General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Today we have seen the Labour Party, eternally in Opposition, acting exactly like that—eternally in Opposition. Opportunities have been given to Labour to start to act like a Government, but, no, it fails on every single opportunity.

I want to talk today about something that should be of importance to all New Zealanders, and that is the cost of living. Let me begin by acknowledging first that we live in the best little country in the world, bar none—bar none. This has not come about by chance, and it certainly has not come about because of any Labour Government that has ever been in office.

What we should think about is that one of the best things that has happened as a result of our economic policies has been that interest rates are low. They are around half of what they were when Labour left office—when it was thrown out in 2008—when our economy was in recession, when home interest rates were around 11 percent, and when the cupboard not only was bare but had been mortgaged as well. Floating interest rates are now around half of that—around 5 to 6 percent; around half. For a family with a $200,000 mortgage—and lots of families around New Zealand have that—that means $10,000 after tax a year that they get to keep. That is a fantastic achievement, and well done. And what did we see under Labour? Electricity prices rising by 72 percent.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: How much?

By 72 percent. But our economy is growing, benefit numbers are dropping, crime is down to the lowest level in 30 years, and we have got a lot of very strong policies to keep this going.

Actually, today is a very important day because today is, in fact, the funeral of Baroness Margaret Thatcher. I think everybody knows that I am a big fan of hers. She was, however, a person of her time. She was a person of her time. She was influenced by social norms of the day. Looking back, in hindsight, you think that maybe there are a couple of things she did that you would not do. But she was always dead right on the economy and she was always dead right on democracy. She was, as The Economist has noted this week, a freedom fighter—and she was.

One of the things she said—this is a really good quote from her, and I am sure that the Opposition wants to hear it—goes like this: “Let us never forget this fundamental truth: the State has no source of money other than money which people earn themselves. If the State wishes to spend more it can do so only by borrowing your savings or by taxing you more. It is no good thinking that someone else will pay—that ‘someone else’ is you. There is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers’ money.” Well, that was true then and it is true today. Of course, we are working within a budget, and we have to be very, very careful about what we do with other people’s money. But is it not great that we can today commemorate the passing of a fantastic woman, Baroness Margaret Thatcher?

I would like to celebrate all the other women in New Zealand who are doing so well. That is why I was so pleased to be able to appoint Dr Jackie Blue to the role of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner—very good, Jackie. Jackie Blue would have to be one of the least partisan MPs in this House—the least partisan. In fact, I have always said: “See, I have appointed a lefty.”, so there you go. Would it not be great in this Parliament if we could have all the women celebrating Jackie’s success in her appointment? Some of you have, and I would like to thank all the MPs—male and female—who have come to support Jackie and to offer her their sincere congratulations.

Jackie Blue is an outstanding New Zealander who has spent her life helping others, helping others in a Parliament that is normally very divisive, and actually trying to bring people together. She has been chair of three cross-party parliamentarian groups. All of them have been around disadvantaged people—women, in particular—and that actually makes Jackie Blue a fantastic appointment. I am really proud of that, and I have to say that the country’s gain is the National Party’s loss, Jackie. I am very pleased to have been able to do that.

I come back to my favourite topic—Baroness Margaret Thatcher. Let us think about a few more quotes for the Opposition members, because they are not very well read. Here is another one: “Pennies don’t fall from heaven, they have to be earned here on earth.”

Jackie Blue, thank you for bringing Paul Quinn back and improving the intellectual capacity of the National Party. Up and down the country and around the rowdy halls and the lonely places formerly known as the Labour electorate committee of the National Party, they are happy that Paul Quinn is going back into that side of the House. But they are disappointed that the former spokesperson who is soon to disappear on to something else did not go to see Mrs Thatcher and her family and compare handbags. I could imagine Gerry Brownlee not actually going, and seeing Judith Collins going and actually celebrating the connection that she no doubt had with Baroness Thatcher—not intellect, not forcefulness, and not leadership, but accoutrements such as handbags.

I want to turn to the Prime Minister, who is not unlike “The Fisherman of Parliament”. Like “The Fisherman of Parliament” he does not focus. Most fishermen focus on whoppers, but when he tells one he pretends that it is a tiddler—a small lie, a small untruth. But, in actual fact, up and down the country, in families, marae, and businesses, they know that this person, this Prime Minister, can no longer be trusted. It is an arcane area when you talk about spies, police agencies, etc. But when you consistently stand up in this House and your body language gives it away, and your colleagues are starting to look down—even if it does cause my Radio Live colleague Judith Collins to look up, believing perhaps that she is the Baroness Thatcher of 2014. When you see that person looking down, fudging, cannot find the exact words, you know the poll results in their own data collection are going only one way. They are going the way—not only down but also, as Paul Quinn rises, their fortunes slip. It could be that that is the final feature they have to offer, given the poor performance.

It is not unreasonable that the Prime Minister should take a delegation and be patriotic in Asia to drum up business, but do not go there and declare war on North Korea. It is not unreasonable that the Prime Minister would want to shoulder-tap someone whom he may think is a reasonable applicant for a very important position, but do not come to this House and hide that. Do not come to this House and conceal that, and then get panicked into making a half-baked admission, and then go overseas and pretend that neither he nor Steven Joyce knew anything about the leaks. Those are not the hallmarks of a Prime Minister.

