General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Yesterday Patrick Gower from TV3 said that the Prime Minister “owned” Mr Shearer yesterday. Well, today not only did we see him being owned but also we saw Mr Grant Robertson being owned—owned over and over again. Mr Robertson’s best theory now is that Mr Key’s mother knew Mr Fletcher’s mother. Well, golly gosh, I did not know that was against the law yet in New Zealand. But it is a fantastic sort of indication of what they will do. Poor old Mr Robertson! If you want to know what Mr Robertson is really trying to do, we just have a look at Eddie on The Standard. It is a left-wing blog site that Trans Tasman talked about today, and what it tells us is what is really going on in the Labour Party and why it is that Mr Shearer is being set up day in, day out to ask the Prime Minister about whether or not he stands by his statements. Why is it that he does not want to talk about his statements? Because he has got bank statements—

💬 Andrew Little: Why doesn’t the member talk about justice? Because she’s running it down. She’s got nothing to say and she’s running it down.

—and Mr Little is an angry little man—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Would the member Andrew Little lower the tone of his interjection, so that at least I can hear the member.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Take a chill pill.

Mr Little really should take the chill pill, should he not, Dr Coleman? Having said that, we can see why Mr Little is angry. Of the three factions in Labour, there is the right, which, apparently, is led by Mr Shearer or Mr Goff, and the left, which is led by David Cunliffe, and we have got the careerist left, which Mr Robertson leads. But where is Mr Little on the list? Mr Little is last on the left faction—last on the left faction. Why would that be? Because Eddie, of course, is a woman, not a man, working at the Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, which, of course, is Mr Little’s union. So Mr Little is actually behind the factions. Mr Little is getting louder and louder and angrier and angrier, and he might have to take that little—calm down, have a nice bit of peppermint tea, and he might be all right.

So let us talk about what the country really cares about. It actually cares about us, the Government, doing work with the people of New Zealand, with the marvellous Public Service, which is working so well with the National-led Government and our coalition colleagues. Have a look at law and order. Under Labour, what happened? Well, I do not know. Four more prisons were built, crime was up—what else did we have—and the prison population was up from 5,000 to 8,000 in nearly 9 years. What is happening under National? Four years of a National-led Government, and crime is down—absolutely right down—

💬 Dr David Clark: 30,000 jobs gone.

—and Mr Clark over there from somewhere in Dunedin says that the jobs are down. Yes, they are in the prison service, and the reason, Mr Clark, is that crime is down. Is that not a good thing? Anyway, what we are also seeing is that crime is down, people are safer, prisoners are being rehabilitated, great work is going on in the Department of Corrections, great work is going on in the police, and great work is going on in education and in getting people to actually learn to read and write, not like Labour. Labour’s response to crime was always: “Let’s talk really tough about it and then do nothing. Lock them up. Don’t rehabilitate them.” The other policy we got from Labour—the only one we got on law and order in the last 4 years—was Charles Chauvel’s “Let’s get rid of three strikes.” That is actually the only policy on law and order that the Labour Party has not yet reneged on. So let us just see what happens. The other day we saw Mr Shearer saying: “No, we’re not going to now have no GST on fruit and vegetables. We’ve now reneged on Mr Cunliffe’s policy.” Let us see what he does on Mr Chauvel’s policy.

But at the end of the day all people want for New Zealand is that we work for them. The Labour Party is working for itself, with factions going around factionalising. My dear old friend Shane Jones—I think he is part of Mr Shearer’s faction at the moment. It could change. It depends on how the votes are. Mr Shearer is doing a great job. I was thinking of actually saying to Mr Shearer that I could start up a “Citizens for Shearer” campaign. It worked really well in 1975 for Mr Rowling. I am thinking of starting it. I will get 100 worthies, all of whom, obviously, are friends of the Labour Party, and we will go and help Mr Shearer, because we want him to stay. I am his biggest supporter. I think he is a great man. He has no memory of the US$100,000—it is US$175,000, is it not, as I recall now—in that New York bank account. That is the rumour I have heard, and why not? It sounds like a good rumour to me. But, actually, this is the poor man who, day in, day out, is asking the Prime Minister about statements—can he remember them? This is the man who cannot even remember US$175,000 in a bank account.

But, of course, he could always just show us the money—show us the money. Show us the money, Mr Shearer. Why do you not just show us the money? And we will all see how it is that he can forget that. But this is the man whom the Labour Party at the moment says it wants to lead the country. Well, we know what that means. It means Russel Norman as Minister of Finance, or possibly Russel Norman as deputy leader, even, of the country. And what will that mean? Utter oblivion for this country.

Well, I think that is an improvement on the last time, Mr Speaker. Prostitution is not illegal in New Zealand. I know that, you know that, and the National Government should also know that. But that does not mean that Government policies should be aiding and abetting the sex industry. [Interruption] Oh, look at them now. They do not like it when they hear something that their Government has failed to address. Alcohol is not illegal, either. It is not illegal, either, but that industry is surrounded by a range of laws and regulations to mitigate the harm it does to society.

What the public wants is leadership, some leadership—something that the National Government has failed to deliver. It wants leadership from the Government in the area of prostitution, because the fact is that the sex industry creates a serious risk and danger to society, as well as to those working directly in the sex industry. Recently, we have seen the Minister of Immigration having to advise international students not to enter the sex industry. So he must know something—he must know something in this area. On the new Immigration New Zealand employment advice website international students are being warned against working in the sex industry. Sam Lotu-Iiga, you need to listen to this because a lot of those people are probably living in the Maungakiekie area. The question the public is asking is—

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry, but I am struggling to hear this member, with the volume in here. Could we check the sound system, because I am really struggling with it.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am having absolutely no problem hearing the member. It is a very good speech. Would the member continue.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sure that member has now learnt something important, for a change. The question the public is asking is what took the Government so long. What took the Government so long to act? Has the Government not been monitoring these students coming into this country and engaging in this kind of work—the sex industry, that is? Perhaps the Government finds sex work either not sexy enough, or too sexy—too sexy to deal with.

