General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Yesterday we had the announcement of the Deputy Auditor-General’s report on the Skycity deal, and the Prime Minister said that he was totally vindicated by this report. Everybody who has read this report, any reasonable New Zealander, will see that he was not vindicated; he was implicated. He was implicated right up to his eyeballs. This was a shonky deal, and Mr Key is donkey deep in a shonky deal. He was seen to be pulling the strings right up to the last minute. It is a litany of his involvement in ensuring that Skycity got the best deal. It was ensuring that his mates got in front of the process.

Let us just look at how this litany started. In 2009 John Key advised himself—as you do, of course—to chase Skycity for a deal to build a national convention centre. Then he was not sure about ensuring that his own people and his own staff would make sure that that deal was nailed down and sealed, because he met with the Skycity bosses in May 2009. But he cannot remember exactly what was discussed—but that is what happens. We do have brain fade in this Chamber, and that was what happened.

On 24 August he wrote on a briefing note that he wanted the Skycity deal closed off. In September his chief of staff, his deputy chief of staff, and the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet met with Skycity to go over the plans. In September a senior tourism official told them that Skycity wanted its gambling licence extended for building the centre—it gets worse and worse. Then in November John Key and Wayne Eagleson had a cosy little dinner with Skycity bosses so they could look at the plans and “think outside the box”. On 3 December 2009 the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet warned John Key about the dodgy process in a private briefing note, but he does not care—he does not care. He does not need to care, because his chief of staff was still going on and on meeting with Skycity and seeing what it wanted for this little deal.

On 23 December 2009 the chair of Skycity wrote to John Key telling him of the regulatory reforms he wanted. What were they? What were those regulatory reforms? Well, more pokies. They were more pokies and an extension to Skycity’s gambling licence. In other words, the problem gamblers of New Zealand are stumping up the money for this convention centre in a dodgy deal that no other bidder gets to have a look at. In fact, no bidder other than Skycity gets to know that actually the Government is not going to put up any of the money. No other bidder actually knew that; only Skycity knew that. Only Skycity gets to be offered regulatory reforms in the form of some sweet deal that John Key offers to it.

This is a shonky deal. It is a deal that should not be allowed in a country like New Zealand. John Key is involved up to his eyeballs in a shonky deal. It is a deal that John Armstrong calls something that you would expect from a “banana republic without the bananas”. That is a disgrace to this House.

Ah! The only problem with that observation from the pro tem leader of the Labour Party is that it is all rubbish. Firstly, the Deputy Auditor-General made it clear that there is nothing—nothing at all—to suggest that the final decision to negotiate with Skycity was influenced by any inappropriate considerations. The report says that a great deal of careful work was undertaken by officials to understand the market and that the officials were acting in good faith, and it stresses that any issues were procedural rather than about the substance of what was being considered. So that is the first problem with the Opposition’s opposition to this proposed deal.

There are two other problems with the Opposition’s opposition to this particular deal, and the first one is political history, because despite its virulent opposition—its virulent opposition—to the proposal that is in front of us, it did the same thing not 10 years ago. In fact, the former Prime Minister “St Helen of Mt Albert”, Helen Clark, actually said in respect of the previous Skycity convention centre poker-machine deal: “Here in New Zealand it has been pleasing to see continuing investment in the quality of our tourism infrastructure. In Auckland, Sky City has pumped $140 million into its new Convention Centre,”. And the tourism Minister of the day, Mark Burton, said that the investment “will give it the capacity to compete for a whole new range of prestige events. The potential gains from this are widespread—not only for Skycity, but for the Auckland city and region, the tourism industry, and the whole of New Zealand.” This was the Labour Party not 10 years ago. Today the Labour Party is a new Labour Party that wants nothing to do with those sorts of arrangements.

The interesting thing—and the second problem Labour has—is that this is supposed to be the new “hands-on” Labour Party that is supposedly interested in rolling its sleeves up and making hands-on approaches to Government. Well, not today—not today. Today it is hands-off. Today the chief whip of the Labour Party was on the radio saying: “The market should provide. We shouldn’t get involved in regulatory deals for Skycity convention centres. It is the market that should provide.” That was Mr Hipkins just this morning as he repudiated the new “hands-on” approach of the Labour Party. But it was only today that it was hands-off—really! Well, apart from with The Hobbit. With The Hobbit Labour was also hands-off. It did not want any law changes to allow the Hobbit films to be done here.

It is also hands-off on resource management law changes. So Labour is hands-on except for resource management and for The Hobbit, and it is also hands-off for the Auckland convention centre.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: And job creation.

And job creation. Yes, it is hands-off there. It is hands-off for oil and gas exploration. It does not want anything to do with any law changes there. But apart from that it is very hands-on. Well, except for Bathurst Resources at the Denniston Plateau. It is hands-off about that, but that is just an exception. It is also hands-off about aquaculture investment. Yes, indeed, it is hands-off about that. Apart from that it is hands-on. Oh no, actually, no. It is hands-off. It does not want any international investment. It does not want any increase in irrigation or intensification of agriculture. It is hands-off there too. But apart from that it is hands-on, which means that it is hands-on only in one way, and that is hands on your wallet. That is the only way the Labour Party is hands-on: it is hands on the taxpayers’ wallet. That is its solution to every problem. It would roll out the cheque book, raise the debt, and get the Greens to print the money. That would be the solution.

