General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. That has been a very interesting debate on the Government Communications Security Bureau and what it shows us is that New Zealanders cannot trust this John Key - led National Government. We have seen confidence in this Government reach basement level over the last 2 or 3 weeks. In fact, there has been a slow drip, drip, drip on the stone of confidence now for about the last year. It has reached basement bottom now, and why? Because what we have from the National Government is a lot of very arrogant members, who are very dismissive of any suggestions, ideas, or debates that do not suit their ideas. They are very evasive in their answers. In fact, in this House I have seen the worst answering of parliamentary questions I have seen in decades and we have also seen diversions. Whenever an issue arises that they are not happy with, they set up a diversion. They usually use Paula Bennett to pull out yet one more of her welfare reforms so that they can head off over there bashing up beneficiaries, because that always gets a good headline. So what we have got is a Government that cannot be trusted. It would rather not front up to the issues; it would rather divert from them.

I think the biggest diversion is the Prime Minister, who heads off to China to get plenty of publicity, knowing that at home there was a report into the Government Communications Security Bureau that showed he did nothing for 9 months—that he allowed illegal spying to continue on New Zealanders for 9 months. I think it was summed up by the Dominion Post with this headline that said “Illegal spying kept secret for months”—illegal spying kept secret for months. So he heads off to China and he leaves his hapless team here in New Zealand. Only somebody leaked the report. Well, I have got a theory about this: Mr Key wanted the report to be leaked. He wanted it to be leaked, because poor old Bill English is having to stand up in this House day after day facing a barrage of questions, difficult questions, that John Key does not want to face. He is hoping that when he gets back from China this might have all blown over and there will be another diversion created by the National Government. Well, I can tell Mr Key that this is far too serious for him to think that this is going to go away, because what we need to have is an independent inquiry and review of the Government Communications Security Bureau and, in my view, the SIS and the roles that they play in New Zealand. We need that independent review, not some idea that has come from John Key.

What did he say on the television this morning? He said he is going to change the law. He said he is going to bring in legislation to allow the Government Communications Security Bureau to legally spy on New Zealanders. Well, to begin with, he is going to do that with no consultation with anyone in this House. He has not taken it to the very committee that has been set up for him to consult with. He just gets on television and says he is going to change the law and make illegal spying legal. That is not the way you deal with an issue like this. You do not go for the quick-fix, fast-draw solution. You work through the issues carefully. Perhaps you might even use the legal brain of Chris Finlayson in this respect, but you do not suddenly announce on television that you are going to change the law and the rest of us are all meant to trot along behind. That is not how it is going to be done, and we are going to demand in this Parliament across the Opposition that there is a proper review of the Government Communications Security Bureau and the SIS—a proper look at the roles they play. I would be very concerned if we were to put together both those roles, because the only countries that I know of that do that are those that have authoritarian Governments, that have organisations like the KGB. We have separated out those two roles and we need to look very carefully before we make such changes.

New Zealanders have every right to lose confidence in this Government. Illegal spying—what a mess! Then we have all the privacy breaches—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Under your watch.

Nick Smith says it was on our watch. Let us deal with that. He is such a brain that he sat in the Opposition, looked at the legislation that Labour brought in, it went through a select committee, and did he vote for it? Yes, Nick Smith, the brains trust of the National Party, voted for it. It was all right then; suddenly it is not. New Zealanders have every right to be very suspicious of this Government.

How ironic that we have Annette King, a member of the previous Labour Government’s Cabinet, who has just sat down in her seat. She happened to be one who put blinkers on over the troubles that were going on with the Government Communications Security Bureau, which go right back, quite frankly, to that time.

💬 Hon Annette King: No troubles then.

“No troubles then.”, she says—“No troubles then at all.” Has that member then read the report, which quite clearly slates it right back over a long period of time—when the blinkers were on, ignore what is going on, head down.

Here you have a Government where the Prime Minister himself calls in one of our most senior civil servants to go in and look at what is happening, to present what I thought was a very, very in-depth report that actually shows what needs to be done and what is most important. Here we have—she has been playing some cards there, but now it is time she got into work—what we see as conspiracy theories from the Opposition that quite frankly do not wash when you read the report and you see what needs to be done. But I say to you that it is quite clear that there are no ideas coming from the other side. Those members are frustrated because they are not making any leeway, and they have started clutching at straws, which is what we are seeing.

This week alone, to give you an indication, we have seen the biggest fundamental changes to welfare that this country has pretty much ever seen. And what have we had from the Opposition? Not one question. Not one question in Parliament about the biggest welfare reforms that are going through Parliament.

We get this sort of faux, mock anger occasionally. I notice that Mr Twyford there has found his little mock anger, so he stands up and does it. I heard various speeches last night. What I do not hear is solutions and what I do not see is any real heart as to what those members would like to see for people. What it is, is all this little bit of mock anger, but they do not really mean it—if they can be clear—because, actually, they know that the public is onside. As much as they would like it, they know that there are no big protests in the streets, and that actually people are not being kicked out unnecessarily. People are getting the sort of support that they need and deserve when they need it, but we are balancing expectations and being fair and reasonable.

They know that. Quite frankly, the Labour Party, New Zealand First, and the Greens are hearing that out in the community. So they sort of stand up in here and do the odd little belly dance around welfare reforms, but they do not really mean it, because if they did mean it, they would actually be asking questions in the House. They would actually be doing rallies and they would be doing all sorts of other stuff to try to hold us to account. But, quite frankly, we could talk about their competence in actually getting their message across. I think it is a combination of competence but actually not really believing it, because they know that this country knows and really believes that this Government is on the right track when it comes to welfare reforms, supporting people, and getting stuff right.