Since the introduction of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 the issues with prostitution have got worse. It is out of control in South Auckland and in Christchurch. In South Auckland, for example, we have a major issue in Papatoetoe, in Manurewa, in Ōtāhuhu, and now recently in Ōtara, where 13-year-olds can earn something between $500 and $600 a night. That is disgraceful. Where are the police? Why are they not monitoring these young girls?

The local residents, especially the elderly, have also been unfairly abused, unfairly harassed, unfairly suppressed, and unfairly muzzled by these prostitutes. The law-abiding residents of this country are too afraid to ring the police. They are too afraid to actually report to the local authorities, because they are too scared of the intimidation that they are receiving from these prostitutes. This is an industry that has been given $8.7 million—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: How much?

It has been given $8.7 million by the Ministry of Health to get its act cleaned up. New Zealand First acknowledges, though, that it is important that we support the intention behind these funds, especially around the alcohol abuse, the drug abuse, the under-age abuse, and, of course, the issues with health-related matters. But have we seen any reports? Has anyone received any reports on whether there has been an improvement in this area? I do not think we have. The Minister of Health has not even presented us with any reports to tell us how this $8.7 million of taxpayers’ money has been spent by the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective. There have been no updates.

Unfortunately, the problem of street prostitution has got worse and is completely out of control. By some reports, something like a third of the sex workers in Auckland are Chinese. Is that not extraordinary? Is that not extraordinary, David Bennett? What is going on here? How many of these people are recent migrants to New Zealand? How many of them are also using student visas as a front for a prostitution ring? Are they able to properly reside and work in New Zealand? Prostitution is an issue, and I think the Government should pull my bill out of the ballot in order for this matter to be resolved.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātau katoa. Me waiho ake mā taku Reo Māori e whakatau te puehu e rere haere nei roto i tēnei Whare i tēnei wā. Ia 5 tau ka tū te tatauranga nui, me kī, ko te census ki runga i te mata o te whenua—ia 5 tau. Whai muri, ko tētahi kaupapa e kīia ana, ko te Māori Option. Ka mutu, he aha te Māori Option e kōrerohia ana? Arā, ko tērā kia taea e ngā mea Māori nei te haere mai i te general roll ki te Māori roll, i te Māori roll rānei ki te general roll. Ko te mate kē o tēnei kaupapa e 4 marama noa iho te wāhi kua whakatahangia kia taea e te Māori te whakawhiti mai, tētahi taha ki tētahi taha—4 marama noa iho. Ki te kore tētahi Māori e whakawhiti, me kī, kua noho kōhatu tana noho i runga i tērā rārangi īngoa, tērā pea mō ngā pōti e rua. Nō reira, he kaupapa nui tērā ki ngā mea, ngā kaipōti Māori.

He hītori anō rā, he kōrero o nehe tō ngā tūru Māori. I te tau 1967, e whā ngā tūru Māori—e whā ngā tūru Māori. Ā, ka mutu, i te tau 1996 ka eke ki te rima. I te tau 1999 ka eke ki te tuaono. I te tau 2002 i eke ki te mea tuawhitu ngā tūru Māori, ngā tūru kua whakatahangia mō te iwi Māori, me kī, mō ngā kaipōti Māori. Ko au tētahi kua waimaria ki te whiwhi i tētahi tūru i raro i tērā o ngā korowai. Ēngari, mai i tēnei wiki tonu nei, i te Mane o tēnei wiki tae rā nō ki te 24 o Hūrae, koinā te 4 marama kua whakatahangia kia taea ai e Te Ao Māori te whakawhitiwhiti mai i tētahi taha o te taiapa, ki tētahi taha o te taiapa.

Nā, ko te mate kē o tēnei o ngā kaupapa, me kī, ko ngā tūru Māori ka puta nā te tokomaha o te hunga ka rēhita, me kī, ki runga i te rārangi Māori. Nō reira, i tēnei wā kia mōhio mai koe, e ai ki ngā kōrero e 56 paihēneti kei runga i te Māori roll, ka mutu, ko te toenga kei runga i te general roll. Mā te 56 paihēneti i runga i te Māori roll ka whiwhi i Te Ao Māori ko ngā tūru e whitu. Nō reira, mēnā ka whai haere koe i tērā āhuatanga kia haere katoa mai Te Ao Māori ki runga i te rārangi Māori, ka 12, ka 14 pea ngā tūru ka waihotia ake mō Te Ao Māori. Mēnā ka eke ki tērā kātahi ka raruraru te taha ki te Nāhinara, ka raruraru te taha ki te Reipa i te mea, ka taka mai ki runga i te āhuatanga o te rōpū kotahi hei tohu ko tēhea te Kāwanatanga o te rā. Koinei ki a au nei te whakatinanatanga o Te Tiriti o Waitangi i te wā i whakaarohia mai ai e ngā mātua kia pērā rawa te āhuatanga o Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Koinei te tino kaupapa, kia whai mana te tohu o Te Ao Māori i roto i ngā nekeneke o tēnei o ngā Whare Pāremata i runga i tēnei o ngā whenua. He āhua uaua te noho ā-tokotoru ahakoa kua noho mātou a Pāti Māori nei i te taha o tētahi Kāwanatanga. I tēnei wā ko Nāhinara ēngari i tōna mutunga mai ēhara i te mea, kai a koe te mana hei whakakāhore rānei, hei tautoko rānei i tētahi o ngā whāinga o te Kāwanatanga. Nō reira, ko tāku ko te kī atu, Māori mā, tū Māori māi, hoki mai ki te rārangi Māori kei reira te oranga, me kī, o ngā tūru Māori, tuatahi, tuarua, mēnā ka whai tonu i tērā huarahi, ka riro mā tētahi Pāti Māori e whakatau te Kāwanatanga ka tū mai ki konei.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: In this job for life!

