General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I woke up at 5.30 this morning and, as is my wont, the first thing I did was lunge for my BlackBerry so I could read the New Zealand Herald. The first thing I saw was the Herald-DigiPoll, and I thought to myself: “I like history, especially the history of the Labour Party. I wonder whether Gerry would let me give one of my history lessons to the House.” I asked him, and he said yes, so here goes.

One of the great questions of New Zealand history is: “Why is the Labour Party so disloyal to its leaders?”. Right through history, treachery has been the name of the game. Let us look at Arnold Nordmeyer, who provided sterling service to the Labour Party through the first and second Labour Governments. He was the MP for Ōāmaru, then the MP for Brooklyn, and then the MP for Island Bay. He was knifed by Norman Kirk. The rumblings against “Big Norm” started in the second year of his premiership, but he died before the conspirators could knife him.

Then there was my favourite Labour leader, Bill Rowling, a good and a decent man who, as Mr Mallard knows, used to live in Lohia Street, Khandallah. He was undermined by a less talented but more ruthless deputy. How often history doth repeat itself. David Lange was undermined by Mr Goff and his then ideological buddy Roger Douglas. Geoffrey Palmer was certainly an interesting person. He certainly was undermined by Helen Clark and by Mike Moore, but I have to admit that much of the undermining was done by Geoffrey just being Geoffrey.

Mike Moore was undermined by Helen Clark, who knifed him straight after the 1993 election, when Mike had gained an additional 16 seats for his party—that is loyalty for you. Helen Clark knew her history. She kept her enemies at bay, and I am not referring to just the Green Party. She saw off Annette King and Phil Goff in 1996, when they tried to knife her, and she went in 2008, before the daggers went in. Then from 2008 to 2011 we had that very angry Phil Goff, undermined from the very start by Mr Cunliffe—no wonder he is so foul-mouthed and cannot control his tongue.

I recognise that many of the names I have referred to—and I see Mr Robertson looking confused and bewildered—will be unknown to people like Mr Robertson, who have no knowledge of their party’s history, and so are doomed to relive it. It is like some kind of macabre Byzantine dance of killers. People cooperate to get rid of one leader, so that they can turn on the next one.

Then we have David Shearer, who, I think, is a very nice guy, a good and a decent man, a person who has done a lot of good overseas. But none of his dealings with central African dictatorships or Balkan civil wars could have prepared him for the leadership of the Labour Party. Poor David Shearer. He has run out of options. He has nowhere to turn. He cannot rely on his deputy and he cannot turn to his allies. I bet this morning he was reading the New Zealand Herald, looking longingly at seat 17A from Moscow to Havana.

Mr Shearer has been quoted as saying that he was surprised by today’s results, but the trouble for Mr Shearer is he is simply too trusting. He is too trusting and too quick to trust people like Mr Robertson to recruit his staff to look after him. He is too quick to trust parties that are out to steal his vote. I imagine that Mr Shearer was delighted when Mr Peters shone that trademark smile and offered to work with Labour to attack the Government. I imagine he was delighted when Dr Russel Norman said: “Let me work with you to design a Stalinist energy policy, and maybe it would be a good idea if we both had a podium in the legislative chamber when we announce the speech, because it would give you more gravitas.” And now Mr Shearer is surprised that Mr Peters and Mr Norman are laughing all the way to the polling booth. In fact, he is so trusting that I have to say I really worry that the hundreds of thousands of dollars in his New York bank account are ripe for picking if a Nigerian scammer ever sends him an email. He would probably be really surprised and delighted to receive it. So what is the moral of the story? There is always a moral. I say this to the Labour Party, with the greatest of respect and affection: loyalty is what binds a party together. If you can’t trust your leader, you’re done.

Well, that was a very entertaining history lesson from Chris Finlayson, but he had nothing to say about the Government’s policies, and that is not surprising, because they get all of their best ones from the Labour Party. Despite the hilarity from Mr Finlayson, these Government members are kidding themselves that they can govern on their own after 2014. They are desperately casting around for coalition partners. They do not have one—the mad, the bad, and the sad are on the way out. There are no coalition partners left. They are desperately casting around, and what better thing to do than to steal one of the Labour Party’s most popular policies. Mr Brownlee—yes, I am talking about you.

This is the background to what today is one of the most stunning policy U-turns that we have seen for a very long time. John Key is the first Prime Minister ever to do a U-turn in a train. It is the first time it has been done. This is a huge about-face. Mr Brownlee only days ago was describing the City Rail Link, the policy that he supports today, as a short, little loop. I wondered, in fact, whether he was talking about Mr Finlayson, but, no, he was talking about the City Rail Link. He also said that he doubted whether the City Rail Link was, indeed, either popular or useful. That flew in the face of popular opinion in Auckland. We know that 63 percent of Aucklanders in the last independent poll—

💬 Hon David Parker: Agreed with Labour.

—agreed with Labour that the City Rail Link was a no-brainer. Well, Labour welcomes this U-turn—we do. We welcome it. It was our policy. The Government has adopted it. That is great. It is a win for Len Brown, it is a win for Labour, and it is a win for Auckland.