💬 Andrew Williams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is not speaking on the subject of this debate. She is talking about—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, the member will sit down. That is a frivolous interjection, and I am almost tempted to let the Minister start again—almost.

Are we not in the general debate?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is a general debate.

It is a general debate, Mr Williams. If you are going to be in this place, keep up—yeah? What has actually happened is the urgent debate has stopped and we are now in the general debate where we can traverse—and this is the problem. I mean, I am 4½ years in the job. We have now made the biggest fundamental changes that we have ever made to welfare, and we are seeing more people get better results.

I do not know whether everyone saw the New Zealand Herald this morning, but we have the story of a young man who is actually, because of our welfare changes, seeing a change in his life. So at 22 years of age, he has had it a bit rough at times, with four children, and he has not been in work before and had the sorts of opportunities he needed. When the one who was under his care was turning 5, we said to him that it was time he looked at work and what could happen. An automotive industry in Palmerston North took him on. They brag about what a great worker he is. He talks about what a difference that has made to his and his children’s lives and how he is turning round his life. That is thanks to the support he has got and the clear expectations about what he can do for his family. Quite frankly, Labour does not know what to do with this.

Here we are in the general debate—it is Wednesday and this Parliament is sitting—we hear there is the biggest scandal ever, and we have how many people sitting on the Opposition benches? You know, pretty much none. The cameras will be scanning and they will see that actually Labour’s heart is not in actually standing up as the Opposition. It has been abysmal. It has been a bit of a joke. Those people have to be really willing to stand up and be counted and see themselves as the party that holds—what we are seeing at the moment is a real balance. We are seeing people getting into jobs—and we are.

We would like to actually have the “Where are the jobs? Nothing’s happening.” They talk it all down and make it doom and gloom, saying: “This is the worst thing that’s ever happened.” I see their headlines, where they try to put them out, where they say “... biggest boot in guts since ‘91 cuts”, “Welfare reforms mark the end of social contract”, “Mama is opposed to this all the way”, and “Kids need a Government that cares, not punishment”. But none of that means anything, not even for the paper it is printed on, because Opposition members know that this is fair, they know that this is reasonable, and they know that fundamentally this is making a difference to the families that are most vulnerable in this country. They will see this having the kind of heart—

💬 Phil Twyford: You’re wrong and you’ll be gone in 2014. You’ll be gone.

I challenge that member to stand up and campaign on running this stuff back. I challenge that member to go around this country saying that Labour will run back on all of the proposed changes that have now happened and the welfare reforms that have gone through. What has actually happened is we have seen fundamental changes and a difference in families’ lives. We believe in them. They believe in their own abilities. They do not really get into the hand-wringing victimisation stuff that Labour tries to do. We are making a difference and we are seeing results for it.

Just before I call the honourable member Steffan Browning, can I just remind members that interjections are predicated on the presumption that members interject on a member who has the call. I have seen two members interjecting on each other when neither has the call. I call the honourable member Steffan Browning.

I would like to speak about the security and intelligence travesty called the Government Communications Security Bureau.

💬 Hon Member: Name and party.

The failure of Governments to get control and deep oversight of this foreign-dominated intelligence beast and its unsavoury Echelon alliance—and apparently I should state that I am speaking for the Green Party on this. New Zealand as an independent State should have a role in promoting civil rights and peace, reducing conflict, confronting injustice, and protecting the environment. We have shown an example with our nuclear-free policy. However, operating the eavesdropping facilities of the Government Communications Security Bureau’s bases at Waihopai and Tangimoana makes a mockery of New Zealanders’ preferred peace-based role in the world.

First announced in 1987, Waihopai is operated by the Government Communications Security Bureau in the interests of the foreign powers grouped together in the very super-secret UK-USA agreement known as Echelon. Echelon shares global electronic and signals intelligence among the spy agencies of the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Waihopai’s satellite interception dishes intercept a huge volume of civilian telephone calls, telexes, faxes, email, and computer data communications. Waihopai spies variously on Latin America, Russia, China, Japan, other Asian neighbours of ours, our very close friends in the South Pacific, and now, illegally, also on us—New Zealanders. This material is forwarded on to the major partners in the UK-USA agreement, specifically the US National Security Agency, the NSA. Mr English in his faux pas today, speaking on behalf of the Government Communications Security Bureau, would have been a lot more accurate if he had said he was speaking on behalf of the USA.

Waihopai’s targets are international civilian communications, including the interception of New Zealanders’ international phone calls. New Zealanders will also be really intrigued to know that their mobiles, even when they are not speaking on them as such, are effectively Government Communications Security Bureau microphones, if that is the will of the spy agencies—or maybe of the Prime Minister.

Nicky Hager’s book published back in 1996, Secret Power: New Zealand’s Role in the International Spy Network, included a foreword by David Lange: “In the mid-1980s we bucked the system. We may have been ahead of our time on matters nuclear, but we were out of step with what was called the ‘Western Alliance’. It took a break with the United States and Britain to make the people of New Zealand aware that we were part of an international intelligence organisation which had its roots in a different world order and which could command compliance from us while withholding from us the benefits of others’ intelligence.” He went on: “Life at the time was full of unpleasant surprises. State-sponsored terrorism was a crime against humanity as long as it wasn’t being practiced by the allies, when it was studiously ignored. In the national interest it became necessary to say ‘ouch’ and frown and bear certain reprisals of our intelligence partners. We even went the length of building a satellite station at Waihopai.”—in my words, for the USA and maybe the UK. Lange continued that “it was not until I read this book that I had any idea that we had been committed to an international integrated electronic network.” So even the Prime Minister of the day did not know what our security chiefs had hooked us into.

