Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

I am proud to be part of a Government that is focused on the real issues affecting New Zealanders and the real progress that we are making as a country under Prime Minister John Key’s leadership. I am sure every member in the House remembers that quote from President Bill Clinton: “It’s the economy, stupid.”, and so it is for New Zealand in 2013. After reflecting on the Prime Minister’s excellent speech, I was interested to see the latest copy—the February copy—of The Economist. I think we would all accept in this House that it is one of the world’s most respected magazines, in terms of challenging us in Government about providing good governance. In that regular magazine is an article on the best-governed countries in the world. It proceeds to list those countries that are top of the class. I felt incredibly proud to be part of a country that is listed as the top of the class in terms of economic management. I want to point out that that report ranked New Zealand ahead of Australia, ahead of the UK, ahead of Canada, and ahead of the United States. For Mr Peters’ benefit, New Zealand ranked ahead of Singapore.

In fact, it rates New Zealand as amongst the five top countries in terms of quality of governance and in terms of supporting economic growth. In terms of ease of doing business, it ranked New Zealand third-best in the world. I say to the members in this House that if we are genuinely concerned about jobs, and about giving New Zealand the opportunities to go forward, we should be proud of being a country that is the third-best in the world to be able to set up new businesses, because it is only those new businesses that will enable us to create jobs. I think we would all welcome, as well, the latest employment figures that show not only that New Zealand’s unemployment rate is better than so many developed countries around the world that are struggling, but also that those figures have come down. I also say that we should welcome the whole range of initiatives that the Prime Minister mentioned in his statement that are going to make a contribution.

Let me just reflect on my own Nelson constituency and what it means in my own area. Let us look at ultra-fast broadband—4,500 additional homes and businesses, as a consequence of this Government’s programme, will have access to ultra-fast broadband. Only last Saturday in my caravan at the market, I met with a young business person, a mechanical engineer, who currently does not have access to broadband and who is looking forward to that roll-out to create jobs and opportunities in our area. I look further at one of the biggest investments in science and research facilities in my home community. The Cawthron Institute, an institute that we are very proud of, is embarking this year on the biggest investment in labs and expansion in that organisation’s 90-year history, and that is because of the sorts of partnerships the Cawthron Institute has with this Government and its investment in research, which is part of that jobs machine.

I also want to note this month that the King Salmon aquaculture company is due to get a decision on the final result for its new aquaculture farms in Marlborough Sounds. Members opposite have vigorously opposed those new farms. They will provide an extra 130 jobs in the top of the South Island. I say do not give me crocodile tears about unemployment when you oppose initiatives like those from King Salmon that will provide jobs for New Zealanders. I particularly challenge the Green Party, which made a submission to the board of inquiry opposing any expansion of aquaculture in my part of the world. I say that that is one of the most job-rich opportunities that exist in the top of the South Island.

I also want to actually congratulate my colleagues, both Hekia Parata and Paula Bennett, for what they are doing in education and social welfare.

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Members opposite may laugh, but let me tell them what it means for real people—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Oh yeah? We’ll deliver some real people and they can tell you.

In February—this month, Mr Cosgrove—a teen parent unit opened up in my electorate. What do members opposite say about those teenage parents who have for years been ignored by Ministers of education and welfare? Members on this side of the House know that teenage parents and their children are some of the most at-risk groups of New Zealanders, and I am proud to be part of a Government that is actually investing in the facilities that will enable those teenage parents and their children to be able to get an education.

On the subject of jobs, I read the scoffing criticism from Labour members of the Prime Minister’s initiative around the new cycleways. Let me say this to members opposite—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Yeah, that’s right—how many jobs promised? How many delivered?

Phil Goff, let me tell you how many. I challenge Mr Goff to do this: come on a bike ride—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Just answer the question.

Just take a breath—just take a breath, Mr Goff. I challenge Phil Goff to come with me to Brightwater. Come with me to Brightwater, because right opposite the post office that Phil Goff and his Government closed is a new restaurant and caff. I went down the cycleway the weekend before last to check out the new cycleway. You know, I had to wait an hour and a half for a coffee because there were more than a hundred people who had done the cycleway. Let me give you another example, Mr Goff, on the cycleway: a new business has opened up between my electorate and Damien O’Connor’s. A new cycleway barge now operates between Rabbit Island and Māpua. And do you know what my experience was again? I went to catch the ferry—the new cycle ferry, the new little business that has started up as a consequence of John Key’s initiative. It is a ferry that will take 50 bikes, and I could not get on it because there were that many people who were enjoying it. Damien O’Connor is celebrating its success while his colleague Phil Goff criticises the cycleway initiative. It is a positive initiative and every New Zealander knows it.

Then let us look at where the Opposition has gone in my area of new responsibility in respect of housing. First of all, we got this dream from Mr Shearer last year that Labour is going to build 100,000 homes at $300,000 each, and those members specifically said, and put the little brochure out, that they were three-bedroom houses. How long did that policy commitment last? How long did it last? It was not a matter of a few days and Mr Shearer was backtracking on that promise. But I have to at least give the Greens credit for saying how their unaffordable housing policies would actually be funded. The Greens said that they are going to rob the National Land Transport Fund to put up the billions of dollars for the new houses. My question for Labour members: 100,000 houses, $300,000 each—and there is not a member of this House who truly believes that can be delivered, but even so—where is the $30 billion coming from? Can you please tell us? Are you going to rake the debt up by another $30 billion? Are you going to join the printing press, as the Greens have promised? There is absolutely no credibility to that policy until Labour is prepared to say where the 30 billion bucks is coming from.

We on this side of the House are focused on housing affordability, but on the real issues. There was a very substantive report produced by the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission was actually an initiative created by this Government, and the foundations for improving housing affordability lie in that report’s recommendations around what we need to do with land supply and what we need to do in terms of improving productivity with the sort of work that my colleague Steven Joyce is doing in the area of skills training and apprenticeships. It is the sort of work that we need to do in terms of improving competition and building materials, and the sort of work we need to do like Maurice Williamson’s work in the compliance costs. If New Zealanders are concerned about housing affordability, the substantive agenda that this Government has set out gives New Zealanders the sort of hope and ambition that we all want and stand for in this Government.

