General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. We have now progressed into the world that George Orwell wrote about only fictionally. We have moved into a world of a total surveillance State. What has been revealed internationally in the last week, and in the last few days, is the existence of PRISM, a secret software that is run by the National Security Agency in the United States, which enables the US Government to spy on basically all online communications in the United States and on anything passing through the United States. We have now moved into the world of, essentially, the total surveillance State. Everything we say or do can, and probably is, being recorded by the National Security Agency and various other security agencies.

It seems to be a remarkable turn of events. The internet was supposed to give us freedom—and, of course, it has. It was supposed to give us access to information—and, of course, it has. But what we have seen is that it has also become a tool that is being used by the repressive State to invade our privacy, to take our personal data, and to read our emails on a scale never seen before and never imagined possible.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member, but he is having to cope with a level of noise that is unnecessary. Would members who want to carry on conversations please do so in the lobbies. I am sorry to interrupt the member.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. What we are now seeing is that we have a Government in New Zealand that will not come clean about its involvement with the PRISM organisation. How many reports the Government’s communications agencies have received from PRISM is something it will not tell us. We know that hundreds have gone to the UK Government from the National Security Agency. We know that the Government has entered some kind of contract with Palantir. Palantir is a data-mining company that was established in part by the CIA and by various Silicon Valley executives, including Peter Thiel. Palantir has established itself in New Zealand and, apparently, according to its ads, has people embedded in the Government. Presumably the purpose of Palantir is to replicate the data-mining capacity of PRISM at a national level. It is very difficult for us to be entirely clear, because as we saw in question time today the Prime Minister refuses to give answers when very simple and straight questions are asked about Palantir.

It seems to me that a Prime Minister who is doing his job of protecting our democracy, doing his job of protecting our freedoms, and doing his job of protecting our privacy would give very clear answers about the role of PRISM and give very clear answers about the role of Palantir. But, of course, the Prime Minister is not doing his job. As we have seen time and again, the only democratic oversight of the Security Intelligence Service is the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister has failed miserably over and over to ensure that those agencies are operating within the law and are doing their job.

We all know that you cannot have democracy and freedom without some degree of security, and so we accept the need for security. You cannot go to the vote if you are fearful of the gun. But we also know that when security agencies become so overbearing and become so self-confident of their ability to interfere in all of our private lives, every minute of every day, reading all of our emails, and watching all of our digital and online communications, then we are losing something that is critical to our freedom: we are losing our privacy. Without privacy and without the ability to have a private thought or to write a private email, it is impossible to develop fully as a human being. If you never have the opportunity to speak freely with other people confidentially, you never have the ability to develop freely as to what you really think about the world. You never have the opportunity to be free of the State and of the Government of the day.

When this Government and others think that it is acceptable to mine the data, the online communications, of all people around the planet, including all New Zealanders, I think that they have fundamentally crossed a line as to what it means to live in a democratic society, and it is time to put the security agencies back in the box from whence they came. They do not have the right to read everybody’s emails or to watch all of our online communications. In doing so, they are destroying the very freedom that they argue they are acting to protect. Once they cross over that line, the very freedom that those who work in the system say they are acting to protect is destroyed and demolished by those kinds of breaches against privacy, against democracy, and against, fundamentally, our freedom. So it is the responsibility of the Government of the day—and, in particular, the Prime Minister, who has oversight of these agencies—to intervene and to tell us what is going on inside the security services in New Zealand.

I think they used to say it was reds under the bed. Well, now it is just paranoia from the Greens. Actually, you might have a little bit of sympathy for that argument if it was not from the “Chicken Little” of New Zealand politics. Every time he talks about anything, the sky is falling in, it is all so difficult, and it is big business, big politics, and those on the right all against the little innocent Greens, who have been spending, like a drunken sailor, the taxpayers’ money on their silly little referendum, which has gone absolutely nowhere.

But, look, I want to ignore the marginal and the single figures in polls. I want to look at the double standard that has really been revealed in the last couple of days, and that is the double standard of the party opposite—the Labour Party. This is a party that has railed against Skycity Casino. Do you remember the days of questions about Skycity—the Government in the pocket of Skycity, the gambling throughout the community, and the evil of Skycity? And what do we find? Supping from the gambler’s cup on Saturday night were Cosgrove, Mr Faafoi, Mr Shearer, and one other. Who was the other—who was the other? And here is the other thing. What did Mr Shearer say today? He did not admit it—he did not admit anything until today. What did—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption] I have just been informed that I am not allowed to interrupt the member’s speech with this point of order. I will wait.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well, the member has now interrupted the speech of the Hon Tony Ryall.

Well, was Trevor Mallard the fourth member? Oh no. Was it Sue Moroney? No. Was it Ruth Dyson? Actually, it was Phil Goff, was it? Was it Phil Goff? Well, that might be right. But, look, what did David Shearer do? He did not say a thing until today, and he said: “Ah, yes, I was there. I was only there for a little while. I didn’t eat anything. I didn’t drink anything.” Actually, the only thing he did not say was: “I didn’t inhale.” That was the only thing Shearer did not say. He was there for only 5 or 10 minutes. He did not drink anything, he did not eat anything, and he did not smoke anything.

💬 Hon Craig Foss: He probably put a bet on.

