General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Was it not interesting this week to see the Greens measuring up the desks in the Beehive? In fact, I think some of them were seen there. There is no doubt at all who is the energetic, organised, cohesive front end of the Greens-Labour Government. It is not the Labour Party, which, of course, is disorganised, lacks cohesion, has no energy, and has left a vacuum in Opposition, which has handed the leadership of the Opposition not, as the media think, to Ian Shearer, the leader—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: No, no, no, not Ian Shearer.

—oh, David, sorry—David Shearer, the leader of the Labour Party. It has handed the leadership of the Opposition to the Green Party, and, in particular, Russel Norman.

💬 Hon Member: Harvey Norman?

Russel. No, not Harvey Norman from Australia. Russel Norman is very keen on office furniture, but the most important asset in the Greens’ office is the photocopier, where you print the money. That is the most important part of their office furniture. The Greens have been measuring the doors on the Beehive to see whether they can get the photocopier—the money-printing photocopier—through the doorway so that when they have the ministry of finance, they can solve all the problems.

Some of those solutions have become a bit clearer from Mr Norman’s contributions at the select committee recently. I will not go through the rather confused transcript other than to say that I could sum it up this way: “If you printed the money, it doesn’t matter whether you lose some.”—if you printed the money, it does not matter whether you lose some. This is the new thinking in the Greens-Labour Opposition. Those members have been on through the year about old-fashioned thinking—you know, like spending only what you have got and not borrowing too much. That is very old-fashioned, neo-liberal, conservative extremism, but new, fresh thinking is an upgraded brand of photocopier. That is the new stuff, and probably security features on the money, no doubt. But the great news is that it does not matter whether you lose it, because it was only printed money to start with.

Well, while the Greens have been taking over the Greens-Labour Opposition—and now find themselves being described by the media as easily the most articulate Opposition spokespeople—the Government has been getting on with its plan, which does show some of the differences. I mean, the Greens have got a spokesperson on transport who is against transport, a spokesperson on energy who is against energy, and a spokesperson on finance who is actually against finance—up for printing money. Actually, it is an Opposition that is against jobs. And it has a spokesperson on employment, of course, who has to go out there and say: “What we’re trying to do in Opposition is destroy employment. Anywhere it might pop up, we want to jump on it—we want to jump on it.”

The Government has been getting on with helping people create the jobs in difficult circumstances, and through this year we have acknowledged the new reality, which is that growth is hard to come by. Many developed countries do not have any growth, or any employment growth, and we are backing New Zealand’s households and businesses, because that is who is making the decisions that are making this economy work. The Business Growth Agenda sets out not one thing but about 200 things, actually—policy initiatives that we need to undertake to support our businesses to make the decision that matters, which is not turning on the photocopier but the decision to invest real savings made by households, which are giving up something to save that money—to invest that money in their business, and employ another person.

That was the Minister whom the Prime Minister has found the most disappointing this year. He is the Minister in charge of the asset sales programme that was meant to occur and which has collapsed, and the Prime Minister finds his work disappointing.

I want to make a passing comment about Peter Kiely. I have known Peter Kiely for only 25 years. We have travelled together. We were both once people of promise, according to the United States Government, and he has been a person who has in the past, I think, acted with integrity. If what appears to be the case is the case, then I think that John Key, the chair of the Cabinet appointments and honours committee, and Murray McCully, who nominated Mr Kiely, are in very serious trouble. What appears to be the case is that Mr Kiely has breached a number of laws as well as a number of conventions.

I decided today to make a list of things that had gone wrong for the Government this year. Members know that normally when I make a 5-minute speech, I have about four words on the back of one envelope. I got on to three envelopes today. I got on to three envelopes trying to make a list, and that is not good when it is a 5-minute speech. Well, it is not the brown envelopes of the sort that John Banks collects full of cash and then forgets. It is not the sorts of brown envelopes that he got from Dotcom or Skycity. It is not the sorts of cash for pokies arrangements that Steven Joyce enters into. Those are just two of the things that have occurred this year.

If I was the Prime Minister and was being disappointed, I would be disappointed about the level of unemployment. It has reached the same level as 13 years ago. It has reached a level that I personally thought it would never reach again. Any coherent Government could have stopped it reaching that level if it decided to make employment a priority. We have had the Prime Minister saying: “I will not remember.” He will not remember the details of the briefings he got from his spy agencies. He will not remember the fact that he had a massive German with giraffes in his front lawn sitting in his own electorate. He will not read the police file, the police case, that everyone else has read that shows that John Banks is a liar. He has a Minister who has lied this year. John Banks—

💬 Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I realise that it is not possible for someone to take offence on behalf of another, but I think there were a number of Speakers’ rulings breached by the accusations made by the member and he should withdraw them.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well the member was actually pretty careful with what he said. The member did not accuse any member of the House of being a liar. He spoke of evidence that indicated someone had been a liar, and that is different from a straight-out accusation. But if the member takes the next step and accuses a member directly of being a liar, then he will be asked to withdraw and apologise for that. He needs to be a little careful because it is skating on the edge.