Unlike the Government’s flagship policy projects—the so-called “motorways of madness”—the City Rail Link will actually double the capacity of an existing transport asset. The Minister of Transport’s motorway projects are all gold-plated duplicate projects, and he is spending $1 billion every year on them. Well, the City Rail Link will double the capacity of the Auckland rail network. It will allow trains to run every 5 minutes—every 5 minutes—on the western and southern lines. If you are travelling from New Lynn to the central business district, into the city, it will cut 28 minutes—28 minutes—off your commute. That is three times as much time cut off travel as that member’s Pūhoi to Wellsford “Holiday Highway” would do.

So what this U-turn says is that the credibility of the Government’s transport policy is in tatters. What are we supposed to believe? Was Steven Joyce wrong when he said only a few weeks ago that the City Rail Link did not add up? Was Gerry Brownlee serious when he compared the City Rail Link to the failed North Haverbrook monorail in The Simpsons? And for what new transport policies will Gerry Brownlee be getting inspiration from The Simpsons? What new thing will we see? I hope the Minister is going to take a call and tell us.

What has changed, Minister? The numbers have not changed. The plan for the City Rail Link has not changed. The number of Aucklanders who support this project has not changed. What has changed? You see, the big losers today are Steven Joyce and Gerry Brownlee. They have been made to look like total idiots by their own Government, but, as I said, Labour welcomes this U-turn. I think the question we have to ask is: “Why did it take so long, Gerry?”. Why did it take so long? I am going to answer that question for you because there are two reasons that it has taken so long. The first is that National members have a completely messed up, tortured relationship with Auckland. Anything that Len Brown supports, these guys oppose—no matter how sensible, no matter how popular—because their man, John Banks, did not win the Auckland mayoralty in 2010. They have never got over it, and they have spent the last 5 years bagging the City Rail Link and leading Aucklanders on a wild goose chase that has finally ended today with the Government adopting one of Labour’s most popular policies.

The other point I want to make is that the City Rail Link symbolises the urban, modern vision that Labour has for Auckland. Steven Joyce, Gerry Brownlee, and Nick Smith simply do not understand it. They do not get it. They are out of step with Auckland, and that is why it has taken them 5 years to adopt what is an incredibly popular policy. This is a win for Labour, it is a win for Mayor Len Brown, and it is a win for Auckland.

I think it is no surprise that Phil Twyford comes into the House this afternoon and mounts a sterling case for the job of stationmaster at Britomart after the next election. Anybody who saw the front page of the New Zealand Herald this morning will know that five members sitting on that side of the House are gone at the next election. The question has to be asked about why the Opposition is so bad. Why is it not getting traction with the New Zealand public? David Shearer comes out this morning and says that Opposition members have spent the last 5 weeks talking about the things that New Zealanders want to talk about. That would be the opposition to the casino, the Government Communications Security Bureau matters, the Peter Dunne issues, the increased taxes on the properties that New Zealanders might own, and then the Opposition’s manufacturing inquiry, which basically concluded that if you took out all of the growing parts of the manufacturing sector, the rest of it was failing. It is that sort of misconnection with the people of New Zealand that is leading to the result that we saw in the New Zealand Herald poll this morning. No one gets too excited about that on this side of the House. Our pledge is to continue with the job of governing and getting on with making sure that the growth engine of the New Zealand economy is fuelled by our policies.

The Labour Party members may well want to gloat that somehow our decision to put a time line and some conditions around our support for the rail link in Auckland is a win for them. The reality is that we have always maintained that we would be looking at a wholly integrated transport network for New Zealand’s largest and fastest-growing city. New Zealand is littered with examples of how there has been a failure to futureproof, and so we think that 2020 for that loop and the construction of the extension of Britomart would be the right thing to do. That will come with some conditions, which will be announced by the Prime Minister on Friday.

But also we have the extensive roll-out of broadband across New Zealand. We are seeing all sorts of innovations in our economy taking advantage of that and anticipating the advantage that will come from that. We are also seeing across the legislative programme the Business Growth Agenda simplifying the activity of doing business in New Zealand, meaning that there is a greater opportunity for job creation and for higher wages and salaries for New Zealanders. We have seen the Hon Chris Finlayson engaged in one of the most rapid settlements of Treaty issues ever undertaken by any Minister, and that is good for a large section of our population and we fully support it. We are also very committed to the rebuild in Christchurch.

Those are the things that New Zealanders do talk about. They are the things that they look to a Government to be doing. They are the things that they look at and expect the Government to be providing. We have another big announcement tomorrow around Christchurch, where we are talking about the conclusion of the cost-sharing agreement between the Christchurch City Council and the Government. That will mark a significant point for stepping up the rebuild of that city. I look forward to joining the Prime Minister when those announcements are made at about midday tomorrow.

On Friday the Prime Minister will address a number of issues that are in the Auckland Plan, and will outline the Government’s response to those things. Transport is part of that, and the rail loop is just a small part of that. There are going to be some very interesting announcements made in that speech, which will be well received by Aucklanders, that demonstrate this Government’s commitment to New Zealand’s biggest city, a day after we have made a big commitment to New Zealand’s second-biggest city.