Did he put a bet on? Well, that is the question. This is just so typical of David Shearer. We have a failing Opposition with weak leadership—such weak leadership that now he has got to the position where he never wants to stand up for anything. So there is the double standard. Members opposite rail against Skycity, and then senior members of the party opposite, Cosgrove, Faafoi, Shearer, and one other, possibly Mr Goff—it is all a bit of a right-wing group. Was it Mr Goff?

💬 Hon Craig Foss: He’s not denying it.

Will he deny he was with Skycity at the rugby? Ah, no denial. So I think someone from the media will be ringing there. But, look, I also want to ignore those falling in the polls and with weak leadership, and focus on a party that focuses on what really matters for New Zealand, and that is this Government and our very strong commitment to seeing the rural economy in New Zealand moving forward.

When rural New Zealand moves forward, our country moves forward. A successful primary economy is still the backbone that supports our economy. There are $30 billion of exports, and this Government has a vision that that will double over the next years up to 2025 because we know that agriculture is important to New Zealand. So we are supporting the primary sector in a myriad of ways, getting right the fundamentals that you would expect. We are reducing red tape, simplifying the Resource Management Act, keeping taxes down, keeping interest rates down, making sure that Government spending is under control, and making sure that we invest in trade opportunities for New Zealanders with the Trans-Pacific Partnership and with China and India. Everything that this Government is focused on is on making sure that the New Zealand economy moves faster. We are working cooperatively with the primary sector in the Primary Growth Partnership and investing in research and innovation to boost the New Zealand economy, with $658 million in 13 projects supporting the New Zealand productive sector. So this Government is delivering for rural New Zealand.

We are delivering for the economy. There was 3 percent economic growth last year, which is higher than in most developed countries. You do not get that from flailing around with weak leadership. You get it from a strong, strong focus—

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: Rural fibre.

—and rural fibre. We have huge investment in putting out rural fibre right throughout the New Zealand economy, and we have got company taxes down. This means every small business pays less tax.

National, Mr Banks, and Mr Dunne—the bad, the mad, and the sad. That is what this Government has become. We just had to put up with the Hon Tony Ryall accusing the Labour Party of having low standards. This is from the Government led by John Key, who said that National would not go into Government with the Rt Hon Winston Peters and that it was going to bring higher standards to the Government.

I want to deal a little bit with the scandal that has beset the Government and overshadowed its Budget for the last 2 weeks since the Budget. The Prime Minister, after the leaking of the Rebecca Kitteridge report, said that he wanted to get to the bottom of what had happened. We then had Mr Dunne refusing to answer questions, but denying that he was the source of the leak.

Since then, the Prime Minister has tried to misrepresent the position of the Opposition and, indeed, the position of the media. I have got to say I have been a little bit sad at some of the somewhat misguided taking of that line by some in the media, who have swallowed the line that the Prime Minister has dangled out there. The Prime Minister has tried to say that the Opposition has called for Andrea Vance’s sources to be disclosed. We have never done that—we have never done that. It was not us who used the police, like the Prime Minister did in the tea tapes, to get a warrant to go into news media organisations during the election and get information from them on the recordings of the tea tapes. It was not us in Government who used the Serious Fraud Office to use production orders against the National Business Review to find information about the South Canterbury Finance debacle. It is us who have protected media freedoms, and we have never once said that the information that Andrea Vance had should be disclosed by her. But what we have said is that the Official Information Act ought to be complied with. The Official Information Act ought to be complied with so that the emails from Mr Dunne are disclosed, because there is no public interest in their not being disclosed. They are ministerial emails and they ought to be disclosed.

We have a Prime Minister who said he wanted to get to the bottom of what had happened, and who is now content not to have got to the bottom of the matter. Why? Because he wants Peter Dunne’s vote. It is the same lack of scruple that enables him to put up with John Banks, who is currently on trial before the courts for electoral fraud, where he is accused of filing a false declaration claiming anonymous donations that he actually personally received from Skycity and from Kim Dotcom. It is the same lack of standards that is applied by the Prime Minister there that allows the Prime Minister to say: “Look, I haven’t read the police report. I don’t want to read the police report.”, because he wants to believe that Mr Banks is a proper person to prop up his Government.

So we have got John Banks in the dock, we have got Peter Dunne having been stripped of all credibility, and, all of a sudden, just because the Labour Party wants to get to the bottom of this, we are accused of having some double standard. The Prime Minister then says: “Look, it’s no different from Phil Goff disclosing things that have been leaked to him.”

💬 Hon Tau Henare: That’s right.

And we have the National Government saying that that is right. It is completely different. It is completely different for a Minister to breach his duty of confidence than it is for the media or for the Opposition to disclose what has been disclosed to them. It is the proper role of the media and it is the proper role of the Opposition to disclose things that are embarrassing and show incompetence on the part of the Government. It is a completely different matter for a Minister to breach a duty of confidence. If the Prime Minister and the National Government do not understand the difference in that matter of principle, then they are even more stupid than I thought they were. The reality is that they do understand the difference; they are just trying to obfuscate because underneath all of this is the desire of the National Government to hold on to its grasp of power, which is reliant upon Mr Dunne and Mr Banks, both of whom are disgraced.

Then we could look at the third of the Government’s coalition partners, which is the Māori Party. It is invisible—invisible today, invisible virtually every day—but it is still propping up the Government. It is a disgrace.

