lack of it. Why on earth would debating the constitutional changes over leadership be the key item on the agenda when your leader is languishing in the polls and hanging on by the end of his fingernails?

But Labour’s problems are actually much deeper than leadership. It is just not credible for Labour to say it is all for jobs and then to oppose every realistic initiative for job creation, whether it is The Hobbit, the International Convention Centre, aquaculture, mining, or irrigation projects. It is not credible for Labour to shed crocodile tears about housing affordability and then promote monetary policy changes that will only drive up interest rates and the cost of housing. Nor is it credible for Labour to wail about export growth and then propose new taxes and new charges that will sock our export sector between the eyes.

My advice to the disciples of both Mr Cunliffe and Mr Shearer is that before you pick your messiah, you have got to get your gospel sorted out. The real challenge is for the Opposition to put up a united, credible alternative plan. The problem for Labour members this weekend is that they are so focused on themselves and their internal squabbles that they have absolutely nothing to offer the people of New Zealand.

With the next climate change conference less than 2 weeks away, in Doha, New Zealand has wilfully turned its back on the rest of the world. We have turned our back on our moral and political obligations. We are now guilty of our proportionate share in guaranteeing dangerous climate change. Under this Government, New Zealand has turned down the wrong road. We have entered weak targets that are unilateral, conditional, and informal, and have ignored the pleas from other countries to make a formal commitment.

We have turned away from the undertaking of the developed countries in the Framework Convention on Climate Change to take the lead with immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and we are repudiating a legally binding second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, committing ourselves to voluntary pledges instead. We have weakened the emissions trading scheme to the point of oblivion, claiming it to be a “Rolls-Royce” model that can be revved up to suit the circumstances, but leaving it with no credible pathway ahead and piling up fiscal debt for future generations. We are missing a critical opportunity to move to a high tech, competitive economy that promotes green investment and green jobs.

We are guilty of our proportionate share in guaranteeing dangerous climate change. Dangerous climate change is a temperature rise of over 2 degrees, yet voluntary pledges to date under the convention commit us to 4.2 degrees. That takes us beyond danger territory into possibly catastrophic climate change. It invites tipping points to the ecosystem and the biosphere, of which we have stunningly little knowledge.

Most telling of all, our two national leaders in climate policy, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change Issues, are guilty of argumentation that can be seen only, I conclude, as intellectually dishonest. I acknowledge their personal integrity, so I call upon them to show us that this is not the case.

Let me elaborate. The convention of 1992 lays down a division between North and South, between the developed and the developing world. The North, in light of its largest share of historical and current global emissions, must take the lead with immediate action in reducing emissions, while the South is allowed to grow emissions to meet its development needs. This distinction still applies until the framework convention of 1992 is supplemented by a global legal agreement with binding obligations to reduce emissions by all countries. That will be in 2020.

For a transition period of 2013-19, the North/South distinction still remains. Yet this Government assures the public that it is “joining up with 85 percent of global emissions” in going the voluntary route with our “Asia-Pacific trading partners”. Well, of course we are, because most of the 85 percent are in the South, with no obligation to reduce as yet. The other 15 percent are the Kyoto group, of which we should be part, which are taking on binding commitments under the second commitment period. That includes Australia. The fact that the US, Canada, and Japan are not does not absolve us from our own obligation.

There is, it seems to me, a touch of intellectual dishonesty in the 85 percent argument. There is a risk here, no doubt unintentional, of misleading the public, because it offers a false reassurance that it is at odds with the 1992 legal framework. We should be ashamed, yet this Government is not.

The Minister’s highest skill level was displayed in the House yesterday, when he justified his climate policy by flourishing a photograph of some Romney sheep. He needs to understand that our sheep industry, although less emissions-intensive than elsewhere, emits more than it should, and more than it needs to. Welshing on Kyoto and weakening our emissions trading scheme loses the opportunity to incentivise agriculture to be more climate-friendly. Rather than attempt theatrics, the Minister should recall the Stern Review, which said that with 5 to 6 degrees warming, which is “a real possibility for the next century”, abrupt and large-scale climate change projects estimate an average 5 to 10 percent loss in global GDP. We have to be wilfully blind to allow ourselves to get into this indefensible position—indefensible before the court of international opinion, indefensible in the eyes of the New Zealand public.