Throughout the country there are transport programmes that will oil the wheels of economic growth. Then, if you look at social services, the work that is going on in the education sector, the extraordinary work of Tony Ryall in the health sector, and so many other areas where the Government is simply getting on with the job, it is not hard to understand why New Zealanders are not connecting with a party that is focused entirely on the office boy issues of the beltway, the Government Communications Security Bureau, Mr Dunne, the so-called inquiry into manufacturing, and opposition to everything that is about growth. My final comment for Mr Twyford is that I thought he, of all people, would by now have realised that every loop has a U-turn in it.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. I do not intend to try to even follow up on the speech given by the Hon Chris Finlayson, but I do want to address, in the 5 minutes I have, an issue that has come that is a little bit more human. I want to do it by way of a story. It comes from my electorate, and it is fairly recent.

At the dawn of 15 October 2007, in a Whakatāne home, a man and a woman and a 17-year-old girl were asleep in bed, blissfully unaware that at 6 a.m. sharp that morning, 14 officers of the Special Tactics Group and the armed offenders squad would cordon off the address, shouting for the occupants to leave the address with their hands on their heads. The man was arrested, forced to lie on the floor, and was handcuffed. The two women were separated from each other and searched. The older woman was in a nightgown and the younger woman in a thin singlet and shorts. She remembered later feeling ashamed and embarrassed, and bursting out crying. After being detained, the two women were taken to the police station, separated again, and statements were obtained. They were still in their nightwear. They were cold. The older woman, who was a diabetic, required her insulin and her testing kit.

Nearly 6 years after that event, Judge Carruthers, the Chair of the Independent Police Conduct Authority, wrote to them, and I want to just draw the attention of the House to the letter, where it refers to the impact of fear and anxiety experienced by those three people. The judge said this: “being woken in the early morning by armed offenders shouting for them to come out of their house with their hands on their heads, having guns trained on them, a dog barking throughout, being barefoot and only dressed in nightwear, and scared about what was happening to them ... these actions ... personally searching them in an intrusive manner, and taking them to the police station, were contrary to law.” The letter concludes that “The arbitrary detention was contrary to law, unjustified, and unreasonable.”

If these words sound pretty familiar, it is because these same words were repeated consistently throughout the report of the Independent Police Conduct Authority into Operation Eight. The key thing here is that over a month has passed, has gone by us, since the police were said to have acted unlawfully in establishing roadblocks and detaining and searching people during Operation Eight. But what has happened to those people affected? What has happened to those who were traumatised and suffered the consequences of the unlawful actions by our key agents of the law? Nothing—nothing. No acknowledgment to the people who were hurt. No apology. No attempt to meet kanohi ki te kanohi, face to face, or even to ask any question. What now? Nothing. I bring that story to this House.

We came here as a Māori Party to protect the interests of Māori people and advance our potential into the future. We came here on the back of the Labour Government’s decision to confiscate the foreshore and seabed area of our country. So when this second invasion of rights occurred in the raids upon the Tūhoe people and the whānau of the Rūatoki Valley, the Māori Party has again challenged the Government, the Labour Government, about its unlawful practice. Indeed it is a contempt for the very notion of due process under law.

I want to tell this House and the New Zealand public that this issue, the unlawful treatment of a family in Whakatāne and the many other families who were subjected to the abuses meted out under the name of Operation Eight, will not be left to linger. It will not be left to linger. The Māori Party and I as the MP are determined to ensure that those whānau who were affected know that they are not alone. So I want to advise this House that the Māori Party will be taking this up with some vigour. As recently as this morning I placed a tono in front of the Māori Affairs Committee to tell it that we will be presenting terms of reference for an inquiry about the impact of Operation Eight on affected people, and that will come in front of this House at some point in time in the future. Tēnā koutou. Kia ora tātou.

Today is a fantastic day for the Labour Party, and it is a very, very bad day—it is a very, very bad day—for Gerry Brownlee and a very, very bad day for Steven Joyce. Poor Gerry Brownlee during question time had to stand there and take the questions from Phil Twyford, and Gerry Brownlee—you could see it in his face. He wanted the Earth to open up and swallow him whole, but, unfortunately for Gerry, even the planet does not have that kind of appetite. Even the planet could not swallow Gerry Brownlee whole. He had to stand there and take it today as he realised that his Government had done another U-turn, another backflip, which has become the trademark of this National Government.

Sitting next to him was Steven Joyce. I have never seen Steven Joyce squirm as much as he did during question time today. Normally he looks like he is plotting. Normally he looks like he is scheming—the Machiavellian machine of the National Party, trying to figure out how he is going to see off Judith Collins after the next election when John Key has to stand down—but he did not look happy today. He was not plotting and scheming today. He was squirming because National has been found out. It has finally had to sign up to the Auckland City Rail Link, which is so popular with Aucklanders.

It makes economic sense, and it is something that the Labour Party has been calling for for years. It was in our election manifesto at the last election. That is how committed the Labour Party has been to the Auckland City Rail Link. That is how committed we are to sensible investment in transport infrastructure for Auckland.