But now we have got John Key wanting to legitimise his mate Ian Fletcher’s illegal spying on New Zealanders for the USA, and it was not just Ian Fletcher; it obviously went on for some time before that. But it suited to carry on for the 88 people that little bit longer until they realised they could not get away with it any longer. Waihopai needs closing down. The Government Communications Security Bureau has been given well over $600 million of taxpayers’ money in the past two decades.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would you be able to just remind the gentleman that it is a general debate, and we would not expect to see a member reading a speech—

Order! No, that is not—[Interruption] Order! That is not a point of order. It is a general debate, it is a full, robust debate, and the member is entitled to speak about whatever.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point is about reading straight from a speech in the House. You know that members are not meant to do that, apart from for a very technical speech.

Order! The member will be seated. Members should not refer to members reading speeches. That is a matter for the Speaker.

This afternoon I want to talk about a subject that will affect all of us at some point in our lives. A few days ago I saw a billboard that said that 15 percent of the children born this year will live to be well in excess of 100 years. The issue that that highlighted, and highlights for us, is the issue of superannuation. This country has been grappling with that issue unsatisfactorily, really, for the last 30 years.

At the last election we saw the position taken by the two major parties, which was a polarised extreme in many senses: the National Party saying that the age of entitlement will remain 65 in perpetuity, effectively; the Labour Party saying that over a period of time it wishes to raise the age to 67. The problem with both those positions is as follows: one is inflexible, and the other imposes a burden on working people to stay in the workforce well beyond the time that they might have planned to retire.

We are starting to see a rising tide of public information and public questioning now about the viability of the system. No one is seriously suggesting that we should cut the pension—no one apart from the far right. No one is seriously suggesting a radical increase in the age of entitlement. But what people are seeking is more flexibility and more choice, and I note with interest a recent newspaper survey that put a couple of propositions before New Zealanders. When people were asked whether they favoured the status quo of 65, raising the qualifying age to 67, or giving people the option of retiring later for a bit more or earlier for a bit less, nearly 50 percent—49 percent—favoured the flexible approach. The status quo was favoured by 29 percent, and 15 percent wanted to go to 67.

Within that survey is the answer to the question that New Zealand confronts, and that is why United Future, as part of its confidence and supply agreement, is promoting the concept of flexible superannuation. A person who makes the choice to retire early at, say, 60 would get around 65 percent of the core entitlement of New Zealand superannuation, the person retiring at 65 would get 100 percent, and the person who chose to defer retirement until age 70, or to defer picking up their superannuation, would get around 130 percent of the core entitlement. What that recognises is a couple of things: firstly, New Zealanders are working longer and, secondly—and probably most important in the context of this debate—they want the choice about when they retire. They do not want to be told by the State that they have got to work 2 more years, to 67, to qualify. They are uncertain about the viability of 65. They want to be able to arrange their affairs in a way that they can make the choice.

What makes this policy even more attractive is that with the increasing uptake of KiwiSaver, in years to come we will have many, many more New Zealanders qualifying for a KiwiSaver payout at the age of 65. So the argument that is raised by some, that you cannot afford to retire early on a reduced rate of superannuation, will be diminished by the fact that people actually know that there is a big nest egg coming at 65.

Flexible superannuation provides an answer to the issue that confronts New Zealand. It does not cut the overall level of pension expenditure, but it certainly stabilises it. It gives New Zealanders more choice about when they retire, and people who feel that they are physically exhausted long before 65 can make some plans with certainty about picking up superannuation at a reduced rate at an earlier time. Others who feel hale and hearty, or who are in a position where they are financially independent, could well choose to work later and then pick up their superannuation later.

There will be, within the next few months, a discussion paper issued publicly, as part of our confidence and supply agreement, inviting public feedback on this issue. But what I note with interest is the overwhelming support that the newspaper poll indicated already, before this issue has really had a huge amount of traction in the public. I note also the interest that I have had from the Leader of the Opposition and from Government Ministers.

This is an idea whose time is rapidly coming. New Zealanders know that things have got to change. If you go back 50 years, the age profile in New Zealand was the classic Christmas tree. Now it looks much more like a lamppost. It is probably going to become more like an inverted Christmas tree in the future. What we have to do now is plan for that time and put in place a sensible approach to superannuation that is sustainable and that will last for future generations, and Flexi Super is that answer.

Today 1,300 food service workers who work in our public hospitals were told by the Minister of Health, Tony Ryall, and this Government that they are just back-office workers—just back-office workers. These are the 1,300 workers up and down the country in every hospital, in small towns and large, who prepare, cook, and serve meals to hospital patients—those people who are in hospital relying on decent, nutritious, and healthy food in their recovery after illness or surgery. That comment from the Minister Tony Ryall shows just how much regard this Government has for hard-working New Zealanders who are out there doing their best, trying to do their best for the community and their families, and that is why we cannot trust the John Key - led Government. Those people, from what Tony Ryall said today, are just figures on paper. They are not real people; they are dollars to be mined on an already stretched budget. There are no worries, no concerns, about the families and communities that will be affected, no concerns about what will happen to those hard-working New Zealanders and their families, and no worries that there are another 1,300 jobs on the line, to add to the thousands and thousands that are part of this Government’s disgraceful record of job loss and failure to do anything about it.