Lastly, it is wrong that the United Future party is receiving political funding for its leader’s office when it has no registered political party.

This week we have Fieldays at Mystery Creek. So it is pretty timely, I think, to reflect on which party in this Parliament really understands the rural economy, regional New Zealand, and rural New Zealanders. If it is any party, it has to be the National Party, the National Government. The primary sector is without doubt the backbone of New Zealand’s economy, and this Government understands the pressures faced by rural communities. Why? Well, it is actually worth reflecting on the make-up of the respective caucuses in this House to understand who really gets rural New Zealand. So National has Bill English, David Carter, Amy Adams, Eric Roy, Shane Ardern, David Bennett, and Ian McKelvie—all people of the land. Other members are Mr Auchinvole, Colin King, Mike Sabin, Kate Wilkinson, Jonathan Young, and Phil Heatley—all with experience—and the Hon Anne Tolley, of course.

💬 Scott Simpson: Simpson in Coromandel.

And Simpson in Coromandel. They all understand the rural economy. I want to contrast that with the Labour Opposition.

💬 Louise Upston: Heaps! You better get this right.

Louise Upston—that is right, there are so many. The list goes on, and I have got only 5 minutes.

I want to contrast that with the men of the land in Labour. There is Damien O’Connor, the most confused member of this House. He does not know whether to support regional New Zealand or not. There he is imploring the Minister of Conservation to tell the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society to pipe down as it opposes mine development after mine development. Then his colleagues and his party rail against the decision that very Minister makes. What about Phil Goff, that hobby farmer from Auckland? Well, here is my advice to Mr Goff: if one is going to go in a glossy magazine with photos showing off the hobby farm, one should at least learn how to carry a lamb.

Members on this side of the House will remember 2 years ago this month that past member Stuart Nash railing against dairy farmers, who, he claimed, paid only 3 percent tax—except that was not tax on income; that was tax on revenue. The revenue spokesman for Labour did not understand how revenue was collected in New Zealand. I can tell members that Dr David Clark has also made comments like that. And what really makes me sad is that Stuart Nash in the past and David Clark in the present are actually the brainy ones of the Labour Party. See where it got Stuart Nash, I think.

What about other parties? The Greens? Are there any people of the land in the Greens? No, farm haters, I would suggest. And New Zealand First? None. So let there be no doubt about which party is the party that understands that most important part of New Zealand economically, culturally, and socially.

As Mr Ryall said, this is such an important—

💬 Dr David Clark: What does the member know? What does the member know about the rural economy?

Oh, quite a bit, actually. We will come to that in a minute. The $30 billion of exports from that economy that Mr Ryall spoke of are only the direct exports. The indirect costs and benefits of that economy include transport, stock agents, farm suppliers, and fertiliser, all of which support those industries that export our growth.

I want to go through quickly some of the things that this Government has been doing to assist that important part of our economy. The Primary Growth Partnership has so far committed $658 million for at least 13 projects. That has a benefit to the economy by 2025 of $7 billion per year. There is some really good red meat sector collaboration, mānuka honey trials, harvesting trees from steep land, improving precision of seafood catches, and so on. None of that would be possible were it not for the need to have a really effective agricultural workforce. As Minister of Immigration, I am very aware of the importance of making sure we have good, skilled workers.

I want to just touch on the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme, which not only benefits the horticulture and viticulture sectors in Hawke’s Bay, Central Otago, and Marlborough but is actually a really, really important foreign policy objective. It creates very good aid into the Pacific. It creates skills that those countries so badly need. I support it and I think, as Minister of Immigration, that it will continue.

If the rural economy is so important to the future wealth of this nation, then the party best placed to lead this country and the one that best understands that sector is not the farm haters and is not the hobby farmer unionists but is the National Party.

I would like to address the concerns of diabetics, who have had funding removed for their tried and tested blood-sugar meters, which have been found to be reliable at all times. Now the Minister of Health funds only the CareSens meters, and many diabetics are finding serious problems with these meters. This is an issue of patient safety. It is no good for the Hon Tony Ryall to say that the vast majority of diabetics are accepting CareSens meters. Blood-sugar meters must be accurate. Blood-sugar meters must be reliable.

The latest figures state that there could be 305,000 New Zealanders with diabetes currently, and about 30,000 to 40,000 of those would have type 1 diabetes. This is an incredible disease, which affects so many people. Of those 305,000 who are diabetics, many are children and many have families, so it affects not only the person but also the family members.

There have been many concerns about the CareSens machines and I would like to address just some of those concerns. One of the very worrying issues is that the Minister says that there may be a 20 percent variation in readings between meters. Well, that is simply too wide. For a child with type 1 diabetes, 20 percent could be the difference between a normal reading and hyperglycaemic event. The CareSens meters also do not have a back light. That might sound trivial to members who have iPads and iPhones and the like, but for a diabetic having a blood-sugar crash at night, they may not even make it to switch on the light. Time is precious. There are concerns that the testing strips supplied with the CareSens meters will fail or give erroneous readings if the package has been opened for more than 6 months, but there is no warning at all on the package.

Here is a doozy: the operating temperature needs to be over 10 degrees Celsius. How ridiculous is that? Can you imagine subbies, contractors on building sites, or, actually, anybody in the South Island during our winter being able to read their meter or get an accurate level when it does not work accurately under 10 degrees Celsius? I have had many, many people emailing me and facebooking me with problems that they have had at low temperatures, and it is heartbreaking to read.