The member Dr Nick Smith, who just resumed his seat, said that New Zealanders are concerned about housing affordability. Of course they are, Dr Smith, because the statistics that came out 2 weeks ago showed that New Zealand has become in the last few years one of the countries with the least affordable housing for low-income people. This Government is at the start of its fifth year in office and this Minister of Housing says that he is now working on some plans to deal with the housing crisis. The housing crisis has been there for 5 years. Young people cannot get into their first home unless they have help from their parents. This Government has sat on the sidelines, it has twiddled its thumbs, and it has done nothing while house prices have soared, rents have gone up, and we have a crisis of housing shortage and affordability.

It is the fifth year of this party in Government, and I remember the first year, when we had a job summit. The Job Summit turned out to be exactly what I said—a talkfest. And there was the cycleway. John Key said that that was going to produce thousands of jobs. How many did it produce? A couple of hundred—a couple of hundred. I want to talk about the reality of jobs. I opened a new supermarket, Countdown in Stoddard Road in Mount Roskill, on the day after Waitangi Day. Lovely new supermarket, great manager—Mike Uri—

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Possible under the RMA changes.

—and 120 jobs—120 jobs. I was really pleased to have 120 new jobs in my electorate. But I said to Mike: “How many people, Mike, applied for those jobs?”. Mr Joyce, do you know what the answer to that question was?

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: No.

It was 2,600—2,600 people applied for 120 relatively low-paid jobs in my electorate.

That is the reality of the legacy of stuff-ups in providing jobs and skill training and getting the economy going in this country. I remember John Key saying in 2009: “Next year we’ll move aggressively towards dropping unemployment.” The latest figures, last week, showed that in the last quarter of last year there was a net loss of 23,000 jobs. We had the lowest level of labour force participation, Mr Joyce, in 10 years. This Government has failed, and it has failed in every way. What about the restructuring and the mismanagement of that in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade? Did this Government accept responsibility? No. Murray McCully bravely blamed his head of department. Then there was the Defence Force. There was 22.6 percent attrition last year, Mr Joyce, in the Navy in Auckland—22.6 percent—and the lowest morale in the Ongoing Attitude Survey since that survey began.

But I want to talk about another couple of botch-ups. There is the education botch-up. What did I hear John Key say? “Hekia Parata is one of the smoothest communicators in politics.” Well, Mr Speaker might have some thoughts about that. Five times today he asked her to answer the question, and she never did. If the Prime Minister is going to be sacking incompetent Ministers—that is why, apparently, he sacked Phil Heatley and Kate Wilkinson, without the respect of even letting them know in advance, to show that he was the tough guy—why did he leave Hekia Parata and Craig Foss in their positions?

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Why has your guy not done any reshuffles at all, eh?

Surely, they are the least competent Ministers, not only in the House now but also as long as I can remember. Novopay—yeah, you are meant to be the fix-up man, Mr Joyce, but why did the stuff-up happen in the first place? Why did three Ministers sign off on that programme? Why can she not answer the questions? Why is she closing schools in Christchurch, adding to the trauma of people affected by the earthquake? Why did she close the Salisbury School, when the court ruled her action illegal? Why did she try to increase class sizes, when the Prime Minister said in the Listener that he sent his kids to private schools because they had lower class sizes and then said to everybody else: “Oh, it won’t affect you.”? A total botch-up. A total botch-up in education. It is not good enough. It is not fair on our kids and the future we want to provide for them.

But I want to touch on another botch-up now, and this was first raised in the House by my colleagues Clayton Cosgrove and Damien O’Connor. It was the botch-up over the handling of the issue of contamination of our dairy products by dicyandiamide. Let us get one thing right at the start: dicyandiamide is not a health or food safety issue. It is not a health or food safety issue, but, Mr Joyce, it is a contamination issue, and it is an issue about reputation and about branding. We go out into the world, as I did for years as Minister of Trade, proudly promoting this country as “100% Pure New Zealand”, and this issue comes along. For 4 long months after Fonterra realised it was a problem, nothing happened. Nothing was said by this Government until the contamination was released to the public by a media article in the Wall Street Journal. I feel sorry for our ambassador in Beijing, Carl Worker—a competent diplomat. And what did Mr Worker have to say? He was clearly left out of the loop. Four months after this Government knew about the problem, he was forced to go out and say that it was “regrettable” that New Zealand did not forewarn Chinese authorities, which led to, he said, “confusion and unnecessary doubt”.

I remember when we had the melamine crisis and the San Lu company, and I tell you, our Cabinet came together within 24 hours in an emergency meeting and had informed the Chinese authorities within that time frame. We headed off a disaster, we headed off a crisis, because it was “New Zealand Inc.” It was Ministers working together, talking to each other. I want to know when the Minister for Primary Industries told the Minister of Trade and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and then I want to know why none of them said anything publicly until they were forced to because it was revealed publicly. In fact, Clayton Cosgrove was responding to things the Minister should have been responding to, 5 days before the Minister would even make a comment. I say this: why did the Chinese Government and the Chinese public learn about the problem only through an article in the Wall Street Journal that described the contamination as “toxic”? It was not toxic, but the perception was left that it must have been because New Zealand had tried to cover it over.

Why were we not open and transparent? Why were we not proactive about this problem so we could head it off and stop any damage? China is our biggest market. I fought hard to get a free-trade agreement with it. We have trebled our exports to that country, and I do not want to see this proud legacy of a Labour Government trampled upon by an incompetent National Government that cannot handle these issues right. China Central Television has an audience of millions—hundreds of millions. They were running this and headlining this as a scandal. A weibo, which is China’s Twitter, ran thousands of postings from people expressing concern. It ran a survey where over half of the respondents said that they did not trust and they were not sure about the quality or safety of New Zealand dairy products. That should never have happened. It did not need to happen, and a competent Government would have prevented it from happening.