But, anyway, we have heard up and down the country the promise that the sale of these assets is going to improve the economy, that energy prices will become less of a burden, and that jobs will flow. I can tell you that up and down the country people loathe the idea of paying higher prices for power. People loathe the idea that foreigners are going to end up owning more of our assets as a direct consequence of that side of the House. Those members want only one thing. They want to hock off these assets, reward a narrow caste of their fellow travellers, and they do not give a hoot about the long-suffering, garden-variety Kiwis who cannot afford property in Auckland, cannot meet escalating medical-related costs, and cannot find jobs.

In the forestry sector 18,000 jobs are at stake—18,000 jobs are about to dwindle. This Minister for the Environment, for example, boasts that the Resource Management Act reforms are going to deliver new opportunity. For 4 years, as a small example, the forestry sector has been waiting for an environmental policy statement to simplify the functioning of the forestry sector. Not a dicky-bird. Mills and manufacturing plants up and down the country will applaud the announcement that energy costs are going to come down, because they are getting no leadership, no assistance—no assistance from this Government.

If people do not like those reforms, then they are going to have an opportunity to give their views. It is called an election. That is one reform where support will come massively our way, because there is not a single idea that is lessening the burden of daily life on Kiwis, and certainly not from this Prime Minister, who is a stranger to the truth.

Tēnā koutou huri noa i tō tātou Whare. I am delighted to stand and speak on this Government’s record in terms of its contribution to lowering the cost of living. Under that previous administration electricity went up 8 percent in every year, and let us remember here that those were great years, when surpluses were being returned, and yet that same Government was raking off costs from ordinary New Zealanders, those whom the previous speaker, the Hon Shane Jones, and that administration pretended to support. This Government, however, understands how to both focus on keeping the costs of living down by keeping interests rates as low as possible, by working to get a competitive electricity market by ensuring that consumers have in their own hands the ability to switch between power companies, and on the other side of it focus on encouraging work and employment.

First of all, this side of the House understands that it is not Governments that create wealth; it is businesses, it is employers, and it is ordinary Kiwis who back themselves. The other side of the House specialises in slicing and dicing and redistributing other people’s money. Our side of the House specialises in asking how we support businesses to grow opportunity and grow employment. How do we ensure that more tax stays in the pockets of New Zealanders? Because we believe, actually, that they make better choices for themselves than Governments do.

On this side of the House we understand that we need to get the best value out of assets. I, as Minister of Education, am happily awaiting the possibilities that will flow from realising value out of our assets. This side of the House understands the distinction between ownership and shareholding. That side of the House does not. We want to grow the value of our assets. We want to reduce the cost on New Zealanders. We want to invest and entrust their ability to employ people, to grow the wealth, and to distribute it. That side of the House does not understand that equation. We understand that it requires a whole lot of levers. That is why we are having welfare reform, which, again, follows the principle and theme of investing in what people can do, not what they cannot do, and in perpetuating independence, not dependence—two significant differences between this side of the House and that side of the House.

We want to invest in education because it has the medium to long term ability to grow the economy and grow productivity, because we believe in New Zealanders who have skills. We believe that if they have skills and they can read and write, then they can get jobs, they can keep jobs, and they can grow in those possibilities. That side of the House wants people angry and aggrieved and dependent on it. We do not. We believe in New Zealanders. We believe in this country. It is the little country that can under this Government. Under that Government it is the little country that cannot.

That side of the House and all its friends believe that the answer is to borrow and pray. Our side of the House believes in the fact that we need to pay our debt, get it out of the way, and support our economy so that New Zealanders can make choices for themselves and afford to pay for them. We have done that in some of the toughest years this country has ever faced. Again, we understand, appreciate, and respect that wealth comes from businesses, from people working, and from releasing value from assets, which is something we share—picking up from my colleague’s earlier acknowledgments—with Baroness Thatcher. She came into a country in as parlous a state as we came into in this Government. She recognised that she had to break the hold of those Opposition members who wanted to keep the greatness of that country and that empire down. We here on the other side of the world empathise with that, and appreciate how important it is to do away with the constraints and the obstacles that otherwise would prohibit the flow of the creative and imaginative genes that New Zealanders have. That is why we are investing in science and innovation. That is why we are reducing compliance costs. That is why we have a Minister of Health who is investing in New Zealanders being strong, in good state, well, and able to look after themselves, not dependent, aggrieved, and operating on myth, rumour, and half-truths.

Our Government believes in strong New Zealanders, capable of looking after themselves, not dependent on a bunch of—I see I am being waved to sit down. But can I say that it is a delight to be on this side of the House with right-thinking New Zealanders who trust and believe in Kiwis—

The member’s time has expired.