I was intrigued by the talk this afternoon by David Parker about unemployment. I wanted to maybe flick the House a few observations of my own. One of those observations is particularly about Māori unemployment, which is not 20 percent, as Mr Parker said in this House. It is, unfortunately, 15 percent. One of the reasons why we do have, and always have had, a very, very large and shameful Māori unemployment rate is that we are actually very, very young. Our youth population is very, very large, and it is one of the reasons why we have such a high unemployment rate, and such other high rates of low educational standards.

But I want to say that when people have a go at us on this side of the House for our so-called appalling 7.3 percent unemployment rate, I want to reply by saying that Argentina, the UK, Sweden, the Philippines, Peru, Paraguay, Israel, Greenland, and Finland are all between 7 percent and 7.9 percent unemployment. I am not saying that it is great to have a 7 percent unemployment rate, but I am saying that what people need to do is actually look very seriously at the world economy and at what effect that has had on our country and others around the world. Spain has 25 percent unemployment, Greece has 25 percent unemployment, Portugal has 15 percent unemployment, and Ireland has 15 percent unemployment. Those figures show that the world economy did tank, and it has taken a while to get back on track.

New Zealand is no different from any other country in the world. We have our struggles. I know that there are other parties, and I respect what they say in terms of where they want to go, in terms of where they want to print money and do whatever. But at the end of the day, we are the Government, and we have to make some calls on what we do. I am absolutely glad that we do have a National Government in charge of the economy, because the National Government, the National Party, are the only ones that have shown in the past that when there are bad times out there, who do you call? Not ghostbusters, of course, but you call on the National Party, because it has experience in running the country and in running the country in bad times.

I want to also make this point quite clear. It is another, completely different issue. There are those of my culture who continue to shout at the top of their voices that we do not recognise the white man’s law, and in the same breath in court they use that excuse for their own criminality, such as the growing and the supplying of cannabis to our community. This is a growing concern of mine, that people—our people, Māori people—are standing up in court and saying: “I don’t recognise the Pākehā law. I don’t recognise the white man’s law.”, and it is because they are using their culture as an excuse for their own criminality. I am really, really concerned about those people. These are people who supposedly say they are leaders in our community. My message to those people, who are no more than just petty criminals—that is all they are—is to get off this bandwagon and stop using our culture, which is a beautiful culture, which is a magnificent culture, for your own criminality. Kia ora.

I am glad that the speaker who just preceded me, Tau Henare, mentioned the quote “At the end of the day, we are the Government.”, and that is absolutely correct. Finally, a member on that side of the House is willing to stand up and take responsibility for what is the highest unemployment this century. We have asked questions in this House, and rightfully so, because it is a deadly serious matter. And what have we heard from members on that side of the House today? Chatter about who was having dinner with whom. It is an insult, an absolute insult, to New Zealanders who are struggling to find work that all that side of the House can do is make jokes at a time when people are suffering.

In fact, if the worst insult that the Minister for Social Development can level at me in the House today is that I am uptight and angry about unemployment, then that would be the most accurate thing she has said today. I am, and I would hope that the Minister for Social Development might be as well, but unfortunately not. Instead, when you ask the Minister for Social Development why it is that unemployment benefit numbers have doubled on her watch, what is her answer? Her answer is the economic recession—“The toughest times worldwide.” If you go on then to ask her whether or not it means that her punitive welfare reforms are justified and fair, given the economic situation we are in, she will respond with “There are jobs and people will get one only if they look.” This is a Minister who is trying to have it both ways. On one hand, it is not her fault that people are on the unemployment benefit because of the economy; on the other, she is completely justified in introducing punitive sanctions—57,000 sanctions used per annum. That is double what were being used under Labour when benefit rates were lower. The Minister cannot have it both ways, and yet she is.