The Prime Minister has refused to read the evidence that shows that his Minister Banks lied to the chief of staff. The Prime Minister refused to do that. We will arrange to put it on a podcast so that he can listen to it in the gym if he wants to, but the Prime Minister does not want to know about the evidence that shows that he has a liar, someone who has lied, the evidence that shows—

💬 Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to debate the facts of the report that the member is quoting, but the report does not say that. The only inference that can be drawn from the member’s contribution is the direct one, which is in breach of the Standing Orders.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a fair point too that I am sure the evidence does not use that word, and the member has to be careful now as he interpolates from the evidence that he has been talking about. He must be careful. It is going to lead to disorder if members basically accuse other members of being liars. The member needs to be careful.

I am happy to move on. Let us move on to other matters. Let us go along to the ACC leaks, the breaches of privacy. Remember at the beginning of the year that Bronwyn Pullar was a hero, that she was being acclaimed by the Prime Minister? What are they saying about her now? Remember about the Inland Revenue leaks, the Work and Income leaks, and the Novopay leaks?

How about considering education? I think education can be summarised this year as the Ministers did not read the papers. They did not read their papers on Novopay. Neither Foss nor Parata read the papers before they signed it off. The Minister did not read her papers to do with Christchurch before she approved the mergers and the closures of the schools down there. She did not read her papers about class sizes and she was forced to do a U-turn. So what do we have in education? We have chaos from Ministers who should not hold warrants.

What New Zealanders are seeing today is a Government that is determined, with its plan of action, to improve the New Zealand economy and provide the better future that New Zealanders are looking for. In these uncertain times around the world New Zealanders can look to the National Party to provide the security and opportunities that they deserve.

This is a Government that is focusing on the things that matter. You will not hear from Government members in the general debate who said what to whom, who did this, who did not do that, and all this sort of business. You will not hear from us about all the little gotcha stories that you just heard in the last 2 minutes or 3 minutes. What you will hear from this Government in this debate is its determination to stick to its plan and the improvements that it can make for New Zealanders up and down this country because this Government is responsibly managing the finances of this nation.

We are on our plan to balance the books around 2014-15, which will allow us to strengthen the economy and pay down debt. The average wage is up 20 percent since 2008. There is low inflation. Interest rates are the lowest in 45 years. Who does that matter to?

💬 Hon Kate Wilkinson: Everyone.

That matters to everyone, because it means people pay less on their mortgages, they have got more to spend in the shops, and it costs them less to set up their businesses. It really matters. Superannuation is up since 2008. It is up 22 percent higher than in April 2008. There have been 65,000 jobs created in the economy. Peak debt will be about 30 percent of GDP. This is all good news for New Zealand in difficult times. But it is all at risk when you look at the parties opposite that oppose everything that this Government does to get the economy moving.

We have lower business tax than Australia does. Does Greens-Labour support that? What about the 90-day trial period that has enabled 60 percent of businesses to take on new staff they would not have otherwise? Was Greens-Labour in favour of that? What about the starting out wage that would remove the barriers for our youngest workers and potentially create 2,000 extra jobs? Is Greens-Labour in favour of that? No.

What about the changes to the Resource Management Act so projects of national significance—and, soon, regional significance—can be moved more swiftly through the process so that we can get investments and jobs started? Was Greens-Labour in favour of that? No. Those changes were another thing that creates jobs. We have $1.5 billion committed to the Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative and the Rural Broadband Initiative, which are about preparing the economy for the future. Well, was Greens-Labour in favour of that? No.

What about the billion-dollar-a-year investment in the motorway networks in order to allow producers to get their products to port and to customers faster? This is fundamental for a strong, growing economy and infrastructure. Was Greens-Labour in favour of that? No. What about all the lower ACC levies for businesses, which means they have more money in the bank to invest in businesses and create jobs? Was it in favour of lower ACC levies for business? No. There was not a word from Greens-Labour. We have removed 170 unnecessary and excessive regulations from the rule books and the law books to save an estimated $200 million in costs. Was Greens-Labour in favour of that? No.

So my point here is that this Government has had a plan of action that it has progressively stepped through that has delivered real benefits to the New Zealand economy and, more important, has invested in the future of our economy through strong infrastructure, good regulation, and lower taxes and compliance for New Zealand individuals and business. These are the things that matter, and time and time again Greens-Labour has opposed this.

The Greens-Labour platform for New Zealand is “Print the money.”—print the money. We heard about that from its finance Minister, “Xerox” Norman—“Print the money.” It is spending money that we do not have and it adds to the debt beyond what we can afford. Those borrow-and-spend policies will threaten the low inflation that has made things more affordable for families, the low interest rates that have made it easier for people to borrow and maintain their mortgages, and the steady recovery that National’s policies are delivering for New Zealanders. These are difficult times around the world, but New Zealanders know they have a Government that is focused on what matters.

If that is the best defence the National Government can mount after another shocker of a year for New Zealand under its stewardship, it is no wonder the soon-to-be-unemployed National Government backbenchers are looking so depressed going into the Christmas break, because you can see it in their faces that they know the game is up. They know that they have failed to deliver the brighter future that they promised New Zealanders 4 long years ago.