So today we have learnt that Labour’s “hands-on” slogan is rubbish. We have learnt that it has a new hypocrisy about what it did 10 years ago. We have learnt that the Opposition leader is grasping at straws with an Office of the Auditor-General report that, frankly, says that there were only some procedural issues and that the substantive result would not have been changed. That is the quality of the Government’s opposition today.

There is no way that the Government can claim vindication from this report. This is another tawdry example of low standards by a Government that does the opposite of what it says it will do. It was elected with John Key saying: “I expect high standards from my Ministers. If they don’t meet the standards I set, then, obviously, I will take action if necessary.”—except when it is him.

Time after time we have got low standards from this Prime Minister, whether it is the teapot tapes and using the police against the media during the election; whether it is the Dotcom affair, where he had brain fades and denied having received information about Dotcom, because it was embarrassing for the line he was running; or whether it is the spin that he is now putting on this report from the Deputy Auditor-General in respect of Skycity.

The Office of the Auditor General says: “we do not consider that the approach adopted was appropriate. The result was that one submitter was treated differently from the others during the evaluation process.” And what are the consequences worth? Millions and millions of dollars and, of course, terrible social harm from gambling.

The Deputy Auditor-General’s report shows that officials were worried. On 12 November a ministry official emailed the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet summarising where the process was at, noting that Treasury had advised that ministry officials should seek advice from the Auditor-General to determine the probity of the current process with Skycity. The Deputy Auditor-General says it was emailed to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

What does the Prime Minister say today? Oh, no record of it being found on their side. That is just not credible, because do you know what? Some days later we had a personal note sent to the Prime Minister. I will read what the Deputy Auditor-General says for this: “The Treasury’s comments were referred to in a 12 November 2009 email from a Ministry official to DPMC and included in a private DPMC briefing note to the Prime Minister on 3 December 2009.”

What did he do today in respect of being asked about that note, about that reminder? He obfuscated. He did not answer the question. He denied, effectively, taking responsibility for the fact that the officials were worried, the officials were concerned, the officials were warning the ministry, Treasury had been alerted to it, Treasury was worried and raised it with the Prime Minister, and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet raised it to the Prime Minister again. Still the Prime Minister ignored it. And he pretends he comes here with clean hands.

It is just as incredible as his earlier denials of responsibility around involvement with Dotcom, his refusal to read the other things involving Skycity again, on that occasion with Mr Banks in respect of the donations saga, which was plainly illegal. The Prime Minister is not worried about it. It is banana republic stuff, as John Armstrong said in the New Zealand Herald. It is disgraceful conduct. It is the slippery slope towards corruption.

In Auckland business people are worried about it. When this happened, before this report came out, I had approaches from amongst the most senior business people in Auckland, who were saying it was not fair. It was not fair that a secret deal is done with Skycity showing that regulatory holidays are available, worth millions and millions of dollars, and that they are not shown as potentially available to other tenderers who might be interested, or other people who might be interested in building a convention centre. It is disgraceful cronyism.

It is on the back of the Prime Minister having Mr McElrea, his electorate chair, on the Broadcasting Commission, also known as New Zealand On Air. It is on the back of the teapot tapes saga. No standard is too low for this Government. We are sliding towards being a banana republic in respect of these sorts of issues.

This is the Government that is pretending to make amendments to improve fiscal responsibility when it will not even adhere to the standards of decency, openness, and transparency, which we have long held to in New Zealand, and which we should strive to uphold every day. This sorry saga does not reflect well on the Government or the Prime Minister.

What a fantastic start to the year this John Key - led National Government has had—what a fantastic start. As much as the Opposition might want to scrape the bottom of the barrel and throw accusations and mud around this House, this Government is delivering for New Zealanders, and, what is more, New Zealanders know it. In the last two public polls that we have had in the last week, what have we seen? We have seen 49 percent support for National in Television One’s poll, and, what, 45 percent in Fairfax’s. Actually, it is around about the election result at the end of 2011. In fact, that shows that New Zealanders think that no matter how much the Labour Opposition and its colleagues the Greens might like to come to this House, be nasty, and throw accusations around that have no substance in fact—no substance in fact—the people of New Zealand actually do not give a toss what they say, whether inside the House or not. They can see that this Government is getting on with doing things that actually matter to everyday New Zealanders.

We had the Prime Minister’s announcement at the beginning of the year of the increase in and reorganisation around apprenticeships, and that went down well out in provincial New Zealand, I can tell you. Then the Prime Minister came to this House and made his annual statement, and that was well received. That showed New Zealanders that the National-led Government has a strong plan, that it is focused on its four priorities, and that it knows that it is slow and steady as she goes. No rinky-dinky silver bullets are going to make this economy suddenly start up, and printing money is not a good idea.

I want to take just a few minutes to talk about two portfolios that I have responsibility for that have had an enormous start to the year 2013. So far this year we have announced, first of all, that we are turning three prisons into working prisons, to make sure that prisoners get increased opportunities for employment training. So that means structured 40-hour weeks for prisoners working inside those prisons, getting good work experience, getting good qualifications, and having a better chance of not reoffending when they leave prison.