Kai te rongo ake i te Hōnore Winitana Pita e mea ana, ā, he pai tonu tērā kia noho a Te Ururoa i roto i tōna mahi mō ake nei. Ko tāku ki a ia he rā tōna, koia tētahi i whaiwhai haere i ngā tūru Māori. Ko au tētahi o āna kaitautoko i te wā i tono ia mō Te Tai Tokerau. I nāianei kua peke taiapa a te Hōnore Winitana Pita, kāore ia i te pīrangi ki ngā tūru Māori kua waihotia ake ki te taha. Nō reira, ka hoki mai tērā ki te ngaungau i tana nono ā te wā. Ko tāku, ko te kī atu e koe, e koe, kua hoki mai tēnei kaupapa o te tūru Māori ki te ngau i a koe. Nō reira, ko tāku, he tautoko i tēnei o ngā kaupapa. Whā marama noa iho. E te iwi Māori maranga, tū Māori mai.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker. Greetings to us all. I will let my Māori voice settle the dust that is flying about in this House at this point in time. Every 5 years a census is conducted throughout the country—every 5 years. After that a Māori Option is carried out. Why is the Māori Option being mentioned? So that Māori ones can come from the general roll to the Māori roll or go from the Māori roll to the general roll. The real problem with this is that the period set aside for Māori to transfer from one roll to the other is just 4 months—only 4 months. If a Māori person does not switch over in that period, his or her name will remain on that roll for perhaps two elections. That is a big issue for the ones who are Māori voters.

The Māori seats have a history, an old one. In 1967 there were four Māori seats—four. In 1996 it reached five. In 1999 it rose to six. In 2002 the Māori seats reached seven. Those were the seats set aside for the Māori people, let us say, for the Māori voters. I was one of the lucky ones to get a seat under that cloak. But from this week, the Monday of this week until 24 July, that is the 4 months set aside so that Māoridom can cross from one paddock to the other.

The problem with this is with the number of seats that will be gained by the huge number that will register, let us say, on the Māori roll. So at this moment you must understand that according to what has been stated, 56 percent are on the Māori roll, with the rest being on the general roll. By having 56 percent on the Māori roll, Māoridom will get seven seats. Therefore, if you follow that trend and all of Māoridom go on to the Māori roll, 12 or 14 seats perhaps will be set aside for Māoridom. If that is achieved, then National and Labour will be in trouble because it will come down to the situation of one party deciding who the Government of the day will be. That, to me, is the implementation of the Treaty of Waitangi at the time when the elders considered that it be like that.

This is the real purpose, in that Māoridom will have credibility in the mechanisms of the Houses of Parliament, and in this country. It is somewhat difficult as a threesome even though we of this Māori Party are with a Government. At this point in time it is National, but at the end of it all it is not as though you have the mandate to oppose or endorse any aims of Government. Therefore, I say Māoridom, rise up, Māoridom, come back to the Māori roll, firstly. Secondly, if we follow that to its conclusion, it will be a Māori Party that will determine the Government.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: In this job for life!

I can hear the Rt Hon Winston Peters saying that it will be great if Te Ururoa remains there doing his work for ever. I say to him that his day has arrived. He was one that went after Māori seats. I was one of his supporters when he sought the Te Tai Tokerau seat. But now the Hon Winston Peters has jumped the fence. He does not want any Māori seats. He has abandoned them. That will come back to bite his buttocks in the future. I say to him, take that, good job. This matter about Māori seats has come back to bite you. Therefore, I support this matter. Only 4 months. Rise up, the Māori people, stand Māori like.]

What an absolutely shocking day for the Labour Party! In the House today Labour members completely lost it and blew it. What you saw bubbling to the surface was the manifestation of all the frustration, all the tensions, and everything that is wrong with the Labour Party. What you saw was its chief whip and his buddy Trevor Mallard trying to lure the Prime Minister into a point of order contest, and they lost. They thought they had set the trap; they blew it completely.

Trevor Mallard showed that he has not got the mental toughness for politics. Chris Hipkins showed that he is not up to it. It was disgraceful to see the chief Labour Party whip swearing with the most profane language at the Speaker as he left the Chamber, and I hope that that is going to be followed up. Meanwhile, the lack of discipline is showing as Labour members are tweeting abuse about the Speaker. I reckon that is a breach of privilege. You could see how angry those members were by the way they left the Chamber. Maryan Street completely lost it. David Shearer was absolutely furious because he has lost control of his—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! We have a point of order.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I know this member is new to the House, but you cannot refer to people leaving the Chamber and not being here. It is the oldest rule in the book—it is the oldest in the book. You cannot do that.

No, you know that is wrong.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, I know it is right.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member cannot—[Interruption] No, I do not need any assistance. The member cannot refer to other members who have left the Chamber. But, equally, it is a very dangerous precedent to be bringing the Speaker into this debate. Would the member please continue.

Well, Mr Speaker, I think the House gets the drift: Labour has imploded. I saw Mr Shearer at 6 o’clock this morning running half-naked in a singlet and shorts down The Terrace. I am not sure whether he was running from the right, the left, or the careerist left—he was running faster than the last person who got invited up for a coffee by Mrs King’s boarder—but he looked like a man who was frightened. I can tell you that when you are in trouble, you generally go back to your support base for succour. Well, I can tell you that the Labour Party cannot do that.

If you read The Standard you will read a post by someone called Eddie, a lady who used to work in Michael Cullen’s office, and she clearly lays out what is happening in the Labour Party at the moment. You have got the right, you have got the left, and you have got the careerist left—and you have got a few who are getting run over in the middle. This shows that that is the party that really does not know where it is going.