They know that John Key promised to stem the exodus to Australia when he stood in Westpac Stadium, talked about the number of people going to Australia, and said he was going to do something about it, and they know that New Zealanders have realised that it was a hoax because in fact now Westpac Stadium is not big enough. Now it would actually require Eden Park to accommodate the number of people who are leaving to go to Australia every year under John Key’s stewardship. The game is up. New Zealanders know that they were duped by National, not once but twice. National members will feel the consequences of that next year when they get to the ballot box, because New Zealanders are feeling it. New Zealanders are feeling it, and particularly they are feeling it in relation to employment.

Today we are seeing the highest unemployment rate in 13 years under John Key’s National Government. Whatever happened to the Job Summit? That was John Key’s major focus when he became Prime Minister, getting people back into work and creating jobs, yet we now have 175,000 New Zealanders out of work. What is the Government’s response? It is that the numbers bounce around a little bit. Actually, if you are one of the people who has lost their job, you do not feel particularly bouncy about it. I know that you are about to lose yours, Mr Speaker, but I will not go into that in any greater detail.

What else has happened this year? We have had the Government Communications Security Bureau debacle—John Key failing to read the reports and failing to take any responsibility for his own actions. Then, of course, we have had the ongoing series of debacles in education where three Ministers—Craig Foss, Hekia Parata, and Bill English—all signed off on the implementation of a new payroll system without thinking to ask anybody: “Will it actually work? Will it work? Has somebody checked to see that when we hit this button it’s actually going to work?”. All three Ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, signed it off without bothering to ask whether it was going to work. What was the result? Thousands of people up and down the country did not get paid, and thousands and thousands more got paid the wrong amounts, because the Government did not do its job.

That is not surprising though when we look at the Government’s track record in education. It is a Government that has well and truly taken its eye off the ball in education. Its one solution this year to make things better for the education system was to make class sizes bigger. Every parent up and down the country knows that having more kids in front of every teacher is not going to improve the quality of the education that their kids receive. Yet John Key, even now, even after backing down on it in the Budget, still thinks it is a good idea. He just thinks they did not sell it well enough. He still thinks it is a good idea.

It is no wonder the New Zealand public does not have any faith in this Government when it comes to education, because this Government’s educational policies are all about ideology. They are about unregistered and unqualified teachers in charter schools, charter schools that do not have to adhere to all the rules that every other school in the country has to adhere to, and, of course, the Government thinks that education is a great place for people who want to make a profit, as we have seen with its public-private partnerships in schools, which have not saved the taxpayer any money. In fact, the one public-private partnership that it has tried to implement in the education sector has cost more than if it had just built the school using the good old-fashioned traditional method of getting the Ministry of Education to oversee its construction. It has been a disaster, and it has all been so that the National Government can create a profit-making opportunity for someone rather than actually looking at what the best outcome for education is going to be. It has been based on ideology.

It has been a shocker of a year for the Government on so many other fronts as well. Let us not forget Nick Smith thinking it was all OK—[Interruption] Grant Robertson will never forget Nick Smith thinking it was all OK for him, on ministerial letterhead, to write a letter for one of his friends, arguing for ACC cover for them when he was the Minister for ACC. He does not have the judgment to be a Minister. Now John Key is trying to jack it up so that he can be back in the ministry after Christmas. That is a disgrace. That is a telling commentary on John Key’s standards.

Let us get some facts out on the table. Police, corrections, and the Serious Fraud Office have had a fantastic year—a fabulous year. There are falling crime rates. I think we are looking at the lowest crime rates in this country for 30 years—the lowest crime rates in 30 years. There are reductions in reoffending. In fact, instead of 51 percent of offenders reoffending within 2 years, we have brought that down over this past year by 5.5 percent—outstanding work by the Department of Corrections. The white-collar criminals who have been paraded through the courts by the Serious Fraud Office are having to face the facts and take account of the crimes that they have committed. So we have lots and lots to celebrate in this Government, and I am proud to be the Minister of those portfolios. This Government is proud of those police officers who are out there on the street and we are proud of those fantastic public servants in both corrections and the Serious Fraud Office.

But what about the other side? Well, it is all doom and gloom over there, is it not? It is scaremongering that the sky is going to fall. Labour’s police spokesman, Kris Faafoi, spent the year trying to convince everyone that there were cuts in the police budget. Well, I actually doubt that that man can read a set of books, because the police budget has stayed the same, and, what is more, it is predicted to stay the same. That is not a cut; that stays the same. That is not a cut at all. If you look at some of his press releases, they say that there is a “Grim future for Police under National.” They say “The mood of this week’s Police Association conference is one of disappointment with budget cuts severely impacting on front-line policing.” Well, I have got news for Mr Faafoi. Actually, front-line policing hours have gone up. There are more police on the front line now than there were 12 months ago, and this time next year we will see an increase again.

He even went so far as to try to link budget cuts with sexual assault investigations, saying that we have been cutting back on investigating sexual assaults. Actually, that was a report from the Auditor-General which said that the Police had not trained some of the head-office officers in line with the proposals that the Auditor-General had put in front of them. It was nothing to do with sexual assault investigations at all. Mr Faafoi is creating facts to suit his story, but he did not convince anyone, and he certainly did not convince the Police.