There are 50,000 people on an unemployment benefit who are looking for work, and to have the Minister claim that they are not is an insult. There are 174,000 unemployed people looking for work who were just insulted by that Minister today. There are 142,000 who are underemployed, who are looking for more work but cannot find it, and, therefore, are probably struggling to put food on the table. But, apparently, according to that Minister, they are just not looking very hard either. This Minister, who tried to come down to this House and justify her rationale that there are jobs for those who are looking, decided to do so by giving us a few examples. The Warehouse, she told us, was looking for seasonal employment. Well, I used to be one of those seasonal workers at The Warehouse. I know that those jobs end. And in fact when they did advertise full-time jobs, there were 1,200 applications for 111 jobs. The next best example she could come up with was New World—not even built yet—in Paraparaumu. In fact, I understand the walls are not even up, but she was already crowing that that would bring about new jobs. Well, when New World advertised recently for 150 jobs, 2,700 New Zealanders lined up to try to get those jobs.

New Zealanders are desperate to find work and that Minister’s claim that they are just not looking hard enough is indicative of the kind of approach that this Government has been taking to an economic crisis and a crisis of jobs: the stand back and wait, the “She’ll be right.”, the market will fix it, hands-off approach. For 4 years that approach has failed New Zealanders, and it is only good and right that David Shearer called on that Government today to change track. When the facts are presented, the Government should change its mind about its plan, whatever that plan is, because clearly it is not working. But, instead, what have Government members done? Well, if they cannot improve the economy, all they can change is social security, and that is the injustice of all of this. To say that all the responsibility should go on the job seekers, who are fulfilling their end of the social contract and looking for work, while that side of the House throws their hands up when it comes to the economy, is an absolute outrage and it is just not right.

I know that this weekend Labour will continue to be talking to its values—that is, a fair and just society where people get a fair break. That is what New Zealanders need right now and that is why they are marching away from that Government in their droves.

After that speech by Jacinda Ardern, I think that we are starting to see a new leadership contender emerge, because that was the most energetic speech I have heard all afternoon from the Labour Party. I have been waiting for about half an hour for David Shearer to take the stand and have a go in the general debate, as he usually does. I actually enjoyed watching the Labour Party last week, because it was the most sad, disappointed, heads-buried-in-their-desk performance from Labour MPs watching their leader that I have ever seen, and that is how you know that the Labour Party is looking for a leadership change.

During question time we had the three Davids on their feet. We had David Shearer trying his best, trying not to stutter 10 times throughout his questions and not quite succeeding, trying to hold on to his job. Then we had David Parker asking some questions, as well. David Parker is always the professor, the pointy-headed professor doing his best with the numbers, but he had to drop out last time. He had to drop out last time, and probably is doing so again this time round. And then we had David Cunliffe—David Cunliffe, the great messiah. He is growing a beard again. Have we all noticed that? What does that mean? What happened last time David Cunliffe grew a beard? It was leadership time; that is when he last grew a beard. David Cunliffe is growing a beard again, and I think David Shearer should be worried about that. But we had the three Davids on show, on performance, trying to show their colleagues what they are made of.

We have got the big conference this weekend coming up, as well. Do you know what is interesting about this conference? What is interesting about this conference is that that is when they start to adopt their new rules. These new leadership rules are when they start to have members having their say.

So what are members of the Labour Party saying about their leader? They are about to give Labour Party members a bit of a say in their leadership. Here we go, there is a great website called The Standard. It is full of Labour Party members spouting their views. Here is one: “David Shearer has simply shown time and again that he is not up for the job. He can’t handle the stress, he can’t think on his feet, and he doesn’t have a solid set of beliefs to give him a firm footing when he stands up on issues.” How about another one? “I should have listened to Brian Edwards and to that little voice inside that was telling me Shearer was unsalvageable as talent. … it is that hamfistedness that has finally been the deal breaker for me. I just can’t imagine how David Shearer could survive an election campaign …”. That is what Labour Party members are saying about their current leader. That is what Labour Party members are saying about their leader, whom they are about to have a say on.

And what about this Brian Edwards? What do we know of Brian Edwards, because David Shearer likes to say that it is just bloggers talking to bloggers. I do not think Mr Brian Edwards would consider himself a blogger. Brian Edwards happens to be the biographer for “Dear Leader”, for “Auntie Helen”—for Helen Clark. Brian Edwards was also the media manager, the person who did all the training. What does Brian Edwards say? He says: “… Shearer is harming rather than helping Labour’s cause and [so much so] that he cannot continue to lead the party.”