The Ministry for Primary Industries was informed last October that milk was contaminated with dicyandiamide. What did it do with that information? Did it inform all other milk processors immediately? No, it did not—no, it did not. Fonterra and the Ministry for Primary Industries sat on it. They sat on it right through for another 3 months into 2013 before they let the community know, before they let their trading partners know, and before they let the other processors, which were just as likely to be affected by contamination of milk by dicyandiamide, know. So what was this? This was basically a major cover-up, a damage control operation, by part of the industry, but not by all of those in the industry. They could not even participate, as they were not told.

The Official Information Act papers that the Green Party has obtained show that the team working on this issue was almost singularly focused on not letting the story get out. What was its concern? Well, it had quotes like that it was agreed that “until the meeting on 21 [January with Fonterra] the issue will stay between the two parties without involving other organisations.” and that “MPI need to be careful of the time frame between being made aware of the issue and communicating this to the public …”. This is a public that could buy something that may or may not have been contaminated. There are obviously a range of views on the risks to that public. The ministry had contingencies for when the balloon went up. It had words like the run-up to “D-Day”, and said: “Ideally we would like no media coverage.”

Our regulators should be concerned with food safety, producing high-quality products, and protecting our international reputation, which needs to be maintained. Clearly, that was part of that, but was that the right way to go about it? It certainly was not. Not keeping food contamination a secret, being open, and letting people know what was going on straight away would have been a good idea. I am sure there have been lessons learnt, but it was 3 months later before they made it public. Not only that, Fonterra has also got a lot to answer for, because it had the results from August 2012. The ministry decided to tell the world it was September, but it actually had them earlier. The results were coming through on 24 August, 27 August—it did know that back then.

But there was another issue in behind there. In the meantime, while this was all happening, the Fonterra share float happened. Of course, while that happened—and a number of people in here will have been at Darfield on 30 November, opening the big new factory, when the share float effectively happened—it went up by 20 percent in value in the first few minutes. But all that time it was sitting on the fact that it had something that it knew would affect markets and would affect the reaction of people to that share float. Exporters reported very, very quickly that sales fell through the floor after the news broke.

Is there an alternative? Of course there is an alternative. We do not need to be using theoretical silver bullets that will bite us in the butt, because they are a short-lived, unsustainable solution to an unsustainable farming system. There are good solutions. The solutions are in using sustainable farming systems—genuinely sustainable farming systems—that tick all the boxes. They ensure farm profitability, like organics can do, and does, when it is given the opportunity in this country and is not suppressed by the Government or by the principal people in the sector. Clean, safe food is possible in this country and, as I say, it is profitable, as well. The demand for organics, for example, has just gone up, by 28 percent in 2012—30 percent up in prices, as well.

I note that the ministry, when it has ever looked for dicyandiamide—even when it tested for itself further back, in 2010—did not even do it properly. It looked when there was a narrow window when it would not be found, and it was in areas where it would not be found. We can do better, and organics is part of it.

I am sad to say that this is a sad day in this House. It is a sad day for a couple of reasons. The very first reason is that one of the first speakers from the Opposition, in 2013, when speaking about women politicians—fine women leaders in this House—reduced the conversation to being about handbags. Not one—not one—female member of the Opposition took umbrage at that neanderthal, sexist language that was displayed by that member. I have to say that I am sad to be in this House in 2013, with the soon to be starting Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, Dr Jackie Blue, and have that kind of statement said in this House and accepted by those female Opposition members. I am sorry, and it is a sad day in this House when we tolerate that kind of sexist language, that neanderthal language, when we have strong, competent, fine women represented across this House.

It is particularly sad because of the timing of today—today, of course, being the funeral for Baroness Thatcher.

💬 Hon Annette King: Trivial matters! Talk about the real issues.

“Talk about the real issues.”, bellows one member from the other side of the House. Talk about the real issues? What did we cover today in question time? Yes, the real issues that matter for New Zealanders. The real issues that matter for New Zealanders are low interest rates, reducing crime, increasing early childhood education participation, increasing results in National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2, decreasing numbers on benefits, and growing the economy. Those actually are the things that matter to New Zealanders.

I want to come back to this connection with Baroness Thatcher. She took office in very, very challenging times. She took office when the economy from the previous Government was in a shocking, shocking state. She was not liked by all, but she did an incredible job with difficult environments, and she got results. That is what this side of the House, that is what this Government, is doing in every area that I mentioned before. Those are the results, those are the things that matter to hard-working, taxpaying New Zealanders, not some of the personal, petty, sexist politics that we had today from a member of the Labour Party.

I am proud to be part of a caucus where we have fine female Ministers in Cabinet. We have had two today who have already spoken about the results that this side of the House is producing. The fact is that we have a very fine Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner in Dr Jackie Blue, effective from next month. I am proud of the results that our Government produces. I am proud of our woman MPs. I am not afraid to stand in this House and be proud of the results that we are producing, because they are the results that matter to New Zealanders.

I want to come back to the conversation about the cost of living. Price increases clearly make it difficult for households. So in the House today the Labour Opposition raised questions about power prices. How ironic is that! Under its 9 years, power prices went up 72 percent. Now it talks about how we must do something about power prices. Well, actually, this is a Government that gets stuff done. This is a Government that is actually doing things that matter for New Zealanders in terms of keeping prices manageable.