Let us look at what Biopure Health said. It is one of the Kiwi exporters. It said that it was a public relations disaster for this Government—a public relations disaster. That is a front-line company. It said that its products, which had been doubling in value and sales every week, went to zero—went to zero. There is another company, New Image, which is a baby formula exporter. It said that the industry was in damage control, and it blamed the Government for the lack of warning. I want to say this: I hope that this problem can now be contained. It is in all of our interests as New Zealanders that it is. But, surely, the Prime Minister, John Key, and this incompetent National Government need to learn the lessons from it. Be proactive, have a strategy, be open and transparent, head it off, and protect New Zealand’s interests—those are the responsibilities of a Government, and this National Government failed in those responsibilities.

I think, once again, we are seeing a demonstration that there is nothing that Labour will not stoop to to talk down the New Zealand economy for its own political gains. Actually, it is sort of ironic that the member Phil Goff referred to his role in the China free-trade agreement in which, of course, he had a role, and yet he sits on the same side of the House as a member who late last year was criticising the Chinese company Haier for purchasing Fisher and Paykel Appliances and saying that that was not necessarily a good thing for New Zealand. So this Opposition needs to sort out its lines in terms of the role of trade in New Zealand’s future, the role of our relationships with our trading partners, and our role with our second-largest trading partner. But, of course, consistency is not the Opposition’s strong point.

The other thing we heard in that speech was an approach that, once again, seeks to ignore the world in considering New Zealand’s economic progress. I am proud to be part of a Government that has worked so hard over the last 4 years to give this country a much better outcome from the global financial crisis than most other countries in the OECD, as well as dealing with the second shock—which the other countries did not have to deal with—which was the Canterbury earthquakes in our second-largest city. The other side keeps trying to pretend that those twin shocks to New Zealand did not occur, and of course they did.

So we come to the start of 2013 and the state of play for New Zealand in the Prime Minister’s address at the start of Parliament. There is a huge range of things that this Government is working on to encourage the growth of the New Zealand economy, and we are seeing some very good progress for New Zealand. The cost of living in New Zealand is low, savings rates are up, and, yes, we are making good economic progress. And as was pointed out by my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith, The Economist has highlighted the well way in which this country is being economically managed.

There is a very clear contrast between both sides of the House. On this side of the House we understand that for more jobs and more growth you have to have more investment from the private sector. So we are out there, working constantly to create those opportunities for New Zealanders by trying to remove the impact of things that get in the way of that investment, and looking at things like our export markets. Again, it is ironic that Phil Goff was up, talking about trade, when Labour’s coalition partners the Greens are opposed to probably the biggest trade agreement that New Zealand could see in the next 10 years—the trans-Pacific trade partnership.

We also have Labour’s other putative coalition partner not doing us proud on the international stage in terms of our relationships with our trading partners, but doing things like criticising high-value Chinese tourists coming to this country and having the opportunity to tour here, like other countries, and saying that that is something that should not occur.

So what you have is all these Opposition parties that talk a good game around growth, but, fundamentally, they are opposed to pretty much most things that would deliver that growth in New Zealand. I have made a helpful list. Of course, Opposition parties opposed the law changes for The Hobbit—and they still oppose them even today. I am thrilled that they spend their time opposing those law changes, because they keep reminding New Zealanders that they opposed a law change to help an industry grow in this country.

And then they opposed the Resource Management Act changes—the ones that we have had and the ones that we are proposing. They do not even know what we are proposing yet, but we can guarantee that they are opposed to it. They are opposed to plans to build the Auckland convention centre. They have put every single roadblock in the way of that that they possibly could. They are opposed to oil and gas exploration on the East Coast. Their energy and resources spokesperson said that gas was not going anywhere, so we should just leave it there. Well, tell that to the people of the East Coast who would like the jobs. And, of course, they have been opposed, and, at best in the case of Labour, lukewarm, to hydraulic fracturing.

I mentioned they are opposed to the investment of Haier in Fisher and Paykel Appliances. They are opposed to speeding up Bathurst Resources Ltd’s resource consents at Denniston. They are opposed to Chinese investment in New Zealand generally, particularly if they have had a focus group recently. They are opposed to tax changes to encourage productive investment. They are opposed to irrigation. The Greens are absolutely opposed to irrigation; Labour is sort of having a bob each way. They are opposed to lessening the emissions trading scheme costs on trade-exposed business.

All those things encourage investment in jobs and growth in this country. So as the Prime Minister said at the start of this year, this Government is focused on making New Zealand a magnet for investment for jobs and growth. And what are the Labour Party and the Green Party doing? They are busy trying out some new slogans. They have a couple of new slogans that they are running at the moment. The interesting one for them is one they have obviously been looking at online in a few of the speeches from the UK. This one is so-called hands-on Government. That is the sort of thing they are focus-grouping at the moment—hands-on Government. Well, let me tell you this. Hands-on Government, the slogan of the Labour Party, means only one thing—hands on your pockets. It means hands on your money. That is what hands-on means. They are against every form of private sector investment. They want to reach further into the nation’s pockets, and spend more money, because they know how to do it better. That is Labour’s approach to growth, and what that means is growth in New Zealand’s overdraft and growth in New Zealand’s deficit.

Labour members have a programme called “Kiwi Broke”. It is a building scheme. It is a code for big-borrowing and big-spending Government. So they have made up a rinky-dinky, taxpayer-funded scheme, which, just like all their other taxpayer-funded schemes, will cost only a little bit—only a little bit. It will actually cost five to 10 times what they say and deliver one-tenth of the results. We had that. We threw that out in 2008 because these people know only how to stick their hands in your pockets. That is what they mean by hands-on Government—hands on your wallet.