We have talked about the increase in police foot patrols. There is an average 70 percent increase across New Zealand in police out on the beat in their communities—visible, preventing crime, and deterring crime from happening. The Prime Minister and I launched last week the delivery to our police of expert technology that they should have had years ago. You have to wonder what the Labour Party did with all those surpluses that it had. Labour did not equip our modern police with modern technology, but this Government is supporting them with the roll-out of technology. That roll-out will mean an extra half a million front-line policing hours every year available for crime prevention.

Last week I opened in Christchurch the new police station. That is a first in this country, because we have Police and the Department of Corrections working together in the same building. That was an enormous ask and a significant event not just for Christchurch but also for the justice sector. Corrections and Police are working together, talking together, and making sure that they work together to keep our communities safe.

That is a fantastic start to the year for National’s work on law and order, but, actually, that is what this Government has been delivering. We have seen a clamping down—and there is legislation before this House at the moment—on the criminal activity of gangs. We are taking seriously the criminal activity of organised crime, both in this country and internationally. The Prime Minister himself has led the efforts to clamp down on the production and sale of methamphetamine—that terrible, terrible drug that does such damage to our children. We have toughened sentences and we have toughened bail, and we have abolished parole for the worst repeat offenders. We have put 600 extra police on the streets. The contrast with the previous Government, which was transporting prisoners around in police vans, because it had taken so little—

It is important when we start to look at the “pokies for convention centre” debacle to ask the question of why transparency and accountability are important, because that is what this is about. At the heart of a good democracy is the notion that the exercise of the people’s will will be done in their interests—not in the interests of a small cabal, not in the interests of a particular business, and not in the interests of an individual, but in the interests of all the people of New Zealand.

New Zealanders want simple things out of their Government. They want to be treated fairly and they want to make sure that it is accountable, that it is transparent, and that they know what their elected representatives are doing. Fundamentally, in this case the New Zealand notion of a fair go has been broken. One submitter in this process was treated more favourably than the others—a fundamental breach of New Zealanders’ values of a fair go. A fair go was not present in this process. People were treated differently. Skycity was treated materially differently. It was not done in a transparent or even-handed manner. They are not my words; they are the words of the Deputy Auditor-General. This was not a fair process. This was not a transparent process. This was not an even-handed process, and that cuts against the values of New Zealanders. This Government should be ashamed about that.

The Prime Minister says he has been 100 percent vindicated. He has not. He has been 100 percent implicated in this case, because anyone who reads this report will see that officials did not act in some vacuum. They do not go off on a whim on these things. They follow the lead of their Ministers. They followed the lead of the Prime Minister and they followed the lead of Steven Joyce, the Minister for Economic Development. That was what was happening here. Officials have been hung out to dry by this Government in this case, and the reality is that this was driven from the top. This was driven from the Prime Minister. This phrase will become known for many years to come: “the Skycity angle”. That is the phrase that John Key handwrote on a briefing that he got from the Ministry of Tourism: “close off the Skycity angle”. From that moment onwards, officials went down a path where Skycity got preferential treatment, where other bidders were shut out of parts of the process and transparency went out the window.

The Prime Minister tipped the playing field here. The Prime Minister said to wait for Skycity’s bid. The Prime Minister is the person who introduced the idea of the “more pokies for a convention centre” deal. He is donkey deep in this, but he denies it. He said in June 2012: “my office has had no correspondence, no discussions, no involvement” in this matter. Stop the lying, Prime Minister—stop it. Tell the truth to New Zealanders and tell them what actually happened here—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Our Standing Orders are very clear. The deputy leader of the Labour Party cannot make those accusations of the Rt Hon John Key.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Absolutely right. Would the member please withdraw that comment.

I withdraw that comment. The Prime Minister has to start telling the truth to New Zealanders. The Prime Minister has to start telling the truth to New Zealanders about the involvement of his office. Here is what he also said: “… Skycity will probably get a few more pokie machines … at the margins.”—a few more at the margins. Thirty percent more—30 percent more—pokie machines is what is happening there, and it is New Zealanders who will suffer. It is the terrible addition of problem gambling that will be made worse by this, and the Prime Minister does not care. He has got the deal. He is the one who tipped the playing field in favour of Skycity and away from the other bidders. He is the one who led a non-transparent process. The 4 November dinner, the phrase “the Skycity angle”, and where the Prime Minister intervened are what New Zealanders will come to remember this sorry saga for.

I have no doubt that what we need now is for this process to be halted and started again, so that New Zealanders can rebuild their confidence in the operations of government and we can be proud again of our transparency on the world stage. We will lose from this as a country, because New Zealanders pride themselves on a democracy where everybody gets a fair go. Under this Government, there is no fair go any longer. It is its cronies and it is its mates. It is time for the Prime Minister to front up, tell the truth about this, stop this deal, and give everybody a fair go.

I could hear the bottom of the barrel scraping as the desperate deputy leader of the Labour Party gave that speech. Let us cut to the chase. Labour made scurrilous allegations about the International Convention Centre deal. The Opposition laid a complaint with the Auditor-General, and the Auditor-General concluded that the Opposition got it wrong. If Opposition members had an iota of decency or integrity, today’s speeches in the House would have been apologies from the Labour Party and the Green Party.