Looking at an increase in wages—that is another thing that I did not mention in my results, but New Zealanders have had gross wages increase by 14 percent. That is a significant number. I want to come back to the results in NCEA level 2, because we know that if we want our young people to leave school, get a qualification, and get a job, NCEA level 2 is the minimum that they need. Since we came into office—listen to this percentage—in 2008, there has been a 6.7 percent increase. That is 6.7 percent. You guys do not like facts and figures. You do not like hearing the facts about what we are achieving. You do not like the fact that we are in tune with what New Zealanders are interested in, because that side of the House focuses on petty issues—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Apparently you do not like a lot of things, according to the speaker on her feet. She should be told, because she has been around for a little bit of time now, to follow the Standing Orders and refer to the House but not you.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the member’s comment. The member is quite right, and the speaker Louise Upston should not bring the Speaker into the debate.

That side of the House cannot cope with the fact that this Government is delivering results. The fact that we just had an interruption there means that the Opposition does not like the facts and figures, the results that this Government is producing for hard-working New Zealanders.

I would have a great deal more respect for that member who just resumed her seat, Louise Upston, and her views on the representation of women in this House if she was not standing by while her Government reduced the equal representation of women on State sector boards—that target—if she did not stand by while her Government voted against paid parental leave, and if she did not stand by while her Government reduced the training incentive allowance for sole parents. If she actually stood up for women in this House when it mattered, with her vote, I would have a great deal more confidence and respect for what she has to say about how women are represented in Parliament.

But let us move on to the real issues, not about Maggie Thatcher, at all, because those are not the real issues that New Zealanders are thinking about. What they are thinking about is the cost of living. What they know now as a result of this week in Parliament is that the Prime Minister, John Key, is clueless. They used to think that he was just gormless but now they know he is absolutely clueless, because he said so himself.

Today we learnt—if people did not know this before—that what Hekia Parata said before is completely wrong. Just 10 minutes ago in this House Hekia Parata stood up and said that the Government wants to keep money in people’s pockets because it thinks they know best. However, we know that the Government clearly has its hands in people’s pockets, because today we heard that the petrol tax is going up to the tune of $20 billion more than the Government needs for the roading that it has planned. That is $20 billion that is coming out of the pockets of New Zealand parents, New Zealand families, which they could be spending on other things, because that Government made a decision to put the tax up for no real reason at all.

I want to remind New Zealanders that from 1 April this year they are paying more in ACC levies than they ought to be paying. Even by the officials’ own estimates—the estimates from Treasury—this Government is taking up to $2 billion each year out of the pockets of hard-working employees and employers in New Zealand for no other reason than it can. That money cannot be spent on anything else but injuries and accidents, because it is an ACC levy. The officials have told us that the Government is taking more than $2 billion more than it needs to cover injuries and accidents. That will sit in surplus in an ACC account, not going anywhere, not doing anything productive, just simply sitting there creating a surplus in an attempt to make it look as though the Government’s whole Crown operating expenses are going into surplus. Well, it is a nonsense. It is a cruel trick being played by that Government on every worker and every employer, who are paying more in ACC levies than they need to to cover the costs of injuries and accidents.

The question needs to be asked: why is the Government doing this? It is doing this because it promised to bring the books back into surplus, and the only way it is able to do that—because it is not growing the economy, it is not getting jobs, and it is not actually bringing productivity into this country—was to unfairly go into the pockets of workers and employers and take more out in ACC levies than what it actually needs.

Today we learnt that that Government’s decision to actually reduce funding for pharmaceuticals and put prescription costs up has increased the cost of pharmaceuticals by 9.3 percent.

So that is what is driving the cost of living. It is not anything to do with a robust, burgeoning economy; it is to do with decisions made by that Government quite deliberately to take money in petrol taxes that it does not need, to take money in ACC levies that it does not need for accidents and injuries, and to actually make sure that New Zealanders are paying more for their prescription charges. Those are the things that are creating real stresses on New Zealand families, because they cannot afford to be propping up that Government’s commitments that it made in order to go into surplus. When the Government made that commitment, New Zealanders honestly believed that it was talking about actually getting the economy going. New Zealanders honestly believed that it was going to go into surplus by getting out of recession. But no. It is getting into that surplus surreptitiously by raising levies, raising taxes, and raising the cost of living for every New Zealander.

It is great to be speaking today with the other women MPs for the National Party. The inspiration for this all-women debate is the funeral today of Baroness Margaret Thatcher because, love her or hate her—and there are many in both camps—she was a powerful and determined woman and she crashed through the glass ceiling of UK politics.

Internationally New Zealanders have been given credit for leading the empowerment of women, but even so, it has been a slow and imperfect process. In 1893 New Zealand was the first country to give women the vote and that was a fantastic achievement of Kate Sheppard from Christchurch and her supporters. But it took until 1919 for an Act to be passed to allow women to stand for Parliament, and until 1933 before the first woman MP, Elizabeth McCombs, was elected, and she was elected because her husband died in office.