I can tell you where Labour is going. It is going nowhere, because Mr Shearer cannot remember a thing. How are we ever going to trust him to run the economy when he does not even know where his own personal surplus is? How can we trust a man whose brain fades are so bad that he cannot remember that Labour campaigned in 2011 that it was going to get rid of GST on fruit and vegetables? In fact, David Shearer himself said that GST has to be repealed. Now he is saying: “Oh, I don’t actually know.” When you ask him about the Mighty River Power buy-back, he cannot commit. He cannot tell you whether they are going to buy those shares back or not—he cannot commit. When he was asked by his union base whether he would support unions in the Ports of Auckland dispute, what did he say? He said: “I’m sorry, I can’t commit.” David Shearer is Bill Rowling for the 21st century writ large, and it is a disaster for the Labour Party. It would be a disaster for New Zealand, and Kiwis will not put up with it.

Meanwhile, we have got John Key, a man with a great career background, a man who has led us through very difficult financial times to a point where the only country in the OECD with higher growth is the Australians, by 0.1 percent. We had better economic growth last year than the US, Europe, Canada, and Japan. We are on the right track. We have got a plan. Read the Business Growth Agenda. It shows where the country is going. It shows the 300-plus initiatives that we put in place. Why are people going to pick someone as shambolic as Shearer and his three factions over John Key, who is leading a united National Party? I can tell you what. Labour members can say all they want, but they know it is the truth. We are on the right track to lead New Zealand into a great future.

I ask New Zealanders to look at where the country is going, look at our record over the past 4½ years, look at how John Key has taken us through the toughest of times, look at the path ahead, and look at the decisions we have made around education, infrastructure, law and order, and the courts. The only thing that Labour members have said that they might do is take GST off fruit and vegetables. They lost it in the House today. It was an absolute disgrace. Frankly, it reflected very, very poorly on Parliament. I think it shames us all as parliamentarians. I rest my case.

When Jonathan Coleman got to his feet, I thought he was going to get up and apologise for the appalling failures in the two portfolios that he is responsible for in this House. [Interruption] The first portfolio, Mr Coleman, is defence. You know, in 12 short months, you have achieved the lowest morale ever in the New Zealand Defence Force on record in its own surveys, and the loss of 1,000 skilled, experienced, and qualified service personnel from the armed forces to the extent that we have got to get Aussie sailors to put our new ships to sea out from Devonport, in his electorate. He would know that—he would know that. And we have seen the worst ever attrition rate in the Defence Force, at over 21 percent.

But I want to talk about his other failures—his failures in the area of being State services Minister. Last Friday we saw the biggest ever release of confidential information—the biggest ever breach of privacy in the history of this country. Ninety-eight thousand people in Christchurch had confidential information about their property and repairs released by the Earthquake Commission—98,000 people who would dearly love, each of them, to have the information about their own property, because the Earthquake Commission will not give them information about their own property. This was a massive breach of confidentiality.

And it was not the first; in fact, it was the seventh such breach in the last year. Let us look at the track record: at the Accident Compensation Corporation, 6,700 files were released to Bronwyn Pullar; at the Inland Revenue Department, 6,300 pieces of personal information about tax records were released; and at Work and Income, 7,000 documents were released, including documents, highly confidential and highly personal, about children in care. Then there is Novopay. To add insult to injury, not only is it not paying people but also it is releasing information about their pay to people who should not get it.

John Key stood up in this House yesterday and said there is no systemic problem. You know, “Planet Key” is an odd place, where you can get a comment like that—seven major breaches, literally tens of thousands of people having their confidential information released, and John Key says “no systemic problem”. Well, that is not what the Privacy Commissioner is saying. She described last year—this is in a press statement—as the year of the data breach. That is what the Privacy Commissioner said. This year already there have been 10 times as many releases of confidential documents as there were in the whole of last year. I want to know what this Government is doing about it. Why is no action being taken to protect private information about individuals?

Colmar Brunton did a poll, and it found that two-thirds of New Zealanders did not trust their information to be kept confidential by Government agencies. This Government is responsible for that, but this Government is pretending not to be accountable, and is not accountable. Why is that? It is because Ministers themselves have been complicit with the release of personal information. Paula Bennett misused her ministerial powers to release information taken from the personal files of two beneficiaries who had had the temerity to criticise her policies. Beware, New Zealanders, this is a Government with Ministers who will delve into personal files and release them publicly. And when she was censured by the Human Rights Commission about that, she said she disagreed with its view and she would not rule out doing it again.

Then we have got Judith Collins. ACC released, wrongly, 6,700 files, and then Judith Collins’ office released the name—not released but leaked the name—of the person it had sent them to wrongly, Bronwyn Pullar. When Bronwyn Pullar got in an advocate by the name of Michelle Boag, president of the Labour Party, to speak on her behalf, the emails that Michelle Boag sent to the Minister were also leaked. Do you know what she said—and I shall finish with this—

💬 Maggie Barry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that Michelle Boag is the leader of the Labour Party. The National Party—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: And I am sure it was a slip of the tongue. But it is debatable; it is not a valid point of order.

I shall finish my last sentence. This is what Michelle Boag, the former president of the National Party, said: “When you can’t send a communication to a Government minister without fearing that the privacy of that communication is going to be breached, that’s very, very dangerous.” That is the quote. That is what she said about her own party.

We live in a very complex and fast-paced world. We juggle technologies, new ideas, and different philosophies. That is the noisy buzz and detail of our daily lives, and, actually, much of what we debate in Parliament—and certainly question time today was a good example of the irrelevancies from the Opposition. In reality, only a few things really matter. Only a few things really change our lives, and if we can get them right, all the rest is flotsam and jetsam. What we want is healthy families, we want educated young people, we want safe communities, and we want jobs. To make all these things happen, we need a secure economic future. In New Zealand under this John Key - led National Government we can tick all those boxes. We are focused on the things that absolutely matter to all New Zealanders.