How about when he tried to put up that gangs were going to infiltrate the police because there were budget cuts? Who in their right mind would believe that? The Police came out immediately and said that yes, from time to time gang members do try to get into the police, but they always find them out and turf them out before they get anywhere near. It has got nothing to do with the budget.

Mind you, the pseudo-police spokesperson, Mr Goff, spent the whole year trying to justify the statement he made prior to the last election that we were actually cutting back on police recruits. Well, we were not. The Police said we were not. All the Police was doing was what it has done since time immemorial and balancing its recruits with its attrition levels. So yes, it does have to move around its numbers. Does that not make sense? But no, according to the police spokesman for Labour that was about budget cuts.

So then we move on to the corrections spokesman, Mr Charles Chauvel. Well, you know, they really have trouble with their maths over there, because when we announced what we were doing in corrections to reduce the reoffending by 25 percent we said that we wanted to see 600 less prisoners every year coming into prison.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I think the word is “fewer”.

All right, fewer. I do not mind. There were 600. So why did Charles Chauvel say that reducing prisoner numbers by 100 per year over the next 6 years is hardly anything to boast about? I would suggest that he goes back to school, because he might need some national standards in maths.

He went on and on and on, Mr Chauvel did, about the tabling of the contract for the Wiri Prison—the building of the new Wiri Prison. He went on and on and on about it. We were contractually—we were legally—bound to table it. We had been in discussions with the Clerk of the House about how that would happen, what form it would take, and, of course, it was tabled well within the time. Then what happened from Mr Chauvel? Nothing, actually. His only complaint was that I turned the sod without telling people how much it was going to cost. Again, he cannot read. All of that was in the press release at the time that we turned the sod. Meantime, we have had a great year.

I would like to offer some light relief to the debaters in the House this time and talk about something that everybody in the House supports. I am talking about our educational pathways for Māori students. We are very pleased to announce that, with the help of the Hon Hekia Parata, we have established leadership scholarships for students to attend Māori boarding schools. These are the Tūtahi schools. These are the schools that have for years produced Māori leaders—even well known parliamentary leaders here. We have established these scholarships called Puāwaitanga, which means to grow and develop and flourish—hence the name Puāwaitanga. These scholarships will allow 15 scholarships at any one time at each of the six Māori boarding schools. A student would take it and when that student finishes, the scholarship becomes available for someone else to take it through their years.

What is so different about these is that they are awarded for scholarship and leadership skills, academic possibilities, cultural strengths, sporting skills. This is in contrast to many of the scholarships that exist for Māori schools at this time, which are for people who are hard to reach, or need relocating, or something like that. It is really exciting that each school will get 15 leading pupils who can go through the school.

The schools are Hato Pāora College, Hato Pētera College, Hukarere Girls’ College, Turakina Māori Girls College, St Joseph’s Māori Girls’ College, and, of course, Te Aute College. There are strong ties to Māori leadership from these schools. You might remember the Young Māori Party of Sir Apirana Ngata, Sir Peter Buck, Māui Pōmare, Timi Kara—all those “sirs” who came through the Young Māori Party and made great advances for Māori at the turn of the 19th century. It comes right down even today to people like Shane Jones, Te Ururoa Flavell, Hone Harawira, and so on. But the same schools have produced leaders Dame Whina Cooper, Dame June Māriu, Dame Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi; singers like the current Maisey Rika and Hinewehi Mohi; and artists like Ralph Hōtere, Para Matchitt, and so on. So they do contribute. Also All Blacks like George Skudder, Buff Milner, Kent Lambert, Walter Little, our Piri Weepu, and Dallas Seymour.

Heaps of people have come through these schools, and it is because they foster pride in being Māori. That is perhaps the most important thing. Although we have also created kura kaupapa Māori, these schools are not in opposition. They sit alongside and they offer choice to parents. For some, the boarding school environment can foster support and opportunities to pursue their education in that way, whereas kura kaupapa Māori are mainly day schools, and people go there for the Māori option, to talk Māori and learn in Māori as they go. So I cannot stress enough the importance of keeping these schools alive and keeping them going. St. Stephen’s College has closed and Queen Victoria School has closed, but there is a possibility of reopening them, and people are talking that way.

I went to an international indigenous conference in Calgary a few years ago, and there were no fewer than 30 ex-students from these schools—Māori students—at that international conference in Calgary. Those were the ones who went there independently. That is how common the graduates are in the leadership in Māoridom.

So it is a really good-news story, and I am really happy that I am able to talk to it at this time. It is about always giving Māori students the opportunity to excel, providing the environment and the opportunity for them. The reason the school rolls are down now is largely due to the state of the economy at this time in the world and the hardship that is on a lot of families. I note that Wanganui Collegiate School, the second-oldest school in New Zealand, along with Te Aute College—formed by the same Act of Parliament—has fallen into trouble, too, and the Government has helped to bail that school out and keep it going. And it is important to have all choices available to us. So thank you. I thought it was a good-news story. Now everyone can get going and start yelling at each other again. Kia ora.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. In this general debate I want to celebrate yesterday’s news that Petrobras will not be drilling deep in our waters this summer. And I want to celebrate those young Kiwis who give me hope, because they believe we can tackle climate change.