The testing strips supplied with CareSens meters are quite small. They are difficult for the elderly and also for children to manage. Many elderly people have diabetic or arthritic fingers and they just cannot get the strips into the meters. There is another problem where these meters cannot be placed flat when taking a reading. I was at the Christchurch Diabetes Centre just on Monday. I went through the testing with a diabetic, and to think that these meters could not be placed flat in case they flooded through the blood. What happens is that you are supposed to hold the meter, insert the strip. Imagine I am an elderly person or somebody with shaky hands and here I am trying to fit this very small strip the correct way into a meter, and then I have got to prick myself, and then I have got to lift it up and get the strip on to the finger, and it is like this. I mean—

💬 Hon Craig Foss: We already know the answer to that one.

—it is absolutely ridiculous, is it not? Well, that member may interject and may think it is funny, but it is not funny for the diabetics, and it is not funny for the families of diabetics, and it is not acceptable for that member to make a mockery when children in New Zealand are suffering like this. Wake up, over that side. I would ask the Minister to wake up and fix the problem. It is quite simple. Give diabetics in New Zealand machinery that works, that is accurate, and that is reliable.

Diabetes is very closely linked to depression. When people have diabetic attacks, when their blood-sugar levels are up and down, their feelings are affected. Their mannerisms and their complete state of mind are affected. There is a connection between diabetes and suicide, and I do not find that a laughing matter, at all. Also, I am concerned at the advice the Minister received today from Medsafe regarding the number of user medical device incident reports received. On Monday, when I visited the diabetes centre in Christchurch, over 40 had been submitted.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute in this general debate this afternoon. Was it not interesting what the Opposition speakers’ chosen topics of debate were? The Green leader seems to be demonstrating paranoia about privacy. Is that really the most important issue facing New Zealand today—the Greens’ privacy issues and whether somebody is snooping on them or eavesdropping?

Then the next leader of the other Opposition party—well, one of the leaders—spent his whole 5-minute contribution talking about personalities. There was not one skerrick of substantial argument in his contribution. It was all about personalities, and perceived and imagined scandals. Is that really what is important to New Zealand and New Zealand’s economy? Is that really what we should be focusing on? On this side of the House we want to focus on the issues that matter. We want to focus on policies that will help New Zealand and we want to focus on policies that will help our economy grow and make the boat go faster.

This week is one of the most important weeks, I believe, in the calendar of our agricultural industry in New Zealand. We have the Fieldays this week. It is the largest agricultural event in the southern hemisphere. It is important, I think, and timely to remember actually the huge importance and impact of the primary industries on our economy. We have already heard that the industry is worth, in exports alone, something like $30 billion. It is not the sunset industry that the Labour Party predicted. In fact, as my colleague Minister Woodhouse has already elucidated, it does not appear that there is a rural bone in any of its members over there, on the other side of the fence.

This is a very significant week for New Zealand’s primary industries and I would have to say we should be proud of our farmers, of our primary industry contributors. I believe that we have some of the best farmers in the world and I believe that we need policies—which we are delivering on—to support those farmers. We need to support those farmers, just as they support our economy, and we have already seen the huge contribution that they make to our economy.

This week we have also announced the 3-year anniversary of the Primary Growth Partnership. That growth partnership is about investing in research, investing in innovation, and boosting productivity in our farming, forestry, and food sectors and it is about making our contributors in those industries the best in the world and world leading. So far we have heard that Government and industry have committed $658 million in 13 projects alone. I commend the booklet that has been produced by the Ministry for Primary Industries because some of these projects are absolutely mind-boggling, with one of them being $85 million of Primary Growth Partnership funding and $86 million of industry funding to transform the dairy value chain.

The policy of the Opposition is to put a cap on cows. That is not going to grow our economy, but actually investing in our farmers will grow the economy. We do have that vision of doubling those exports by 2025. This economy would be in a sad, sad, sorry state if it were not for our primary industry. If it were not for our exports to China and other countries we would not be able to pay for the world-class education, health, and social welfare systems that we have in place.

Some of these projects are absolutely fantastic. We are investing $15 million in the merino wool industry, and the industry funding of that is $21 million. This is not just about the Government throwing money at research and innovation; it is about the industry itself participating and putting its money where its mouth is. It is about the industry investing in its own future.

There is a variety of projects in that Primary Growth Partnership programme, with one of them including worker safety in forestry—the steep-land harvesting, which I think has already been mentioned. National is delivering for the rural economy, for the rural sector. It is about time the other side of the House realised it. We need our farmers.

Ask any farmer what the most important thing has been for them in the last 5 years and they would say it is winning access to the fastest-growing market in the world, China. That free-trade agreement, where exports have trebled from $2 billion to $6 billion a year, was negotiated under a Labour Government. Ask any educationalist what is the most important thing that happened to education funding. It was opening New Zealand up to international students, and that was done by a very far-sighted Minister of Education in the Labour Government before that. I am too modest to acknowledge who that might have been. Where Kate Wilkinson got it wrong was when she said that David Parker was talking about personalities. David Parker was not talking about personalities. He was talking about honesty and integrity, and the fact that this National Government clings to power on the back of two MPs whose credibility and integrity in the eyes of the public have been absolutely shattered.