I am not going to get into a dissection down to the subparagraphs and sentences of the Deputy Auditor-General’s report. The Television New Zealand headline said it all: “Report clears Govt in SkyCity pokies deal”.

It speaks volumes that every one of the main dailies today gave greater prominence to the resignation of Charles Chauvel from the Labour Party than to the Deputy Auditor-General’s report on Skycity. What does that tell us? Well, remember that Labour members had billed this Auditor-General’s report as their big hit? This was going to be the political game-changer for 2013. Instead, the story is that they have lost one of their best brains.

Charles Chauvel can see the writing on the wall. Labour members are leaderless and they are hopeless. They do not know what they stand for. They have resorted to throwing mud, rather than actually dealing with the challenges facing New Zealand. The fundamental problem for Labour on the issue of the International Convention Centre, and more broadly, is simply one of credibility.

I have got a very simple question for the three Labour speakers who have spoken and for the next Labour member to rise to their feet: why was it OK in 2001 for a Labour Government to do a trade-off deal of 236 pokie machines for a $36 million convention centre in Auckland? Where was Grant Robertson when that deal was done—with his pious comments in the House this afternoon? Where was David Shearer? Where were the other Labour members? Where were the Greens? The Greens were propping up that Government and not only did they not lay a complaint with the Auditor-General but they did not speak an utterance over that arrangement. That reinforces that it is all politics.

But there is a bigger problem for Labour. You see, David Shearer has been in charge for over a year, and New Zealanders have no more idea today than then as to what he stands for. As much as we have got from Mr Shearer is that he believes in hands-on Government. Well, what the heck does that mean, when on all of the critical issues—getting an international convention centre and the jobs from that, growing our oil and gas industry, creating jobs in aquaculture, and creating and expanding irrigation to grow our most important primary industry—Labour has said it is hands-off? All that exposes is that David Shearer’s fundamental line that Labour is going to be a hands-on Government is shallow words for a lack of policy.

There is another problem for Labour’s position on the Auditor-General’s report. Labour members say that if there are any process problems—“process problems” is what the Deputy Auditor-General said—then it is cronyism and corruption. Well, what is happening next? There is another Auditor-General’s report due next week. It is about one of their colleagues, Mr Shane Jones. If the Auditor-General finds that there are “process problems” around the immigration issues and the awarding of citizenship for a certain gentleman, I wonder whether Labour members will be saying that is evidence of “cronyism and corruption”—the words they used today in the House. I suspect that Mr Shearer and Mr Robertson will be singing a very different tune in the House next week.

I want to conclude with the facts. Labour members went out and said the deal was filthy. They said that it stunk. The Auditor-General’s office said it found no evidence to suggest—in fact, it said these words: “nothing substantially wrong took place”. If Labour members want any respect or credibility, they should get to their feet and apologise.

This is the question, is it not? What does the Labour Party stand for? What does the modern Labour Party stand for? The Labour Party stands against jobs. The Labour Party stands against investment. The Labour Party stands against progress. The Labour Party stands against a convention centre in Auckland. The Labour Party looks a gift-horse in the mouth. But the Labour Mayor of Auckland stands for jobs, investment, growth, and the Skycity convention centre. The Labour Party spokesman for Auckland, the Labour Party mayor, says this is a good idea. He cannot quite bring himself to say that publicly, but that is the code we get from the town hall.

The new hands-on Labour Party over there—this is what it does—keeps its hands off the jobs, it keeps its hands off investment, and it keeps its hands off sensible policy, but it wants its hands on the levers of power. That is what it desperately wants. It wants its hands on the levers of power. The reason I am here, Mr Speaker—and congratulations on your first week in the job—is to keep the dispirited, the deluded, and the bewildered on that side of the House. I am here to keep these people—the dispirited, the deluded, and the bewildered—on that side of the House.

Look how dispirited these turkeys are today, as they look forward to an early Christmas. Look how dispirited they are. The fastest growing branch in the Labour Party is the United Nations branch. It is the fastest growing branch. As the cruise ship goes out of Auckland Harbour you can see the Labour rats jumping into the tide and swimming north towards New York—swimming north towards New York.

Anyway, we will not be losing any members of the ACT Party caucus—we will not be losing any members of the ACT Party caucus. We stand our ground, we stand for progress, we stand for investment, we stand for jobs, and we stand behind John Key and his leadership of this country. Look, Labour members voted three times to get their present leader into the place of leadership, and he is sitting there like a possum caught in the lights of “Hone” Carter’s Holden going up the Brynderwyns. That is how he looks every day. The truth is that Labour is missing in action on the big issues.

The Labour Party has never been more unfit to govern this country in its history. Labour is not serious about getting young people homeownership. What is the result? What has it done? It has promised 10,000 houses—10,000 chicken coops—to be funded by the next finance Minister, a Green member of Parliament who says we should print money to build 10,000 chicken coops for the chickens that follow the Labour Party and Green Party around the traps. What is the result? Tens of thousands of New Zealanders are out of work because the Labour Party believes in pricing young people off the market.