First up, I want to congratulate Te Whānau-a-Apanui and their members—for example, Elvis Teddy, who put his body on the line and put a line in the sand and said no to deep-sea drilling in his backyard. I want to congratulate and say thank you to people like Dayle Takitimu, who said: “We will, now and forever, stand up against government recklessness if it threatens that environment, and the livelihood of future generations.” I want to thank Greenpeace and the hundreds of thousands of people who signed its petition to say yes to clean energy and no to deep-sea drilling. I want to thank the 99 percent of submitters to the exclusive economic zone regulations who said that the risks of deep-sea drilling were so high that it should be a prohibited activity. Unlike the Government benches, the Green Party believes that deep-sea oil drilling is not our future. It is at the frontiers of technology and incredibly risky, and if we saw a blowout like we have seen across the Ditch and like we have seen in America, the oil spill would be catastrophic for our fishing, our tourism, and our aquaculture. It would be catastrophic for our environment and our economy.

We know that, in New Zealand, for all that risk we would see hardly any taxes and hardly any royalties—because we have got the fourth-lowest Government take in the world—and hardly any jobs for New Zealanders, and we know that the profits would flow offshore. I think it is important to recall that although the Government has picked deep-sea oil drilling as its big economic winner for the economy, it was the Prime Minister who slavishly rolled out the welcome mat for the Brazilians. The Government gave them and other companies tens of millions of dollars’ worth of subsidised seismic surveys. We saw the Government literally amend the law with permissive exclusive economic zone legislation, and we even saw the Government call out the navy to protect the Brazilians from a single iwi fishing boat. Now the Government’s plans are in tatters. Petrobras has surrendered its permit. Anadarko has announced that it is not going to be coming to New Zealand this summer. Now it is time that the Government goes back to the drawing board.

Why does the Government not look at clean energy? Why does the Government not look at manufacturing job solutions? This is what the country needs. This is what Pure Advantage, those business leaders in New Zealand, has said. We have a niche—an economic niche—when it comes to renewable energy like geothermal energy. They do not say we have a niche in deep-sea oil drilling. After all, renewable energy is always going to be cleaner and safer than fracking or deep-sea oil drilling. The Government’s “drill it, mine it, frack it” plans are in tatters. They are symptomatic of the dirty, old politics and the polluted ideas of the current term. This term the Government has taken a decidedly hard-line, anti-environment path. The Government says that the “clean, green” brand is simply fake, like the McDonald’s slogan “I’m loving it.” But you know what? Kiwis really do love our environment, and Kiwis do want to protect it. So while the National Government this term is acting like environmental vandals, burning the furniture to keep warm, it is trashing our brand and our environment. This is our basis in prosperity and our economy.

But I do not want to be too pessimistic, because I want to talk about what gives me hope, and it is Te Whānau-a-Apanui who give me hope. They get that the environment is important to us and to our economy. It is the business leaders at Pure Advantage who give me hope, because they get that tackling climate change is good for business. It is the youth who give me hope, because they get that it is their future at stake. This weekend we have got 600-plus young Kiwis and Pasifika converging on Auckland for Power Shift, the climate change conference, and we have got a handful of youth delegates over in Doha. These guys are inspirational, because despite what the Government is doing—which is relentlessly attacking the environment, attacking the scientists, disgracefully weakening the emissions trading scheme, walking entirely out of the Kyoto Protocol—these guys are not giving up. These guys say that since the Government has clearly shown that it is not going to act on the fundamental environmental, economic, and, most of all, moral challenge of our time, they are going to act.

I believe that we can put our science-based, global, long-term interests first, above the short-term, narrow, vested corporate interests that we see from the current Government. I think New Zealand does matter to the world, and I think we can be leaders. After all, the answers are obvious, they are available now, and they are going to benefit our economy. Ultimately, tackling climate change is about jobs, energy efficiency, smart farming, and clean energy. Tackling climate change, the big issue of the day, is about the economy.

What we heard from that Green member, Gareth Hughes, certainly makes Chris Hipkins put his hands on his head in despair, because they know that there is no hope when you have such a disunited Opposition with such crazy ideas. What we heard from the Green speaker over the last 5 minutes was nothing but negativity and the celebration of saying no.

What I would like to talk about is the positive things that are happening around trade training. I was down in Christchurch the other day, looking at the employment hub down there. I am pleased to report that there are some fantastic things happening down there. The most important, I thought, was the 300 young men and women coming from Rotorua who are going to be working in the new year with Fletcher Building, Hawkins Construction, and other very reputable construction firms in Christchurch. That is a Government showing initiative, getting the timing right, and reinforcing the value of trades and the skills that are necessary.

When you stop and look at what the Government is doing, it is very focused, it is structured, and it is a balance between maintaining the entitlements of those who need support as well as stimulating the economy and not going overboard with debt. So when you look at the infrastructure report that was just released, there are 67 infrastructure initiatives that this Government is entering into. They have all got a focus on creating a far more competitive and productive economy.