Today the Minister and the Government not only demonstrated their ignorance about the work that our food service workers do in our public hospitals but also demonstrated their complete ignorance about the difference between contracting in and contracting out. Let us be clear. This is not about food service workers in hospitals working for contractors, as, indeed, many already do; this is about closing hospital kitchens and having food shipped in from central food production factories in Christchurch and Wellington and heated up like TV dinners in the wards. There is already a preferred provider being indicated, which is multinational company Compass. What is indicated is that it will have a 15-year contract, so no one else will get a look-in. This proposal will be in place by the end of the year. Compass is proposing to use its product called Steamplicity, which is pretty common in the UK. You do not have to go far online to find out all of the issues there have been about food in hospitals in the UK, but they are currently trialling it at Hillmorton Hospital. I am told that even the potatoes there are imported from Holland. In a country like New Zealand, it is importing even the potatoes.

At the same time, this is happening when the Government is proposing to make major changes to the laws that protect food service workers in hospitals and throughout the country, and that is with the changes to Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act, which I understand will be introduced very shortly. But it is typical because the Government always picks on the lowest paid when it comes to changes. It always goes after the food service workers. It always goes after the cleaners. It always goes after the orderlies.

It has done it before. We have been down this path before, and it has failed. In 1993, when that member Nick Smith was in Government, a National Government brought into New Zealand a new company called Tempo Services. It came to town promising hospitals and the Government massive savings on food service production and cleaning. What we saw was large-scale job losses—massive job losses—and cuts to pay and hours of work. It even subcontracted its work to another catering operation to avoid rights. In 1995 it changed its name to Tempo Delaware North Corporation to provide the expertise and capital to implement a cook-chill catering system, which is similar to what is being proposed today. After it unsuccessfully tried to increase its contract rate, the corporation then tried to cut the workers’ wages by 25 percent. It failed. The workers refused. The corporation left town with its tail between its legs, owing money up and down the country. Let us not go there again.

The test in the general debate this afternoon, and for any party in Government, is how a Government deals with the tough issues that come on the Government’s plate. This is a Government that has had more than its share of tough issues. What I have witnessed in the House this afternoon is how fit John Key and his Government are to deal with those tough issues, and how unfit members opposite are to deal with those issues. What I have witnessed is an Opposition that is more interested in getting into grubby personality politics than dealing with the issues that are relevant. I want to talk about the issues at the Government Communications Security Bureau. I want to talk about the issues of the economy. I want to respond to the issues that have been raised around the issues of healthcare.

Let us be honest: the Government Communications Security Bureau is in trouble. It has got challenges. It has got challenges that go way past the period that we have been in Government—way beyond. What we know is that the bureau was operating potentially outside the law under the previous Government.

What would a responsible Government do? A responsible Government would get a respected public servant to turn that organisation inside out. That is exactly what the Minister responsible for the GCSB, Prime Minister John Key, has done—exactly what he has done. What it has shown is that there is a question mark about our Government Communications Security Bureau complying with a law that was written by members opposite. What it has shown is that during a good period under Helen Clark that organisation potentially acted unlawfully. We are a Government that is fit to fix it.

What do members opposite want to do? Well, I have to tell you, they have learnt nothing. They believe that what the public out there wants to do when we face challenges is to get down into the gutter and try to besmirch people like our Prime Minister, and we on this side of the House say we will not tolerate it. We have the best Prime Minister that this country has seen in 25 years. He is a Prime Minister who is prepared to deal with the difficult issues.

What we also saw—and this is the part that is really sad for our country. On issues of national security, I thought MPs would put their country first—I thought they would put their country first. What we have seen in speeches from the opposite side of the House is that when it comes to politics or the national interest the Labour Party and the Green Party will always choose their political interest over the country’s interest. I was particularly fearful of what I heard from the Green Party. What the Green Party said is that it wants to scrap the Government Communications Security Bureau—scrap the Government Communications Security Bureau. In this time when the threat of cybercrime is higher than ever, when all of the international thoughtful press is actually saying that the security threats this century are far more likely in the era of communications security, we have Opposition parties saying that they want to scrap the organisation. Well, the voters have got a clear choice: a National Government that will fix the bureau, or an Opposition that will either play politics with it or get rid of it. I say that is awfully wrong.

Let us go elsewhere. Let us look at the economy. No Government in a generation has faced as difficult economic challenges not of its making as this John Key Government. What this Government has done around the economy is something of which I am hugely proud. Let us look at what the IMF has got to say about this Government’s economic record. We have Christine Lagarde, the Managing Director of the respected IMF, who says if you look at the numbers, whether it is growth, employment, inflation, debt, or stability, New Zealand looks very promising—in fact, she said “… it’s certainly a lot better than … [any] other parts of the world.” That is what the IMF is saying about this Government’s stewardship of the economy. I say again that it shows that this is a Government that is prepared to front up to the difficult issues not of its making—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member’s time has expired.

I want to tell this House a story, not a fairy tale, which we have heard from the Government benches, but a true story about the history of the political life of one Mr John Key, for its benefit. It all started on Waiheke Island, where he turned up with a $200-plus bottle of Larose wine to impress his mates in the National Party so he could get the shoulder-tap to become an MP for National. So, having influenced them with a $200 bottle of wine, they said: “Oh, we had better have this John Key. He looks like he is a high roller. He is going to bring us a lot of money.” One year later it is October 2003, and he becomes a member of Parliament. He returns from New York, having been a money trader there for Merrill Lynch. At the time Don Brash is challenging leader Bill English for the leadership of the National Party. On the night before the vote, honest John Key, as they thought he was, visits Mr Bill English at his home. He promises Mr English that he will support him in the morning in the leadership vote—he promises Bill English he will support him. English and his supporters rejoice.