In an unstable and insecure world—and we watch on the television and see the financial ructions right across the world—this Government is managing our finances amazingly well, and our economy is growing. Our health system is remarkably effective, our crime rate is down, and the quality of our education right across the country is improving.

Of course, just like everybody else around the world, we have had to tighten our belts. This Government made a deliberate decision to protect the most vulnerable families. We have kept all the established entitlements, including things like Working for Families, and increased superannuation payments as we work towards getting into surplus from 2014 or 2015. We are one of the very few developed countries that has not increased public debt, and that puts us in a very strong economic position.

Our prudent economic management has made things easier for all New Zealanders, because despite the global financial crisis and the high dollar, our economy has grown in nine out of the last 10 quarters, which is an almost unheard-of achievement in the developed world right now. The latest figures show that we are growing at 3 percent, and in my home town of Christchurch we are growing at 7.5 percent. We have never seen that sort of growth anywhere in New Zealand ever before. The New Zealand economy is growing faster than Canada’s economy, faster than the US economy, much faster than Japan’s economy, and much faster than the UK’s economy, and it is even trumping the EU, whose economy is actually shrinking. Our growth forecasts are steady, and they are continuing to be better than most countries going forward.

New Zealanders are doing OK because we are managing to keep mortgage rates low—the lowest for 45 years. Some of us remember buying our first homes when our mortgage rates were in the 20 percent range. Keeping interest rates low for homeowners and landlords helps everyone keep their household budgets down. The tax cuts across the board mean that most people have greater take-home pay and those who are getting superannuation are also getting the benefits of that take-home pay.

But, more important, this Government has a relentless focus on work. We understand how important it is to help people get into work. We know that in the normal course of events jobs come and go, but good jobs underpin the health and the wealth of our nation, and we are working really hard to make our economy more competitive and more productive so that businesses can add to the 60,000 jobs created in the last 2 years. So, as we focus on the detail of our business in debates, let us make sure we continue to do the really important stuff well, because keeping families healthy, educating our children, keeping our communities safe, and ensuring ongoing economic security is actually what it is all about.

The previous speaker, Nicky Wagner, talked about a secure economic future, but she missed a major thing out, and that is because this Government does not understand that a secure economic future depends on a well-managed environment. That is the basis for economic prosperity and our well-being. Instead, we have a Government that is hitting on the environment over and over and over again. It is dismantling our environmental legislation, stripping out the environmental principles from the Resource Management Act, making it easier for people to mine on conservation land, and making it harder for people to have a say in protecting their neighbourhoods and the places they love from inappropriate development. It is a Government that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

We have seen that in the loss of 140 jobs—another 140 jobs—from the Department of Conservation this week, because of funding cuts and continuing fiscal pressure on the department. There is a huge loss of professional expertise in biodiversity, in recreation management, in historic heritage management, and in practical skills like predator control in these job losses. But there is something even more troubling in the staff cuts and the new structure that the Department of Conservation is rolling out. It is because there is a major change in the department’s strategic direction. It is changing from allowing commercial activity on conservation land, such as tourism, when it is compatible with conservation values, to enabling it. That is confirmed in the briefing papers to the incoming, recycled Minister of Conservation, where we see a comment that the department has been charged, along with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, with identifying options for realising greater value from international visitors’ use of public conservation lands. Is that what we are going to see on conservation lands in the future? Is that a way of realising greater value—having McDonald’s outlets at the start of the Routeburn Track? That is what the department is potentially about with the new structure.

The “Minister of Everything”, Steven Joyce, has directed, along with the Prime Minister and Nick Smith, that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Department of Conservation work on enabling more commercial development of conservation land. What does that mean? It means more mines, more habitat destruction, more inappropriate development, like McDonald’s outlets, potentially happening on conservation land. That is because this Government does not recognise the need to invest in nature and environmental protection if we want a strong economy and long-term prosperity for New Zealand. That is because this Government does not realise that overseas, people are questioning whether the “100% Pure New Zealand” brand is real. We need to make it real and give it more integrity.

This Government has a frontier attitude towards the environment. It sees nature as something to exploit. Its vision for Aotearoa New Zealand is to open up our oceans to deep-sea drilling. Its vision is to sell off our energy companies and use the revenue that that generates to put $400 million into subsidising agribusiness through big, new irrigation schemes. That is $400 million into promoting irrigation, when it will not put more than $150 million into the protection of natural heritage through the Department of Conservation.

This is a Government that is in its fifth year in power and we have not seen a single new national park, despite National saying that it would establish Kauri National Park in Northland, despite it saying it would investigate a national park in the Waitakeres. It has been slow on protecting Māui’s dolphins, and that species is potentially on a slow slide to extinction. We have got a Minister of Conservation who turns down a tiny marine reserve in Akaroa Harbour, less than 12 percent of the harbour, despite the fact that there is only one postage stamp - sized reserve on the whole east coast of the South Island. It is a Government that is toxic to the environment in its changes to legislation, changes to the Resource Management Act, and changes to the Crown Minerals Act, and in its starving the Department of Conservation of funds and in the major change in the department’s strategic direction.

I think it is quite clear that New Zealanders have totally and utterly woken up to what is coming out of the Labour benches and, of course, from our friends across there in the watermelon patch. They have totally woken up to the sort of double-headed approach that is akin to throwing enough mud and hoping a little bit of it sticks, and, also, scaring everyone into thinking there is some sort of a crisis out there. It seems to me that that approach is very much about saying: “If we can, scare people into thinking we are a viable alternative—so let’s manufacture up a crisis.” It seems they have gone a little bit quiet on the idea of a manufacturing crisis, but it does not stop them trying to manufacture their own crisis.