It was the mid-1980s before the number of women MPs reached double figures, but with MMP we went from 20 to 30 percent of women members, but there has been little change ever since. In 1997 we got the first female Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Dame Jenny Shipley, and then a second one, and then a series of female appointments that included the Speaker of the House, the Chief Justice, and the Governor-General. At one stage all four senior appointments were held by women. Now there is only one. But thanks to those who have gone before, the door is open and that is the way it should be—not quotas, not pedantic balancing, but an absolutely open process for selecting the best person for the job.

If New Zealand wants to grow the economy, protect our environment, and increase our quality of life for the next generation, we need to make sure that the talents and skills of women are fully understood and used, and we need to appreciate more of what women can offer, not just the narrow skill set that is generally recognised and utilised. Margaret Thatcher may have been the first and only woman Prime Minister of the UK, but she got that position through stubborn aggressiveness and basically out-manning the men.

Often it is a crisis that provides opportunities for women. During the Second World War women ran our businesses, they ran our farms, and in many cases record results, bumper crops, and top returns were delivered. During the earthquakes in Christchurch, in the media we saw men in uniforms, in fluorescent vests and hard hats, and that was good, but everywhere women, less visibly, were also doing the hard yards, doing the invaluable work, long-term planning, organising, supporting, making things happen, creating new solutions, advocating for the community, and making sure that everyone was being looked after.

To hear their stories and recognise their achievements, I organised a series of meetings, called Bird’s Eye View, and it has been both fascinating and inspiring. We have heard from Mary Devine from Ballantynes, who was instrumental in the Re:START Mall; from Di Lucas about the Christchurch “black map”, which shows how it affected our geotechnical information; and from Karen Gilliland about how midwives kept delivering during the disaster and about how they have rebuilt a better and stronger headquarters. We have been fascinated by the work of Coralie Winn, Gap Filler, the Ministry of Awesome, and much, much more. And every week I see new recovery stories led by women that are worth telling.

So, as we rebuild in Christchurch and as our country strives for a brighter future, we must be smart enough, we must be bold enough, to appreciate and utilise the human capital of all our citizens—all our citizens—men and women.

I met Maggie Thatcher. She was beautiful, focused, intelligent, and she could seriously speak—and there the contrast ends.

This is where we are at with the electricity-generating sector in New Zealand. Under a system that National set up and Labour governed with, power companies are making record profits and the Government is extracting massive dividends from power companies, which is, seriously, an undeclared taxation system. We pay tax on petrol, alcohol, and cigarettes, and the tax is acknowledged. The Government takes hundreds of millions out of the electricity sector by way of dividends, and the tax is by stealth.

The entire electricity generation sector is a shambles. It is a phoney, fictional market. The so-called competition is a fantasy designed to hide what is actually happening. The model is hopelessly flawed and needs to be radically overhauled—and now. I seriously doubt there is any person in this country, even someone with a PhD in advanced electronics or economics, who could give a clear, coherent explanation of how the New Zealand electricity sister—the New Zealand electricity sector—actually functions.

💬 Jacqui Dean: The “electricity sister”—ha, ha!

Well, I know that woman over there could not—the woman who is laughing about it. Apparently, rocketing prices on the farms of her electorate and in the homes of her part of the country are of no matter, whatsoever. They are a laughing matter—what is her name?

💬 Andrew Williams: Jacqui Dean.

Jacqui Dean does not give a tinker’s damn about a huge cost to New Zealand businesses, farms, and homes. Jacqui Dean needs to get out there and find out what is going on in her electorate.

If one sets out to design a system that would gouge the public with electricity price hikes, one would create the system we have ended up with now. It is a complete mishmash of half-baked economic theories, foisted on the country by National, and Jacqui Dean thinks it is a great idea. Jacqui Dean does not give a hoot for her electorate. She thinks this cost structure, which benefits the few—

💬 Jacqui Dean: Where’s that member’s electorate?

It is no use hysterically shouting like a fishwife. Answer the challenge: what on earth is going on? It is a mess. The public and businesses are paying through the nose for this mess.

💬 Jacqui Dean: Say my name—say my name.

No strident, hysterical, anti-feminine call from there is going to change my mind. The Government ploughs blindly on with its State asset sales, and the cannon fodder that Jacqui Dean and her ilk represent just signs up every day. Something has to be done to earn the “Max Bradford market matters”—remember what he said? He said: “I’m going to plateau prices.” It was 1998. Well, under National, this is what electricity plateaus mean. It is a vertical line, straight up, straight through the roof, and Mr Key has the audacity to blame Labour for the system that he and his party set up.

What is the Government doing to reduce electricity prices? Nothing. Despite—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Turn the lights off—that’s New Zealand First policy, eh?

Oh, I see. The solution that Tau Henare and Jacqui Dean have got is that if you want to save electricity, turn the lights off. Turn the fridge off. Turn the heater off. In fact, why not just turn things off completely? That is their solution.

I know that there are people from the Pacific Islands here, and they will be shocked to think that this Parliament in the First World has got such puerile debate from one side of the House, namely the side of the House that is the Government. There, those ones—not over here. We have predictably been told by Dr Geoff Bertram from Victoria University that in comparison with the US, the UK, Japan, France, and South Korea, for example, our prices are much higher.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What are you going to do about it?