That is the Labour Party’s approach in 2013—or, at least, we think it is, because the only thing we have heard from it this year was its pro tem leader backtracking on its policy. He got up and did his state of the nation speech at the start of the year and said: “Oh, by the way, it will probably cost 550, maybe 450 grand a house, not really 300. Maybe 550.”, and you are sitting there thinking: “That’s all he’s got to offer—that he has to back down on a policy he announced prior to Christmas.” And, of course, not surprisingly, he has got a little maths problem of his own now, because he started the year, apparently—there are rumours—with 10 abstentions in his caucus vote, it was reported.

💬 Todd McClay: Who were they?

We do not know who they are yet, although we could probably do a quick sweepstake. So the guy was the only one standing for the leadership of the Labour Party, and he got nailed by 10 of his own side who refused to vote for him. That is what happened at the caucus vote, and the reason is that he has not said a thing this year except that the “Kiwi Broke” policy is already broke, and that is his problem.

So on one side of the House you have a crowd that believes the solution is to dig further and deeper into people’s pockets, recycle the money, and look like they are doing something. On the other side of the House there is a Government that is absolutely focused on encouraging investment in productive industries in this country—and we are not confusing that with job subsidies, which is the Greens’ approach. Their definition of investment is that if the Government does it, it must be good. I am telling the Greens that the reality is that if you look around and you are doing something, and there is nobody else there, it is not an investment; it a job subsidy scheme. The Greens sit very nicely with the Labour Party, because that is what it wants to do. It wants to get its hands in your pocket. We are very focused on making New Zealand a more attractive place for investment, for higher-paying jobs, and for higher growth in 2013. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on the Prime Minister’s statement and to follow the Minister for Economic Development, Steven Joyce. What a wonderful outlook the Minister has shown New Zealanders is in store for them over this coming year. Before I get into some of the detail of what a hard-working Government we are, I say to Minister Joyce that we almost do not have to say that any more. After 4 years and another election, New Zealanders have recognised that they have a hard-working Government. They told all of us a year ago they wanted a hard-working Government—[Interruption]—and guess what, members opposite? They voted for a hard-working Government.

Mr Speaker, I want to wish you the very best, as this is the first time I have spoken in the House this year, and say I look forward to working with you. But I also want to pay a particular compliment to the former Speaker Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith, and to thank him for his many, many years of service to this House and to New Zealand and New Zealanders. I look forward very much to hearing from him later on this afternoon. What a sad occasion it will be for members opposite that Dr Smith is making his last speech and leaving the House. No longer will they feel that they should take points of order in question time asking him to protect them. I am grateful that he offered them little protection in his time as Speaker.

What I want to do is touch on two things that I think are very important. The first is an excellent announcement today by the Minister of Police, the Hon Anne Tolley, around supporting police more and giving our police force the tools to get on and do what New Zealanders want them to do, and that is to police. That is a fantastic announcement. But, firstly, to set the scene, what has happened over the last 4 years that we have been the Government? Before we took office, I remember standing on the campaign trail in the Rotorua electorate. At the time that seat was held by a former Labour member of Parliament who is no longer in this Parliament. We were talking about crime, and every statistic that came out showed New Zealanders that the last Labour Government lost track of what it should be doing and that crime statistics were getting worse. We heard all the reasons for this: it was difficult, and, you know, it was the police’s fault, and everything else.

What I can say is that this Government has backed the police force and given it the tools. In the fiscal year of 2010, we saw a 7 percent decrease in reported crime throughout New Zealand—7 percent decrease throughout the whole of New Zealand. After everything Labour said to us previously when in Government—that it was on top of it and it had a lot to do with the moon and the stars and the weather and so on. But was that a one-off? In the 2011-12 fiscal year there was a 5.9 percent drop in reported crime throughout New Zealand. Is that important? Well, this is about New Zealanders being safer in their homes and in their streets. It is about the police being able to get out and do what it is we want them to do, to police effectively, giving them the tools and making sure they know the Government fully supports them in their job, and for them to be arresting those who choose to break the law and holding them to account on behalf of all law-abiding New Zealanders.

This reduction in crime is a wonderful thing. I want to look at my electorate for a moment. In 2011 there was a 3.4 percent decrease in crime. You have to go back a long way, before we came to Government, to find any other decrease in crime in the Rotorua electorate. In 2010 there was a 5 percent decrease in crime. That is about 9 percent accumulatively over those 2 years. And, impressively, there have been drops in burglaries, illicit drugs, weapon offences, robberies, and extortion. Robberies and extortion are down by about 11.5 percent in that period of time. Burglary is down 10.7 percent, and drug offences are down 8.4 percent. That means that all over New Zealand thousands of law-abiding citizens have not become victims of crime, because of the work the police are doing. That is thousands of people in New Zealand who are able to get on with their jobs and not worry about what those who decide to commit crimes are doing in their homes or in their streets. This has happened in part because of the great support that the Government and our Minister have given the police, but also because of the wonderful job our policemen and policewomen do every single day on our behalf. They do a fantastic job under extremely difficult circumstances.

Last year the Bay of Plenty police force’s combined drug campaign resulted in 178 arrests, 27,000 cannabis plants destroyed, and many methamphetamine dealers and traders arrested. Police confiscated—this is frightening—26 firearms that were held illegally and could have been used to commit offences. That means that in the Bay of Plenty we are safer because of the job this Government has done—it has given the police the tools they need—and because of the hard work the police do on our behalf every day. I know that my constituents realise this and like this and support our police force, and they want us as a Government to hold criminals to account. In October last year I was given the honour to come and speak at the inaugural meeting of the Sensible Sentencing Trust’s branch in Rotorua. It was a large room, and it was full to overflowing with people who have had enough; who said that they support what the Government is doing, they support our police force, and they believe that those who commit crimes must be held to account. Peter Bentley, who heads that up in Rotorua, is doing quite an amazing job.