This Labour Party—and I have been around a lot of Labour parties—should hang its head in shame. It does not even have a front-bencher in the House. That is how serious the Labour Party takes these debates. There is not anything about the Labour—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe it is outside the Standing Orders to refer to the absence of members of the House.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is absolutely true. The member will refrain from referring to the absence of any member.

I ask people listening carefully on their crystal sets in the few Labour constituencies that are left across Aotearoa to ask this question: is there anything about the modern Labour Party and its leadership, and is there anything about the Greens—the old fogies and young dudes—that is going to give hope to this country? Is there anything that they believe in, and are prepared to bring to this House, that will give hope to this country? That is why John Key and the National Party coalition—John Key’s National and the ACT Party, sponsored by the people of Epsom—remain well ahead in the polls. We stand against the Labour Party ever getting its hands on the levers of power.

Anyone listening to question time today would have heard desperation from an Opposition whose own rats are leaving the sinking ship. There are some substantial issues happening in New Zealand at the moment, but all David Shearer seems to care about is who had dinner with whom, and all Metiria Turei cares about is who lost sleep over what. The substantial issues in New Zealand that we hear nothing about from the Opposition are about the jobs that are being created. Did Opposition members ask any questions about that? Did they ask any questions about the economic growth that is taking place in New Zealand? Did they ask any questions about the infrastructure that is being built, or the educational success of New Zealand children? No, they did not—no, they did not.

Labour and the Greens are focused on the trivial, they are focused on gutter politics, and they are focused on whining about things that they themselves did 10 years ago. Let me read out a quote for the House, because I think it is quite a good one: “Here in New Zealand it has been pleasing to see continuing investment in the quality of our tourism infrastructure.” and “In Auckland, Sky City has pumped $140 million into its new Convention Centre,”. That, ladies and gentlemen, came from Helen Clark. Helen Clark did exactly the same type of deal that the Labour Party is complaining about now. Grant Robertson wants to use a word, which in this House he cannot use, about John Key. Well, I want to use a word that I am not supposed to use, and that is “hypocrisy”.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Helen Clark did exactly the same thing that Labour members are complaining about right now. But the bottom line is that they made a serious accusation against the Prime Minister of New Zealand, and they were found dead wrong—they were found absolutely wrong. Now it is time for Labour members to get to their feet and for Green members to get to their feet and apologise, because they were found dead wrong. The Deputy Auditor-General said that there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that the final decision to negotiate with Skycity was influenced by inappropriate considerations. They were wrong, and it is time to apologise.

It is important to talk about what is actually important in this economy, and the convention centre will be hugely beneficial for New Zealand—$90 million in annual economic benefits, 1,000 jobs during construction, 800 jobs once it is up and running. Even the Labour Party Mayor of Auckland, whom Labour is trying to disown over this particular issue, supports the convention centre. The Labour Party does not stand for jobs. The Labour Party does not stand for economic growth. This convention centre that the Labour Party is opposing will be hugely beneficial for Auckland and New Zealand, but it is opposed to it.

The Labour Party should be talking about the big issues in this country, the big issues that National members are focused on. We are focused on growth, we are focused on jobs, and we are focused on infrastructure. When New Zealanders go to the polls next year they will be asking themselves which party cares the most about their children’s future. The Labour Party opposes every pro-jobs policy that this Government has introduced. The Greens are interested just in wrapping New Zealand up in red tape and printing more money.

Well, National has got a good story to tell in those areas. In jobs, 65,000 new jobs have been created in the past 3 years, and more than 13,000 jobs have been created with the 90-day trial. We hear about lay-offs. The Labour Party wants to talk about lay-offs. It wants to talk about Mainzeal Property and Construction and it wants to talk about Solid Energy, but it never wants to hear about the good-news stories—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Tell us about the people who have given up looking for work because there’s no hope under this Government.

—such as 1,000 new jobs from the Waterview Connection motorway. Listen up, Mr Lees-Galloway; if you listened for a second, you would get some facts into your brain. There are nearly 2,000 jobs from the ultra-fast broadband roll-out, and 1,000 jobs for Wiri Prison.

I heard during question time from the good Minister of Corrections about the global positioning system bracelets that she is introducing. I think, actually, David Shearer would like to have some of those for his own caucus, and there could be a proximity meter next to David Cunliffe’s office so when Labour Party members go next to his office to become the next abstention in their next vote, David Shearer knows all about it.

We are focused on economic growth as well. This economy is growing by 2.5 percent. Labour would love to knock us down, but the good-news story, the facts out there, is that this economy is growing. After-tax wages are up 20 percent since 2008—over twice the rate of inflation. Household disposable income has increased almost one-third in 4 years. We never hear about the good-news stories from the Labour Party, because it does not care. It does not care about jobs, it does not care about growth, and it does not care about infrastructure. Those members need to stand up and say sorry for their accusations. They were found absolutely wrong, and it is time they got to their feet and said so.

It is a pleasure to take a call in this general debate. Could I recommend this book, the Deputy Auditor-General’s report, to the National Party members? It is worth reading. Instead of just repeating the lies that have been presented to them in their research notes and then reading them out to the House, read this report and hang your heads in shame. This is not what New Zealanders expect of their Government, let alone of their Prime Minister.