Steven Joyce and Gerry Brownlee would like you to think that this is just a slight change—that this is just a time frame that they are adding to their lukewarm commitment to the Auckland City Rail Link. But this is what Steven Joyce had to say about it. When Steven Joyce was asked whether there was anybody who was less enthusiastic about the Auckland City Rail Link, he said: “Hmm, well, possibly the finance Minister.” Steven Joyce was happy and proud to say that he was the person who was least enthusiastic about the Auckland City Rail Link. That is what he thought about it. Gerry Brownlee said that he thought that it was neither useful nor popular.

National’s position on rail has been absolutely clear for years, but National members, of course, like typical conservatives, are always the last ones to the party. They are always the last ones to figure out what is the right thing to do. Labour has been talking about this for years, Mayor Len Brown has been talking about this for years, and Mayor Len Brown has got a consensus around this issue: the business groups, the community groups, the unions—everybody in Auckland wants this. The only people who did not want it were in the National Government. They have finally decided that they have to come round. They do not agree with it, they do not like it, but they realise that they are wrong and we are right, and it is as simple as that.

But, of course, National does not believe in rail and it is still allowing its obsession with the roads of national significance to dictate all investment in transport infrastructure.

💬 Hon David Parker: They’re delaying the rail tunnel.

It is delaying the rail link and it is delaying anything to do with rail, so when will this be built? Well, it might get started in 2020, if we are lucky. Why is that? Because there is nothing left. The cupboard is bare. All the money has been spent on uneconomic, monster motorways up and down the country. The Pūhoi to Wellsford “Holiday Highway” is still more important to the National Government than the Auckland City Rail Link. That is why it cannot afford to build it now. That is why Aucklanders have to wait until 2020. Roads and highways are still the trump card in the National Government’s transport policy.

National does not believe in having a sensible transport strategy. It does not believe in having an integrated transport system. It believes only in having highways. That is all that it believes in. There is no sense to it. It is just the National Government’s fixation, and, of course, it is the fixation with roads of the supporters of National, the people who fund the National Party. It is their fixation with roads that is dominating the National Government’s policy. That is why that Government over there will never invest in an integrated transport network, and that is why it has been so slow to catch up with everybody else who has been calling for the Auckland City Rail Link for years.

Thank goodness National has finally seen sense and it has finally decided to implement a wonderful Labour policy. It is a great day for Labour. We look forward to National implementing more and more Labour policy, because it is the only place that the good ideas come from.

It is not surprising that the public often have a low opinion of politicians, especially if they have been listening to the Opposition speakers this afternoon, because they so often focus on the small, the niggly, the irrelevant, the unimportant, and even the self-serving. But people vote for a Government that focuses on the things that matter to them. Things that focus on the safety of the nation: security in their homes; better, sooner, more convenient healthcare; quality education for their kids; and a public safety net for when things go pear-shaped—pear-shaped for individuals, pear-shaped for communities. Certainly the people of Canterbury are appreciative of this Government standing up and backing them emotionally and financially as we manage our way through the recovery. John Key and the National-led Government are absolutely committed to getting right the things that matter most to Kiwis, and in the face of an ongoing international meltdown we are making good progress. Our economy is growing faster than that of most countries. We have a lower unemployment rate than most countries. And our mortgage rates, something that affects every single New Zealander, are the lowest for over 45 years.

And that is the problem for Opposition politicians. That is why we hear only tired old rhetoric—because they cannot talk about the things that matter, because those are good-news stories. They have to focus on the small, the niggly, and the irrelevant, or you could conjure up a false crisis like the manufacturing crisis. They spent months talking up the manufacturing crisis, months dumping on manufacturers, who are actually working very hard to manage and produce in very difficult times. Luckily, they announced their crisis findings about the same time as independent data confirmed that New Zealand manufacturing was growing at the fastest rate since 2004 and one of the highest rates across the world. I say “luckily” because now the public know the facts and can decide for themselves.

Opposition politicians talk the talk of activity, of positivity. They say they want more jobs, they say they want better incomes, but they do not walk the walk. They say no to everything that might help create jobs or lift incomes, and they talk of embracing change and innovation but vote against anything that would improve our chances of a better future. And they do it so consistently that I fear they are deliberately undermining the well-being of Kiwis simply because they cannot stand the fact and the reality that New Zealanders are doing well under this National Government.

Well, our Government, the National Government, celebrates success. We are working hard to deliver real jobs, real growth, and real progress for Kiwi families. We are delighted that after-tax wages have increased by 22 percent since 2008 and that the cost of living rises are the lowest since 1999, and we will be continuing to work hard to improve these statistics. We thank the police and community organisations for the lowest crime rate for 30 years and we thank everyone in health who has worked so hard to deliver more elective operations and faster emergency treatment so that every cancer patient can be treated right here in New Zealand in the world gold standard of 4 weeks. Finally, we congratulate the education sector on continuing to deliver world-class education for our young people. We know that, but it has just been confirmed by the OECD’s latest report—well done.

So, in conclusion, in the toughest of times, New Zealand and New Zealanders are working hard and doing well, and that is something to celebrate. So I say to the Opposition: try to do something that matters for our country. Do not knock New Zealanders.