Well, there is something very scary all right. There is something very scary about parties on the other side of the House, and that is the prospect to New Zealanders of a Labour-led, Labour-Green Government with one Russel Norman with his finger on Treasury’s xerox. That is what we call “A for Armageddon”, and that is pretty scary to New Zealanders.

What is just as scary, I think, is the brain fade of the Leader of the Opposition, one David Shearer. This is the same person who has $50,000-plus—we are not sure how much it is; he does not seem too keen to tell us, but it is at least $50,000—in a foreign bank account, and it seems that he cannot remember to put it on his pecuniary interests return. I think that we can forgive people for making an honest mistake. But then we ask ourselves: did he do this in 2009? Yes. Did he do this in 2010? Yes. Did he do this in 2011? Yes. Did he do this in 2012? Yes. Did he pay his tax every year on that money? Yes. So one could ask themselves whether this is an honest mistake—I do not know. But this is the man who would be Prime Minister; this is the man who wants his hands on Treasury’s money. I say to you that he seems to have a problem when other members in this House have issues around memory and money, but it seems that it is sweet as a nut when it involves him. Well, that does not sit too well with Kiwis, and they have worked that out.

Some other inconsistencies that we might want to consider when throwing stones around a glass house is that Labour is quite happy to promote one Hon Shane Jones—a good bloke, but the Auditor-General did not have too much good to say in her report. But suddenly, of course, the Labour Party wants to take the Government down when in the Auditor-General’s report into the Skycity Casino there was some discussion about how the process could have been better. When one looks at those two reports, I think it is quite evident to see where the weight of evidence lies there, but it seems what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander.

We can also look back to the 2011 election campaign. I was watching with great interest as the Hon Phil Goff, doing his very best to keep that sinking ship afloat, talked about the fact that the 2011 campaign was a referendum on asset sales—it was a referendum on asset sales. I think we will all remember that, and I am certainly sure that Labour Party members would remember it.

💬 Dr David Clark: And most people backed a party that opposed asset sales—right or wrong?

It just so happens, Mr Clark, that when Labour lost the election, all of a sudden the faith it had in New Zealanders and what was the referendum means nothing, because all of a sudden it wants another one. It gets its friends over in the Greens to pay a few people to scratch up a few signatures, and away it goes.

It seems to me that when we are throwing mud, one must be very careful that one is not throwing it at a fan, because it does tend to blow back in one’s face. That is what we are seeing time and time again here from a Labour Party and from a leadership that is scrambling to find its feet. If we look at the Labour Party, I think we can be quite confident that the Labour caucus has support for its leader—absolutely confident in that—just the same as we can see that the Labor Party caucus in Australia has great faith in its leader, Julia Gillard. There is a good reason for that, and the reason is that they stand only themselves as a candidate. There is no one else running against them. It is hard to lose an election in that circumstance. I bet you that Mr Shearer hopes that that would happen in a general election, but I cannot see that happening any time soon.

I submit that there is a stark difference between the National-led Government and the Labour and Green benches. This is a disciplined National-led Government that is focused on what matters to Kiwis: the economy, and managing the Government’s finance. The two-headed monster that we see on the other side of the House has a plan, and it is so cunning that you could pin a tail on it and call it a Cunliffe.

It is a basic, fundamental principle of our democracy, of our country, that data and information about any individual that are collected by a Government, whether it is a department, a ministry, or an agency, should be kept confidential, and that the Government agency can be trusted—can be trusted—to treat your information within a set of guidelines, that your personal details will not be accidentally emailed to a complete stranger, as we have seen with the latest breach, at the Earthquake Commission, and that your sensitive information will not be shared inappropriately or handed to the media to make a political point. How can the public of New Zealand trust a Government that allows systemic breaches across multiple departments and agencies to occur, and when they occur the Prime Minister behaves as if it is all not a problem and he is indifferent and dismissive, as we have seen this week?

This is an extremely serious matter, and it is a matter of public trust. It requires a serious response and an acknowledgment that these issues need to be addressed not just on a department by department or a case by case basis but right across the Government. It requires a systemic response, and it will require the Prime Minister of this country and all of the Ministers on that side of the House to take off their blinkers, get out of their horses and carts, stop their jokes, and get into the 21st century. The Prime Minister really had better smarten up, because his pathetic responses are being met with derision—derision and disbelief—from an information and communications technology community that is aghast at the ignorance and indifference that he is showing.

This is not just about an individual’s human error; this is 2013 and it should not be happening. There should be systems in place to prevent these things happening, to prevent human error. In the last year, as Phil Goff pointed out, more than 120,000 New Zealanders have had their privacy breached by this Government’s incompetence, its head in the sand attitude, or its blatant disregard for individuals’ privacy. Phil Goff read them out—seven different ministries and agencies. Hekia Parata and Paula Bennett were two Ministers caught out releasing private correspondence and private information.

The private sector has warned repeatedly that New Zealand has a major problem with information security, and a strategy released late last year by a group of IT security professionals said that “While technological innovation is high within the New Zealand market, the national spend on educating, training and developing skilled technical personnel is surprisingly low, creating an imbalance and directly contributing to the fragility and vulnerability of our nations IT systems.” If that is not a significant warning, I do not know what is. Yesterday the chief executive officer of the Institute of IT Professionals, Paul Matthews, said that the Earthquake Commission had failed Security 101 and that it was mickey mouse stuff that such sensitive information could be sent so easily to an outside person. It is not rocket science. SEEMail, which David Shearer referenced yesterday in the House, is just one secure electronic system. Why has it not been mandated across all Government agencies and ministries? As I understand it, it is not mandatory; it is an opt-out system. The point is that what we need to know is that there is a basic system across all agencies, and if there is sensitive material to be handled, then it is critical. There are plenty of options out there. The private sector has plenty of options, if the Government was willing to ask it. Simple checks—you send the email with an attachment and it bounces back, checking that you really want to send it.