So the announcement today—what is this about? See, the Government has got a plan to allow the police and to allow other civil servants to get on and do the job that we want them to do, not to bind them or hold them back with unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy. What I want to say is that the work that the Minister Anne Tolley has done over the last year since she became Minister of Police is fantastic and is paying dividends today. One of our priorities this term is to deliver Better Public Services, and her announcement today was that there will be 6,500 front-line police officers—and you have got to remember that over the last 3 years we have delivered 1,000 more policemen to the front line, which was an election pledge on our behalf and different from what the last Government said it would do. It said it would have more policemen and actually could not deliver on that. Well, we did. We delivered more policemen and policewomen on the front line.

For 6,500 of them, the announcement today said that they will receive smartphones by mid-2014, and 3,900 staff will receive tablets. And the reason this is important is that it will free up half a million hours of police time for them to do their job on the front line—half a million hours of extra time when our police can be out in our communities, in our streets, finding those who commit crimes against some of the most vulnerable people in our society and holding them to account. This is wonderful. In the Bay of Plenty, that is 41,526 hours that will be saved in that district each year—41,000. So what you will hear at the next election is a Labour Opposition complaining, whining, and running up and down the country trying to scare hard-working, law-abiding New Zealanders that this Government has not got a commitment to the police force. But not only did we increase the number of policemen on the front line; we have been able to free up half a million hours for them to do their jobs.

Do you remember those stories in the newspaper where mums and dads were saying they called a policeman but could not get through to him because he was stuck in the back office doing paperwork? Well, this is half a million hours out on our streets in my electorate and other electorates. In the Bay of Plenty, we are giving our policemen 41,000 extra hours. Is that important? Well, when I get the chance to go and talk to them and thank them for the job that they are doing on our behalf in Kawerau, in Rotorua, in Murupara, and in other parts of my electorate, they tell me that what they enjoy doing most is being out in the community, making sure people are safe, and arresting criminals. This Government has given them yet another tool to get out and to do that.

I want to say again to the Minister and our Prime Minister, thank you on behalf of our police force for deciding that we will support it come thick or thin. Is that not such a change from what happened over 9 years of a Labour Government, when the police felt unwanted and unused, and were put in a back office to do their work? Law and order is a great priority for this Government. It is something that you will hear much more about, but I give you a pledge on behalf of myself as a local MP and on behalf of the Government that we will continue to do everything possible to make New Zealanders safer and we will do everything possible to support our police force.

I look forward next week to the Law and Order Committee coming forward and perhaps sending back to this House a very important piece of legislation, another great tool for our police and another great way for us to make New Zealanders safer. I see members opposite nodding. They want to support this very important bill to ban the wearing of gang insignia in all Government buildings throughout New Zealand. This will get on top of gangs, which do nothing but intimidate, commit crime, harm vulnerable New Zealanders, and sell drugs to our children. In the words of a member of the New Zealand First Party, we do not fear them. We want to give the police tools to make sure that they know what they are doing and they can get amongst them, disrupt them, arrest them, and, where absolutely necessary, send them to jail.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou huri noa, ngā mema o te Whare.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker, and to you, collectively, members throughout the House.]

I am very pleased to make the final contribution from the Labour Party in opposition to the Prime Minister’s statement. It has been just over 2 weeks since the Prime Minister stood before this House and the nation and so sneeringly told us what a great start to the year it has been. He delivered the speech in that John Key jokey manner, which really just screams insincerity. For 4 years we have had carefully crafted excuses as to why this country of ours is getting nowhere and why we cannot get ahead. It is the fault of the global financial crisis, it is the fault of the Canterbury earthquakes, or it is the fault of the illuminati, or some other fanciful excuse. It is the fault of everyone but the National Government.

Could it be that this country is getting nowhere because we have a Government that refuses to take direction and show some leadership? It is hands-off. It is rich of Mr Joyce to talk about focus groups when we know that he had a whole book written about him as one of The Hollow Men, in terms of focus groups, Crosby/Textor, and strategic communication consultants—all of those sorts of carryings-on that we know underpin this very poor National Government.

I want to focus on three things that are dear to me: kids, poverty, and health. Last year there came out damning statistics on child poverty. They were really sorry reading. The statistics showed that too many kids live in unhealthy homes. They are going to school tired and hungry and have zero chance of learning under that sort of regime.

Although we all know it is wrong to identify schools by their decile rating, the fact of the matter is that it is the decile 1, 2, and 3 schools that have the breakfast clubs, not the decile 10 schools. You see, in the Prime Minister’s perfect world everyone is as rich as he is, or they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and reach for the stars. It is the same with this National caucus. But they would not know Struggle Street. They do not know about Struggle Street.

Here is a scary thought: if you are Māori or Polynesian and living in this country you definitely are on a road to nowhere, or you are flocking to the departure lounge and heading, like 350,000 other Kiwis, over to Australia. But do not blame Labour for it, blame the National Government. It is the one with the Ministers who fail to understand the clients it serves. We already know the two casualties. Kate Wilkinson is gone. Phil Heatley was no good as a housing Minister and he is gone, although he did mention in a select committee today that he is down but not out, and good luck to him.

Now when we look at the state of the housing market, we see it has blown out. We know that there is another property bubble that is getting bigger and bigger in this country. The Government has made it too expensive to build the Kiwi dream, because the parameters on the Reserve Bank are too narrow. Inflation targeting is not working in the context that we are in now. The world is awash with debt. Countries around the world are debasing their currencies, and it is just putting more pressure on our currency and crippling our manufacturing sector and our export base. So there are many, many things that are suffering right across our economy.

I turn to Christchurch. There is not enough housing stock in Christchurch. There is a crisis down there. The ones that have been shafted by the Government and the greedy landlords of Christchurch are the same old Māori and Polynesian whānau, who have limited resources and even less money and/or jobs. Rents have gone up in that city and it has forced whānau into seriously overcrowded situations, which has led to poor health.