Let us have a look at some of those initiatives. There is $5.5 billion to repair the terrible damage that befell Christchurch and Canterbury. There is $1.6 billion for ultra-fast broadband, and also the Government does not forget the rural community. The Rural Broadband Initiative is a very important part of that, and we know why it should be. It is because 70-odd percent of this country’s export earnings come from the rural community, and we constantly need to remind all New Zealanders that we need the smartest and the brightest in those businesses to grow this economy.

We have got $5 billion going into the national electricity grid. That is hugely important, especially in the top of the South Island where the Kaikōura electorate is. We do need efficiencies there, because of the distance from the generators and distributors down in Islington, and so on. We have got $12.12 billion going into roading between 2012 and 2015. This is all very positive stuff—creating jobs, doing the best we can, and working on things like the 2,000 jobs in the ultra-fast broadband roll-out, 2,700 jobs for people with regard to the Auckland and Waikato hospitals, as well as the Marlborough hospital, Wairau Hospital, and the private hospitals that are being built besides that. There are 1,000 more jobs with regard to the motorways, 240 jobs with the Tauranga Eastern Link, and 1,500-odd jobs with regard to the transmission power upgrade. It is just so very positive. And still the Government keeps finding resources to reinforce the trades and skills for the rebuild, and finding employment opportunities.

However, we have to mention the obstructive nature of the Opposition members, when they have said no to more gas and oil exploration and when they have said no to the very fine policy of the 90-day trial for new employees. We had 3,000 jobs that were created by having The Hobbit produced and filmed here. The irrigation that the South Island so urgently needs, the Opposition—the Greens and Labour—has obstructed, as well as the reforms around local government.

However, on the other side of it, I think New Zealanders need to be incredibly fearful if they move forward with a Greens-led Opposition into Government, because the capital gains tax is such a negative aspect that it will decimate those enterprising young people who reach out to get into their farms and grow their economy. The irrigation taxes—it costs enough now for a farmer to be able to get water past his gate. Some of these irrigation schemes cost about $7,000 per hectare to get water past the gate. It will stimulate the economy by hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, year to year, and benefit all of New Zealand. And what does Labour want to do? Tax it.

“On behalf of the Government, let me be clear that no one will be left to walk this journey alone.” Those were the words that the Prime Minister used to make a commitment to the people of Christchurch that they would not be left to handle things on their own. And what has happened? We have got individual Christchurch people having to deal with insurers, and having to deal with the Earthquake Commission. They have been left alone, they have been abandoned by the Government, and that is why they have said that John Key’s speech to them has been very disappointing in terms of the delivery. He has made many promises; that no one would be worse off, that the red zone offer was extremely fair, and then, in relation to the land grab in the central business district—which I questioned him about today—that the Government would work very fairly with people. “We’re certainly not trying to rip anyone off.”, he said. He said that a gun would not be held at the landowners’ heads.

Today in the House the Prime Minister has stood by these commitments, despite the outrageous treatment of these landowners by the National Government. It was said in the House today that it is fair to pay a commercial property owner 50 percent of the amount offered to a homeowner in the residential red zone—that is fair. Why is it fair? I mean, even the residential red zone offers were not fair for everyone. There were people who lost tens of thousands of dollars, but they were offered 100 percent of the rating valuation. Why do commercial business owners get offered only 50 percent in order to clear out of their land?

He pretends that it is a voluntary offer, but it is not very voluntary when you are staring down the barrel of a compulsory acquisition; when the compulsory acquisition provisions of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority say that it is the market value of the property at the time of the purchase, not at the time of the incident. That is not fair, either. He has said that it is fair to threaten owners of buildings in the central business district with compulsory acquisition and to hold up the money for at least 12 months so that they are forced to take less than they should, essentially because they know that the result might in fact be worse under a compulsory acquisition.

The threats are being made to people who thought they could rely on a National Government. The most polite word said by former National Party supporters whom I have spoken to is that this is very “disappointing”. Others say that it is a travesty and that they had been betrayed by a Government that promised them so much. It promised to stand by them, and it has not stood by them at all. Who would have thought compulsory acquisitions—a land grab—would be the hallmark of a National Government? It is something that it would accuse us of doing, but it is not doing it for the sake of the central business district recovery.

All the Government is doing is compulsorily acquiring land in order to put in a frame. That is why a lot of people are saying that they are being framed in order to reinstate an increase in the property values inside the compact central business district, inside the frame. That is not within the purpose of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation, and I think that the Government is going to find itself very hard-pressed to actually run an argument that this is required for recovery. It is actually about property values and nothing more, nothing less.

People are frightened of speaking out, and it is not surprising, because the Government attacks everyone who speaks out. Carpers and moaners are the people who live in the technical category 3 land areas who answered an online survey run by a residents association. The “enemy of recovery” is how the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery describes the Christchurch Press. I mean, for goodness’ sake! It is the enemy of recovery for daring to, on occasion, want to hold the Government to account.