Last year two-thirds of New Zealanders said that they did not trust Government departments to protect their information. I wonder what they would be saying now. We have to treat this seriously. I have got a member’s bill that will come before this House in the next few months. It is called the Electronic Data Safety Bill. It sets up a special commission of inquiry across Government agencies. It is a very serious matter. In the absence of a joined-up strategy for our data security, I urge everyone to support it.

The irony. We heard the last speaker, Clare Curran, talk about data protection and security. That member is the same one who goes on to her own party’s forum and censures her own members about what they can and cannot say. It is hypocrisy for the Labour Party to be talking about the ability to protect data when the information of its own party members and donors could not be kept secret from the public and was released.

There is a comment that that member did make that is an extremely serious matter and one of public interest, and that is the matter of the Leader of the Opposition and his ability to talk of public trust and welfare and worrying about where his own money is or is not. I want to walk through a few things. Mr Shearer returned to New Zealand some time in 2008 to run for public office and be the MP for Mt Albert. What I understand is that at that time Mr Shearer may have applied for an exemption that exists for overseas returnees and migrants coming back to New Zealand, which grants an exemption of up to 4 years for income tax, including interest income. In 2006 the Inland Revenue Department put those rules in place. Mr Shearer is completely entitled to do that. In 2009 he ran for public office, and we are now told in 2013 that while Mr Shearer was filling in his tax returns for the 2012-13 year he understands that due to some information he discovered he needs to have filled in the pecuniary interests register, which actually has the information about interest income.

I want to talk through an interesting thing. You are required to disclose interest income to the Inland Revenue Department in New Zealand only if you have more than $200 in net after-tax income. Mr Shearer has publicly stated that the deposit he has is contained at the Chase Bank in Manhattan. He is on record as saying that. He is on record as saying that it is more than $50,000. If you go to the Chase Bank and you ask them what the deposit rates are for various items, you have to have over $400,000 in that bank account to have an amount that should be disclosed under Inland Revenue Department rules in New Zealand—over $400,000. The interest rate at the Chase Bank is 0.05 percent per annum—0.05 percent per annum. The deposit is not $50,000; it is probably likely to be $400,000. This information is publicly available. If I can go and find it, why can Mr Shearer not front up to the people of New Zealand, be honest with them, and disclose the information we are talking about? I do not have any problems with Mr Shearer being a multimillionaire, but he should be open with the members of the Labour Party and the people of New Zealand about how much he has hidden away. Mr Shearer needs to come clean.

When you look at the information on the other side of the fence, we have a leader in John Key. We have heard many of the Opposition spokespeople moaning and groaning about the differences between Mr Key and Mr Shearer. Well, I say that we have a Prime Minister in Mr Key who is committed to rebuilding Christchurch. On the record today, I want to talk in my last little bit about what is actually happening in Christchurch in the rebuild there. [Interruption] I am sure that the lady over there, Ms Dalziel, may touch on this in a very short period of time.

What I want to talk about is the commitment to rebuilding Burwood Hospital, and over $200 million and over 500 jobs moving into my community in north-east Christchurch. I want to talk about the building of new subdivisions and hundreds of new jobs in and around the Prestons subdivision. I want to talk about the potential building of a water park that 20,000 people signed a petition supporting. The Labour Party patently said it was not for it until public record and the mayor were. I want to talk here about a retirement village that is committed to building hundreds of units and investing hundreds of millions of dollars.

That is the difference between Labour and National. We are for jobs, building our community, and being open and honest with our mistakes. The Opposition, led by Mr Shearer, is being deliberately evasive by not coming out and telling us the information about whether Mr Shearer took advantage of the 4-year tax exemption he was offered and had the ability to use under Inland Revenue Department rules, and, if so, whether it is only this year that he is required to declare his income, as required by Inland Revenue Department rules, and whether it is actually $400,000, as I believe it is. Thank you.

We should have had a snap debate yesterday as a result of the privacy breach by the Earthquake Commission. It met every test. However, what was relied on was the Privacy Commissioner noting that the Earthquake Commission had taken an honest and open approach to the breach. I agree with that. If that was all that had happened—what happened on Friday—I would not have called for a snap debate. Then it was also said that the commissioner would be following up to make sure that similar breaches cannot occur in the future. I want to tell the House what else the Privacy Commissioner said in her release: “The Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff said today”—and this was on Friday—“that public sector agencies needed to have stronger controls in place when handling spread sheets of personal information. ‘The EQC breach is yet another incident involving inadvertent disclosure of large amounts of personal information on a spread sheet. We hope that agencies are starting to realise that they should have stronger controls in place to help to prevent these types of mistakes. But they clearly have a way to go yet. I think it has reached the stage where the public need some further reassurance,’ Marie Shroff said. ‘So I am considering writing to the State Services Commissioner and all public sector chief executives, asking them to tell me what precautions they have put or are putting in place to help prevent inadvertent emailing of client information on spread sheets.’”

Then she said the bit that was relied on yesterday, and then she said this: “There are real people behind the information that government holds, and we all have the right to expect that our information will be strongly protected.” That is the issue. The Government can take the Crosby/Textor classic approach of attacking the messenger to divert attention from the real problem, but this will not go away. The role of the parliamentary Opposition is to hold the Government to account, but when we are denied access to the tools our Standing Orders provide for that purpose, for unknown reasons, the Government is let off the hook, unreasonably so. The Prime Minister should have been standing in the House yesterday admitting that the Government had failed to give the people of New Zealand confidence that it can be entrusted with people’s personal information, and that is what this is all about.