Children from these environments are going to school every day tired, sick, and hungry, and so are unable to learn anything—that is if they are going to school at all. Nowadays we have the real problem of kids not going to school, because they cannot afford basic tools for learning—basic things like stationery. Kids are not going to school, because mum and dad cannot afford just basic things.

That is the type of New Zealand that this Government has created. It is a New Zealand where kids live in substandard housing and poverty, where kids go to school, if they are lucky, on a packet of 2-minute noodles—and that is if they have eaten at all. It has created an environment where if your child gets a strep throat it leads to some serious diseases. It is tough being a little kid in this country, especially so when you are broke. But New Zealand is not a poor country. We are a rich country, but we have a problem with how wealth is spread.

This Government is too concerned with accumulating wealth at the top end of society while leaving just little crumbs for everyone below. It is a “me” approach to governing, a winner-takes-all approach to society, and it is wrong. That is why the Anglican Church’s Family Centre has calculated that we need a living wage, and that $18 to $20 an hour is what is necessary to provide workers and their families with the basic necessities of life. Under this Government, 750,000 people earn less than, or about, that amount—that is, the number of working poor in this country has ballooned. Even beginner teachers, who most would say are skilled workers, earn less than that amount. Not only is this a Government of low expectation but it is a Government of low wages.

I want to turn now to training and education, because we have spoken a lot about and heard a lot about that in this debate. You know, 90,000 rangatahi across the country are not in employment, education, or training. Those are horrific numbers. We have figures that show that the unemployment rate for Māori and Pacific is three times higher than it is for Pākehā. What do we hear out of the Prime Minister? As we heard in his statement to the House, this is the Government that actually trains people as opposed to spending money and getting absolutely no result—and this is the rub; it is wasting millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. One word: Novopay.

If anyone needs a better example of a Government wasting millions of taxpayer dollars and getting no results it is “no-pay Novopay”. We have heard that it is costing the Government over $5 million, and then it has got commissions of inquiry as well, trying to rectify the mess. It is an absolute mess. “Novopay” has become the new word in the Kiwi lexicon for a total and complete balls-up. Minister Parata is right at the top of it. She signed it off. And she is definitely not the smooth communicator, because she is umming and ahing—she really is in the hot seat—and getting grilled by my colleague there, Mr Hipkins, and long may it continue.

Last week we had the terrible news about the Mainzeal Property and Construction receivership. If the Government is talking up how great our economy is, I say that Mainzeal’s demise is a huge blow to the whole construction industry and also to the many hundreds of thousands of workers and subcontractors who were all supported by that enterprise. The Government is screaming for apprenticeships and skilled workers—or so we think—for Christchurch. When young men who want to be trained as brickies or chippies go to a Mainzeal site, see that that site is closed down, and see contractors who are not even able to go in there and get their tools, those young men will think twice about taking up a career in the construction industry. So we are not actually attracting new apprenticeships.

What does the Government want to do? It wants to fly in cheap labour from overseas. But the biggest scandal of all for this Government is the record high unemployment, 7.3 percent. As I said before, the unemployment rate for Māori and Pacific is three times that for Pākehā. That is the highest rate since the last National Government in the 1990s. Again it blames the global financial crisis, soft demand overseas, and the Labour Government. But the Labour Government left the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD and low public debt. The blame lies squarely at the feet of this National Government.

I am proud of the new initiatives that Labour has announced. With our KiwiBuild policy we will get more low to middle income earners into affordable housing and increase the supply. If anyone talks about numbers, about what $300,000 will get you, I just say haere mai ki Te Wai Pounamu, come to the South Island. In Blenheim you will get a three-bedroom home for $249,000, four bedrooms in Dunedin for $270,000, and in Lumsden you can get a three or four-bedroom home for $69,000 to $159,000. If you want to be real landed gentry you can go to Lumsden and get 4.6 hectares of land for—wait for it—$165,000, and the $135,000 that you have left over will probably get you a home and a rental property. There are many opportunities for affordable housing, and we are looking right across the country, and not with an Auckland-centric view of the world. I am very proud that across the Māori electorate there are many opportunities for that housing development, that KiwiBuild policy to take place.

We do oppose this Government. We oppose everything that it is about. It is right; we are left. It is blue; we are red. It is ugly, and we are the attractive opposite. We are ready to take this Government down come 2014, because the people out there definitely want a change. Kia ora anō tātou.

Just before I call the next speaker, can I advise the remaining speakers in this debate and request to them, actually, that they do not switch the hand-held microphones on or off—on or off—because the sound operators out there will control the sound for you. So there is no need to switch it on or off.

So we will test to see if this is going, because it does not sound like it from here.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I think we will just get the sound operators—move closer up.

Have we got some sound yet?

💬 Chris Hipkins: No. They are signalling to switch it on, I think.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I think he is signalling to switch it on, yes.

OK. So it is on now? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): So just leave it that way, everybody. Thank you.

Obviously, it has been an interesting afternoon in the House with some challenges with our sound system. I know our technicians are working incredibly hard to sort the situation out for us.

I do want to just say before I start my contribution in the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement that I want to wish the Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith farewell this afternoon and thank him for his service in the House and for his 4 years as the Speaker, and to wish the incoming Speaker, the Rt Hon David Carter, all the best. He did an incredible job today, despite the sound system being off, so I think we have got some great things ahead of us.

Speaking of great things ahead of us, I am really proud to be a Kiwi, and I think we have got great opportunities in front of us. I think the last contribution from Rino Tirikatene, a Labour speaker opposite, says it all. It was there in black and white, categoric—those members will oppose anything that National puts up. Well, actually, I think that is kind of stupid, and lots of New Zealanders out there also agree, because at the end of the day if it is a good idea, and if it is going to solve some of the challenges that ordinary hard-working New Zealanders are facing, then I actually think the Labour Party should look at it. It should start thinking about using the word “yes” from time to time, instead of just, black and white, saying no to everything this side of the House suggests. At the end of the day it is saying no to economic growth, it is saying no to jobs, and it is saying no to food on the tables of the kids that it purports to protect on a daily basis. That is why I think that it is just absolutely ridiculous for a member opposite to make that kind of statement in this House.