It is a bleak time in the history of this country, a time when our constitution and the rule of law are being flippantly—albeit sometimes elegantly—undermined. We are being spun the lie that it is for our own good, that there was no other choice, that the people who are dissenting on this issue are just wrong, and that the Government is always right. Yet the rule of law, human rights, and our constitution are fundamental to our society. They guarantee that everyone should get their day in court, that people should be equal before the law, that the courts and the Government should be blind to the size of our wallets and to any of our many other differences, and that there should be an even playing field on which that contest of ideas should take place.

As a country we have long signed up to these understandings. These agreements are at the very foundation of our democracy, and I think that most New Zealanders are very proud of that and understand that we are lucky to have that at the foundation of our country. In a speech earlier this month, though, Russel Norman signalled that something seemed a bit rotten in the Beehive, and he noted: “Our democracy is being eaten away by a Government that persistently undermines our basic democratic rights and institutions …”. There was a strong reaction to that speech and a lot of disagreement, yet his view was vindicated last week, I believe, by the New Zealand Law Society.

Last week the New Zealand Law Society, a body created by statute with the role of providing submissions on legislation on behalf of the law fraternity, reported to the UN periodic review of human rights that 14 separate pieces of legislation, 11 in the last 2 years, have undermined the rule of law and our fundamental human rights. Of these, five laws remove the court’s constitutional role of judicial review, three laws give unjustifiable power to the executive, five laws breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, four laws were passed amidst very serious human rights concerns, and this Government and this House are currently considering another three bills with further serious human rights concerns. Six of these bills removed rights from New Zealanders in what I would kind of characterise as an effort to appeal to the “get tough on crime’ crowd in New Zealand—in the face of all the evidence that that approach does not work. It seems symbolic of this Government’s view that, actually, we cannot do things to create safety in our society without removing somebody’s fundamental rights and the role of the courts.

The Government has also introduced two laws to this House in a similar vein—the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill and the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill, which remove rights while increasing surveillance—all under the sense of creating threat, the idea that we need to be protecting New Zealanders from some unnamed and unsubstantiated danger that this Government will not disclose. Other bills have removed democracy from Christchurch, and removed environmental protections as well as democracy from the wider Canterbury area.

The Government has entrenched discrimination against women on the DPB. It has removed the rights of judicial review, and it has entrenched discrimination against some of the most vulnerable people in New Zealand—people with disabilities who want to be cared for by family members. It has removed rights and entrenched discrimination against some of the world’s most vulnerable people—asylum seekers who need to seek asylum in this country.

Also, there are numerous examples of the Government favouring its mates. It has introduced what we call the Anadarko law to make protests on the sea illegal. It has been indulging in dodgy Skycity deals. What it is all about, when it comes down to it, is a misuse of power, and this country deserves more.

It is a pleasure to take a call in the general debate this afternoon. It is a pleasure because in this House we debate social, economic, and political issues of the day. Whether we are talking about partnership schools or we are talking about the social services that are delivered across this nation or we are talking about the businesses that provide jobs and opportunities for New Zealanders, the one common denominator is leadership. When I read this morning’s latest Herald-DigiPoll party vote figures, they clearly show where the leadership is found in this country—48.8 percent support National on a party vote basis, and Labour is down five and a half points to 30.9 percent. It is about leadership.

Mr Key is the most preferred Prime Minister at 65 percent—65 percent of New Zealanders want the John Key - led Government to continue the fine work that we have been doing as a Government in the last 4½ years. It is 12 percent for Mr Shearer. Has someone told Grant Robertson about Mr Shearer being at 12 percent? We have even got Miss Clark from New York at 3 percent. Can you believe it? Can you believe it? A former leader of the Labour Party is at 3 percent. But what this poll shows is that New Zealanders fundamentally do not want what Labour is selling. They do not want the profanity-laced mutterings in select committees from old MPs like Mr Goff and Mr Mallard, they do not want the fondue dinners in Wellington Central that are going to lead to a leadership spill in the coming months, and they do not want the backroom deals of the faceless men in our union offices across this country determining the future of this country. So, Labour, take heed. Take heed of the Rudd-Gillard dispute, because it is coming to New Zealand in the form of Robertson versus Cunliffe—Robertson versus Cunliffe—and you heard it right here.

But the good thing is that New Zealanders want leadership and they want vision. The reason why National is polling 48.8 percent is that New Zealanders know that this party focuses on the issues that matter to them. They know that National cares about all New Zealanders. The last Budget is a demonstration of that caring, and of that efficient way that National goes about bringing about the issues that matter to New Zealanders. What are those issues? Well, we know that 50,000 jobs have been created in the last 2 years. When I go across my electorate in Maungakiekie, when I go and talk to the constituents with whom I had clinics last week, and when I talk to the businesses, they say that the No. 1 priority of this Government should be creating jobs, and that is what we are doing.

Household incomes are up 20 percent since 2008. Household incomes are up—

💬 Dr David Clark: Median incomes are down.

—and the mortgage rates, Mr Clark, are at their lowest in 50 years. Mortgage interest rates are at their lowest in 50 years. They reached 8 percent under the Clark Government—not David Clark but the Helen Clark Government—and they were at their highest peak for a very, very long time.