John Key, who promised higher standards from his Ministers, has put his fingers over his nose and kept John Banks and Peter Dunne on as supporters of his Government because he wants to cling to power. I want to say this about John Banks. He turned up at Kim Dotcom’s mansion, and reckoned he could not remember seeing the fattest man in the biggest house, which he visited by helicopter. He asked for $50,000: “Oh please, Mr Kim Dotcom, two cheques of $25,000 so I don’t have to declare it.”—that was not the law, anyway. And then he told the public that the donations were anonymous. That broke the law, that was a lie, and that man has no integrity.

John Key said this: “to make a contribution, you have to have integrity, and to have integrity there has to be a directness and fullness in your answers.” Well, perhaps he should give that advice to Mr Dunne. Mr Dunne would not pass over, in confidence, to David Henry the texts of his messages to a journalist, because it would have incriminated him as being the person who leaked the document on the Government Communications Security Bureau. What did Mr Key say about that 2 months ago? He said that “these leaks undermine the integrity of the entire Public Service.” Mr Key said that he had a responsibility to get to the bottom of that if he could. You know, the last thing Mr Key wants to know is the truth about who leaked that document. He knows. [Interruption] John Hayes knows. Everybody in this Chamber knows, and New Zealand knows, that those documents were leaked by Peter Dunne, and that is why he would not, in confidence, give those texts to the head of the inquiry, David Henry.

When Mr Dunne took his oath of office, and the Ministers in the House will recognise this, he swore, in front of his colleagues and in front of the Governor-General, that “I will not directly nor indirectly reveal such matters as shall be debated in [the Executive] Council and committed to my secrecy, but that I will in all things be a true and faithful Councillor. So help me God.” That was the oath that Peter Dunne took as a member of the Executive Council, and he breached that solemn promise. He broke that promise. I want to know this from Mr Key. Why is it that when staff members at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, without any evidence against them, are suspected of leaking information, they have to swear on oath that they did not, but Peter Dunne was never required to say on oath that he did not leak that document? John Key could require that of him tomorrow. He could require that of him tomorrow, but John Key does not want to know the truth because he knows that a man who broke the oath of office is not a man fit to sit in this Parliament, and yet he, Mr Key, relies on Mr Dunne and Mr Banks to keep National in office. There is a stench over there of members of Parliament who have breached their basic responsibilities.

I say this about Mr Dunne. He is no whistleblower. Whistleblowing is an honourable occupation, where you throw sunlight on things that it is in the interests of the public to know. Peter Dunne had no such honourable motive. John Key keeps those people in the House, when they have lost their integrity and the public have lost confidence in them.

My goodness me, what an exhausting speech that was that we have just heard. Sadly, it was exhausting to listen to, Mr Goff, it really was. The energy that went into it was magnificent, the delivery was loud and violent, but it was yesterday’s speech—it was yesterday’s speech.

💬 Scott Simpson: From yesterday’s man.

Oh well, those are the words of my colleague here—yesterday’s speech from yesterday’s man. I do not know about that. Hopefully there is a chance for him yet—tomorrow, perhaps—in the leadership debate.

However, let us use this general debate for talking not about yesterday’s news but the fact that the Government recognises the rural sector in New Zealand as the economic backbone, through agriculture, aquaculture, horticulture, viticulture, and so it goes on. There is $30 billion in primary sector exports—$30 billion. This Government wants to double that by 2025.

💬 Scott Simpson: Double it?

Double it. New opportunities have seen the Government and industry committing $658 million for 13 projects over the past 3 years in research and development, and the potential benefit is over $7 billion per year from 2025.

💬 Scott Simpson: How much?

It is $7 billion. This makes our economy innovative by making our primary industries sector more innovative. It has been a season of two halves, as any farmer will know. We even had the West Coast being declared a drought area.

💬 Scott Simpson: Where?

West Coast, the South Island, and it was rugged. It is still tough for the farmers there, but none the less there is positive news. Golden kiwifruit, for instance, are absolutely delicious, and I would encourage anyone to buy them. The viticulture boys, I am told, are doing quite nicely out of the prolonged dry period and good sunshine.

The West Coast’s Westland Milk Products is the second-largest dairy company in New Zealand—part of the New Zealand economic solution, with export-led opportunities. I was speaking to its chief executive officer today, Rod Quin. Turnover is expected to be $700 million—

💬 Scott Simpson: $700 million?

—$700 million from the West Coast. The company has invested $60 million in new technology and processing. There was direct economic benefit last season of $390 million in milk payments and wages within the community. That is $13,000 per woman and child on the Coast. The total economic benefit, with a multiplier effect, means the dairy industry is by far the biggest sector and the key sector for West Coast development. Growth rates—another 10 percent growth over the next 4 years, to supply the ever-growing demand for the safe, high-quality good food that is produced from Hokitika and the people there. I am proud to be associated with them and the team that they have at Westland Milk Products.

Cross-portfolio funding, as we heard this afternoon, for science, innovation, and research has increased by 28 percent in the last 4 years, up to $1.36 billion in 2013-14.

💬 Scott Simpson: That’s good.

It is good. It is good news. As you say, my colleague on my right Scott Simpson, it is good news. But there is, sadly, bad news if things go funny. When I talk about things going funny, I mean if they go funny politically—if we were to have the much-vaunted, in some quarters, Labour-Green coalition, the snarly political combo; the snarly political combo. How many Opposition members have had a background in real agriculture? I think I could count around and I would say two—two—on that side of the House.