💬 Maggie Barry: What do you know?

Listen to this because you might need to know this history. Backbenchers, you will need to know this when you are doing a leadership reshuffle. Anyway, English and his supporters rejoice because they are now confident of the numbers that they have got to retain the leadership. Alas, the morning comes. The vote is held. To everyone’s shock Don Brash wins by a single vote. The one vote comes from who? The smiling assassin, John Key. He double-crosses Bill English. Is it not incredible! The very same John Key who the night before had promised Bill English his support did not support him. He turned and gave his support to Don Brash, and Don Brash carried on into the leadership.

The same John Key then carried on to build his political career supposedly on integrity. This is the same John Key who in Opposition railed against corruption, demanded transparency, and pledged to uphold his Ministers to the very highest of ethical standards in all their conduct. But let us not forget this was the same John Key who forgot to declare his financial interests in Tranz Rail. This is the same John Key who forgot about an incriminating email about the Exclusive Brethren. This is the same John Key who swore black and blue that he did not know about his blind trust, only to be video-recorded boasting about his shares in that very same vineyard.

What is more, this is the same John Key who promised not to increase GST, only to go and do so. This is also the same John Key who promised to open the Government’s banking with Westpac to competition. What did we get? Simon Power working for the Westpac bank. That was opening it to competition. This is the same John Key who told everyone he had never met with Steven Joyce’s former company MediaWorks to discuss a $43.3 million loan, despite the fact that he had. This is the same John Key who blabbed that Standard and Poor’s would give New Zealand a credit downgrade if it elected a new Government, even though Standard and Poor’s utterly rejected that suggestion made by John Key.

This is the same John Key who apparently cannot remember when the Government Communications Security Bureau first advised him of the spying on Kim Dotcom, and also could not remember shoulder-tapping his mate Ian Fletcher for the job as Director of the bureau.

The list goes on and on. Do we see a pattern here? Do we see a pattern? It beggars belief that we have a Prime Minister who cannot recall intelligence briefings and also has times when he cannot remember what the true story is. It is truly incredible. He is very economic with the truth—very economic with the truth. It is truly incredible. Not even Hollywood would come up with a plot as extraordinary as we have seen with this Dotcom - Government Communications Security Bureau affair. The Prime Minister is asking us to believe that either he is the victim of an incredible set of coincidences that make it appear as though there is something to hide, or he really does have something to hide. What we want to know is what the true answer is. We—New Zealand First—and other parties are calling for an independent inquiry into this to get to the bottom of it. From the facts of this matter, we cannot trust John Key to do anything. The National Party certainly cannot trust him. Let us have an inquiry.

One thing is for sure: that story would be a great cure for insomnia—there is no doubt about that. I want to speak about some of the good things that have happened in my electorate of Rodney. In transport, investment continues in the design and construction of the Pūhoi to Wellsford road of national significance. This road is extremely important to the people of Rodney for regional economic growth, reducing congestion, improved safety, and reliable journey times. I would invite any of the members opposite to come to Rodney and visit and see just how important this is to the people of Rodney and Northland.

In health, in Rodney four midwives and 36 nurses have registered to work in hard-to-staff specialties or communities in the Waitematā District Health Board area through the Government’s Voluntary Bonding Scheme. This is an example of Rodney directly benefiting from National’s Voluntary Bonding Scheme.

In education, the Government has set a target of 85 percent of 18-year-old school-leavers attaining National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 or above by 2017. In the final 2011 figures, Rodney had 771 school-leavers sitting NCEA level 2 or above. With 624 attaining it, that is an 81 percent success rate. To reach 85 percent, our electorate will need an extra 31 students attaining NCEA level 2. Working together, we will achieve this.

I come to the Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative. From July 2013 the following Rodney schools will have ultra-fast broadband: Red Beach School, Stanmore Bay School, Whangaparaoa School, Whangaparaoa College, KingsWay School, and Mahurangi College. By the end of 2015, 97.7 percent of schools and 99.9 percent of students will have access to ultra-fast broadband.

When I was privileged enough to be elected as the representative of the people of Rodney, I understood clearly that my life and the life of my family were about to change. With the responsibility of providing leadership and advancing and protecting the interests of my communities also came the acceptance that my life, actions, and character would be subjected to a high level of public scrutiny and require a high level of transparency. One of the first tests of this level of honesty and transparency is the completion of the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament statement that I was required to make. Every parliamentarian understands the importance of this document. It is not a document that you take 10 minutes to complete. It is something that every single one of the MPs who sit in this House makes sure they have right.

Most of us have a mortgage and financial commitments that we try to plan for, and $50,000 is a hugely significant amount of money for any Kiwi family working to get ahead. How on earth did the leader of the Labour Party, the man who wants to become the Prime Minister, forget an offshore bank account containing at least $50,000, and probably a lot more than that? The thing that I find incredible, and I feel brings Mr Shearer’s decision-making ability and credibility into serious question, is that the money that he failed to disclose was that earned while he was working in environments where bribery, kickbacks, corruption, and fraud were prolific, where there is a history of UN officials—often in very senior roles—having been investigated, charged, and convicted for serious fraud, with the ill-gotten gains often being recovered in accounts around the world, including New York.