I want to read from a constituent who is too frightened to be named, because she is fearful of what will happen: “We cannot afford to sell at this price and we can’t afford not to. If we do not agree to the offer, there will be a compulsory acquisition and we won’t see a payment from the Crown for maybe up to 2 years. During this time, we would still have to pay the mortgage on the land and rates, and we would not have funds available to buy another property to operate our business from. It is an impossible situation for us.” It is impossible. They are terrified of speaking out because if the Government finds out who they are, then they know that they are going to be put on the back-burner, and they know that there are going to be consequences to them speaking out. There are every time. It is not good enough.

Rather than respond to those comments from Lianne Dalziel, I think it is probably important at this time to remind us at this stage what this debate is about. It is a general debate of ideas.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: Respond, if you can. Let’s hear the answers.

Well, there is another one of those Christchurch members banging on over there. Is that not interesting? Nearly $20 billion is going into the city, and you have got someone over there from that city who is banging on and does not know what he is talking about, like usual.

Coming back to the point that I was going to make, I think there is one thing that we all agree on in this House, and it is that to improve the standard of living in New Zealand we need to improve the income of New Zealanders. I think we get pretty much universal acceptance of that—to improve the standard of living in New Zealand, we need to improve the income of New Zealanders. The only debate in the House today is about how that might be done. Most of our opponents over here have put up an argument against every single thing that potentially could improve the standard of living for New Zealand.

But I want to talk about the sector that I come from and represent, which is the primary sector. Food production is now not keeping up with the growing world population. It is not keeping up with it. We are going to have a food shortage in the world within the next 15 years, unless we become more efficient in our production of food from the agricultural sector. The agricultural sector, or the primary sector, in New Zealand represents 71 percent of our total merchandise export trade. Primary exports up to March for the 2012 year were $32 billion.

The question I have for the House in this debate is: what would our opponents, if they were to be elected—that is, a Green-Labour Government—do to this sector? Let us just have a look at what they have said they would do, for a start. The first thing they are going to do is introduce an emissions trading tax on methane from animals. The second thing they have said they are going to do is introduce a capital gains tax on the agricultural sector or on the business sector. The third thing they have said they are going to do is introduce a nitrate limit on the amount of nitrogen fertiliser that can be applied. The fourth thing they have said they are going to do is put a restriction on water use and a ban on irrigation in some areas of the country, or restrictions on irrigation. The fifth thing that they have said they are going to do is put a restriction on livestock numbers in New Zealand in some areas. None of these things are based in science, all of them are ideologically driven, and none of them stand up to scrutiny.

We will listen to the Green Party, no doubt, go on about the current discussions going on in regard to the Kyoto Protocol. Well, when I hear the Green Party members talking about that, and about the various conferences and protests, and so forth, they are going to, it reminds me a lot of a bunch of drunkards going to another booze-up to talk about the disadvantages of alcoholism. You sort of cannot understand how they could be so—I know the word is not able to be used, but have such a double standard, if you like, that they would travel thousands of miles in aeroplanes around the world, to stay in flash hotels, by the thousands, and attend conferences to talk about what they could do to save the planet. Have you ever seen or heard such an oxymoron as that?

China is now our second-largest trading partner, and as we speak there are members of Parliament, being paid by the taxpayer, protesting against free-trade agreements and negotiations going on in this country at the moment. How is it that you can have a growing economy in a country where 71 percent of its export merchandise comes from a particular sector, yet we are going to protest against the export of those products to the world? How is that? Someone will need to explain that to me slowly and thoroughly in a few moments.

The largest company in this country is Fonterra—there is no doubt about that. I can understand the concern from some that it does control such a high percentage of this country’s export earnings. I can also understand some commentary that suggests that it is the wrong structure, but I do not agree with it and the evidence is that they are wrong. I can do no better than to quote Gareth Morgan, who is often quoted as a commentator on various things, when he commented in 2004: “So far, the industry has simply morphed into a vehicle for generation of wealth for a class of land-owning, milk-producing suppliers whose”—

The National Government is too hard on Christchurch. Immediately after the February 2011 earthquake in Christchurch, the Government did succeed in providing comfort to the people there who had been affected. There were visits, as we know, by the Prime Minister and genuine concern was shown. Later there were Government programmes for those whose land had to be red zoned. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team were established, and later the Christchurch Central Development Unit, as government instruments for the rebuild process. All of this did appear to be a good start and had the support of most people.

But since then the Government’s actions to assist the recovery have not been so positive. In fact, the National Government in many ways has been too hard on Christchurch, and, in fact, the Government is now no longer so much a part of the recovery as part of the problem. Last Saturday’s march for democracy in Christchurch shows the extent of the resentment, which is still growing, about Government actions in Canterbury. The open letter on behalf of the protesters, delivered yesterday, on Parliament’s steps, to the Prime Minister by Lianne Dalziel, Eugenie Sage, Megan Woods, and me sets out the issues in some detail. But it all began with some serious mistakes made by the Government concerning red zone land. The use of 2007 valuations in Christchurch and 2008 valuations in Kaiapoi was unfair to too many red zone people. There were some winners, but far too many losers. Those with genuine grievances about what they were offered were not reviewed by any genuine review process. The offer of 50 percent of the valuation of land that did not have any homes built on them and the offer of 50 percent for the land of uninsured homeowners was also grossly unfair. Excuses made about land damage did not make any sense.