Let us see, though, what they would actually do in terms of what I consider bad news. With a Labour-Green coalition the following measures would be put in place to drastically hinder the primary sector, for purely ideological reasons. I can think of three points immediately. A Labour-Green coalition would introduce a capital gains tax, including a 15 percent capital gains tax on all farm-gate sales. Not only would farmers have to pay a tax but farm values would dramatically decline as they would be less attractive investments for people. A Labour-Green coalition would immediately bring agricultural emissions into the emissions trading scheme, imposing large costs on both farmers and rural businesses. A Labour-Green coalition would impose higher income and company taxes.

And if that were not bad enough—if it were not bad enough that that is what those members want to do—here is what they do not want to do. A Labour-Green coalition would oppose the Future Investment Fund and irrigation and water storage development. It would knock reforms to allow greater aquaculture development in the Marlborough Sounds. It would be a disaster.

Last Friday, 7 June, I convened a conference on climate change in the New Zealand Parliament. It was held in the Legislative Council Chamber, the elegant chamber that has been mostly empty since the Upper House was abolished in 1951. It was the second conference of the kind—the first, in November 2010, having focused on a sustainable economy. The reason I convene these conferences rests on an underlying philosophical view on the nature of democracy. In the debating chamber, with green carpet, MPs strongly debate things in an adversarial manner. This is defended and explained to horror-struck schoolchildren in the gallery as free and robust debate that is essential for the health of democracy. That may or may not be the case. My own view is that the rules of debate, the Standing Orders, might be strengthened for greater civility to the benefit of democracy. Be that as it may, adversarial politics is the nature of the democratic pursuit in the New Zealand Parliament, and I can live with that, although I believe that, to some extent, the country is demeaned.

But I also believe that adversarial democracy needs to be complemented with consensual democracy. We need an avenue, even if an informal one, where MPs can come together in a different atmosphere to exchange views in which we seek common ground—what unites us rather than divides us. Consensual politics is surely the most critically important issue when it comes to crisis situations. The Green view is that the world faces a global ecological crisis, the importance of which transcends partisan politics. All the more reason, then, to have this kind of conference in the Legislative Council Chamber—red carpet and all. The idea was to see whether we could find common ground between the Greens, Labour, and National, all of which were to participate on a political panel that day. Regrettably, neither National’s Minister for Climate Change Issues, Tim Groser, nor Associate Minister for Climate Change Issues, Simon Bridges, was available. The seat was left vacant. Labour accepted, and its climate change spokesperson, Moana Mackey, was there. Representatives from business groups, including Federated Farmers, the New Zealand Forest Owners Association, and the New Zealand Wind Energy Association, and also from an iwi Māori perspective offered some insightful points on what is required.

Peter Weir argued that historic forest growth is the only reason New Zealand is able to meet its international obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, but the price of this reprieve will be serious problems when the forests are cut down. The forest industry can give New Zealand much-needed time to adapt to the reality of climate change, but only if the right policy settings are in place. Chris Karamea Insley emphasised that Māori are very involved in many aspects of the primary product industry, partly as a result of Treaty settlements. He suggested that the strategic long-term orientation of the Māori world view helped to underline the imperative, in his mind, for stronger action on climate change. So much for the conference at which National failed to show.

If we were to explore the differences between National and Greens on climate change, what might they be? National opposes alarmism over climate change, and will proceed with great caution and deliberation in national policy. Failure to do so, it thinks, threatens the short-term financial interests of established economic sectors. The Greens, by contrast, see the scientific evidence and UN policy prescriptions as requiring greater and faster national action by New Zealand, and contend that failure to do so constitutes a breach of international responsibility—in short, it would threaten the planet. These are the commonalities and differences in perception and policy between National and Green views, as I understand them to be. I would not have thought that it would be impossible to have had a reasoned dialogue on this matter between the National Party and the Green Party. Failure to do this encourages polarisation of party politics and a lack of predictable national policy, as a result, on an issue that is simply too important to allow that to happen.

Can I first of all address some of the comments made by the last Green speaker, Dr Kennedy Graham, and simply say to him that the National Government is committed to meeting our climate change obligations, but we are not going to lead the charge. Unlike Labour, we will not meet our international obligations at the expense of the primary sector, and we will move forward only at the same pace as our trading partners. But we are leaders in improving the way we tackle greenhouse gas emissions without reducing production on our farms, through our $45 million Global Research Alliance and the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre.

Can I say also that it was quite astonishing to sit in the House this afternoon and listen to the Labour Party speaker Phil Goff—full of integrity—overlooking the fact that his Government clung to power with people like Taito Phillip Field, who spent some years afterwards residing in jail, and with people like Chris Carter and Darren Hughes. And then to have the temerity to accuse us of a lack of integrity—when I could stand here and name the person who leaked a Cabinet paper, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, to him. I could do that, except that it is subject to a court case, and I will not do it. But, please, do not give us stuff about integrity when you have none—not the slightest skerrick—yourself.