I have stated publicly and in this House previously that I recognise and respect the work that Mr Shearer has done around the world in delivering aid—something close to my own heart. But he has shown a stunning lack of judgment by failing to declare this account, not 1 year but 4 years in a row. Once you could forgive, twice is harder to ignore, but three or four times must bring into question intent. The Leader of the Opposition must consider that he has failed to disclose money that he has put into an offshore account that was likely to have been deposited while he was working in conditions where there are regular accusations of kickbacks and bribes. If he wants to remove doubt, then he must be prepared to front up and explain.

Finally, we have been caught in a global economic storm for the past 5 years. We have watched bigger economies than ours founder, breach, and take on water. But we have had a Prime Minister at our helm who has hunkered down and kept us pointed into the wind and moving forward, when others are failing and sinking.

What an outrageous set of almost accusations from that member over there, Mark Mitchell. Let us talk about the difference between the mistake that David Shearer made and what has been happening with John Key. David Shearer made a mistake. When he realised he had made a mistake, he stepped up, he went forward, and he said: “Guys, I’ve made a mistake.” He went down to the press gallery and he told them what the story was. What does John Key do? When John Key knows he is in trouble, what is his first inclination? His first inclination is to cover it up, tell half the truth, obfuscate, and stand there and let the truth drip out bit by tiny bit. It is like pulling fingernails, trying to get the truth out of John Key. And that is why New Zealanders are losing confidence in this National-led Government. That is why New Zealanders are losing confidence in John Key, because they know they cannot trust him. They cannot trust him. They cannot trust this John Key-led Government to be working for them.

New Zealanders cannot trust the Government to protect them from illegal spying. They cannot trust John Key. When he found out, when he was the first Minister responsible for the GCSB to be told that the Government Communications Security Bureau had been carrying out illegal spying on New Zealanders, he did not step in and say: “New Zealand, this is what is happening and I’m going to put a stop to it.” He covered it up for months. He held the truth back for months. He refused to tell the truth until he was put in a position where he had no choice. That is the difference.

New Zealanders cannot trust this Government to protect their information, to protect their privacy. It does not matter whether it is the Earthquake Commission, the ACC, Work and Income, the Inland Revenue Department and now Novopay’s Talent2, and even at the Ministry of Justice people’s information is leaking like a sieve, leaking like this Government, because New Zealanders cannot trust National to keep their information private. And what does the Prime Minister say? That he is relaxed about it—he is relaxed about it. People’s sensitive information is being made available to who knows whom, and John Key is just relaxed about it. That is because he is not working in New Zealand’s interests or in the interests of New Zealanders. Who does John Key work for? He works for his mates. That is who John Key works for. That is what the asset sales are all about—taking assets that all New Zealanders own and putting them out so that his mates can buy them all up. That is who John Key is working for—his mates and multinational companies.

The latest we have seen of this is this ridiculous proposition from Simon Bridges to ban protesting by environmental protesters. We live in New Zealand, Simon Bridges, one of the most open democracies in the world, where protest is acceptable. But who is Simon Bridges working for? He is working for some faceless, foreign multinational corporation. That is who Simon Bridges and John Key are working for, not for New Zealanders. It was the same deal with Skycity—not working in the interests of New Zealanders and not working in the interests of reducing problem gambling; working for John Key’s mates at Skycity. And what about The Hobbit? This Government is not there to uphold workers’ rights or workplace law and not there to make sure that we are the shining beacon of industrial relations that we have always been. It is there to work for Warner Bros, a multinational corporation—John Key’s mates again.

Of course, let us not forget the directors at Mighty River Power, who received a 73 percent pay increase when the shares in Mighty River Power are being ripped away from hard-working New Zealanders. And who gets the benefits? It is John Key’s mates, who are the directors of Mighty River Power.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: They didn’t even ask for it.

They did not even ask for it. This is just what this Government does. It is there for its buddies, not for ordinary New Zealanders. But, hey, we have known this for some time. We have known that John Key’s memory is a bit shonky. He could not come up with a straight answer if his life depended on it. There were the Tranz Rail shares, the South African tour, the drinking age, the Dotcom briefing, calling his buddy Ian Fletcher, and being told that the Government Communications Security Bureau was acting illegally. Did he front up? No. Why? Because New Zealand cannot trust John Key.

It is an interesting thing to respond to such a bellowing individual as that one who has just resumed his seat, Iain Lees-Galloway. I believe he is one of your genuine outcasts in this House. He is the kind of guy who would have never fitted in at a certain private school because he was a lefty. He certainly does not fit in with his own mob, because he is a King’s College boy in a funny old line-up of socialists and watermelons. And, of course, he was sacked as the defence spokesperson—he did not get to ministerial level. So there you have a guy who just blathers on.

He is similar, of course, to the fifth-lowest polling candidate in the election for the North Shore, the failed former mayor, Andrew Williams. There was an individual in whom no one had any confidence whatsoever. Instead of hearing something sensible, which, of course, never emerges, what we heard was an attack on the integrity of the most popular leader in politics in the last 25 years, as Nick Smith said. I would say that it is probably about the last 40 years. But this is where you come from when you are struggling desperately to be the deputy leader: “Pick me! Pick me!”, said Andrew, “I’m the one!”. There are a few who have proved themselves totally incapable in New Zealand First—or “Winston First”, whatever it is called. But he is yet to come in on that one, because the smart money is on him being the next one to fall over while he is watering trees.