Yes, there is a Christchurch issue, and now we know that the Earthquake Commission could easily give people a quick snapshot of where they are up to in the system, whether there are any hold-ups with their claim, what they are, and what time frame is anticipated for their resolution. Not one aspect of the confidential, commercially sensitive information needs to be released, but, of course, that is the one—the Crosby/Textor approach—that the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery focuses on, to avoid fronting the real question, which is why people do not know what is holding them up, and why the Earthquake Commission will not give them that information. We now know that it has precisely that information.

But the bigger-picture issue is that this Government is not meeting its obligations to provide data protection, even though it is legally and morally obliged to do so. Under John Key’s watch, there have been serious breaches of New Zealanders’ private information at the Ministry of Social Development, ACC, the Inland Revenue Department, Work and Income, Novopay, the Department of Corrections, and now the Earthquake Commission. This is not just a simple case of human error. Of course there was human error, but it is not good enough to say that we have all sent an email or a text message by mistake at some point. We are not all responsible for massive amounts of personal data. It is not good enough to say that it was one file sent to one person. It contained over 80,000 separate entries covering 98,000 claims. It is not good enough to say that this is like putting the wrong address on an envelope. It is not. The Government is responsible for receiving and handling massive amounts of personal information, which can be transmitted in a nanosecond. That is why we have data-protection laws. You could not stuff 80,000 pieces of information into an envelope to wrongly address. That is the point of data protection.

The latest breach shows that there is clear evidence of a serious and widespread problem with the security of our Government information systems. That is why the Prime Minister of New Zealand must take responsibility.

It was interesting to hear this week that Labour is considering going back on one of its major election platforms of last election: GST off fresh fruit and vegetables. “If we can’t afford policies”—we heard Mr Shearer say—“then they will have to go.” Now, apparently, “GST off fresh fruit and [vegetables] is one of the things we’re looking at.” Is it not amazing?

As I recall, that was one of the major election promises of 2011, pushed by Phil Goff. He stood there, he roared, and he bellowed: “Labour’s plan is a bold one. It’s a game-changer. It’s about fairness,”. He gnashed his teeth, he thundered, and he went puce with rage. We had Mr Cunliffe standing on top of a bus with a loud hailer roaring that this was going to bring social justice to New Zealand. We had Mr Parker, and I am not quite sure—I do not think he was convinced about it. He did not say too much. Mr Parker I am not too sure about, but Mr Shearer certainly said that if the goods and services tax did not apply to fresh fruit and vegetables, then they would be much cheaper for ordinary New Zealanders.

Now we hear that maybe that is not going to work after all. It was going to cost about $317 million—that was the guess—and Mr Shearer says: “Well, can we do it all? I doubt whether we can. We are going to have to reprioritise.” So he is prevaricating, massaging the media, and warming us up for a climb-down on one of Labour’s key platforms. What has happened to the Labour Party? What has happened? This party used to be one of conviction and principles. When Roger Douglas led the party it was firm and it was brave, but now it seems to have a leader with a spine like a jellyfish, and it is going back on all sorts of things. He is refusing to say what is going to happen.

I note that there are one or two coalition problems ahead. It was interesting to read the response of Labour’s potential coalition ally, the Mana party. One fellow, the economic justice spokesperson—I cannot remember his name—said: “It is hard to think of a more week-kneed, pathetic announcement.” So that is not so good for relationships between Mana and Labour. I am not sure where the Greens are on this, but I am quite confident—and I call upon them. I call upon the Greens there to make clear their views on what they think about GST on fresh vegetables.

Labour abandoned it because it was a crazy idea. I mean, if it is supposed to bring about social justice, then why would you take the GST off imported pawpaws sold at my local fruit and vegetable shop, Jack Lum’s in Remuera? How is that going to advance social justice in this country? If fruit and vegetables, why not water? But not bottled water—normal water. If you are going to have GST off potatoes, why do you not have it off staples like pasta? But not fancy pasta. Or bread—plain stuff, but not Vogel’s. Or we could have clothing—why should we not have the GST off clothing? But not fancy clothing—school uniforms, perhaps, but not private-school uniforms. We should take the GST off books because education and moral improvement of the country is very important—but non-fiction books, not trashy novels; maybe New Zealand novels—

💬 Hon Member: What about biographies?

—and biographies, possibly. But we would be in a terrible tangle, and we would be undermining one of the great strengths of the GST and the tax system in this country, complicating a beautifully simple solution.

And what would happen? If Labour takes the GST off fruit and vegetables, the revenue falls and so what would it do? It would not reduce spending. We know that Labour never reduces spending; it only increases it. So it would have to put the GST up on everything else, or it would increase income taxes on work, and that would be the perfect way to grow this economy! We should give credit where credit is due. This week Labour members appear to have abandoned what was a crazy tax policy and I think they should go the whole hog and get rid of the capital gains tax idea that they have as well, and then bring themselves back to a sensible tax policy that we could all support in this House.

Before I finish I did want to draw a contrast, if I could indulge the time of the House, between Labour’s tax policy and the tax policy of this Government, which is focused upon building growth, sound economic policy, returning to surplus, reducing Government spending as a percentage of GDP, rebalancing the tax system away from discouraging work through overly high income taxes, and building a more productive and competitive economy through welfare reform and the Business Growth Agenda. All these things we are doing and we can sign up to and that is what is building a brighter future for this country. That policy is one that I stand for and am here to support. I think that this country in very difficult times and in very difficult international times is in good shape. We have had 3 percent growth over the last 12 months and there would be many countries around the world that would be grateful for that.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Just before I go to the next order of business of the House, can I just caution the House about personal reflections under Standing Order 117. There was a reflection made that indicated lack of courage and that is totally out of order. I would just remind members that all members in this House are honourable and that when we point one finger at someone else, we have three pointing at ourselves.