When I held those clinics in Mount Wellington and Onehunga last week, what constituents said to me is that they want jobs but they also want safety, so they are really happy that there are more front-line policemen across this nation than there ever have been in our history. They wanted health care that was caring, but they also wanted health care that looked after their elderly and looked after their kids. There are 1,000 extra doctors and 2,500 extra nurses working today than there were under the Labour Government in 2008. [Interruption] We know—and Mr Mallard knows this—that there are more patients getting elective operations and seeing specialists sooner in our hospitals today than there ever were under the Labour Government.

I went to the Tāmaki opening last week, and this was symbolic of what is going on in this country. One hundred people were inside Ruapōtaka Marae celebrating what National is bringing to my local community in Tāmaki. What were they celebrating? They were celebrating warmer, drier homes. What were they celebrating? They were celebrating ultra-fast broadband coming to their schools. What were they celebrating? They were celebrating the Auckland-Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative, which brings transport links into and around Auckland in order to speed up travel, not just for residents but for businesses as well.

This is a Government that is doing things, progressing this country, and delivering on the promises that we made in the 2011 election. Thank you very much.

I have to ask the question: why is that member not in Cabinet? Why is Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga not a member of the Cabinet, when it put in other members who do not have the gravitas and the intellect of the member who has just spoken? No wonder he is an unhappy member of that caucus. He is looking at a party that saw a drop of 6 percent in one poll very recently, and he knows that it has a party leader who has lost 30 percentage points in his own popularity in 1 year alone, and that the track has been downward every month, regardless of the crowing that National members are doing today. I say to the members opposite: do not be too smug. Some of us have been around here long enough to see the crowing rooster become a feather duster, and that is exactly what we will see from the National Party.

Five wasted years: 5 long years of delay, of political posturing, and 5 years of weasel words. Worse still, 5 years of inaction over the Auckland City Rail Link. You know, National members had it all. It was given to them, and all they had to do was to pick it up and run. But what did they do? They decided any policy, any good Labour policy, could not continue, so they turned round and repealed the very mechanism that would have given them the money to pay for public transport, including rail, in Auckland. It was a whim. It was a Steven Joyce decision. If it was Labour, it equalled bad. So after 5 wasted years, 5 years of inaction, today they have been forced by the Labour Party to accept our policy—to accept a policy that we put in place and started back in the 2000s.

In 2006 we set up the very working party that decided the future decisions around rail infrastructure and funding. It included double-tracking of the western commuter rail line, the redevelopment of the Newmarket station, the improved linking of Manukau City to the network, and the electrification of rail, and it was around $1 billion that could be spent. We gave them the mechanism to pay for the Auckland City Rail Link. We knew how to pay for it: a regional fuel tax. It was a mere 10c, and the former mayor of the North Shore saw immediately that this was a good deal for Auckland—as did all the other mayors—and signed up to the deal. They signed up and they all agreed. Do you know that that 10c regional fuel tax, paid by the people of Auckland for their public transport, would have supported $1.5 billion in funding that could help pay for the Auckland rail link?

One of the first things that National did was to repeal the regional fuel tax—it repealed the regional fuel tax. But what has happened? It put 9c alone in this last Budget on regional fuel. Nine cents alone, and to do what? None of it has gone—not just for Auckland, no.

💬 Hon David Parker: No, Dunedin too.

In Dunedin, in Christchurch, in Wellington—

💬 Andrew Williams: Chatham Islands.

The Chatham Islands—quite right. It has gone everywhere, and it is doing nothing in terms of public transport. Let me tell you this: National has not invested in a single public transport infrastructure in Auckland since the election. There have been 5 wasted years.

💬 Phil Twyford: What? Not one?

Not one, not a single one. You know, it is very much of the 1990s. National spent nothing on public transport in the 1990s, and then it said: “What is Labour doing about it?”. Well, we did plenty about it.

Now we are told that National members have always been thinking about it. I have to tell you that they have been thinking about it in the smallest room in the House. That is where they have been thinking about it. We have got the biggest U-turn in transport in living memory. We have gone from no go to get-go. Now they want to invest in it because they were forced into it by the people of Auckland and by the Labour Party. And we have the Minister of Transport with the biggest egg on his face you have ever seen. It has taken a whole dozen eggs—scrambled—and there is still not enough egg.

I have to say, where is Nikki Kaye on this, the member for Auckland Central? Why was she not allowed to speak on a serious issue? They put up all their clowns to speak today to crack jokes about polls, but no one got up to say: “We are sorry, Auckland. We made a mistake. We have wasted 5 years, and we could have been putting in place public transport.” It was our policy.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this general debate. There are a lot of positives that the National Government has achieved. Heaps of rubbish is being dumped by the Labour Opposition, which is totally opposite to the facts. I tell you that the ethnic community does not believe in Labour Party policies any more.

The New Zealand economy is in better shape because of the National Government’s strong, sensible economic management. Our Government’s economic plan is to deliver a faster-growing economy, more jobs, and a return to surplus, which remains on track despite ongoing uncertainty in many parts of the world. The National Government has a growth-enhancing tax system, with public service and support for science, innovation, and trade. We recognise that our future economic performance depends on creating more new ideas and competing with our global competitors.