I do not mind if the National Party wants to do a lot of legislation that I do not agree with, and I do not mind if it wants to introduce policies that make me feel ill when I look at the impact on people who live in my communities, because that is its right as a democratically elected Government in our country. It was elected to implement what I think are bad policies, but we are not part of the Government. We will be in 18 months’ time. But this is not about bad policies. This is not about a democratically elected Government introducing legislation that is not popular but that it is mandated to do. This is about a shonky, dirty deal, and it is about that far away from being corrupt. And that is what the Deputy Auditor-General says in the report.

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: No it’s not.

Sam Lotu-Iiga will not have read it. I know he will not have read it.

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Have you read it all?

I absolutely have, and I could quote quite a lot of it. The interesting thing that the National Party has not mentioned in this debate is that, actually, it is obvious from this report that the Skycity team always intended to build a convention centre. That is what it wanted to do. So not only have we got an organisation that wanted to do a convention centre but we have got the Government personally involved, with Ministers having meetings and dinners and saying: “We know you were going to do that. It’s all part of your legitimate business plan. But what we want to do is make it sweeter and easier for you.”

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Rubbish.

It is bribing an organisation to do something that, actually, it was going to do anyway. Sam Lotu-Iiga says it is rubbish—he has just confirmed that he has not read the report. It says in here that in 2009 Skycity told officials that it wanted to build a new convention centre.

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What page? Quote the page.

Read the report, lazy member of Parliament, read the report. It says that Skycity wanted—

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like the member to sit down while I give my point of order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and I will hear the point of order. [Interruption]

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Excuse me.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Just get on with the point of order, please.

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I take offence to that member calling me lazy, because those who know me know I am not lazy. That member should quote the page of the report she is referring to. If she says she has read the report—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a robust debating chamber. There will always be comments made about members. I do not think that is one that the member should have taken offence at. I am going to ask the member to continue.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The member has actually just confirmed how lazy he is, because he wants me to look up the page in the report that I was quoting. You cannot get much lazier than asking a member of another party to look up a report. It is gobsmacking.

Let me raise a few quotes: “Ministry officials were aware that SkyCity had expressed an interest in extending its existing convention centre across Federal Street or developing a new centre on land it owned in Hobson Street. This awareness arose from communications between Auckland-based Ministry officials and SkyCity during April and May 2009.” Skycity wanted to build the convention centre. It needed no Government assistance. It was always going to do it. It was always going to pay for it. What the Prime Minister has done is expose his shonky deal, his need to be snuggling up to business, in a way that is that far away from corruption. It is the worst report I have seen in my time in Parliament as to the behaviour of members of Parliament and Ministers.

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Quote the page. Quote the page if you know it.

Lazy personified. John Armstrong, in his comment this morning in the New Zealand Herald, said that the report showed that we are verging on banana republic kind of stuff without the bananas. He said: “In other words, no corruption. Or at least none that could be found.”, and that the process had been “neither transparent nor even-handed … Things got so bad”—he reported, and it is in the report—“that some officials expressed concern to superiors that proper procedures were not being followed.”

On every page of this report we see John Key’s statement that there is nothing to see made a lie of. Every single page has a damning comment. Steven Joyce gets the spin going, and his trained seals in the National Party repeat it. Read the report and hang your heads in shame.

I am pleased to speak in the general debate. Thank goodness, I say—thank goodness we have got a Prime Minister who is focused on the big picture: economic development, jobs, and boosting our economy. We are not distracted by the sideshows. We have had a challenging few years. There is no question about that. But that is why the economy must be front and centre stage, and that is why we are determined to continue with the economic growth that we have made strong foundations for over the last 4 years.

We are doing quite well compared with other countries. We are really fortunate. We are moving in a positive direction, and the economy must remain front of mind. We have had clear, consistent messages about our economic programme and the direction we are taking. We are going to get back to surplus, and we are on track to do that. The latest Crown accounts confirm that we are back in the black, and, at the rate we are going, New Zealand is expected to grow faster and more strongly than the euro area, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Canada.

We are pressing ahead with a wide range of measures to build a more productive and competitive economy. We are working hard on our Business Growth Agenda. We want to attract investment. Basically, more investment means that more jobs will be created for New Zealanders.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order! Sorry to interrupt the honourable member; it will not affect your time. Can I just advise members that they cannot walk around the Chamber and interject. It is totally out of order and unnecessary.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Government has worked hard to create businesses and make them stronger so they can hire more people and grow, and in turn have more jobs and more growth, and then the economy will strengthen. The plan is working. The economy is growing. Real jobs are being created and confidence is increasing. We are committed to giving businesses the tools to compete successfully globally and to ensuring that the right conditions are in place for businesses to grow.

Yes, there are some really big opportunities, particularly with the rebuild of Christchurch, and we want to ensure that New Zealanders have the skills that are needed in the next few years. We are determined to boost skills and training, and we have recently announced the New Zealand Apprenticeships scheme, which is boosting the number of people in apprenticeships by combining all the apprenticeships and expanding and improving the current system. We are going to be implementing a starting out wage, set at 80 percent of the minimum wage, for eligible 16 to 18-year-olds to encourage employers to take on youth. Also the 90-day trial employment laws are helping our young people get into jobs.