What are we going to do about it? Here is the answer. This is what our policy is, and today I am announcing it. New Zealand First will restore the State-owned electricity generators now being sold back into public ownership and put them under a single generating entity. We will seriously investigate putting a cap on electricity pricing related to the CPI, and no more.

Mr Henare said, in a lucid moment: “What is your policy?”. He has heard it. It is definitive. And, if he concerns himself about his people up there in west Auckland, he should be cheering from the rafters that, finally, there was announced today a solution that will work. We are going to—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: He’s going to nationalise it—that’s all he could come up with.

Well, the volume of noise over there suggests that he should wind up—you are right, Mr Speaker. So today we have announced our policy, and tomorrow and in the next few months—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

It is ironic is, is it not, that Helen Kelly, Sue Moroney, and others are so ready to discriminate against the appointment to the role of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner of Dr Jackie Blue, just because she is a soon-to-be former member of Parliament and member of a political party. Should that disqualify her from being able to step aside from party politics and assume a neutral role? Do these same women hold that view about, maybe, H V Ross Robertson, who leaves his Opposition party bench to sit in the Speaker’s Chair and preside over Parliament? Well, he can do it, he can be neutral, but Jackie Blue cannot? Eric Roy can do it, he can be neutral, but Jackie Blue cannot? Lindsay Tisch can do it, he can be neutral, but Jackie Blue cannot? And what about Helen Clark? Under those same rules, is she, therefore, unable to hold a neutral position at the United Nations? Do these people even think these things through?

But it is quite different for them, of course, is it not, because when Labour was in power, there were many, many appointments of Labour luvvies. Does anyone remember Dianne Yates? Lovely woman—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No!

No, they said from the other side—no, they said from the other side. Not even her Labour mates remember her. Does anyone remember Dame Ann Hercus? Does anyone remember Mike Williams? Does anyone remember Helen Kelly?

How convenient for them now to discredit Jackie Blue’s years of cross-party work—those 8 years in Parliament of cross-party work on a number of issues, three or four I think, including her advocacy of women—her very, very clear advocacy of women—and her strong, unforgettable, and successful campaign for the funding of Herceptin. What a triumph that was for Jackie Blue—something to be so very proud of. And where were the Labour women, where were the Green women in 2005, and where were the New Zealand First women—were there any in 2005? There might have been. Where were they in 2005 when Jackie Blue was calling on the then Labour Government to help save the lives of breast cancer sufferers with the funding of Herceptin? Where were they? They were silent.

💬 Hon Annette King: We funded Herceptin.

Oh, they are talking now. They are talking the talk now, but they were silent when it really mattered. In terms of making a contribution, Dr Jackie Blue has done more in this House than most. So, Helen Kelly, Sue Moroney, Metiria Turei—it is so easy, is it not, to pull someone down, to denigrate their work, and to doubt their motives, just because they do not come from your side of the political spectrum. Well, I say thank goodness for strong women at any time in history—RIP Maggie Thatcher—in any Parliament, whether it is in the United Kingdom, it might be in the Pacific parliaments, or here in New Zealand, who are prepared to have a view, who are prepared to stand up for what matters to them, and who, like Dr Jackie Blue, want to act in a role to provide equal opportunities for all of us.

This week we welcome parliamentarians from all around the Pacific to our Parliament. This is the first time such a significant number of Pacific MPs and political leaders have assembled together to discuss the key issues facing the Pacific region. The forum is a good opportunity for us to develop networks with our Pacific colleagues. Although many Pacific Island countries have a pool of well-educated women who are already leaders in their fields, women’s participation in these parliaments varies from a high of 44 percent—not so bad—to three countries who have no women parliamentarians. Would it not be great to encourage and assist women to conduct successful election campaigns and to become effective MPs? We need strong women in all of our parliaments, so let us celebrate and encourage and not try to pull each other down, just for the hell of it. Thank you.

When the Government set up the Auckland super-city many people said it would have very far-reaching consequences, and there is no doubt that right now Auckland is on the move. For the first time ever the city has a plan to deal with growth, it is dealing with the gridlock, Wynyard Quarter and Britomart Place have shown what high-quality urban renewal can do, and the place is really buzzing. There is a new sense of unity and pride in Auckland.

Unfortunately, there is one thing holding it back like a dead weight—Wellington. Although Auckland is moving fast to transform its regional economy to focus on innovation and exports, the National Government is a brake on progress. But when it comes to the big issues in Auckland, the Government has no plan of its own. All it knows how to say is no to Auckland, no to the popular city rail link that would have allowed trains to run every 5 minutes and that is supported by more than 60 percent of Aucklanders, and no to the Auckland Unitary Plan that would allow Auckland to grow a little bit up and a little bit out.