But let us get back to the reality of what this Government is all about. I am very proud to be part of a Government that actually understands the critical importance of effective resource management to New Zealand’s economic, environmental, and social well-being. Unlike the previous speakers from other parties, I would like to concentrate on some of the matters of substance, rather than personal attacks. The Minister of Finance, Bill English, in outlining our Business Growth Agenda, has emphasised the importance of the Resource Management Act reforms and water management. These are important to our overall economy. As we know—on this side of the Chamber at least—job growth will emerge from a strong economy, not from a whole lot of unfounded rhetoric and rewriting of history, which is what the Opposition specialises in.

As a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, ably led by our chair, Nicky Wagner, we have begun hearings on our Resource Management Act discussion document. On Monday we heard 60 submissions. This is a robust document. It is one that actually invites people to come in and make submissions—ones that we will consider, because we need to ensure that the overall purpose of the Resource Management Act reforms remain intact. For example, section 5 is promoting the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, and that includes the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems. These are proposals that also provide that environmental matters of national importance in section 6 of the Resource Management Act are also all being maintained. So when it comes to our waterways, effectively the changes proposed in that second phase of the Resource Management Act go much further than just simply maintaining protections, which was about all that the last incarnation of a failed Labour-Greens Government could manage when it had the chance.

Nick Smith earlier actually questioned the loyalty and the patriotism of the Greens because of the way that they have approached the Government Communications Security Bureau and a lot of issues. I would wonder, really, whether on a daily basis the Greens betray their own oath of allegiance to this House, which is to stay loyal to this country. I believe that they do. I think that the constant opposition and undermining does this country no good at all. They do not serve the environment well and they do not serve the country they live in well, but maybe that is because they have got a co-leader who does not come from here. Do you think that might have something to do with it? Who knows?

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: Note they haven’t objected.

They have not objected; no, they have gone very quiet. They tend to do that when facts are put in front of them. This John Key - led Government, by contrast, has prioritised action in this very important area, and we have introduced via the Resource Management Act national bottom lines for the quality of our waterways. That is the very first time in New Zealand’s history that water quality has been prioritised in this way.

In the North Shore, my electorate, where I represent a group of people who are interested in business, my constituents have come to me with a lot of complaints. They have said that the Resource Management Act processes are very time-consuming, they are very cumbersome, and they are very costly, and those constituents have urged us to reform them. These reforms are really long overdue. The Resource Management Act system, I have been told by my constituents and by the submitters who have come to our select committee, is unfortunately difficult to understand and use, and the North Shore businesses believe it is actively discouraging investment and motivation. The Resource Management Act proposal is that the decision makers must recognise and provide for the value of public access to and along the coastal marine area, the wetlands, the lakes, and the rivers. These are the sorts of things that we put out for consultation. We are very satisfied that the provisions that we have outlined will very adequately and properly provide for those matters, and we are looking forward to receiving more feedback through the submissions.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order in respect of that last speech. It is a serious point of order. You will be aware of the convention in this House that all members are considered honourable members. I would ask you to consider this: the previous speaker questioned—I think these were the words she used in referring to members of this House, our Green colleagues—the Greens’ loyalty to their oath of office of this Parliament and I think also their loyalty to the Crown. My simple question to you is that that is a very heavy statement to make, and that it does, I would submit to you, contravene the Standing Order and convention where members are honourable members. If their oath to this Parliament—

I ask the member to resume his seat. I was listening very carefully to all the speeches today. There has certainly been a very robust debate. There have been some personal attacks, but they have been across the board. I have taken it as it is, and that is the end of the matter. All members are honourable members and I refer to them as honourable members.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Is this a new point of order?

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is, indeed, and I appreciate your ruling. Could I simply ask you, and I appreciate your candour, if you could consider my point—not at this time—and take some advice in respect of it, because that, I think, is a very, very heavy statement.

The presiding officer at the time, and in this case myself, listens very closely to the debates. No one took offence at the time, and if someone takes offence at the time as to what is being said, it is up to them. The member it was directed at did not take offence. The Standing Orders allow for the member to take offence.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The member’s not here to take offence.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well, no one brought up a point of order at that time, so—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: We waited until the end of the speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am actually ruling on this. At this stage, I do not intend to do anything further. I hear what the member says. All members are honourable members, and we take it from there.

My contribution, I hope, will be somewhat different in tone. I want to reflect on some of the events of the week in the health sector. First of all I will pick up on the statement released today by the College of Public Health Medicine, which is the professional body representing those doctors who are the experts in preventing illness in New Zealand. What they had to say today was that the long-term effects of child poverty will be too costly for the health and prosperity of all New Zealanders. They finger child poverty as the No. 1 health problem in this country.

That comes on the heels of yesterday’s announcement of research from the University of Canterbury that linked New Zealand’s high rates of childhood asthma, some of the very highest in the world, with New Zealand’s cold, damp housing stock. Again, that is pretty congruent with what the college had to say today.

And then the day before yesterday, we read in the newspaper that the Ministry of Health had reviewed the Government’s $24 million campaign on rheumatic fever. What it had to say was that although that campaign was achieving some good things, it was failing to tackle the fundamental causes of the rheumatic fever epidemic, and therefore would fail in its central objective of stamping out the rheumatic fever epidemic in New Zealand.

Again, those fundamental causes of the epidemic that the ministry drew attention to were our stock of overcrowded and damp housing, poverty—once again—and access to medical care for the poorest New Zealanders. So we have had a week—3 days so far this week—where one wonders what tomorrow will bring. In those 3 days those same factors again and again are being drawn attention to.