What else do we know about Brian Edwards and Helen Clark? Helen Clark is in the country at the moment. Those members want to deny it. They want to deny it, but I was there. I was in the dining room; I saw them walking through the dining room. I saw David Cunliffe come through, then Chris Hipkins and Jacinda Ardern put their heads round the corner. They scuttled off again, but in came Darien Fenton and Phil Twyford. Darien Fenton is one we should watch. She is the union powerbroker at the moment. Darien Fenton is actually the union powerbroker. Andrew Little thinks it is him. Andrew Little thinks it is him, but it is actually Darien Fenton. So these are the members of the Labour Party who David Cunliffe had trotting along to the little meeting, and Helen Clark was in the country too. We know what texts from New York are all about—they are about when the leadership comes around.

Jacinda Ardern wants to say that we are joking too much. And yeah, we are having a bit of fun at those members’ expense, but they are about to change their leader. But I want to tell the House what is a real joke. Here are the Labour Party policy proposals for the weekend. This is scary stuff; this is no joke. These are the policy proposals that Labour is proposing on the weekend. A financial transactions tax. You know, if we cannot earn more money through revenue, let us just tax people more. That is a Hone Heke tax, as Hone Harawira would probably say. A universal child benefit, so millionaires can get paid for having kids. Well, I think that is something Kim Dotcom would quite like, too. There is 52 weeks’ paid parental leave. Not content with costing us half a billion dollars more in paid parental leave for 26 weeks, those members want to move it to 52 weeks. They want to ban fracking, they want to ban seabed mining, they want to ban certain foods in schools, and they want a mineral export tax. That is not a joke.

They want to hurt New Zealanders more, lose more jobs. We are for growing jobs, we are for growing the economy, and that is why New Zealanders love the John Key Government.

So far the contribution from the Government, I would say, is insulting to New Zealanders listening. It lacks empathy and it lacks understanding of the reality of the situation that we now face. In fact, Government members have attempted to try to couch it in fairy tale terms, describing real problems as “grumpy” and “bouncy”. They are attempting to defer the problem elsewhere by saying that we were better off than other countries. The reality is that that Government needs to pull its head out of the fairy tale clouds and face the reality. We live in the here and now. We live in New Zealand. We do not live in any other country. It is New Zealand people who are experiencing difficulties.

As of last Thursday, the rate of unemployment is 7.3 percent. That is 175,000 people on the unemployment roll. If you combine that with the number of jobless people of almost 300,000, with over 113,000 people who are working part-time or casually but looking for more work, that is more than 400,000 people out of work or looking for more hours to work. That is the here and now. That is the reality. Those are real people and real families, struggling to make ends meet, who have children to support. That is what we are facing, and that side continues to treat it as if it is somehow some fairy tale—that it is not real. I suspect that many of them on that side will not know what poverty is like. Probably many of them—and I know of one or two on that side—have never worked in their life, because they have been in politics ever since they have been 18. So they will not know the reality of not having a job, of not having work.

I want to make reference to Mr Henare with reference to the Māori unemployment rate. He said that with the Māori population being generally younger, that was one of the reasons why there were more unemployed Māori. I think our populations, Mr Henare—Māori and Pacific Islanders—are predominantly younger. But that is not the reason why they are unemployed. They are unemployed because there are no jobs. They are unemployed because this Government is refusing to invest in their future. They are unemployed because everything this Government has done has not panned out to what it promised.

Let me tell you. Do people remember the Job Summit when those members came into Government? We have not heard any more from that Job Summit. Do people remember the 170,000 new jobs, which was the target the Government was going to set? Well, we did not get 170,000 jobs. Instead, we lost jobs, and now we have got 175,000 people unemployed. Do people remember the tax switch? We were told that by giving tax cuts to the top 10 percent of employers that somehow we were going to get more jobs. Do people remember the 90-day bill? If employers were able to fire people easily, we would get more jobs. Do people remember the youth rates? Somehow, by paying young people less—80 percent of the minimum wage—there would be more jobs created. There are no jobs created, and I know that the surge in unemployment means that this Government has not been able to keep any of its promises in respect of unemployment.