And what has the Government done? It has dispatched Laurel and Hardy—big Gerry Brownlee, the tsar of Christchurch, and Nick Smith, the MP for Nelson; Nick Smith, the “Minister for Sprawl”, and Gerry Brownlee, the “Minister for Gridlock”—to tell Aucklanders how to run their city. Well, I have got a word of warning for the National Government: Aucklanders are getting fed up with Laurel and Hardy coming to Auckland and telling them how to run their city. Aucklanders had the super-city forced on to them. They accepted it, they are making it work, but Wellington simply cannot let go, because their man John Banks did not win the mayoralty.

While Gerry Brownlee pours scorn on the city rail link and Nick Smith threatens to legislate to take powers away from the Auckland Council, the Prime Minister is all over the place. In recent weeks we have seen him misleading Aucklanders, misleading the public, on two key issues. He said that the Auckland Council wants the Government to enact the unitary plan straight away with no input and no opportunity for Aucklanders to have a say. Wrong. Right now thousands of Aucklanders are having their say, and, once the plan is notified in September, even if the Government gives it legal weight like the council has asked, the public can do it all again with the Government-appointed independent panel. How is that for having no input? Why is the Prime Minister misleading the public?

He was caught out again when he said on television that Auckland Council is saying it is going to intensify, it is pretty much going to go up within the urban metropolitan limits—just go straight up—and we are saying you need to go up and out. Nothing could be more misleading. The Auckland Plan says that up to 40 percent of new dwellings will be built on greenfields land over the next 30 years. For the benefit of Nick Smith, what that means is that land equivalent to six times the area of Nelson will be freed up outside the current urban boundaries.

It is a shame that the Prime Minister does not agree with Kim Campbell of the Employers and Manufacturers Association, who said recently that the Government’s refusal to ratify Auckland’s plan before 2016-17 will load big costs on to Auckland’s ratepayers and hold back Auckland’s growth. It is a shame that he does not agree with John Roughan of the New Zealand Herald, who said that the Government is “on the wrong side of the city’s plan” and that no one else is putting up an alternative. It is a shame that the Prime Minister does not agree with Federated Farmers Chief Executive, Conor English, who says that Auckland needs to stop sprawling across the countryside and invest more in public transport. That sounds remarkably close to Len Brown’s Auckland Plan. So not only is the Government offside with Aucklanders but the National Party’s closest political allies in Auckland—the Employers and Manufacturers Association, Federated Farmers, and the chamber of commerce—have all deserted the National Party and are backing Len Brown’s vision for Auckland.

Labour’s policy is to back Aucklanders, not to fight them. We agree with the Auckland Council, we agree with its balanced approach to managing the city’s growth and the fact that our country’s biggest city has to incorporate a million extra people in the next 30 years, and we agree with the balanced approach to land supply and intensification. Labour will invest in the city rail link, because it will allow trains to run on our rail network every 5 minutes. The biggest roadblock to progress in Auckland is this Government, and New Zealanders deserve better.

It is a pleasure to speak in this general debate, which is more than likely going to be my final general debate. I would like to begin by acknowledging the many, many MPs in the House who have wished me well in my new role as the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, which I begin in early June. I want to acknowledge the contribution that the former Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, Dr Judy McGregor, has made in this role. Her work output has been extensive and her work extraordinary and outstanding. I have got huge, massive shoes to fill, I know, and I will certainly do my very best to do that. I am truly and sincerely humbled by the messages of support from throughout the House and also from well-wishers around the country.

On this day I would like to acknowledge all women MPs in every party in this House. It is not easy being a woman MP—it ain’t easy, that is for sure. At times it is brutal, it is personal, it is combative, and it is hostile. So well done, everyone—all women MPs in this House. And, with the exception of the Green Party, women MPs are in the minority in their respective parties. We make up 50 percent of the population, and it is unacceptable that we make up a little over 30 percent of the current Parliament. That, I know, by international standards is not bad. But New Zealand has been a leader in this area. We gave women suffrage in 1893; we can do it again. I lay down that challenge to all parties, with the exception of the Green Party, and that is also for future political parties that might be forming.

I would like to particularly acknowledge the cross-party groups that I have had the pleasure to work in over the last 7 years. They are the New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development, and that role has a focus on sexual reproductive health and rights of women in Pacific Island countries, domestic violence, and our aid budget; and the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians group, which I co-chair with Louisa Wall, which has the focus of increasing the number of women MPs in Pacific parliaments. That is why we are so very excited about the Pacific forum tomorrow and the debate that it will have about gender. We are looking forward to that very much.

I have so much enjoyed working in the cross-party space, working collectively for an objective with like-minded people. Whether it is about sexual reproductive health and rights or increasing the number of women MPs in Pacific parliaments or whether it is lobbying for the Arms Trade Treaty, it has been a pure pleasure, it has been rewarding, and I have enjoyed it immensely.

The work, particularly in the New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development, has left me with the absolute and utter conviction and passion that in developing countries, by backing and empowering women and girls, economies, countries, and communities will go forward. But the same applies to the developed countries. As women progress, everyone progresses, and that is why I am so thrilled and excited about my new role.

Judith Collins told the House today that, with my appointment to Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, she has appointed a lefty to the position. She said that with mirth, but I will wear that as a badge of honour.