Currently, the requirement for red-zoners to leave their homes by 30 April next year is also unfair and urgently needs review. It is too hard on too many of those people, because there is still a severe shortage of affordable homes in Christchurch to buy and the influx of workers for the rebuild only makes that worse. New sections coming on the market will be too late for many of these people, and there is also a rent explosion. I had a person approach me only a few days ago to tell me that they had had an increase of $100 a week, from $450 to $550 in one hit. This was a family with nine children. And yet the Government still refuses to act on the rent explosion. New Zealand First has repeatedly called for a short-term rent freeze, until things quieten down, but still nothing from the Government. It is too hard on renters in Christchurch.

As far as the central city is concerned, the issue now is the failure of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s process to involve landowners in development proposals before resource consents are obtained. This is intimidatory for those people, and the authority should see that they get the opportunity to be involved, if possible. Price offers also need to be reasonable and to reflect the future opportunity value of that property, and accusations of bullying by some do have some validity, especially when only half of the real value is being offered. Earthquake Commission repairs of homes are also inadequate. This week we had, in answer to a question, a list of figures about how many properties had been repaired. That is just window dressing. Yes, some repairs have been done, but far too few, and most still have not been attended to. So there has been a loss of confidence by many in Fletcher’s, and there is a bit of a “don’t care” attitude by that particular organisation. Fletcher’s should never have been the sole project manager. It needs competition.

But when we come to education, matters get even worse. Again, the Government was much too hard on an already traumatised city. The Parata bombshell was just disgraceful. It shows clearly the use of the earthquake aftermath to pursue what was really just—

I reckon the people of Christchurch would be much better off if they did not have naysaying politicians running the city down all the time. The fact is that this National Government not only has poured billions and billions of dollars into Christchurch and the people of Christchurch but also has poured its heart and soul into the rebuild of Christchurch. I applaud what our Ministers in this Government are doing for the people of Christchurch, and we will begin to see, as time goes on, the economic benefits that will come with the Christchurch rebuild.

This Parliament has one would-be finance Minister who cannot do the maths, one would-be finance Minister who thinks that printing money is the way to economic progress, and, thankfully for the people of New Zealand, one actual finance Minister with a clear programme to build sustainable growth based on savings, productive investment, and exports. At the same time, under Bill English as finance Minister, we have moved away from the debt, the property speculation, and the excessive Government spending that marked the 9 years of the previous Labour Government. National is focused on building a more competitive and productive economy. That is essential if businesses are to have the confidence to invest in growth and to invest in jobs. Alongside this, we are responsibly managing the Government’s finances, delivering better public services. Just while I am on that, we had the financial reviews for the Department of Corrections and the Police today, and the Labour—

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: How did that go?

How did that go? That is a good question, because for the time set down for both of those financial hearings, the Labour Opposition was out to lunch, New Zealand First was not there, the Greens, I think, offered one contribution, and I had to let the Commissioner of Police go after 35 minutes. The Opposition had run out of steam. It was an opportunity, once again, for Peter Marshall, the Commissioner of Police, and Ray Smith, of the Department of Corrections, to show what a good job those two departments are doing for the people of New Zealand. They should be congratulated on working within budget and providing better public services. That is exactly what this Government is about.

I now want to talk about building the economy. The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit movies brought extraordinary opportunities, colour, and life to Wellington and to New Zealand, both in jobs and investment and in the creation of a wonderful film industry for New Zealand, with plenty of work for actors. The “Hobbit-haters” over on the other side did go to the premiere—good on them. They have, obviously, no shame. But it is not just the big projects in the big centres that are building the economy in New Zealand, and are so very important. [Interruption] And the junior whip yawns. The junior whip does not get it. Once again, the Labour junior whip—this is all too big for him. The junior whip does not get it. Yes, I think—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think we are sick of the ageist contributions from the former Play School presenter. I think she needs to get into the present when she is in the House, and refer to the senior whip by that title.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is barely a point of order, but it just is, in that appropriate nomenclatures should be used.

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to address the big issues that are facing New Zealand today. If the junior whip wants to have a bedtime story, he can turn to his colleague, who, I am sure, will read him something at about the level he understands. In my own part of New Zealand there are some fantastic initiatives under way, providing enormous economic benefit to both the local region and also wider New Zealand.

I want to talk about irrigation, something about which I am hugely enthusiastic and supportive. The face of South Canterbury, North Otago, and Central Otago has been transformed with irrigation. Jobs have been created both locally and further afield. There are skills now in those towns that emptied out in the 1980s, and generally there is a sense of buoyancy in those regions that, but for the support of the Government and the irrigation investment fund, simply would not be there. It is a good-news story for my region. I support it and I applaud it.

💬 Michael Woodhouse: What about that cycleway?

Our own senior whip—an excellent senior whip—says “What about the cycle trails?”. Well, the Otago Central Rail Trail—[Interruption] They laugh at that over on the other side of the House. They do not get regional development. They do not get that $7 million is introduced into the local economy every year because of the Otago Central Rail Trail. Small businesses are being established. In fact, there is a brand new café in Ophir. I recommend it to anybody travelling through, for its excellent coffee.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.