We are funding 12,000 more tertiary places this year, supporting our fees-free Youth Guarantee scheme for 13,000 young people. We are providing new vocational pathways at secondary schools and funding Māori and Pasifika trades training to give young people more options to train and upskill. The recent workforce statistics show that New Zealand’s unemployment rate has fallen to 6.9 percent. It is still not good enough, but it is an improvement. It is also clear from those statistics that more young people are in education, and we are working really hard to make sure our children get a better education and our youth stay in education.

We have a Better Public Services target for early childhood and secondary school education, and a target also for national standards. I want to take the time to congratulate Tony Ryall, because he has basically been incredibly successful with the health target model, and I am sure that is how it has gone now in our public services. Targets do work. They bring all stakeholders together, and sometimes it might be the first conversation the stakeholders have on how to achieve that target. Health targets, such as cancer treatment waiting times, emergency department waiting times, elective operations, and immunisations have been hugely successful. Goodness, who would have believed that we would come from a dire situation 4 years ago of women having to be sent to Australia for radiotherapy, to now achieving the 4-week gold standard? Who would have thought it? That is what we have done, that is what Tony Ryall has done, and that is how targets work.

Who would have thought 4 years ago that, after succeeding with radiation waiting times, we would now turn our attention to chemotherapy waiting times? Who would have thought we would go from a situation where tens of thousands of people were culled from elective waiting lists to a situation now where we have unprecedented levels of elective operations being offered to all New Zealanders? Who would have thought we would go from a situation where people were waiting under fluorescent lights in accident and emergency centres to a situation where we have all the district health boards stepping up and many of them achieving the 6-hour waiting target? That is what targets do and that is what the Better Public Services targets will do. That is what national standards will do, because it puts people’s minds to the issue—how to solve it and how to get there. They figure it out, they have the conversation, and they have respect for each other. That is what it will do.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am wondering whether you could help me a wee bit here, and maybe not make a ruling straight away but come back with maybe a definitive answer with regards to the contempt of the House. Not so long ago I read a tweet. I will not say the other person’s name, but it was a disgraceful display of partiality by the speaker—not good enough, again. “Under Lockwood Smith if we asked straight questions we got straight answers. That’s not the case under David Carter. Disgraceful.” I do not care who said it, but I want the Speaker to be able to go away with regard to examples of contempt and bringing a reflection on the Chair, which is a reflection on us and the Standing Orders. I wonder whether you could, with regards to the use of social media, go away and give us a learned—

Can I just respond to the member?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, I have got the matter here, Mr Mallard. It is raising a matter of privilege and I would like to quote to the member. It is Standing Orders 399(2) and 399(1). I quote from Standing Order 399(1) first: “A member may raise a matter of privilege with the Speaker in writing at the earliest opportunity.”, so the member should do that. Standing Order 399(2) says: “In any case a matter of privilege must be raised before the next sitting of the House or, if the matter relates to the proceedings of a select committee, before the commencement of the sitting of the House following the day of the next meeting of the committee concerned.” So the member needs to raise the issue directly by writing to the Speaker at his earliest convenience. Thank you.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think possibly if you had heard this, it would have helped. I think the member was not trying to raise a matter of privilege with you; he was asking whether in fact privilege could be breached by way of social media in the way it can be by way of traditional media. I am sure you do not need a considered ruling to tell a member that it can be.

Thank you for your explanation, Mr Mallard.

I rise to ask this House to take time out from the largely Skycity-focused debate today to focus on the most important issue that is actually facing humanity. Last Friday the United Nations Security Council held an informal meeting on climate change. It is a significant event. Slowly but surely the Security Council is moving towards adopting climate change as a security issue for its agenda.

It first considered climate change in 2007, but China vetoed any statement back then. Germany reintroduced it in 2011. The council declared then that climate change was a risk multiplier and a potential threat to international peace and security. The meeting last week was only an informal one, again at the insistence of China and Russia, but it is clear that climate change is being upgraded from a matter for the United Nations Environment Programme to research and the framework negotiations to mismanage to one of political and strategic concern for the Security Council. The only real question is whether the council, with delegated authority from member States, can act formally in time to revert what the World Bank calls catastrophic change for humankind. That is what we are in for on our current emission trends—from 3 degrees Celsius to 6. Given what we are witnessing around the planet already with 0.8 degrees Celsius, God help us with anything above 2. Global emissions are meant to peak by 2016 to avoid exceeding 2 degrees Celsius. That is 3 years away, about the time our UN negotiations are meant to deliver a global treaty that will kick into force 5 years later and begin to have an effect 5 years after that. So we are consciously planning for global disaster.

Let this House ask the Prime Minister a few questions arising from the Security Council debate. Does he agree with the British climate change envoy that “the impacts of a changing climate pose a significant and emerging threat to a country’s national security and prosperity,”? Is he concerned by the advice from the German envoy that “rises in global temperature were likely to have catastrophic consequences … [and] humankind would venture into an uncertain future that is much hotter than ever before in its history—so from a scientist’s perspective, climate change is a global risk multiplier,”? Does he agree with Oxfam’s plea to the Security Council to deal with climate change, because “the global food system was already under severe stress as a result of droughts across the US, Africa and Asia.”?