New Zealand has, in addition to one of the highest rates of asthma in the developed world, one of the very highest rates of rheumatic fever. The Government’s attention was drawn to this in 2010 by the Public Health Advisory Committee, which found that New Zealand has a rheumatic fever rate 14 times the OECD average—14 times. That is an outrage, and it is a scandal.

The problem with the approach the Government has taken—the reason why it will fail—is that the Government has not understood something very basic about how health outcomes actually get formed. The Government has a model that is based on individual risk factors and individual behaviour such that it cannot understand or deal with the big social and environmental issues that actually shape health outcomes. So poverty, it does not understand; overcrowding, it does not understand; racism, it does not understand; and it does not intervene in those factors as a result.

The Public Health Advisory Committee report, which I mentioned, set out a programme of action to deal with those systematic factors that were driving not only the rheumatic fever epidemic and not only asthma but all of those other big health problems that this country faces. So far, the Government has failed to act on virtually every aspect of that plan, apart from one.

The one element that the Government has so far contributed positively to has been the Warm Up New Zealand campaign, a programme of action that the Green Party has been pleased to be part of and to work on, in partnership with the Government. Some 200,000 New Zealand homes have been insulated, and the homes that have been insulated so far have brought this country around an estimated $1.3 billion worth of benefits, and yet it seems that that programme may be in doubt for the future. What the Green Party says to the Government is that a warm, well-insulated home for every Kiwi family is not a “nice-to-have”; it is something that is a health necessity. We look forward to continuing to work with the Government in the future on that programme.

Is it not wonderful to get into something positive for a change—the ongoing saga of our growing economy—instead of dealing with issues, to quote the Hon Annette King, straight out of Mad magazine, something that I think we have spent a fair bit of this afternoon dealing with, frankly? I also heard Steffan Browning referring to my home town of Tangimoana this afternoon. He was speaking of it as though it was some alien village, and I am sure it is not—I live there.

The past few months have been very testing for many in rural New Zealand. The drought, a significant event across the North Island, has had a significant effect on many parts of our farming community. It will also have a long-term effect on many of our rural communities and the economic activity that takes place in those towns. I also want to very briefly mention at the same time the other thing that I think is a significant drain on rural New Zealand, and that is the meat industry and the lower sheep meat prices we have been suffering from at this present time. Both of those issues are going to compound in the near future, and certainly probably in the next 2 years in the future, of our hill country in New Zealand.

I want to talk about a couple of the bright lights on the horizon. Certainly, the dairy industry in the last few weeks has had a significant lift in price, giving new confidence and buoyancy to that sector. I am sure that that is going to assist greatly in the recovery from the drought. The other issue I want to mention briefly—and I think it is very important to us—is the log market. It is apparent by the large number of logging trucks lumbering, I guess, down our roads on a daily basis to our ports that this industry is in a time of buoyancy that it has not seen for some time. As more and more wood comes to the market in the next few years, it will increase the pressure on our roads, further justifying the Government’s roads of national significance programme and making the work—particularly in my area from Levin to Wellington, or the Wellington Northern Corridor, including Transmission Gully, as it is known—even more relevant to our futures in the lower North Island. Although Labour and the Greens appear to totally fail to understand the value of these roading developments to our economy, the people in my electorate, Rangitīkei, and, oddly enough, the people of Palmerston North stand to gain significantly from massive efficiency and cost savings created by these new roading systems. For example, we will be able to move an extra truck and trailer-load of logs from the lower end of my electorate to the port of Wellington on a daily basis, making those trucks almost 30 percent more efficient. That is a significant productivity gain for the lower North Island.

I talked of the drought in the North Island having seriously affected the ability of our farmers, and it has seriously affected the ability of our farmers to bank anything. Unfortunately, they all fully understand the content of their bank accounts. Certainly, many would love to suffer from the affliction suffered by the Leader of the Opposition, that of not needing to remember what they have or do not have in their bank accounts.

I wish to commend the performance of Federated Farmers during the course of this recent drought, and record the fact that I believe that they have been outstanding in their efforts to assist farmers. They strive for solutions to what is certainly a serious economic event for our rural towns and, indeed, our farmers. It also needs to be recorded here, I think, that our farmers have become much more resilient over the years, and for the most part have very good contingency plans in place to manage this type of event. The difference in this instance is that this drought has affected places such as the West Coast and the Taumarunui and Taihape area, which is certainly a rare event.

There are some very positive things happening in my region. Over the hill in John Hayes’ electorate, the Wairarapa, we at last have an oil rig setting up business. I hate to say that it is in John Hayes’ region, and I hate to say “Watch out, Taranaki.”, but I can confidently say that the Hawke’s Bay will be the next oil boom in New Zealand. I hope the Opposition can again get its head around that.

I also want to briefly touch, as Maggie Barry has, on the Resource Management Act reforms. I have had the privilege, I guess, of hosting or being part of a number of forums on the Resource Management Act in recent weeks, and I think we will make some very positive progress in this area. It will lift the shackles from many of our growth initiatives and improve our environmental responsibility at the same time. Often, one finds that when you give people their head, they take responsibility they did not take before.

This Government has made some great progress with its policies to grow our economy when much of the rest of the world is suffering from the malaise of the global financial crisis. I want to just very quickly refer to a couple of figures that I think are really interesting. One is the growth of trade with China from 2007 until now. In 2007 that trade was around the $2 billion mark. It is now around the $6.9 billion mark—an extraordinary gain. At the same time, trade with the UK has moved from $1.6 billion to $1.3 billion. I think that speaks for the change in our environment. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.