I want to bring to this House some comments from the heartland, the Wairarapa electorate that stretches from Palliser Bay up to Waipawa and almost to Ōtāne, from the top of the Tararuas and the Ruahines, out to the coast. The heartland is the backbone of the primary sector in New Zealand and it is the backbone of the economy. If our heartland succeeds, if our farmers and vineyards succeed, we all succeed. The heartland is New Zealand’s essential ingredient in the National Government’s plan to create real jobs, raise incomes, and build a more productive economy. We will do that by cutting red tape, sorting and simplifying the Resource Management Act, and supporting rural families.

I watched, as an Opposition member of this House, as business after business fell over under the Labour administration. I think of Norsewear in Norsewood. I think of the Ōringi meat plant just south of Dannevirke.

💬 Andrew Williams: That’s closed.

Well, that is closed, but I took the Prime Minister into that area about 10 days ago. First of all, I showed him the area of the Ruataniwha dam, which is going to irrigate 20,000 hectares of the Takapau Plains, provide thousands of jobs, and be a serious game-changer in that economy. Then I took him down to Norsewood, where Norsewear had failed. Norsewear has now been replaced by local ownership again, and it is called The Kiwi Sock Company, employing 17 new employees. It has just been re-kitted with great new knitting machines from Italy. Then I took him down to meet 150 people in the Dannevirke Chamber of Commerce, who were bubbling with enthusiasm about the changes that the Government has made to support their industries. Then we went down to the failed meat plant at Ōringi. Did you know that there are now 90 new employees there because it has been turned into an industrial park? It is another success story, simply because of the policies of this Government.

Unlike Labour, which destroyed these companies, we in the National Government are creating the conditions for these businesses to re-establish and flourish. Rural communities rely on critical infrastructure to stay connected with their markets.

If anybody drives through my electorate they will see huge improvements to the road infrastructure on the Rimutaka hill. If they go to Woodville now they will see roadworks between Woodville and Dannevirke, where that highway is being fixed. Work on that has been going on for at least a year and it is coming to fruition. We have committed $300 million in investment to roll out faster broadband services to hard-to-reach communities and schools, and we have committed $1.2 billion to improve the State highways across the country. There are huge examples in my electorate to show how this Government is lifting the game.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. John Key and his Government of double standards—double standards. As my colleague Phil Goff said, honesty and integrity are completely lacking on the other side of the House. For the uninitiated, it means that there is one rule for them and another rule for the rest of us. That is the way that Government operates. There are so many examples that my colleagues have spoken about today. John Banks is in the dock. Peter Dunne has been stripped of all credibility. He had a brain explosion, and would not let us see into the conversations that he has had with a reporter in terms of the leak of that Kitteridge report.

They have been stripped of all credibility and they are holding up this Government. There are so many examples of this Government getting owned today: Kiwi political parties of one, John Banks, and none, the party formerly known as United Future are holding up this Government. It is an absolute farce. The three amigos: Key, Banks, and Dunne. How is that for a triumvirate of trust? How is that for a triumvirate of trust: Key, Banks, and Dunne? But we could add another layer of a triumvirate under there: the three amigos of the Māori Party. They are all wanting to be leader. No one actually knows who the leader is: Tariana, Pita, and Te Ururoa. Again, all of these pathetic parties are holding up this absolute sham of a Government.

We are familiar with the Epsom cup of tea; we know what happened there. John Key did not mind laying a complaint with the police and sent all the powers in to find out exactly what the man from the New Zealand Herald had taped. But fast forward to Mr Dunne and those 86 emails about a leaked Government Communications Security Bureau report, and the Prime Minister blows it off: “Oh, it’s nothing more than breaking an embargo.” Talk about trying to make 3-day old fish taste like roast chicken.

That is what this Government is trying to do. It wants to try to make everything smell nice or taste good. Well, unfortunately for it, the public of New Zealand can see right through that. It can try all it wants, but New Zealand has got a sense that its kitchen is not ruling any more. That Government is out of control, and the public know it.

💬 Andrew Little: Same old mutton dressed up as lamb.

Absolutely—same old mutton dressed up as lamb, and I will get on to the primary sector as well, because we have got very strong credentials in the primary sector. But I want to carry on, because those three wealthy, privileged men—Key, Banks, Dunne—do not care about the poor and disadvantaged of our country. They could not care less about poor standards of education, housing, and social welfare, especially among our Māori and Pacific whānau. Banksie—Mr Banks—is trying to sell charter schools as the resurrection of Māori underachievement. This is what John Banks would say: “Go on, you Māoris. Send your kids to a school that has unqualified teachers and principals.”, and he has got the Māori Party tautoko-ing that. It is absolutely heinous. But you can guarantee that he would never send his kids there, because Mr Banks and Mr Key, and probably Mr Dunne, do not care—we know that they do not care—about Māori.

I really want to take the Māori Party to task, because we are in the season of Matariki—the season of renewal and of growth. It was great to see te waka Te Matau-ā-Māui come into the harbour over the weekend. It is a great season, but Māori Party members have definitely sold us out. They like to appease us with Māori words like “waka”, “kura hourua”, or “whānau ora”—all those nice words, as if that will appease Māori. But when we know that the underachievement rates for Māori are going on and on under this Government, we know that they do not care—they do not care.

But we know that this Government is absolutely on shaky ground. It knows it, we know it, and the whole of New Zealand knows it. The rest will come out when the Privileges Committee hauls Mr Dunne before it.