I want to make reference to this. Those members blamed it on the recession. Well, the recession officially ended in 2009, but they blamed it. They blamed it. Those are your reports. Those are the reports of the Government.

I want to make reference to the last time that we had such high unemployment numbers, which was 13 years ago, when Jenny Shipley of the National Government was the Prime Minister. In 1999, under that Government, Māori unemployment was 14.8 percent. It was the same for Pacific Islanders. It was the Labour Government—a Labour Government—from 1999 to 2008 that reduced Māori unemployment to 8.2 percent and to 7.3 percent for Pacific Islanders. Where are we now? Both Māori and Pacific Islanders are at 15 percent—15 percent. In so far as Māori and Pacific communities are concerned, whenever National is in power, unemployment for Pacific Islanders and Māori is always high.

Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. Hoi nō hei tīmatangia i taku kōrero me mihi atu ki a koe Su’a e kōrerohia mai ngā kōrero mō te hunga kore mahi, me wā tātou nei whanaunga Māori, Pasifika anō hoki kore taea te whai mahi i te mea, horekau he mahi kei roto o Aotearoa. Nō reirā, mihi atu ki a koe e kōrero ana i tērā kōrero.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and greetings to us all in the House. So to begin my address I really acknowledge you, Su’a, for relating stories to us about those without work, and about our Māori relatives, and Pasifika relatives as well, who are unable to find employment because there are absolutely no jobs here in New Zealand. And so, I salute you for making that statement.]

Three months ago the Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty released its report, in which it said: “Children living in poverty are those who experience deprivation of the material resources and income that is required for them to develop and thrive, leaving such children unable to enjoy their rights, achieve their full potential and participate as full and equal members of New Zealand society.” It then went on to say that if we use the poverty measure adopted by other developed countries—i.e., of families earning less than 60 percent of median income after housing costs have been deducted—then fully 25 percent, or 270,000, of New Zealand children could, for all practical purposes, be said to be living in poverty, with many experiencing significant material deprivation. It said that poverty rates for Māori and Pacific Island children are twice as high as for Pākehā kids, that Māori and Pacific Island kids are twice as likely to be living in severe and persistent poverty, and that child poverty rates in New Zealand are twice as high as they were 30 years ago.

Although we may choose to argue, debate, or differ in the way in which we measure poverty, I think that if any one of us in this House was to sit back and give full and proper consideration to what the priorities of a good and decent society might be, surely the well-being of children would rank at the top, or very close to it. That is where I would like to think my Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill fits. What it is is simply a proposal to make sure that kids in our poorer schools get something to eat every day through the provision of fully funded nutritional breakfasts and lunches in all decile 1 and 2 schools in Aotearoa.

I hear that some social commentators like to talk about child poverty as if it was caused by poor parental choice, bad morals, or poor work ethics. But there is little hard evidence that poor people mismanage their income any more than those who are better off. In fact, research shows that the main causes of poverty lie elsewhere: the lack of jobs, low incomes, inadequate, over-crowded and high-cost housing, poorly targeted welfare, racism in the labour market, a lack of education, poor health, institutional racism in the New Zealand police force and the judicial system, etc., etc., etc.

What we do know is that local and international evidence confirms that food in schools programmes improve children’s educational outcomes, school attendance, and classroom behaviour. We know that in 2011, based on analysis of data and experiences of national and international food in schools initiatives, the Child Poverty Action Group recommended the introduction of healthy meals in all decile 1 and 2 schools in Aotearoa.

We know that in 2012, the Children’s Commissioner’s expert advisory group called on the Government to provide a national strategy for food in early childhood education centres and schools in low-decile neighbourhoods. We know that with regard to the high number of decile 1 and 2 schools providing food to students now, there is clear evidence of a pressing need for food to be made available on a sustained and secure basis and that food in schools programmes should not have to rely solely on charity and volunteers. Depending on charity, particularly in difficult economic times, is risky and uncertain, as the termination of the Red Cross programme shows.