If we come to this Parliament representing a constituency with the intention of making a better New Zealand, we might have different pathways, but each and every one of us should hold dear to that commitment that we serve in this place to make New Zealand a better country. That is definitely why I came to this place, and why I am proud to be a member of the National Party Government led so ably by Prime Minister John Key. This is about making sure that the opportunities that New Zealand has—each and every one of us being able to make the most of them. Yes, we have faced some challenges as a country. I think the member who just resumed his seat must have had his head buried in the sand not to take into consideration any of the sorts of challenges this Government has faced, both financial and natural disasters, that have led to some of the most difficult and challenging economic circumstances ever faced. I would invite that member to get his head out of the sand and actually start looking at the circumstances this country has faced over the 4 years and the work that this Government is doing, and continues to do, with a robust economic plan that has been detailed in, now, five out of six documents in terms of our Business Growth Agenda.

I sat next to a gentleman on a plane just last week and we had a conversation about debt. The conversation was around why is it that the Prime Minister’s opening conversation in any speech is about the economy. The reality is that it has to be—it has to be right now. He asked me why is it that we are so determined to get our books back and balanced. I thought, well, it is no different—it is no different—to what you do at home. It is no different to what businesses do. It is no different for us as a Government to have to make sure that we get on top of our debt and we start paying it down. This side of the House actually has a very robust plan for making that happen. That side of the House, unfortunately, just wants to go out and print more money and rack up more debt for generations to come. So it was an interesting conversation I had with this gentleman on the plane in terms of, very plainly and very simply, why the economy is the No. 1 priority for this Government.

It was really interesting being at the Business New Zealand Back to the Grindstone meeting last night. You could have heard a pin drop. Despite there being hundreds of people in the town hall—it was really interesting—you could not hear a pin drop when the Prime Minister spoke, because the people in that room—and they were not just business people; they were scientists, they were trade unionists, they were all sorts of people from all sorts of organisations—were listening very carefully to the Prime Minister, because they know that this Government has a plan, which we are following. It was really interesting to see how on board that whole room was in following the direction, under challenging circumstances and difficult times, that the Prime Minister is leading.

One of the things that I did want to just speak about is the issue of investment. Again, it came up in the conversation last night at the Business New Zealand event. In terms of creating jobs, it is businesses—businesses employ people. It is not up to the Government to create jobs. The Government’s job is to create the environment that allows businesses the confidence to grow and to take on new staff. One of the things that really holds businesses back, and one of the things I have been talking to many of the businesses in the Taupō electorate about, is the challenge of getting capital. That is why this Government has put a significant priority on making it easier for businesses to get capital.

One of the things that, again, that side of the House is very loud and proud about saying no to is foreign investment. There are some significant projects in the Taupō electorate that would not happen if there was not foreign investment. There are jobs that have been created in the Taupō electorate that would not have happened if it was not for foreign investment. [Interruption] Members opposite do not seem to listen. The foreign investment in businesses in Taupō has created jobs. So that is why it is really important that we provide the right environment for foreign investment to come into this country and that we make it easier for those investors to choose New Zealand as a place where they would want to invest. The reality is that they have got lots of other places they can choose—

💬 Dr David Clark: And they are.

—and we want to encourage them to choose New Zealand. Well, if the naysayers on that side say no more often than not, then definitely they will stay away. This Government is a Government that is interested in supporting businesses to create jobs.

The other thing I want to speak about is the power of our people. The thing that is always really important to me, and that is incredibly important to this side of the House, is boosting skills, and it starts in early childhood education. We heard it today in question time. Where is the focus for lifting achievement? The focus on lifting achievement, first and foremost, is making sure that we have a larger percentage of our young children attending early childhood education—98 percent is the target. One of the things that I have been doing as a local MP is having conversations with my community and saying: “Well, how do we make sure that we achieve that 98 percent in the Taupō electorate? Whether it is in Tūrangi, whether it is in Tokoroa, or whether it is in Mangakinō, how do we make that happen?”, because it is important. Everywhere I go, people know the importance of education, so we have got to focus on the barriers.

It was quite interesting to sit in a select committee and be part of hearing submissions about concerns that submitters have about partnership schools. One of the submitters talked about the fact that choice in education has caused inequality. So my question was, then: “Well, which schools would you close? If you don’t think that choice in education and schools is good for student achievement, which ones would you suggest you close?”. Of course, there was no answer to that, because at the end of the day education is the thing that is important. Actually, this side of the House is quite comfortable with the fact that parents should be able to make choices about where their children go to school and, if their children are not achieving, to be able to support them more with better information and better data. We want to invest in teachers and principals to ensure that the quality of teaching is also increasing, because I, for one, am very clear that education is the one thing that creates equality of opportunity, and that is why it is so critical for this side of the House.

We are setting targets for National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2. There were a few people who said, when we started setting targets, that that was challenging. Well, we are putting our money where our mouth is. We are actually setting targets and focusing the Public Service on achieving what is important for New Zealanders.

It has been my privilege to speak in this debate. The Government has a very robust and very detailed plan about how we are addressing the challenges in the economy, about which members on that side of the House want to keep their heads in the sand. We have fantastic opportunities as a country. It is really the opportunity for New Zealanders to seize those opportunities and make the most of them. The Government on this side of the House is supporting them, each and every step of the way, under the very strong and decisive leadership of Prime Minister John Key.

I call the honourable Minister Gerry Brownlee.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In making that decision, seeing as this is a time-allocated and time-limited debate, I hope you are relying on official advice and not an unofficial slip from the National Party whips’ office, which got the calculations wrong.