For this the funding has risen by 28 percent in the past 4 years. We have made investment into infrastructure. I am very much aware, being an Aucklander, how important it is to improve the general infrastructure in this area in order to expand the local market. Our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Key, is promoting New Zealand as an outstanding tourist destination. The number of visitors from overseas visiting all destinations in New Zealand has increased. There has been $158 million invested to boost tourism. Not only are tourists bringing their tourist dollars but the National Government is selling to the world more of what our country is producing. We therefore create more job opportunities for New Zealand businesses to grow, hire more staff, and invest in the future.

Moreover, more than one-third of the people living in Auckland were born overseas. The legislation to improve housing affordability will also be very welcome as this will speed up the supply of affordable houses to many migrants within the South Auckland area. Here I would like to say that we have been fortunate to have Ministers who have been listening. First of all, I would like to give the example of the Hon Jonathan Coleman, who brought in the policy for religious ministers, which was one of the main issues of ethnic communities. Now the Hon Michael Woodhouse has brought in a policy for combating the exploitation of migrant workers, which is also very welcome to the migrant community.

Here I would like to share the story of many of the migrants who have been coming to New Zealand to run their own businesses. While they are competing with others, some of them are not paying the full minimum wage. Others are in bad shape, and they cannot compete with people who are not law-abiding business people. So this policy is a very good step towards curtailing their unfair advantage over the law-abiding competitors.

I would also like to share some of the indicators that show that the economy is growing. While I was talking to many taxi drivers during early 2008 and 2009 they were complaining that they did not have enough business. If we talk to them now, they say that they are much better off than they were in 2008. For example, to buy a share in Auckland Co-op Taxis used to cost about $50,000 a few years ago. Today the price of that share is more than $100,000. It shows that the business of the taxi industry is growing, which is an indicator that overall the economy is growing.

Another thing that I would like to share with you is that car sales are the highest they have been in the last 5 years. If we look at people’s spending on different things, it shows that the economy is growing and they have got money to—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It just shows that the dollar’s too high.

It is not that the dollar is too high; they have got money to spend, Mr Mallard. It is important that people have got money in their pocket, and they want to spend. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Claudette Hauiti. Tēnā koe. Kei te pehea koe?

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kei te pai ahau. Kia ora. He Kai Kei Aku Ringa is enabling New Zealanders to build their brighter future. I want to talk about the kāinga. I want to talk about healthy homes—warmer, drier, healthier homes—215,000 of them over 4½ years, and 46,000 more to come.

I want to talk about the Tū Whare Oranga Trust in Tokoroa, and I want to talk about Greenstar Insulation in Ōtāhuhu in South Auckland. These two organisations are helping our whānau into warmer, healthier, insulated homes. In fact, Greenstar Insulation is one of the companies helping 46,000 low-income households. Iwi have partnered with the Government—for example, Tūwharetoa—to insulate the homes of their iwi constituents. There are 1,500 Māori whānau in warmer, healthier homes. There is a 100 percent subsidy to heat and insulate 2,000 low-income Māori homes, and that is something to be celebrated. There is $2.7 million to repair and upgrade the beautiful township of Rātana. That is something to be celebrated.

I turn to lifting achievement for children, to national standards, and to students at or above the standard in years 1 to 8. For Māori, reading is up. For Pasifika, reading is up. For Māori, maths is up. For Pasifika, writing is up. Rangatahi are engaged in education via trade training academies—for example, Massey High School, Te Aho o Te Kura Pounamu, Manurewa High School, Tikipunga High School, and Southern Cross Campus. [Interruption] It is not nice when you hear about Māori achievements and Māori doing well, is it? There has been an increase in Ngā Whanaketanga Rumaki Māori achievement from years 1 to 6, and an accelerated increase in year 8 in te reo matatini.

It is wonderful to hear of Māori achievement. We are building a strong, productive, competitive economy, with an increase in the Māori employment rate, and the Māori unemployment rate has fallen from 15 percent to 13 percent. That is a strong New Zealand for our whānau. That is what we have to celebrate: positive results from positive achievements. Kia ora.

That was a great speech from a new member. I think that shows the depth that the National Party is bringing into this Parliament, and I want to congratulate Claudette Hauiti on pointing out some of the realities of what this National Government has achieved for Māori. I can tell you what: that is why the Labour Party is going to get its backside kicked in the by-election in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, come this Saturday. That side of the House has not delivered for Māori. One of the big reasons for that is that when you pick up the front page of the New Zealand Herald today and you see this picture of David Shearer banging his head against the wall, that is not something that inspires confidence.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was not present in the House earlier—are you allowed to refer to your own absence? I think you are. I was away a little earlier, but I thought that the Speaker—it appeared on the radio at least—was ruling against the continual use of a device by Mr Henare, and had indicated to Mr Henare that if he held it up again he would be required to leave the House. He has held it up again.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, all I can say is that—[Interruption] Order! Order! All I can do is refer members to Standing Order 109(2), which is to do with visual aids. It says that they should be displayed only when a member is speaking, and must be removed at the conclusion of the speech. The member is not speaking. He cannot display a visual aid. He should know that. I was here when he was sent out before.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I haven’t.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): All members are honourable, and I accept the member’s word. [Interruption] Order! Order!