But I want to talk about a good news story. I want to talk about the Ahuwhenua Trophy for excellence in Māori farming and the great celebration there was up in Taradale last week. It was great to see Te Awahōhonu Forest Trust, the Tarawera Station, take out that award for Māori farming, and also to see the other finalists as well. It was a spectacular celebration of Māori excellence in farming, great achievements, and so I acknowledge the team, especially Bob Cottrell, who is an excellent farm consultant who has been steering that waka there. Kia ora tātou.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the member while he was speaking, but I do want to take a point of order that all members of this House should be addressed correctly. On a number of occasions during the previous member’s speech he referred to Dunne, Key, and Banks. They are actually the Rt Hon John Key, the Hon John Banks, and the Hon Peter Dunne. And the three members of the Māori Party caucus are the Hon Pita Sharples, the Hon Tariana Turia, and Te Ururoa Flavell, and they are entitled to be addressed by their full names too.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order—

Well, I do not need any help. She is absolutely correct. I should not have let it go, but I did because I did not think there was any malice in it. But I take the point that the Minister has made.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you also know that to take that point of order, it ought to be taken at the time and not after the speech. Therefore, the point of order, at the time it was taken, was out of order.

Thank you, Mr Mallard.

What a joy it has been to sit in this House this afternoon and listen to some people with a knowledge of agriculture.

💬 Andrew Williams: Thank you very much.

I will get to you in a minute, Andrew Williams. Agriculture, of course, produces 70 percent of the cash income of this country, and to listen to the Hon Kate Wilkinson, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, Chris Auchinvole, and John Hayes, in particular, speaking about agriculture—

💬 Dr David Clark: What does Michael Woodhouse know about agriculture?

—despite the fact that Michael Woodhouse comes from Dunedin, and, in fact, the worst MP from Dunedin for 50 years is interjecting right now. This is the big week for agriculture in New Zealand, and we had to wait until Rino Tirikatene before we got a mention of agriculture from the Opposition. That pretty much sums up the attitude of the Opposition to agriculture.

As I said in the beginning of my few words tonight, this is one of the big weeks for agriculture in this country as we showcase ourselves to the rest of the world through the National Agricultural Fieldays at Mystery Creek. Jon Calder, the National Fieldays Society Chief Executive Officer, said: “Fieldays’ focus has always been on the advancement of New Zealand Agriculture on the domestic and now global stage.”

In the last week we have had some pretty significant events in agriculture. Last night the Meat Industry Association held a function in Wellington, where we heard from Bill Falconer about the impact that the Primary Growth Partnership is having on agriculture and, particularly, the meat industry. Some $658 million, as we have heard this afternoon, has been invested in the Primary Growth Partnership already by the Government and its partners. I think it is fantastic. It is doing a great job for us. We have also had Fonterra in the last couple of weeks bringing out its $7 payout for next season, which is hugely encouraging for our dairy industry and will make a massive difference to the income going around in rural New Zealand.

Some 3 weeks ago the Government, through our Minister of Finance, Bill English, presented a Budget to ensure New Zealand’s future—a Budget that builds on the last four financial statements by the Minister and gives New Zealanders the confidence to invest in growth and subsequent jobs. This is what keeps agriculture going in New Zealand. We have been through an extremely challenging few years, where almost all comparable economies have suffered from zero growth or shrinkage. Through the actions of this Government, we have continued to grow and trade with great success in a world challenged by recession. Our country’s statistics speak for themselves.

Before getting on to the real business today, I want to comment on what I see as an increasing use of what I can only term as the industrial sabotage of New Zealanders’ futures. We saw it with the power scheme called NZ Power, which was advanced by the Greens and reds. It is a policy that does nothing to address the challenges facing rural New Zealand and the distribution challenges our lines companies face reticulating the vast rural networks. There is no doubt this was a cynical and high-risk attempt by the Opposition to undermine Government policy, at some cost to the public purse. We have heard Kennedy Graham going on this afternoon at length about the climate change proposals of the Greens and the cost this will impose on our consumers in New Zealand. Any savings that they might have got through their power scheme will be well eaten up by those charges.

We are now seeing the Greens scaremongering over rehabilitated land farms in Taranaki and drilling in Tararua, etc. Again, it is highly unethical and typical of a party that will do anything for a headline. If there was scientific evidence of a problem, we would be the first to support its accusations, but there is not. The co-leader of that party has long been anti - dairy farming and anti-Fonterra. The New Zealand farmer, for the most part, is more green by far than the Greens. It is time the party stopped sticking the knife in at every opportunity and worked with the people who really do understand the environment and will make the single-biggest positive difference to New Zealand in the future.

I want to move very briefly on to the roads of national significance. We have heard Andrew Williams harping on over there for some time about rural roads.

💬 Andrew Williams: What about rural roads?

Thank you. I find the opposition to this, again from the other side of the House, absolutely baffling. Anyone who understands transport—and he clearly does not—would realise that it is no good fixing the hose if the tap is not working. You must first ensure the trucks can get there before sending them off on the journey. This policy will provide the biggest boost to our export-led economy, when completed, of all of our proposals. Once the roads of national significance are completed, it will enable the councils and the Government to get on with the roads that join up the puzzle, allowing our logs, milk, and meat to get to the market quicker and better.

💬 Andrew Little: Not State Highway 3 in Taranaki.

As someone who uses State Highway 3 quite often—in fact, it runs through my electorate—it is doing very well. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.