I applaud the efforts of all those schools, businesses, charities, and health promotion agencies for their support. Food in schools is a positive, practical, and simple step to helping to eliminate poverty, and I am grateful for the broad support that I have received since putting the bill in the ballot back in August. I welcome the indications of support from other parties in the House for such an initiative. I thank Campbell Live for the excellent series it did on food in schools, and I look forward to working with my colleagues right across the House to make this bill a reality when it finally comes before Parliament. Kia ora tātou.

I am very happy to take a call in this general debate. I have had to listen today to the Opposition going on about how this Government, this party, is making fun of a serious situation. We are not actually making fun of anything. What I would say is this. For a Parliament to work well, it is generally recognised that you have to have a good, strong Opposition. We do not have a good, strong Opposition in this country.

I would like to refer to a letter that was received by a constituent of mine, and he has given me permission to use it in the House today. Not only is he someone who focuses on keeping the Government to account but also he wants to make sure that he is being serviced by a strong Opposition.

💬 Hon Members: What does he say?

Well, I will tell you what it says, but before I do that, before I read this letter, I would just like to come back and mention something that Minister Coleman said earlier in his speech, and that is the fact that, actually, David Shearer is a good man. I think he is a good man. He has done some great things in his life. He could be an excellent leader for the Labour Party, but the fact of the matter is that it is hard to soar like an eagle when you are surrounded by turkeys, and I think that is probably the situation that Mr Shearer finds himself in.

This is the sort of letter that Labour members send out in their leader’s name. This letter is to my constituent, explaining what they are planning to do, on 20 September 2012: “I can assure you …”—the start is not too bad, actually. “I can assure you that Labour MPs are concentrating on their portfolios.” Well, they always say to start a letter with a bit of comedy, and I guess that he got 10 out of 10 for that.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Does it have stutters in it?

No, it does not. But then he went on to say: “We are working on a number of important things at the moment.” Well, the comedy has gone too far now. It has got to stop. I will not read you the rest of the letter—the whole letter—because it will probably put you to sleep, but I will get to the last part of the letter. It says: “Labour is developing bold new ideas to grow.”—bold new ideas to grow. I would say that a mauling by a white mouse would be more bold than some of the ideas we have seen being generated by the Opposition.

It continues: “We will be talking a lot more about our plan for the economy in the weeks and months ahead.” Well, this was written on 20 September 2012. In all fairness, I guess we can say that we are starting to see some policy being announced by the Opposition: turning contractors into employees, banning plastic bags in tuck shops, reversing employment law change—what does that mean? Picking on poor, defenceless hobbits? This is the sort of stuff that is being generated from the Opposition members, and that is why, if they feel that there has been some fun poked at them, they are leaving themselves wide open to it, because you are the Opposition—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order!

Sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker, you are quite right. I would like to come back and just read a quote here from an ex - Labour candidate.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: What’s it say?

This is what it says: “We’re waiting for David Shearer to give us the Labour narrative. … Where’s he headed? What is his direction?”. That is Josie Pagani in the New Zealand Herald. That is what the country is waiting for, and it is not getting it.

The other thing that I would like to do—and I know you are going to be shocked, but I would like to recognise David Cunliffe.

💬 Scott Simpson: Why?

Well, I will tell you why. We talk about transparency in this Parliament, and I sat up there, you know, at the back of the House—if I was any further back, I would be in the car-park—but it gives me a pretty good look at what is going on in the House, and I have to give credit to Mr Cunliffe that he almost missed his question because he was so focused on lobbying Mr Cosgrove for the leadership. I think that to come into the House and start lobbying a colleague like that is something pretty special.

I am sure Opposition members would like to get up and talk about what is important to them, what they are achieving, and what they are doing, but they cannot—that is right—because there is not really much that they can get up and talk about. But I would say this. Today there is something going on in relation to Mr Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little—

💬 Dr David Clark: Tell us a story about Borat—tell us a story about Borat. Come on, tell us a story about Borat.

I will tell you a story about—

Order! The member’s time has expired. The time for this debate has expired. Can I just remind members that when they are interjecting on each other across the House and they do not have the call, it is not permitted. You can interject on the speaker, by all means, but members interjecting on each other without having the floor—they do not have the floor—are not permitted to do so.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.