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member most certainly held up a placard with a figure on it. I did not see what he was holding up earlier. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! This is a point of order.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: He held it up in here. I assume that it was the thing that he was requested not to hold up, on warning that he would be kicked out of the House. A repeat offender—I think that is a naming offence.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! All I can say is that the member has given me his word that he did not do it. All members are honourable. [Interruption] Order! If it is otherwise, then there is the possibility of a breach of privilege. I call the Hon Jonathan Coleman.

Well, I think that just shows that when Trevor Mallard—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Sorry, Mr Coleman. You can start again. I know that the members on both sides of the House love each other, but courtesy is contagious, so let us try to work together.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am about 45 seconds into a 5-minute speech, and I would request that you reset my time to zero—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will be seated. If the member had listened, I actually said that. I call the Hon Jonathan Coleman.

Excellent! So this—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Since when, when a member on his own side misbehaves, does a member get an extra three-quarters of a minute? That is an outrageous ruling.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! There have been enough interjections and enough points of order. I have heard enough. What I want is what everyone in this world wants, and that is order. I call the honourable member Jonathan Coleman.

For 5 minutes, I presume. This is a very bad day for the Labour Party. You cannot ignore a poll rating like you have seen on the front page of the New Zealand Herald today. And what is Labour at? It is at 30 percent. I do not know whether you saw TV3 this morning, but David Shearer was asked what he is going to do differently, and he said: “Absolutely nothing. We are going to do everything exactly the same. We are not going to change anything.”

There is only one guy who I reckon will be the beneficiary of this—and he has been very slyly smiling away, quite undisturbed through all this—and that is Grant Robertson. He has been putting political arsenic in David Shearer’s tea for the last 18 months, and it is starting to pay off, because David Shearer, the poor man, is just about dead on his feet. I tell you, David Shearer is actually a very good bloke. I like the guy. He used to be one of my constituents. He voted for me. He used to engage very well in conversation. He is a very decent man. But he would be saying: “How can I get out of this? How can I get back to the Middle East or the jungles of Rwanda? Because this is not going well, and I just want to get out of here with some dignity.”

But when you look at the options, they are not great. I think we have got a few of them here—six people here, and correct me if I am wrong, but I think five of them have not got a day’s business experience between them. David Parker I will make an exception for. But you have got Grant Robertson there. Is this man unelectable or not? This is a guy you can take around the cafes and the nightclubs of central Wellington but, I can tell you, take him to the Glenfield Mall or the Northcote Tavern, where I am from, and it just ain’t going to work.

Annette King is a very nice lady, but a total retread. Next time will be her third time round. Darien Fenton marks me in Northcote, and I encourage her to do more doorknocking in my electorate. It is something we should have more of. Trevor Mallard—well, we have seen today that when Trevor is in the House, Mr Mallard, things go wrong. I actually had quite a high opinion of David Clark, until that incident 10 days ago when he yelled an insult, knew he was in the wrong, and went running out the door—running away. And then he realised that it did not look good to run out of the House, so he came back, under Trevor Mallard’s tutelage, and he apologised. So he is definitely not up to it, because he cannot face up in the House and take his medicine. So that is a real shame, because he was a young man with some promise. And, of course, Trevor Mallard—need we say more? In fact, I wish Trevor Mallard would come and do some doorknocking in my electorate. That would be the ultimate. That would really get the party vote going.

But what I want to say is that group over there is focusing on the things that do not matter to New Zealand. They focus on the parliamentary bickering. They focus on the points of order. They focus on the backbiting in the select committees. You know what? Actually, the general public do not watch any of that stuff. But what the public knows is that under the National Government, when their kid is sick the under-sixes get a free doctor’s visit; when they need to get cancer treatment for their mother-in-law, their grandparent, within 4 weeks they are getting that treatment in Australia. When Annette King was health Minister it took weeks and weeks and weeks, and people died on waiting lists. Their answer in the end was to kick everyone off the waiting list.

What you can see today in the OECD report on education is that New Zealand is doing excellently. The work that my colleague Anne Tolley did around national standards—these guys said it would never work, but it does work, because we are connecting with parents, and parents know it is the right thing to do. If you look at law and order, there are 600 more cops on the streets. The cops love the Minister of Police. They are glad to be rid of that tawdry lot who were in Government before who had no regard for the police, and who still show that when Trevor Mallard gets up in a select committee and abuses a public servant—abuses Mike Bush, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, which is totally unfair, because Mike Bush cannot talk back. That is not the mark of people whom you would ever want in Government. Those people over there are a disgrace.

But, meanwhile, who have you got who can unite the Labour Party? There is one man. It is David Cunliffe. They are united in their hatred of him. It is the one thing they all agree on. They do not want David Cunliffe as leader or Prime Minister. So when you look at it, it is pretty bad news over there. But we are focused on rebuilding Christchurch—billions of dollars going into there, and 50,000 new jobs in the last 4 years. We are very focused on getting the Public Service actually getting something happening. It is all good news.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.