In light of the World Bank’s advice that “cities must take the lead in developing low carbon infrastructure, in terms of transport, urban planning and managing water resources.”, will he instruct Gerry Brownlee to ensure that the rebuild of Christchurch becomes a model of sustainability for the international community, somewhat along the lines of a report I tabled in Parliament 18 months ago? How does he reply to the UN Security-General, who said: “Scientists have long sounded the alarm. Top-ranking military commanders and security experts have now joined the chorus. Yet the political class seems far behind … Too many leaders seem content to keep climate change at arm’s length, and in its policy silo.”?

Will he listen to the Marshall Islands Ambassador, who said that global warming has “threatened our very existence” and that “Our roads are inundated every 14 days. We have to ration water three times a week. People have emergency kits for water. We can no longer use well water because it’s inundated with salt.”? If so, will he direct a policy review on how New Zealand can assist Pacific Island States, including introducing a special annual quota of climate refugees?

Finally, will he call in the ambassadors of Russia and China and ask them to explain their dubious insistence on making Friday’s Security Council meeting an informal one only?

By emaciating our own emissions trading scheme and renouncing any legal obligation to cut emissions in this decade, New Zealand now rivals Canada for the worst climate change policy in the world. All other developed countries and many developing countries, including major emerging economies, have more visionary and effective policies. It is time New Zealand got its act together for the sake of our own national security and long-term survival.

Kia orana, Mr Speaker. That speech and that speaker, Dr Kennedy Graham, are a reflection on the Opposition of Labour and the Greens—in other words, the only growth in the manufacturing industry is the manufacturing of crisis and the scaremongering that continues to go on from the Opposition about all the things that this National Government is doing. This National Government has been working hard for Kiwis. We have been clear and consistent about our economic programme and priorities in the face of continuing global uncertainty. Unlike the tired, plain-smoking-packaging Opposition over there, this National-led Government has a strong plan and a busy agenda. We have to become a more competitive and productive economy to give New Zealand businesses the tools they need to grow and invest and to hire more staff.

So what does that growth look like? Well, 2 percent growth, which is higher than in many other developed countries, and both Treasury’s Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update and the Reserve Bank’s Monetary Policy Statement show that the economy is growing at an average rate of 2.5 percent a year over the next 3 years. At that rate New Zealand is expected to grow more strongly than the euro area, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Canada. Those members do not like to hear that over there, but that is the truth. That is the fact. It is in a report. You can read it. We are responsibly managing the Government’s finances.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: What happened to the last few forecasts?

That means living within our means, Mr Iain Lees-Galloway. Jacqueline Ireland, the Chief Executive of Colmar Brunton, was asked what are the lessons that we can learn, and that we have learnt, as a Government and as a country. She said this: “… I believe that the recession and its aftermath have forced many businesses to look at their costs and rethink their strategy, and those that have made good decisions are now far stronger, leaner, faster, more productive and more agile.” The economy is also about how we grow the economy in the homes of everyday Kiwis, who are listening to these speeches in the House.

So let us say how we have made those changes. After-tax wages are up by 20 percent since 2008, which is over twice the inflation rate. Households’ disposable income has increased by almost a third in 4 years. We have the lowest mortgage rates—and here we go, for the benefit of Mr David Clark—in 50 years. Tax reforms are encouraging saving and investment. We have increased the minimum wage three times in our term of Government. What about investment? We have a Business Growth Agenda, helping businesses to access the tools they need to compete internationally. Export markets—we are increasing exports to 40 percent of GDP by 2015. Innovation—we are helping businesses access the latest research and development and technology to increase output. Infrastructure—we are ensuring businesses can rely on roads, rail, broadband, and irrigation. What about natural resources? We are responsibly managing our economic opportunities and capital markets, encouraging more investment in New Zealand. When businesses have confidence that our economy is in good shape and in strong hands, they can create real jobs that support families.

Skills—we are helping Kiwis to upskill, train, and find work in New Zealand and in tertiary places. Sir Mark Solomon, the chairman of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, said this just recently. He said: “NZ’s best intergenerational assets are its people and its brand—let’s promote these … through education …” and sustainable resource management. So we are doing this as a Government. We are boosting skills and supporting jobs. There was a great opportunity, particularly with the rebuilding of Christchurch. We have launched five new vocational pathways that are clear signposts to the subjects young people should take to prepare for vocational careers in construction, manufacturing, the primary sector, the service sector, and social services as well. Four thousand places are available in trades academies and service academies, and there are 8,700 Youth Guarantee places. We are revitalising the industry to ensure people have the right skills in the right places.

“Where are the jobs?”, they say. There are 2,000 jobs through the Government’s infrastructure for ultra-fast broadband. There are 1,000 jobs through the roads of national significance. There are 1,500 jobs from the upgrading of the national grid. More jobs are being created. There was the wailing and the gnashing of teeth when the 90-day trial was introduced. We know now that there are 30,000 jobs there from that, and Mr Iain Lees-Galloway knows this. In Australia, it is a 180-day trial. You do not hear that message, but in New Zealand we have been fair, we have been consistent, and that has created 30,000 more jobs. This Government has reform for ordinary Kiwis in New Zealand.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.