Well, I can advise the House that I have in place here the names of the people due to speak and I have got the Hon Gerry Brownlee here. That is what I have got.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I—it is sort of like the reverse of the normal thing that happens. Can I ask you the source of that document? If it is a National Party whips’ document, of course, you cannot rely on it.

In that case, I actually do have the Government whips’ office here. I will have to check with the Clerk as to what the actual situation is.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Can I say, as you are checking, Mr Speaker, that that is an outrage—the idea that the Speaker is briefed by the whips—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no. [Interruption] No, the Speaker is not briefed by the whips. I have in front of me the speaking list. That is what I have in front of me. That is all I have in front of me. I rely on the—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: But the speaking list cannot come from the Government whips—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, I —[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. I am going to check with the Clerk’s Office what the actual situation is regarding time. What I have been advised is that this is left to the whips. It is allocated proportionately. I guess, really, what it means is that I am in the whips’ hands when it comes to this particular debate.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Speaking to the point of order—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, no. I am going for the call, Mr Assistant Speaker. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I will listen to the point of order from Louise Upston.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a convention and agreement with the whips on these sorts of debates about the number of speaking slots allocated. That has been done well in advance, and it has been very clear about the number of National calls, Labour calls, and other political parties’ calls in the House. I suggest that that speaker is just stalling in the House to take up the honourable member’s time.

Order! Sorry, I will have to check. I call the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

I hope that I am on air.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: A former member of the Minetti Brothers.

That is true, Mr Cosgrove, and what a great combination that was. In fact, holding the microphone here, if I could rely on the non-dulcet tones of the Opposition to become somewhat “dulceted”—to become almost like a backing band—I may have given the House a little bit of Sinatra, in retrospect, or even some of the great Tony Bennett standards, which I know somebody would enjoy.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just say to the member that he has our commitment to silence if he wishes to do that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order; that is a frivolous interjection.

That is the point, is it not? That is what has marked the last few minutes of Labour’s contribution in this debate: frivolous interjection. What we had for a start was the rejected candidate from the Speaker’s election having to show one of the more authoritative members of the House, who is currently in the Chair, that he might have known just a little bit more than him, and I think that is a bit of a shame. Had the member in the Chair at the moment been a nominee, that may have caused the House a great deal more stress than was the case.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is outrageous that the Leader of the House reflects on you in this way. He is not allowed to bring you into debate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I have taken no offence.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not a matter of whether you take offence or not; it is a question of whether you have been drawn into the debate. You were just drawn into the debate. It is OK to do it by way of point of order, but the Leader of the House knows that he may not refer to you in that way.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the Hon Trevor Mallard. He is absolutely correct, and I ask Mr Brownlee to continue.

He is also incredibly knowledgeable, and what a great loss he is to the House’s procedural arrangements.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s just a matter of timing—20 years, you know, 20 years.

Yes, it is a matter of timing, and good luck to him.

I rise to back the Prime Minister’s statement and the intention that the Prime Minister outlined for the House just a couple of days ago. The Government, he said, plans “returning to surplus and reducing debt; pushing ahead with a wide-ranging programme of reforms to create a more productive and competitive economy; driving better results and better value for money from public services; and supporting the rebuilding of Christchurch.” There are so many ways in which the Government is getting its attention focused on achieving exactly those things. In the weeks to come, as we go towards the Budget, it will become clearer that those goals are being very steadily marched toward. And it is all for the betterment of New Zealanders, because the only point in having a Parliament, and then a Government from that Parliament, is to do things that make life better for New Zealanders.

So I want to speak about two areas that I have involvement in. One of those is in the transport area, as Minister of Transport. I want to report to the House that in pursuit of better public services and in pursuit of increasing our opportunities as a nation to trade, the Ministry of Transport, alongside the New Zealand Transport Agency, has been particularly active. In the last 2 years we have completed more air services agreements with other nations than has been done at any other single period during our history. What that means is that our exporters have a range of opportunities to get in-time product into markets, and we also have very considerable flow and opportunity for tourists to visit New Zealand. Tourism is an export industry. It provides domestic jobs, but the dollars that tourists bring with them are effectively export dollars. It is a very, very worthwhile thing to pursue those agreements, and I congratulate my department on the work that it has been able to achieve in that regard. When it comes to our infrastructure programme, the headline piece is the roads of national significance, known as the RoNS. That programme for seven roads of national significance is well in control. I want to report that that is moving apace.

I have just noted, Mr Assistant Speaker, that you have given me 2 minutes to conclude my speech. It should have been longer, but you were unfortunately distracted by the Hon Trevor Mallard, who has achieved his goal of in fact truncating the opportunity that I have to speak in front of the House. That is a little bit disappointing.

The other big commitment the Government makes is to Christchurch. I have specific responsibilities there, and on Friday of this week I will be outlining some of that progress, for people to see how much that city has helped itself, with the Government standing alongside it, to achieve much higher levels of recovery than would normally be the case or would be paralleled anywhere else in the world.

The Government rejects the amendments to the motion moved by Brendan Horan and the chap from New Zealand First, Andrew Williams. It is interesting that in Opposition it is a party like New Zealand First that actually does have a position that can provide some reasonable opposition. With those comments, I want to give my commitment to continue to work hard to ensure that the Key-led Government does deliver better results for New Zealanders.

The question is that the amendment in the name of Brendan Horan be agreed to.

The question was put, To delete all words after “Government” and to substitute “providing that Government delivers an unequivocal commitment to New Zealand’s children and to ensuring they can grow up to be great New Zealanders, and requires the John Key - led administration to present such a commitment to the House.”

Amendment not agreed to.

The question is that the amendment in the name of Andrew Williams—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I had already given—I had ruled.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, you had given the ruling, but then the next thing is “Party vote called for.”

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I said “The Noes have it” and I had already made the decision. The question now is that the amendment in the name of Andrew Williams be agreed to.

The question now is that the motion be agreed to.