I am grateful that while I have had the opportunity to be a member of Parliament in this House, I have been given the opportunity to advocate in a number of areas, which I will just outline as time allows. But, first of all, I would like to wish Louisa Wall really well in the third reading of her Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill.

I have a bill in the ballot, which I hope a colleague will take up, and that is the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill. That bill would mean that if young people of 16 or 17 wish to get married, they will need to go through the Family Court. Parental consent is out of the loop, though, obviously, when the Family Court judge hears an application, the family would be included. I believe sincerely that that would take possible coercion out as a factor with the marriages of young people. These marriages happen only about 100 times a year, so in the background of 20,000-plus marriages each year, we are talking about a small number. So I am hopeful that a colleague will take that up and that it will get drawn, be debated, and pass through the House.

I am particularly proud, and I will always be proud, of the fact that the Government took up the 12 months’ funding of Herceptin—absolutely. I know that has made—

💬 Hon Member: Jackie, it was your work, too.

Well, yes, it has made an enormous difference. Studies that have since come through have proved beyond any shadow of doubt that 12 months is the gold standard. I am so proud a National Government funded it immediately after becoming the Government in 2008.

I am also particularly pleased that I have had the opportunity to advocate for enrolled nurses, and I am pleased that the Minister of Health expanded that role into acute services, as well.

Mr Speaker, thank you for your leadership in the House. Thank you, everyone, each and all, thank you so much.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātau katoa. I a au e tū nei me mihi rā ki tērā mema i tū ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Pāremata i tēnei ahiahi i a ia e kōrero ana mō ngā mea kua oti i a ia.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker, and to us all. As I stand here I must acknowledge that member who stood before the House of Parliament this afternoon while she was talking about the things she had done.]

So can I just add my congratulations to Jackie Blue and thank her for her contribution. I feel a bit of a killjoy after that speech, with all its positivity, in raising the issue that I want to put before the House. I wish you well, Jackie, in your career ahead of you.

In the time I have got, I want to talk about a topic that often provokes all sorts of severe reactions, as if it were the first time the words have ever been uttered. What I am talking about is the topic of institutional racism. Over 30 years ago it was identified that Māori experience disproportionate treatment in the New Zealand justice system. People do not see things such as overrepresentation of Māori in all of the worst statistics as a result of racism; on the contrary, they tend to think that it is a Māori problem that we often try to justify by claiming racism. I reject that. Those are ignorant and divisive thoughts, and they are preserved by our current systems, which are geared towards disadvantaging Māori in the police force, the courts, corrections, and, of course, the justice system.

One of the good things about being in Parliament is that you get clear statistics and information that might back the claim. Of course, in the past week or so, the organisation JustSpeak released a very clear overview that spoke about the chances of being prosecuted for a crime if you are a young Māori. It said that it was far more likely that you would be prosecuted if you were Māori than non-Māori. For the 3,495 theft apprehensions recorded as Caucasian there were 588 prosecutions, and for Māori, for the 5,660 apprehensions recorded, 1,173 resulted in prosecution—in other words, rates of 16.8 percent versus 20.7 percent. Even worse, there are 15 categories of offences, ranging from homicide to theft to property offences, with everything in between, and in 14 of those 15 categories Māori have a higher proportion of apprehensions leading to prosecutions. The category that is the exception is “miscellaneous offences”.

Such was our concern about this that we asked questions of the Minister of Police, who is in the House at present, about this matter. It is something that we do take seriously, and we will continue to advocate against this type of racism.

Most people would think that there is a simple reason—if you commit a crime, then you do the time. The thing is that following apprehension for a crime, the percentage of Māori who are then prosecuted is far higher than the percentage of Pākehā who are prosecuted. If a Māori teen and a Pākehā teen are apprehended for the same crime, the young Māori is more likely to be prosecuted, while the Pākehā youth is more likely to get off. Does this not raise questions of fairness and of discrimination in those people who would be sceptical of institutional racism? That is the question. Sadly, I would not expect so.

When the apprehension of a suspect occurs, there is often an element described as discretion. It can be used by the arresting officer as to whether to proceed or to not arrest. One might ask what is considered by that officer when they are using their notions of discretion. Are their decisions going to be informed by their own views about Māori people and about Pākehā people? Once in the system, of course, what are the options that are being offered to offenders that might enable them to plan for a future without being stigmatised by the slur of a criminal conviction? We know about diversion schemes and restorative justice programmes, but are those being offered fairly? Are they being offered to young people, in order that they might be able to avoid conviction and have a shot at growing up and learning from their experiences? The data that was presented by JustSpeak suggests not.

Ethnic bias within the police and criminal justice system is real. There have been numerous instances and reports in New Zealand that tell us that it is real. Kim Workman from the Rethinking Crime and Punishment group suggests that there are a number of avenues that need to be looked at, including traffic stop procedures, ethnic profiling, offender eligibility for diversion, and pre-charge warnings, to name a few. I have been interested in the whole notion of community law forums. So that is the concern, and the Māori Party will be raising a bill in the near future called the Elimination of Institutional Racism Bill, and we hope to introduce that into the members’ ballot very shortly.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.